Of the Right of CHURCHES, And of The Magistrate's power over them. Wherein is further made out 

1. The nullity and vanity of ecclesiastical power (of excommunicating, deposing, and making laws) independent from the power of Magistracy.  
2. The absurdity of the distinctions of power and laws into ecclesiastical and civil, spiritual and temporal.  
3. That these distinctions have introduced the mystery of iniquity into the world, and always disunited the minds and affections of Christians and brethren.  
4. That those reformers who have stood for a jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate, have unawares strengthened the mystery of iniquity.    
By LEWIS du MOULIN Professor of History in the University of Oxford.  Hieronym. in cap. 9 jerem. 
Nec Parentum, nec Majorum error sequendus est, sed authoritas Scripturarum, & Dei docentis Imperium.  
LONDON, Printed by R. D. and are to be sold by Sa: Thomson at the white Horse in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1658.   

To the high COURT Of the PARLIAMENT Of England, Scotland and Ireland.  
Right Honourable,  
I Offer unto your Honours the first and greatest task (though the meanest work) that hath been yet undertaken; which is, to make the right and power of private Churches consistent and sociable with the Magistrates power over them, & so to sever by Divine right the sacred function of Ministry from that of Magistracy, as to make both their jurisdictions but one, and derive it from the sovereign power of the State, and this from the Lord jesus Christ, who hath given unto the Magistrate sovereign power and authority for a sovereign end; even to set up and promote the interest of his Kingdom. It is one of the most dangerous heresies that ever the wicked one did sow among his tares, that the Magistrate, though Christian and godly, doth not intent ex natura rei, and in regard of his particular vocation, the glory of jesus Christ, as Mediator and King of his Church, and that the end of Magistracy is not godliness and honesty, but peace and quietness. For these be the words of Mr. Gillespie in his Aaron's Rod pag. 187. and 188. much like those pag. 253. where he saith, that in a well-constituted Church, the Magistrate ought not to receive complaints exhibited against a sentence of an Ecclesiastical Court by the party censured: which language I humbly conceive to be rank Popery; for this heresy (if I may call it so, because it is the main engine to subvert the doctrine) hath been, and is still, the greatest dividing principle that the world hath ever had: it disunites men's minds and affections; it divides, most absurdly, jurisdictions into spiritual & temporal, laws into ecclesiastical and civil; it builds up a magistracy within the dominions of magistrates, independent from them. These erroneous tenets I maintain in this Book to have set up Popery, and to be the grand mystery of iniquity; and not their broaching of a hundred heresies, which were but consequences and products of that great mystery, and which are very compatible & consistent with the main drift & design of that mystery; even to set up a jurisdiction & a government on earth distinct from that of the Magistrate: whereas the reformation from Popery, which England of all nations hath been most blessed with, is altogether inconsistent with the retaining of that springhead of the mystery of Iniquity, by which powers & jurisdictions are divided, and you the Magistrates are removed and discharged from your principal duty of magistracy; which is not so much to procure out ward & temporal peace, as eternal happiness, & to make Acts of Parliament, Statutes, Laws, Courts, Armies, Navies, Taxes, Excise, Custom, punishment of evil doers, subservient to that end. Which duty I humbly conceive to be so much the more incumbent on you, by how much greater the power is that God hath put into your hands. This being an undeniable truth, that, where God hath given more power, authority and opportunity to do good, there also he hath laid more obligation and duty. For I dare confidently affirm, that all the godly martyrs and ministers that ever were in England, put together, were they so many Bradfords, Latimers, greenham's, had not so much obligation laid upon them to promote the interest of jesus Christ, in setting up his ordinances, as one single woman, Queen Elizabeth, had upon her. So then, right Honourable, I have two main tasks upon my hands. One, to root out that dividing principle and remain of Popery amongst us, and to prove that there is no other ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but that which the spirit of God in the word, by the preaching of the Gospel, hath over the consciences of men; when it convinceth and persuadeth them, and brings every thought & affection captive unto the obedience of the cross of Christ. The other task is, to make your power and duty of magistracy in matters of religion sociable with the right liberty, yea independency of churches. For the magistrates are to set up pure ordinances, Ministry, Schools of learning; to call Synods, and invite all men to join with them in promoting the interest of jesus Christ: but they are not to constrain any man's freedom, liberty, & choice, drawing him to Church perforce, and urging him to embrace rather this Ordinance then that. For as they cannot command grace, so they cannot punish any man for want of grace, or for an error in judgement: yet they may punish for an error in practice, if it be a breach of the law of the land: they ought also to restrain men from spreading blasphemies and heresies, laying that tye upon them which the Theodosian Code, l. omnis de haeret. imposeth, ut sibi tantum nocitura sentiant, aliis obfutura non pandant, to keep those hurtful tenets to themselves, not to vent them abroad to the infecting of others. All these notions & positions I am confident I can make out so plain, that they shall be obvious to any ordinary understanding; straining neither Scripture nor reason; nor casting the mist of grammatical and scholastical learning, to keep men off from seeing their way, & discerning the truth; nor loading the margin with quotations, which draw the mind beside the context. May it please you to pardon this bold address, and uncouth dress and language of a stranger, (and yet no longer a stranger, being by your bounty naturalised, and made an Englishman) who in affection and zeal to promote the religion, peace, and wealth of these three Nations, under the protection of his Highness, and to that end to bestow his labour & studies, yea his life, will not show himself inferior to any Native. I shall die with much comfort, if in my life-time I can see some fruit of my labours; as I doubt not but I shall; conjecturing it by the effects that my other labours in this kind have already wrought upon men's minds beyond seas, possessed before with prejudices, both against this subject, and the godly party of this Nation. If your Honours apprehend this to be a truth, I humbly conceive that God's work, which is also your work, in settling religion, is half done to your hands. For all jurisdiction now streaming from one jurisdiction, even from that of the Sovereign Magistrate; that religion cannot choose but be well settled, which retaining soundness in doctrine, and holiness in life, is harboured under such a church-government, as hath no clashing with that of the Magistrate. Such, as I humbly conceive, may be established by setting up Overseers and Bishops over Ministers and Churches; with whom if the right of private Churches can but stand, & be kept inviolable, (as no doubt but it may) no government can be imagined more preserving conformity in doctrine and discipline, & besides banishing all jurisdiction which steps between magistracy & the inward jurisdiction of the spirit of God in the word, over men's minds & hearts; and thereby making all the church-judicatory power more naturally flowing from, and depending upon the Magistrate, and easing him, by this compendious way of inspection, by a few good men's eyes, who may have a particular oversight of the affairs of the Church. And thus by such a tempered government, the four parties, namely the Episcopal, the Erastian, the brethren of the Presbytery, and of the congregational way, will have a ground for reconciliation, & obtain, with some condescension, what every one of them desireth. The Lord make you his instruments to make up all breaches among brethren, and to bring to pass what hitherto hath been rather desired then effected; 〈◊〉 settling the reformed Protestant religion in the purest way of reformation, and commending your model and labours therein to other Churches abroad: that as the English Nation for purity of doctrine, power of godliness, hospitality and bowels of mercy toward strangers, & the persecuted members of Christ, hath hitherto gone beyond all the world; so you may be instruments to preserve those blessed privileges, by further promoting the interest of jesus Christ; particularly by clearing and removing the mistakes and misunderstandings from many of our brethren beyond the seas, who by the suggestions and false informations of some enemies to the people of God in this Island, or of friends to Popery, superstition and formality, are as ready to misapprehend the ways of God amongst us, as these are to slander them, and to join with them in giving credit, that with the English hierarchy and liturgy, all religion and fear of God is banished out of this Nation; where there is neither Episcopal nor Presbyterial ordination; no uniformity of discipline, yea no discipline at all; no catechising enjoined or performed; no Creed, no Decalogue, no Lords prayer rehearsed in Churches; nor any Scripture publicly read to the people; nor the Sacrament of the Eucharist constantly administered: thus clothing what truth there may be in all these, with the cloak of rash and uncharitable construction, as others do cloth it with the cloak of malice and lying. I doubt not but that by your piety and wisdom, as you will stop the mouth of slander, so you will give no occasion to the Reformed and Godly, to conceive amiss of your godly proceed.   

A TABLE Of the CONTENTS.  

Chap. I. OF the nature of power & authority. That there are but two ways to bring men to yield obedience; either by a coactive power, or by persuading them by advice and counsel. That there is no medium betwixt command and counsel: which showeth that Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is a name without a thing, not being exercised by either of them. The division of power, and of the subordination and coordination of powers. Many errors and mistakes are discovered about subordination and coordination of powers. That the power called Ecclesiastical doth signify nothing; and such as it is, is subordinate to that of the Magistrate. Fol. 1  
Chap. II. Of the nature and division of right divine and humane. In vain do they call things of divine positive right, which are acted by a natural right: such are many church acts. Things that are of divine right may be said to be of humane right, and on the contrary, those things that are of humane right may be said to be of divine right: which is an argument that, by right, power cannot be divided betwixt clergy and laity. 25  
Chap. III. The nature, matter, form, and author of law. The canons and sentences of Church-judicatories have no force of law, except they receive it from the sanction of the magistrate. The defects in the division of laws into Divine and humane; into moral, ceremonial and politic; and into Ecclesiastical and civil. 34  
Chap. IV. Of the nature of judgement what judgement every private man hath, what the magistrate, and what ministers, synods and church-judicatories. They have no definitive judgement, as Mr. Rutherfurd asserts; but the magistrate hath the greatest share in definitive judgements; which is proved by some passages of Mr. Rutherfurd, and of Pareus and Rivetus. Who is the judge of controversies? 44  
Chap. V An examination of the 30. chapter of the confession of faith made by the River. Assembly of Divines. That in their Assembly they assumed no jurisdiction, nor had any deleg●…d to them from the magistrate, and therefore were not to attribute it to their brethren. That the ecclesiastical jurisdiction is the same with the magistrates jurisdiction. Mr. Gillespies reasons examined. 53  
Chap. VI Whether jesus Christ hath appointed a jurisdiction called ecclesiastical, as King and head of his Church. Of the nature of the Kingdom of God. In what sense the magistrate is head of the Church. 65  
Chap. VII. The strength of Mr. Gillespies reasons, to disprove that the magistrate is not chief governor of the church under Christ, examined. 76  
Chap. VIII. Mr. Gillespies manifest contradictions in stating the magistrates power in matters of Religion. 83  
Chap. IX. The concessions of Mr. Gillespie, which come to nothing by the multitude of his evasions and distinctions. The vanity and nullity of his and other men's divisions and distinctions of power. Martyr, Musculus, Gualterus alleged against the naming of a power ecclesiastical, when it is in truth the magistrates power. The positions of Maccovius, about the power of the magistrate in sacred things, not hitherto answered by any. 91  
Chap. X. Whether the Lord jesus Christ hath appointed, as the River. Assembly saith, officers in government distinct from the magistrate. The strength of the place 2 Chron. 19 by them alleged, examined: That the elders in that place are not church-officers. An answer to Mr. Gillespies arguments, endeavouring to prove that josaphat appointed two courts, one ecclesiastical, another civil. 108  
Chap. XI. A case propounded by Mr. Cesar Calandrin, which he conceiveth to assert a double jurisdiction, examined. Of the two courts; one of magistracy or external, the other of conscience or internal. That ecclesiastical jurisdiction must belong to one of them, or to none. 119  
Chap. XII. Of the nature of calling to the ministry. Ministers are not called by men, but by God, by a succession not of ordination, but providence. The plea for succession is Romanish. Ministers are no successors in their ministry to the judaical Priests, but to the Prophets. 133  
Chap. XIII. The nature of the ministers power, and of that of binding and losing: the power of the keys. Amyraldus and Mr. Lightfoots judicious exposition of the power of binding and losing. The power of governing and ruling is not the ecclesiastical contended for. Mr. Gillespies arguments answered. 142  
Chap. XIV. That the power of the keys and of binding and losing are not committed to all church-officers, but to the ministers of the Gospel only. 155  
Chap. XV. That God hath not given to the church-officers of the Gospel a certain platform of government, and that it is arbitrary and of humane institution, and therefore not to be administered by a power distinct from the humane. 161  
Chap. XVI. The 31. chapter of the confession made by the River. Assembly examined. The use of synods. Two things are humbly represented: first, that for a reunion of jurisdictions over all persons and in all causes, a convocation made up of ministers only be reestablished during the sitting of Parliament: the second is, that ministers may be put into the same capacity as all other ranks of freeborn people, to sit and vote in Parliaments. Of the power of synods, and that of the magistrate in calling of them. The synod of the Apostles was extraordinary, not exemplary. The exception of the brethren of Scotland against the 2. article of the 31. chapter of the confession examined. The uses and abuses of synods: that they are not the way to compose differences in matters of religion, if their canons are beyond counsels and advices. 166  
Chap. XVII. That the jewish Church-officers had not a jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate. Mr. Gillespies distinction, that they were not materially but formally distinct, examined. The argument of Amyraldus, that though they had a distinct jurisdiction, yet the example of the church of the jews is no pattern to the Christian church, discussed, and proved to be of no validity. 192  
Chap. XVIII. The cause of mistakes in stating the nature of the church, and calling that the true church which is not. Three acceptions of the word Church in holy writ. The meaning of the word Church Matth. 18. v. 17. 206  
Chap. XIX. That a particular assembly of Christians meeting in one place about the worship of God, is the only true visible church mentioned in Scripture. That that church considered as an assembly of Christians, bringeth forth other kinds of acts than it doth considered as a society of men: by which the nature and extent of the power of a private church is made clear and evident. 213  
Chap. XX. That the power attributed to private churches by the reverend dissenting brethren doth very well accord with the power of magistracy in matters of religion, as it is held by Erastus, Bullingerus, Musculus, Grotius, Mr. Selden, and Mr. Coleman. This same is proved by reason, and by the testimony of Mr. Burroughs, writing the sense of all his brethren, as also by the practice of the churches in New-England. 222  
Chap. XXI. That a church made up of many particular churches under one presbytery invested with a judicial power over them, is not of the institution of Christ. 234  
Chap. XXII. That the greatest opposers of the dissenting brethren, namely Salmasius, Amyraldus, and others, have laid down the same grounds for the right and power of particular churches, and so confuted rather their own fancies, then invalidated the tenets of the brethren. The question whether Rome be a true church briefly resolved. That Amesius, and john Mestrezat late minister of Paris, in their writings, have held the power of private churches to be independent from any church-judicatory. 242  
Chap. XXIII. The consistency of the right and power of private churches with the magistrates power in ordering public worship, proved by the example of the jews: that they had through all the land particular convocations, synagogues or churches, called also colleges or schools, where the Prophets and sons of the Prophets taught, especially on the sabbath-day: that they were independent from any church-judicatory. How synagogues were altered from their first institution, and that being converted into Christian churches, they retained the same right, power and way of government. 251  
Chap. XXIV. That the Christian churches under heathens were governed by a confederate discipline, or a power of magistracy, as the synagogues were, appointing men, which Ambrose calls elder, to decide such matters as otherwise were to come under the magistrates cognizance. This practice is grounded upon 1 Cor. 6. v. 1, 2, etc. and confirmed by Origen, justin Martyr, Ambrose and Mr. Lightfoot. That the power of these elders continued still under Christian Emperors, with some alteration, they erecting in lieu of them Episcopal courts. That all church-power was the Emperor's power. That the very heathen magistrates knew no other but that all power was annexed to them. 267  
Chap. XXV. That ecclesiastical jurisdiction as it is held by the Romish church, better agreeth with reason and the letter of the Scripture then that of the presbyterian brethren. That some Romanists have ascribed more power to the magistrate in sacred things than the presbyterian brethren. 287  
Chap. XXVI. The description of excommunication in terms received by most of our opposites, though otherwise variously defined by them. That for four thousand years no such excommunication was in use, either among the heathens or the jews. An answer to some objections. That the legal uncleanness was no type of the moral. That the Priests judging of the leprosy is no plea for excommunication, nor for ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 298  
Chap. XXVII. That neither in the time of Ezra such an excommunication began. That the casting out of the synagogue did not answer that excommunication. That there is no ground for it nor practice of it in the new Testament. 307  
Chap. XXVIII. That the whole context Matth. 18. v. 15, 16, 17, and 18. maketh nothing for excommunication; neither judas non-admission (if granted) to the Eucharist, nor the delivering of the incestuous person to Satan, nor yet the self-examination required 1 Cor. 11. 316  
Chap. XXIX. That excommunication is contrary to common sense and reason. 326  
Chap. XXX. That excommunication was mainly subservient to the working of the mystery of iniquity. That the corrupting of the doctrine of the Eucharist made way for excommunication. 337  
Chap. XXXI. The History of excommunication from the first reformation from Popery: how it was received in Geneva, but not settled without disputes and clashings betwixt the consistory and the magistrate. 342  
Chap. XXXII. A continuation of the History of excommunication in France, the Low-countrieses, Scotland, the Palatinate. How it came to pass, that amongst reformed states the Scottish ecclesiastical jurisdiction ascended to such a height. What plea the reformed churches in France have for excommunication. That it is more justifiable among them then in churches under an orthodox magistrate. 353  
Chap. XXXIII. The judgement of some Divines yet living both of the argument in hand, and of the writings of the Author. Of some men's strong prejudices against, and harsh censures of him. 369    

The PREFACE.  
I Intent here by way of Preface to give a brief account how I came to write of this subject. Having a little before the beginning of the long Parliament in the year 1639. written a piece in Latin against the corrupted party of the English Hierarchy, who made as near approaches as they could towards Popery, and being a little while after engaged in that quarrel, it so fell out, that this corrupt party being soon foiled by the great torrent of opposition they met withal, their opposers themselves, (who were very numerous) did soon divide into parts and factions, dissenting from one another, particularly about churchway and discipline, which afforded me new matter to study on: which I did, being indifferently affected towards the four kinds of opinions held in the reverend assembly of Divines, viz. of Episcopacy moderated, Presbytery, Independency, and Erastianisme, and for many years together not giving my approbation more to one of them then to the rest, before such time as I should be well resolved in the controversy. I pitied for a long time the preposterous endeavours of each party, tending to make the rent wider, while they sought rather the victory than the truth: brother became eager against brother, branding each other with schism and heresy; their principles so far dividing them asunder, that partners in the same martyrdom, and who had lost their ears together, were soon together by the ears; and Mr. Edwards (by name) in showing rather his spleen then his zeal, and Dr. Bastwick, who styled himself the Captain of the presbyterian army, did but pour oil upon the fire of dissension, in stead of quenching it: as likewise did our brethren the Scots, when they wound up their string of ecclesiastical jurisdiction to such an height, that it was ready to break, and ranked the Erastians' in the list of abominable heretics; pointing therein particularly at poor and mild Mr. Coleman, walking almost alone in a melancholy posture, and who would not give railing for railing, but mildly entreated all the brethren that dissented from him, specially the presbyterians, to give a satisfactory answer to the queries of the Parliament, touching a jurisdiction and government of the church distinct from that of the magistrate, and to show in Scripture a place parallel to Matth. 18. v. 17. where by the word Church is meant either the ministers, or a presbyterian consistory; besides, to find out in Scripture the name and thing of excommunication, or that it is as well, though not as much, a soulsaving ordinance, as preaching of the word and the administration of the Sacraments, as the reverend presbyterian ministers would fain have persuaded him in their reasons against the dissenting brethren p. 63. At length, being well satisfied that truth seldom lies on the multitudes side, as I did much pity Mr. Coleman, so did I fall to study him, and thought it but reasonable, ere I should join with the general clamour against him, to hear what he could say for himself. And indeed his still voice did more work upon me, than all the thundering voices of his opposites. So then being convinced by him, about eight years since I put forth in print a tract in English, the drift whereof was only to assert the power of the magistrate in matters of religion: which subject, being but an answer to a letter, I handled cursorily and superficially. And while I was upon that work, I was much in charity, as I express in some passages of that tract, with the churches of the congregational-way, no less cried out upon then Mr. Coleman, both here and beyond seas, specially in France; where, namely at Charenton near Paris, a national synod condemned them by an authentic act: yet than I had no such thought as to conceive or imagine, that the power and right of private churches or congregations, could agree well with the power of the magistrate in matters of religion. But soon after the publishing of this English tract, my uncle Dr. Andrew Rivet, whose memory is very precious to me and to all the Churches of God, sent me a Latin manuscript made by a Divine in France, wherein he endeavoured the confuting of my English book, and besides did much tax me for favouring the congregational way so much spoken-against amongst the reformed churches in France, and expressly condemned by a national synod of theirs. About the same time came Amyraldus forth in print, as full of bitterness and invectives against them as Mr. Edward's in his Gangrena. Both which books (I mean Amyraldus, and that which Dr. Rivet sent me) were the cause, occasion and subject of writing my Paraenesis in Latin. In writing of which I was insensibly carried to conceive and propound ways of accommodation betwixt the brethren of the congregational way, and the assertors of that measure of power in sacred things allotted to the magistrate by Musculus, Bullinger, Gualterus and Erastus; nothing doubting, but that by these propositions of reconciliation and accommodation I have given, with a very little yielding on both sides, the true way and notion of settling in such a nation as this, where the sovereign magistrate is orthodox, might be made out, and the Christian reformed religion & worship established with more peace, truth and holiness of life, than they were ever hitherto since the times of the Apostles. These notions suiting more to the purpose and interest of the English climate & nation, aught to have been then rather put in English then Latin, but that I mistrusted my own abilities to appear in public in any other tongue than Latin or French, and that I had a great mind first to disabuse other nations, particularly my own countrymen, who were possessed with strange prejudices against the godly party of this nation, as well presbyterians as others, by the false suggestions and informations of Amyraldus; so far, that some have expressed to me by letters, how much they bewailed the lamentable condition of England, where all religion and fear of God was well-near quite extinct, where there was no church-discipline, no excommunication, no synods, no ordination, no lay-elders, no Lords prayer or ten commandments rehearsed, and no Sacrament of the Lords supper administered. Now this present tract coming after the other, and being otherwise digested and framed, and those controversies that concern England being chief handled therein, and all brought within a narrower compass; I do not despair but that my present design will be excused, though I come short of giving satisfaction to all parties. I honour equally the persons, learning and piety of those that I assent to, and descent from, no less respecting the memory of Mr. Gillespie, (an eminent man for wit, piety, learning and soundness of faith; but very erroneous in what he stiffly maintaineth in his Aaron's Rod) then that of Mr. Coleman, or of any of God's Ministers now with the Lord: neither do I ●…sse honour the churches of Scotland then those of France. I would fain make all churches and brethren friends without prejudice to the truth: which I conceive I can retain inviolable, by that temperament I have followed, which giveth unto the magistrate his due, and to private churches their right; which denyeth not the presbyterians a discipline, but only groundeth it upon a firmer and steadier foundation than they have hitherto done themselves. The Lord reveal these truths, which are very much subservient to saving truths, to all sorts of people, that so the minds of the people of God may be more settled and united to retain the foundation that is in Christ jesus, not by constraint and by an external coercive jurisdiction, but with a ready mind; and that others, who are otherwise led captive by their errors and ignorance in doctrine, but much more swayed by this mystery of iniquity or ecclesiastical jurisdiction, may now, by the discovery of this truth, get freedom, and by it the knowledge of saving truths, hid from them because of their bondage. Thus the truth of that saying of the Lord jesus will be more manifest, If ye know the truth, ye shall be free indeed. Did but those of the Romish communion understand that all Papal, Episcopal, Presbyterial and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which is not subordinate to the power of magistracy, is repugnant to Scripture and reason, they would soon, by the knowledge of this one truth, recover their liberty, and with it the opportunity of having saving truths taught them, lying no longer in shackles for fear of men, which, though imaginary ones, have kept them in as much captivity as if they had been really of iron. For the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and excommunication the product of it, put forth and exercised over magistrates and people by inconsiderable men for coercive power, have hitherto been like to a child leading about an Elephant with a thread, who if he knew his own strength, would lead the strongest man that is with a single hair. In short, all ecclesiastical jurisdiction, without a power of magistracy, is like the feathers of an arrow, which can never hit nor have a direct motion, but with the wood to which it is adjoined: The feathers alone may be made to fly at one, but never to hurt, or make any impression. I will conclude this Preface with the words of Antonius de Dominis lib. 5. the rep. cap. 2. who says that all ecclesiastical jurisdiction is ineffectual without a power of magistracy; Nihil sine potestate laica obtinebimus; neminem ecclesiastica potestate possumus extrudere, abripere, expellere. If this, (which is the substance and the whole drift of my book) can be made out to me not to be Scripture and reason, I will not obstinately maintain either this, or any other error, but acknowledge it both to God and man, as I ought continually all those of my life; which as I hope God will forgive me, so, till I be otherwise taught, I crave no pardon either of God or man, for holding this, which to some is an error, but to me (and I hope in Gods good time it shall be so to others) as clear a truth, as that two and two are four.   

ERRATA.  

Pag. 121. l. 16. read, to whom I give thanks.  
Pag. 242. l. 11. deal common.  
Pag. 215. l. 2. read, Cornelius Nepos saith.  
Pag. 292. l. 27. read, next to the magistrates who have.  
Pag. 311. l. 14. for was read is.  
Pag. 355. l. 2. read, supra quam.    

Of the Right of CHURCHES, And of The Magistrate's power over them.  

CHAPTER I.  
OF the nature of power and authority. That there are but two ways to bring men to yield obedience; either by a coactive power, or by persuading them by advice & counsel. That there is no medium betwixt command and counsel: which showeth that Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is a name without a thing, not being exercised by either of them. The division of power, and of the subordination and coordination of powers. Many errors and mistakes are discovered about subordination and coordination of powers. That the power called Ecclesiastical doth signify nothing; and such as it is, is subordinate to that of the Magistrate.  
THe nature of power, right, command, obedience, function, law, judgement, are so twisted together and linked, that it is not possible to treat of one alone: for as the perfection of power is command, so power is exercised with laws by those that have right to it and a function in the state: obedience is a yielding to power, command, laws, counsels and advices.  
The word Potestas, power, denotes three things; Person, Right and Office. Often it is taken for the person or persons that are the sovereign Magistrate: it is also opposite to jus or right; thus Tacitus, in the third Book of his annals, saith that right is weakened when power comes in. In a large sense it is defined, A faculty to bring any thing to pass, either by right or by wrong: or thus; A faculty in the agent to move itself towards the patiented either necessarily, or at the will of the agent: necessarily in a natural body, but arbitrarily in an intelligence either Divine, or Angelical and humane.  
Authority as it hath relation to man, is a faculty in the agent, to move itself at the will of the patiented: for power is exercised over men against their will; but authority is over those that willingly yield, and are persuaded and convinced: yet sometimes power and authority are promiscuously used. But philosophers, humanists, and statists usually ascribe authority to men, and writings, that put no coercion or force to men's actions: thus they attribute great authority to the placita and responsa of wise and prudent men, whose judgements, dictates and definitions who ever giveth no credit 〈◊〉, is taxed of foolishness not of rebellion or disobedience: and so to men, commendable for their age, wisdom, prudence and experience; as the Heathens did to their Plato, Socrates, Aristoteles, Zeno, Princes of Schools, who captivated the minds, not the bodies, of their hearers. 'Tis in that sense Cicero, in his first Book of Offices, in the very beginning, speaks of the great authority that Cratippus and Athens had, though neither of them had power either of legislation or of jurisdiction: and in his Epistles, he often mentioneth those that were in great favour and authority with Caesar and Pompey, although they had no power of jurisdiction over them. Albeit Grammarians should put no difference betwixt power & authority; yet nature, custom, and the practice of all nations, yea the holy Scripture distinguisheth power of jurisdiction and command, which imposeth penalties upon the transgressors, from that authority which enforceth not the outward man, but only worketh upon the soul, persuadeth and begetteth belief, respect and reverence. Power of jurisdiction is always attended with command, and followed with obedience, either active or passive, to the command of the power: but authority, being for the most part attended with some of these, old age, gravity, wisdom, prudence, experience, strength of reason, eloquence, by its exhortations, dehortations, counsels, produceth in those that are wrought upon and persuaded, the effect of obedience, not with constraint, but freely and voluntarily; not for fear of punishment to be inflicted by men in case of nonobedience, but either (may be) for fear of offending God, or because strength of reason maketh one yield to a truth; or one yields to authority to avo●d an evil, or purchase some good. Briefly, the holy Scripture, reason, man's wisdom and reach, nature and custom, yea all tongues of men, can utter or imagine but two ways by which a man is drawn to yield obedience, or put upon that duty to obey and yield: either because the command of a power puts a force or penalty on the outward man; or because the authority of counsel, advice and exhortation hath so convinced the inward man, and persuaded him, that it must needs move the outward to yield an obey. Plautus in Bacchides act. 4. sc. 7. could say, ego neque te jubeo, neque veto, neque suadeo; I neither bid thee, nor forbidden thee, nor yet persuade thee.  
Sure the holy Scripture maketh use but of these two ways to draw obedience from a man, 2. Thessal. 3. v. 12. We command, and exhort you. Curtius' lib. 5. speaking of the soldiers of Darius, who were rather drawn by command then that they approved his counsel, saith, Regis imperium magis quam consilium sequebantur: and Livy in his 29. book, nec imperium illud meum, sed consilium; this is not my command, but advice. So in all states, counsels & assemblies, civil or religious, men bring their designs to an end, either by advising and counselling, or making laws and constitutions in order to their commands. Cicero, in his Oration for Rabirius, saith, that the sovereign counsel is seated in the Senate, but the sovereign command in the Consuls: and Tacitus, speaking of the German and  Kings, saith that they were endowed with a persuasive power, but not with a commanding power: so Curtius lib. 6. of the Kings of Macedon in capital matters, the power of the Kings was little worth, except they could by their authority persuade. The like may we say of the power of Synods or church-assemblies, without a power of magistracy, that their canons and decrees, except men be convinced and persuaded to yield and assent, are of small validity.  
The most learned Divines did never put a medium between command, and counsel or advice. Thus Rivet upon the decalogue: there is some subjection of the Magistrate to the Ecclesiastical college, but such as is not a power of jurisdiction as under a command but of direction and counsel. And in the same place; We say that the Magistrate doth not depend on any: so that we do not exclude counsel, but comm●nd; for it is one thing to make use of couns●ll, another to submit himself to command.  
So for matter of law (as we shall see somewhere else) & which is a product of power, if it doth not put a penalty upon the transgressors of it, it is a mere counsel and advice. So saith Campanella real. Philosoph. cap. 4. apoph. 12. Lex nulla potest esse sine poena, ubi non exprimitur, est arbitraria; alioqui consilium erit, non lex. My reverend Father, in an Epistle to Subrandus Lub●rt●s, and in his book of the temporal monarchy of the Pope ch. 8. saith, take away the coactive power in judges, than their judgements are but counsels, since the execution dependeth on the will of man.  
Under counsel ●…ank entreaty, warning, exhortation, dehortation: counsel persuadeth, command compelleth, and is an act of jurisdiction 〈◊〉 defined by the Lawyers, potestas jus dicendi etiam in nolentem, a power which giveth law to the unwilling: whereas the other, if it be jurisdiction (and so may I call it, though it be but a product of the inward jurisdiction) it is over those that from unwilling are made willing; such is the jurisdiction of the power of the keys by the preaching of the Gospel. As I know no medium betwixt these; so I do not conceive that a jurisdiction presbyterial, classical, synodical, or even congregational, can ever have any workings that run in a middle channel, and are neither acts of magistracy, nor of counsel and advice: but a consistory or synod must needs exercise either one of these two jurisdictions singly, or both jointly. For example, a synod of Dordrecht dispensing both jurisdictions, the one from Christ, the other from the magistrate, may by the one convince some remonstrant ministers of the truth of the five points handled; but by the other jurisdiction they will remove the obstinate remonstrants from their flock. Thus a synod of Arians, if authorised by the magistrate, may compel the orthodox Bishops to relinquish their sees, but never persuade them to change their opinions.  
But the Ecclesiastical history affordeth us a notable example, proving the nullity of Ecclesiastical and Presbyterial power, which is neither advice, counsel, nor the inward jurisdiction by which the inward man is persuaded and convinced, nor a power of magistracy compelling the outward man to obedience. Paulus Samosatenus, being by a Synod of Antioch excommunicated, and deposed from his see, and one Domnus voted to be in his place; Paulus slighting the synods judgement, and the synod being not invested with any power to execute their sentence against Paulus Samosatenus had recourse to their Emperor Aurelianus a heathen, who not only judged in the behalf of the synod of Antioch, but actually outed Paulus, and put Domnus in his place. This history we have in the seventh book of Eusebius ch. 39 I ask here, what was the sentence of the synod against Paulus Samosatenus, but advice and counsel, and a declaration of their mind, that Paulus deserved to be excommunicated, and put out of his place, and Domnus to take his place? and indeed that sentence of excommunication and deposition signified just nothing, until power of execution went along with it.  
All this is sufficient to evince that all jurisdiction Papal, Episcopal and Presbyterial, is a name without a thing, if it be not coercive; else that it is merely a counsel and admonition, by which if a man be not persuaded to obey, the transgressor cannot incur any penalty, and thereby be deprived of life, liberty and goods: so that all censure, as excommunication, which is not a product of magistracy and a coercive jurisdiction, falls to the ground, and is like the bulls of the Pope, which hurt none but those that are afraid of them. For the act of excommunication must be a product of a commanding jurisdiction, or of counsel and advice; we having clearly seen that there is no medium betwixt these two. If it be an effect of coercive jurisdiction, than it must be a product of magistracy delegated by the sovereign power without, or exercised within the assembly of those that do excommunicate. Either way excommunication finds no footing, since it is not a mere advice, nor, as they will have it, a mere product of coercive power; which the very Papists, at least those that newly came from amongst them, namely Antonius de Dominis, conceived to be necessarily joined with all Ecclesiastical sentences; else that they were mere declarations of the mind. These be his words lib. 5. the rep. ca 1. Nos potius Episcopi & Min stri declaramus esse excludendum, quam actu corporali excludimus; we Bishops and Ministers do rather declare that one is deserving to be excluded, than we exclude him bodily; one being an act of command, the other of advice. Thus in the 2. chapter he saith, that no church can excommunicate without magistracy: Nihil sine potestate laica obtinebimus; neminem Ecclesiastica potestate possumus extrudere, abripere, expellere.  
These two jurisdictions, the one of advice and counsel, the other of magistracy, neither of them being like the presbyterial jurisdiction challenged, may be instanced in all kinds of societies, families, meetings, religious or civil; whereas our presbyterian brethren cannot so much as produce one single act exercised in a consistory or synod which is not an effect of magistracy, or of counsel and advice, and is not either compelling the outward man, or persuading the inward. Thus a father of a family, to bring his son to walk in the ways of God, must go about it either by persuasion, or by compulsion, hale him perforce to church, hoping that God may there work upon his heart. Thus a private church, by the jurisdiction of the keys and power of persuasion, may win a brother; but by the other jurisdiction will expel him, and put him out of the congregation.  
One thing very considerable, and which overthroweth all jurisdiction which steps between the jurisdiction of magistracy and that of the word, which in foro externo, in the court of man, is counsel and adv ce but in f●ro interno, in the cou●t of conscience, is command, strict injunction with threatening; that thing considerable, I say, is, that it is of the nature of the division of power exercised in all societies, as of most of the things delivered either in nature, philosophy, or Scripture, that naturally it brancheth into two; by which dichotomy most truth's a●e discovered. Thus natural philosophy divides ●…ance into first and second; the whole world into heaven and earth; sensitive creatures into man and beast, rational and irra●…nall: thus the Scripture divides Angels into good and bad; men into elect and reprobates; the Testament into new and old; the people of God into jews and gentiles; the whole man into flesh and spirit, new man and old; things enjoyed into spiritual and temporal; Gods Kingdom into earthly and heavenly. And thus, to come to our purpose, there be two powers, one internal, the other external; two swords, the sword of the word or spirit in the ministry, and the sword of magistracy; two courts, one outward, called forum externum, governing the outward man, and imposing laws on him; the other forum internum, governing the conscience, persuading and convincing it. So for judgement and obedience; judgement is either a commanding, or counselling, advising, and may be called judgement of approbation: obedience is either to commands or counsels. He were here a cunning Oed●pus, who could find room for Ecclesiastical court, judgement and law, or find a medium at least of participation betwixt those two jurisdictions, the one coercive or of magistracy, the other persuasive and exercised by persuasion; such is that which is exercised in the word, to which (as St. Peter speaketh) man yieldeth not by constraint, but willingly and with a ready mind.  
Even all actions where art, man's wisdom, industry, nature, and God's blessing and grace do concur, do evidently show the necessity of this dichotomy, and the nullity of what is imagined to be interposed betwixt the power of magistracy and the power of ministry, betwixt the power of compulsion and the power of persuasion. For example, the acts of magistracy are like the acts of a ploughman, who hath a command over his ground to plough it, dung it, then harrow it, and scatter his seed: but the acts of ministry, or rather the acts of God in the ministry, by working upon the heart, convincing, and making the man to follow willingly Gods call, are like the other acts, which are not so much in the power of the ploughman; as in Gods sending the rain upon his ploughed and sown land, blessing or frustrating all his past labours.  
This being the nature of power, next is to be considered how it is divided, and how powers are subordinate or coordinate. I could never conceive that power can be branched but into two, viz. external and internal. The internal power is either divine, or of art: the divine power is either natural, or of the word; which is either ordinary, or extraordinary. Ordinary is upon these that are either convinced, or hardened: the extraordinary is either of prophecy, or of miracles: that of prophecy is either under the old, or the new Testament.  
The external power is either private, or public. Private power is that freedom in every private man or society to act things and in things, wherein the public is little or nothing concerned, and no way disturbed: which power doth much belong to private churches, as we shall see in another place.  
The public external power is either sovereign, or subordinate and delegated. The sovereign is either of legislation, or of jurisdiction. The subordinate is a power delegated by the sovereign to cities, provinces, families, societies of whatsoever kind, as churches, schools, colleges, halls, universities, corporations: so that there is no external power commanding obedience under some penalty, making laws, and compelling the outward man, wherewith masters, husbands, fathers, halls, corporations, societies, churches are invested, but is derived from the sovereign external power, which we call power of magistracy. Here is no more room for ecclesiastical power then for marital, paternal, despotical, as neither for medical if you will, and so for pharmaceutical, military, rural, and the like; all which are a like subordinate to the sovereign external power, called the power of magistracy: for I do conceive that church-power or jurisdiction are as improperly called ecclesiastical, as if the jurisdiction wherewith a college of physicians might be invested were called medical or physical; since a minister, a physician, a merchant, as such, are not invested with jurisdiction: which cannot be said of a justice of peace, of a constable, or of a sergeant, who as such are invested with a power and jurisdiction: and sure the power of a sergeant might less improperly be called sergeantall, then that of a churchman, ecclesiastical.  
The coordinate powers, when neither of them is subordinate to the other, are the power of the word in the ministry, and the power of magistracy: the one being Gods spirits jurisdiction over the hearts and affection's of men; the other the magistrates jurisdiction compelling men to an outward act of obedience: which powers I have showed that nothing could step between, as medium either of participation or of negation; although our presbyterian brethren tell us, that the ecclesiastical is also coordinate, if not to the power of the word, at least to the power of the magistrate: a power (they say) which is distinct both from the power of the word, and from the power of the magistrate. But this having already been disproved by reason, I will allege but one of their own, namely Triglandius de potestate ecclesiastica against Vedelius, as good as confessing he cannot tell what to make of that ecclesiastical power, and where it must be placed: for in the description he makes of the power of the magistrate about sacred things, and that of the power of the word, which yet he calls ecclesiastical, he leaves no room for a presbyterian ecclesiastical power of excommunicating, deposing, and making laws authoritatively, as they speak. Though, I say, he calls that power ecclesiastical, yet it hath but merely the name of it; for he giveth such a description to it, as I could give no other to the power of the word. These be his words, in the prefa●… to the reader: The ecclesiastical power is the spiritual power seated in the administration of the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, striking at the soul, and intrinsically affecting the consciences of men; which God maketh use of as an instrument and a mean for their conversion and salvation; and for that cause is so much nobler than the civil, as the soul is nobler than the body, and eternal felicity and salvation is more excellent than temporal prosperity. But this power none of the divines attribute to the magistrate. There is nothing in this description that belongeth to the ecclesiastical presbyterian power, such as Mr. Gillespie would give us: for excommunication doth not strike at the soul, but at the body; and the opposition he maketh of the things he likens it to, do show he speaketh of such a power as is called the power of the resurrection, Philip. 3. v. 10. and the power of God, Rom. 1. v. 16. and by which we are the sons of God, joh. 1. v. 12. which properties cannot belong to the power of excommunication, and of making laws in a synod, which being carried by the major part of votes, though it were but of one, oblige all men to obedience. Yet my reverend ●…nd Mr. Caesar Calandrin conceiveth, that Triglandius by the keys understood both keys, of the word, and of discipline. To that I say, 1. that Triglandius description of ecclesiastical power reacheth only to the soul, and not to the ordering the outward man by discipline: 2. that a key is an admission to the Kingdom of grace, and not to a visible assembly: 3. a key is an instrument to get in those that are without, if they please to come in willingly; not to force them in, or to keep them from entering; nor to cast out those that are within by excommunication, except they desire to go out of themselves. They use to expel men with staves and cudgels, but not with a key, except it be taken by the wrong end, and to a wrong use. What Triglandius saith, that this power none of the divines attribute to the magistrate, is true of the power of the word in converting from darkness to light; which indeed none of the divines ascribe to the magistrate. But if he had spoken of a power of presbyterian ecclesiastical judicatories, it had not been true what he saith, that none of the divines attribute it to the magistrate; for it is the opinion of Bullingerus, Musculus, Gualterus, great and famous divines, who take off from the ministers all such presbyterial power, and give it to the true owner, even to the Christian magistrates.  
Now let us see how fare he extendeth the power of the magistrate in sacred things; by which it is plain he affords no room for presbyterian power to interpose between the power whereof we have just now seen the description, and the power of the magistrate. These be his words ch. 16. p. 317. It belongeth to the civil power to deliberate what religion he will have to be exercised among his subjects: if he doth remove the true religion, he abuseth indeed his power, yet for all that his power must not be denied. I would fain know by what power the magistrate doth these things: Is it an ecclesiastical, or civil? If civil, than some acts of the ecclesiastical power are subordinate to the civil: if ecclesiastical, I ask whether it is coordinate to that of the ministers power, or subordinate to the civil power. If subordinate, 'tis all I say. If coordinate, than it is ten times more absurd to fain two equal powers and judicatories over the same persons, and in the same cause and matter, as we shall see in another place.  
To clear all mistakes about subordination of powers:  
1. When we say that ecclesiastical power is subordinate to the power of the magistrate, we do not understand a subordination of functions; for neither the functions of physicians, merchants, professors of arts, no more than that of ministers, are subordinate to magistracy; but that whatever jurisdiction ministers, physicians, merchants, or professors of arts have, is subordinate to the magistrate. And indeed this hath been one great cause to deny a subordination of ecclesiastical to civil; because persons, and functions, and the affairs about these functions, having always been separated, this error hath soon crept in, that jurisdiction and rule must be also separated: but if jurisdictions have need to be separated and distinct, because functions are so; there would be as many jurisdictions in a state, as there be professors of arts and sciences. And since functions that have no affinity with magistracy make no distinction of jurisdiction; much less the sacred function and magistracy, that are so near a kin, have need to have several jurisdictions. And indeed the affinity is great; both tending to the promoting of the sovereign good, and for many 1000 years the same person having been invested with them both.  
2. It is a great mistake of some, who, because a jurisdiction is from God, and subordinate to him, deny it to be subordinate to the magistrate. For is not the marital or paternal power-subordinate to God, and yet to the magistrate? and is not despotical power subordinate to God, Colos. 4. and yet to the magistrate?  
3. Neither do we say, that all those whose jurisdiction is subordinate to the magistrate, aught to exercise their power by authority from the magistrate only: for they must do it as servants, 1. ●n all just and lawful things; 2. not with an eye-submission, (as St. Paul saith of servants) as men-pleasers, but as subject to Christ, and from a principle of conscience, though there were no magistrates at all.  
4. This consideration will remove many mistakes, that it may well stand that a power, a command, a law, a precept may be both from God & from the magistrate: thus the decalogue is as well a law of the magistrate, as of God. Yea I maintain, that a command or law of God hath no force of law in the court of man, or in any presbytery, synod or assembly whatsoever, binding to active or passive obedience, except it hath the stamp of magistracy, and be published anew by the sovereign magistrate; and that no man can be punished legally for robbing and stealing, yea not for killing, much less can he be excommunicated, except there be a law of man against robbers and murderers, and that some magistracy impowereth churches or synods to pass a sentence of excommunication.  
5. This also hath been a great mistake, which made many deny a subordination of ecclesiastical to civil, because those that embrace the true religion, and live under those that hate them or persecute them, endeavour as to have a communion independent from the magistrate, so also a jurisdiction.  
6. Another error in making the church jurisdiction not subordinate, but wholly independent from the magistrate, is, this assertion easily descending into the minds of those that affect rule and jurisdiction, viz. that the end of magistracy is outward peace and quietness only, and purchasing all means to the attaining of the preservation of temporal life, wealth and prosperity; having nothing to do with promoting the eternal good and happiness of the soul. But this error is not only refuted by the very heathens, but also by the most learned orthodox Divines, both English and others. Pareus on the 13. to the Romans dubio 5. saith the end of the magistrate is not only the civil good, but also the spiritual good of the subjects, that religion may flourish in the church according to the word of God: and so Junius Meditat. on the 122. Psalm tom. 1. col. 721. saith, that the magistrate is to procure by divine and humane right the good of the spiritual Kingdom of Christ. But Antonius de Dominis lib. 5. de republica ecclesiastica cap. 5. §. 1. is very prolix and nervous to prove, that he that is invested from God with a power to purchase natural felicity, is also invested with a power to promote the spiritual.  
7. It is also a great error, to make a coordination of powers seated in the same persons. For, if it could be imagined that one part of the people were the Church, and the other part the Commonwealth, they might be also imagined independent one from another: thus a society of merchants, and a college of scholars, may be well imagined to be corporations so independent one from the other, that none of the society of merchants are part of the college, and none of the college are part of the society. But granting that the same persons are members of the society of merchants and of the college of scholars, the command, law, discipline of those two corporations, as long as they admit the same members, must have either a perpetual conflict and clashing, or the command of one corporation must be subordinate to the command of the other; or else if they be both coordinate, they must also be both equally subordinate to a power set over them both. This is the case between the Church and the Commonwealth. Granting that the same persons are members of the Commonwealth, and of the Church, it is not possible to make these two jurisdictions coordinate, and yet subsist together in peace, love and amity: and without one disturbs the other, they must jointly agree to have one power over them; or the law, injunction and commands of one, must be subordinate to the laws of the other.  
8. The grandest inconvenience in this coordination of powers and jurisdictions is, that the same persons being members of societies under both these powers, and submitting to the commands of both, shall be in continual perplexity which to obey, if both do not command one thing. There is such a communion in men's actions, causes, relations, functions, callings, commands, duties, jurisdictions, freedoms, liberties, among those that live under one sovereign power, and within the precincts of one jurisdiction, that it is impossible that any outward action can be performed in whatever relation a man be considered, as husband, master, father, pastor, lawyer, physician, merchant, at home or in church, in a synod, or in a city, or hall, except they all are modified, ruled and directed by one supreme jurisdiction; otherwise the saying of Tacitus would prove true, ubi plures imperant, nemo obsequitur, where there be many coordinate powers, there is none found to obey. When a magistrate doth command a subject to attend him in the wars, this command doth exempt him from the commands and injunctions that may be made to him as he is a son, member of a consistory, or of a synod, or of some other corporation: therefore, when the King of Scotland in the year 1582. commanded the magistrate of Edinburgh to entertain and feast a French Ambassador on a set day, and the presbytery of Edinburgh, to cross this command, had enjoined a fast upon the same day, since both commands could not be obeyed at once by the magistrate of Edinburgh, either the magistrates commands must be subordinate to those of the presbytery, or the commands of the presbytery must be subordinate to those of the magistrate; or else the different commands of both must be subordinate to a third power, above both presbytery and magistrate.  
I have brought in my Paraenesis a cloud of witnesses, Martyr, Musculus, Gualterus, junius, Pareus, Cassander, Hooker, Antonius de Dominis, proving the necessity, that the power called ecclesiastical should be subordinate to that of the magistrate. I will only allege Musculus, in whom we shall see the sense of all the rest; loc. come. de magistratibus. The way and nature of government cannot bear that in the same people there be two authentic powers, two divers legislations and dominations, except it be by subordination; as there is no place for two heads upon one body. Learned Dr. Hammond, who is neither for Geneva presbytery, nor of Erastus' opinion, nor yet of Musculus, Bullingerus & Gualterus, who made little account of excommunication; yet he holds, that ecclesiastical power is subject to the civil magistrate, who in all causes over all persons is acknowledged supreme under Christ. These be his words, in his tract of the power of the keys, p. 87. though by them he overthroweth all power in ministers and Bishops of excommunicating independently from the magistrate, which yet he strives to assert against Erastus. Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Gillespie think, that if it were granted that the magistrate is Christ's viceregent, it would subvert wholly the grounds upon which ecclesiastical presbyterian power is built. I question whether this concession of Dr. Hammond that the magistrate is the governor of the Church under Christ, would not equally unsettle his episcopal excommunication.  
I should in this chapter, as I intended at first, show the vanity and nullity of the multitude of divisions and subdivisions of ecclesiastical power, which, like wooden legs to a lame man, must be more in number, and worse for substance, and unfitter to walk upon, then good legs of flesh and bones to another: for whereas this must have but two, the other must have as good as four, and yet very bad ones. According to our principles, these two only things well considered and retained, namely, the power of the word in the ministry, and the external power of magistracy, will clear and decide the whole controversy, and assert the right of churches, and the power of magistracy in them and over them: whereas all the limbs of the ecclesiastical power, which are more in number then the pillars of Salisbury church, are not capable to prop up the ecclesiastical jurisdiction independent from that of the magistrate. But it would be now too long and tedious a task, having handled that subject very largely in the second chapter of my Paraenesis, and hoping to speak further of the same when I meet with M. Gillespie, who being a great schoolman, hath devised a number of cases and boxes to lodge his ecclesiastical power in.   

CHAPTER II.  
Of the nature and division of right divine and humane. In vain do they call things of divine positive right, which are acted by a natural right: such are many church acts. Things that are of divine right may be said to be of humane right, and on the contrary, those things that are of humane right may be said to be of divine right: which is an argument that, by right, power cannot be divided betwixt clergy and laity.  
RIght, in Latin jus, differs from law, as rule from justice: for law is the rule itself, but right is the justice of the rule. Sometimes it signifieth that virtue called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equity, which abates of the rigour of the law. But right in general 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 styled, 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 natural right we understand that which is consonant to right reason.  
Commonly right is divided into private and public. Private right is the same with personal 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 public right is either natural, as when St. Paul saith that the Gentiles 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, jacob, Moses, etc. 2. to a certain people, as to Israel: 3. to all men, either for a time, as the law of not eating blood; or for ever, as the Sacraments, and the preaching of the Gospel.  
It is not possible to give an exact division of right. Many things that are of natural right are also of divine and instituted right; so, many divine precepts, as is the decalogue, are of humane institution: but custom 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 natural 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 sovereign 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 soundness and goodness of the law. This also is a law of nature, practised even by all nations, that sovereign command about sacred things, yea the chief sacerdotal function, belongeth to the sovereign power; of which law a part hath been abrogated by the revealed law of the Scripture, which did so sever the sacerdotal function from the regal, that the regal still kept the sovereign jurisdiction about sacred things. This is also a law of nature and nations, that every assembly and convention of men should have power to choose, admit, and exclude members of their own society, and to perform all acts conducing to their subsistence.  
Those rights of nature God by a superior dictate or command in the Scripture hath not abrogated; for grace doth not take away, but perfects nature. So that no member of a society is to recede from its natural right, liberty, and privilege, except by a positive law of God or man he is restrained and commanded otherwise.  
Those rights of the natural law being well understood, it will easily be stated, by what right or power, natural, civil, political, (I had almost said ecclesiastical) despotical, paternal, marital, not only every society, family, but also each member acteth: for the greatest mistake about ecclesiastical power is, that many acts of ministers and people are said to be of ecclesiastical, ministerial, divine, positive right, which indeed are acts grounded upon the law of nature and nations, and are derived from a liberty and common prudence, that every rational and free man maketh use of in ordering all kinds of societies, fraternities, corporations, whereof he is a member, without needing to fly to a power taking its right and name as if it were of another classis, nature and kind, and independent from any other. For as a man being at once master of a great family, fellow of a college of physicians, a citizen, and member both of the Commonwealth, and of the Parliament, besides of a church, is not said to act by so many kinds of rights and powers, as his stations are in the Commonwealth, as if in his college he acted by a medical or academical power, in city or hall by a civicall power, in a church by an ecclesiastical or church power; all being supposed to be alike coordinate, and not being subordinate to the supreme power: so natural power, right, liberty, and prudence in ordering all kinds of affairs, societies, and families, are not otherwise distinct in kind or species, than a yard that measured cloth differs from that which measured serge: as a yard is alike appliable to silk and thread, and the same hammer will knock in an iron nail and a wooden pin; so the same power and prudence governeth the church and a college.  
It is also observable, that a man being at once a member of a family, hall, city, Parliament, church, doth not act always according to the quality of his relation, function, and place, public or private; not acting as a physician, father, or husband, but as a judge; and not as a church-member, but as a free member of a society. Thus a member of a college of physicians joineth in consultation with his brethren in a case of physic, as a physician; but in making laws, regulating the practice of physic, and the apothecary's entrenching upon the physicians, he doth not act as a physician, but as a judge, and as a person invested with judicial power from the state. The same physician in a Parliament, upon the matter and question of physic and of physicians to be regulated, may speak pertinently of his art as a physician, but doth not vote & give his consent to the making of a law about physic as a physician, but as a judge of the land. Likewise, to be sure by what right pastors and people act in the church, the acts and actions of a pastor or church-member are to be considered either as acts of pastors and of church-members, or as they are acts of rulers and members of a society. The act of a pastor as pastor, is to discharge all ministerial function commanded in the revealed word, and not declared by any dictate of nature. In those acts I see no right of jurisdiction, but over the inward man, when by the power of the word the sinner is brought to the obedience of the cross of Christ. The acts of church-members, as such, are either in relation to the pastor, or of one member to another. In relation to the pastor, the acts are to submit to the minister ruling them, and dispensing unto them the word. They may have that liberty to try his doctrine, and to do as they of Beroea, who searched the Scriptures, to know whether it was so as St. Paul preached unto them: this is also an act of every faithful member of the church, not to assent to any doctrine, because it hath been assented unto by the major part of suffrages: but in things that concern order and discipline, to yield to the constitutions agreed on by the major part of the assembly; so that by them the bond of charity and the truth of the doctrine be not violated and perverted. The acts of church-members relating one to another are, to bear one another's burdens, to forgive and edify one another, to prefer another before himself.  
The acts of pastors and church-members as they are endowed with a power common to all other societies, are 1. to do all things orderly; 2. to make a discipline suitable to time and place, since there is not in the Scripture a positive precept concerning the same; 3. to oblige every member to the laws of the discipline voted by the major part of the members; 4. to admit and expel the members which by the major part are thought fit so to be. Many other acts are performed by the same members not as church-members: as to appeal to a superior tribunal, as magistracy or synod, in case of wrong sustained; for they do not oppose a just defence to wrong by any other right, than a member of any society should do. Thus an assembly of Christians meeting in a church way, being persecuted or assaulted in their temple by rude and wicked men, doth not oppose a just defence by weapons or otherwise as church-members, but as men invested with natural power against an unjust violence.  
In short, ministers and people have many acts within the sphere of Christian duties, which are not proper to them as Christians and members of churches; being like in that to a physician, who doth not build as a physician, or to a counsellor of State carrying a letter to a friend, who acts then the part of a letter-bearer: thus a father hath a power over his son by a natural paternal right; but he doth instruct him in a Gospel's way by a paternal Christian right and duty, grounded upon a positive precept of the Scripture: thus Queen Mary of England established a religion by a natural right, power and duty annexed to all sovereignty to order sacred things with a sovereign authority; but Queen Elizabeth did overthrow the false worship, and did set up Protestant religion, not only by the same right that Queen Mary had, but also by a positive right, as principal church-member, as Ezechiah, josiah, etc. appointed by God to be heads, and nursing fathers and mothers of the churches.  
The same things, laws and constitutions that are of divine right, are also of humane right: and likewise the things that are of humane right, in a good sense may be said to be of divine right. Things are said to be of divine or humane right, either because the matter of right is concerning God's worship or humane policy, or because God or man is the author of them. Thus the laws of the jews, regulating their Commonwealth, are said both to be of divine and humane right: divine, because God is the author of them; humane, because they order all affairs about mine and thine, right and wrong, and betwixt man and man.  
Likewise many things have been instituted with great wisdom by magistrates and councils, which may well be said to be both of divine and humane right: Divine, because they further the purity of worship and power of godliness; humane, because they were instituted by men, and may suffer alteration and reformation.  
So things that are every way of divine right, both for the matter and institution, as the eating of the , and the observation of the Sabbath, may be said to be of humane right, because commanded and enjoined by humane authority. The very calling of synods, which they say is of divine institution, both for their institution, which is Apostolic, and for the matter that is handled in them, none but a papist did yet deny to be the Emperors and magistrates right. Thus fasting, prayer, public humiliation, though duties to be performed by divine right and precept, are also of humane right, as commanded and ordered by the magistrate in a public way. Thus it was the good Kings of Iudas right, and none can blame them for it, to command fasting and prayers.  
Lastly, things that are every way of humane right, and made by man, and have for their object the regulating of humane affairs, as are the laws concerning conduit-pipes, buildings, forests, chaces, etc. may conveniently be said to be of divine right, because by divine right they oblige the conscience.  
Hence we may gather, how impossible it is to share betwixt laity and clergy by Divine and humane right, power of legislation and jurisdiction, about things, causes and persons; as that pastors and ministers should be over things that are of divine right, and magistrates over those things that are of humane right, without clashing of powers, causes and persons; there being such a complication of right, causes and persons, that they cannot be so much as imagined a sunder: besides that the preaching of the Gospel and magistracy do comprehend all actions of man, and parts of life, wherein men ought to live godly, justly and soberly.   

CHAPTER III.  
The nature, matter, form, and author of law. The canons and sentences of Church-judicatories have no force of law, except they receive it from the sanction of the magistrate. The defects in the division of laws into Divine and humane; into moral, ceremonial and politic; and into Ecclesiastical and civil.  
INtending chief to prove the vanity and nullity of a power called ecclesiastical distinct from that of the magistrate, since also no power of legislation nor of jurisdiction can be exercised without a power to make a law, and to command obedience to the law; it will be requisite to know the nature of law; that so making good, that Church-officers are not invested with any power to make laws, or to command obedience to them, all their jurisdiction may be brought to just nothing.  
Law sometimes is taken for a dictate of nature, or right reason, and consent of nations: thus they say of Aesop, that though he was free by nature, yet the law of man enslaved him: generally it is defined, the rule of actions and duties. This ensuing definition I conceive to be one of the most perfect; Law is a rule of life and of moral actions, made and published by a legislatour armed with a judicial power, commanding things to be done, and forbidding things that are not to be done, under recompenses and penalties.  
To understand the nature of law, we must consider the matter of law, which is, whatever can be commanded, whether God or man be the author of it; so that no causes or things can be exempted from being the matter of the law of God, or of man: it is enough that it may be commanded. The very doctrine and matter of faith may be matter of the law; for the Hebrew thorah signifieth both law and doctrine: so that there is no doubt but that not only the decalogue, but also all the doctrine of the Gospel is matter of the law. For were there any thing that should not be the matter of the law of man, we had need to have a visible infallible judge on earth, besides the sovereign magistrate, who should determine which thing must be the matter of the law, which not. The very doctrine of the Trinity is made the matter of the Code of Justinian; and Theodosius commanded that all his subjects should embrace the religion that Peter the Apostle, Damasus of Rome, and Peter of Alexandria professed.  
2. Next we must consider the form of the law, which giveth force of law, and without which law would be no law, and no obedience were due to it in the court of man. That form is the stamp or sanction of the sovereign power, obliging men to obey upon penalties. Law, saith Campanella, without penalty is no law but counsel. That form is expressed in short in the Digests; Legis virtus, etc. the virtue of the law is to command, to forbid, to permit, to punish. The sovereign power giveth the form of law to any matter that is the subject of a man's duty or obedience either to God or man: yea it giveth form to the laws of God, which though they oblige the conscience, whether published or no by the magistrate; yet they are of no force in the court of man, to oblige for fear of punishment, and, as the Apostle speaketh, for wrath, except they are commanded by the magistrate. So that it is properly man that giveth name and force to a law; and a man may well say with St. Austin, ep. 66. that Jesus Christ commandeth by the magistrate; hoc jubent Imperatores quod jubet & Christus, quia cum bonum jubent, per illos non jubet nisi Christus.  
3. We must consider the author of the law, either as he that hath given his counsel, and (it may be) furnished the matter and contrivance of the law, as Tribonianus to justinian; or he that hath given sanction and force of law to the matter brought to him, such was only Justinian, and not Tribonianus. Sometimes the same person contrives the law and giveth sanction to it; such was Solon and Lycurgus. God, who is the author of his laws, is not the enforcer of them among the Mahometans, nor any where else, without a Moses; but with those people whom he doth incline to obedience by a law of the spirit.  
4. To the nature of the law it is required, that the legislator be armed with a sword to punish the transgressors of the law; therefore equity, truth and justice are no conditions required to the validity of a law, for it receives force from the will of him who is able to make his will good, were it never so bad.  
5. It is required that the legistator should command his own laws, not another's, commanding in his own name, and not in the name of another; and therefore those that are invested with judicial sovereign power, are to give account of their actions only to God.  
By what I have said, it is easily conceived what force of law have the judgements, sentences, canons, decrees of ecclesiastical judicatories, except they receive form and sanction from the magistrate; without which they are but counsels, admonitions, and advices.  
1. Touching the matter, they may afford it, as Tribonianus to justinian: in that sense they may be the authors of a law: but they cannot give form and sanction to it, obliging men under penalties in case of disobedience, since they are not invested with coactive power, without which law is no law; except they have that power in subordination to the magistrate; for two coordinate powers cannot give sanction to the same law, except it could be imagined, that the will of one should never cross the will of the other, which is not conceivable.  
2. Ministers and church-judicatories are not to command any laws, much less their own laws, but only deliver the commands of a superior, either God or the magistrate. The pastor may say with Moses Exod. 18. v. 15. I do make the people know the statutes of God & his laws; but he cannot lay any penalty upon the breaker of the law, except, as Moses, he be invested with magistracy. But were the minister not only to deliver the commands of God, but also lay a command; this he could not do but in the name of God: and therefore the magistrate hath this privilege, that although he be a minister of God as well as the minister of the Gospel, yet he may command in his own name the law of God, which the minister of the Gospel may not. It is the opinion of the gravest Divines, that ministers have no power of legislation▪ which being granted, it is not possible they should have a power of jurisdiction: for it was never heard that he that hath no power of (or capacity to) legislation, can have any to jurisdiction; for every member of Parliament is supposed to be capable of exercising jurisdiction, but were he disenabled to have a power of legislation, by that he should lose all capacity to bear any office of jurisdiction. Camero is very express in his tract de Ecclesia p. 369. where having showed that there be two things which are the matter of law, 1. faith and good manners, 2. things that pertain to order and discipline; he adds, in neither kind the church hath power to make laws: having said a little before that what proceedeth from the church ought rather to be called admonitions and exhortations, than laws. Musculus is no less express in his common places p. 6●1. We do confidently assert, that all that power by which authentic laws are made binding the subjects to obey, whether they be called civil or eccle siasticall, do not belong to the church, that is, to the multitude of the faithful and subjects; nor to the church-minister; but properly to the sole magistrate, to whom is given a mere command (merum imperium) over the subjects.  
3. This showeth the invalidity of all canons, decrees and sentences of church-judicatories; which except they be known to be equitable, true and just, are not to be obeyed: since the validity of an ecclesiastical law is not like that of the magistrates, which be it never so unjust, hath the force of a law: but sure none of our presbyterian brethren will maintain, that all judgements and sentences of church-judicatories are infallible; and therefore it belongeth to every man censured by such a judicatory, to be well informed of the justice, truth and equity of the censure, before he obeyeth it, yea before it hath the force or name of a censure. For it fares with the sentences of ministers, as with the counsels of physicians, which must convince the party of the necessity of vielding to this or that remedy: their commands must have always some reason annexed, why they must be obeyed: but the law of the magistrate needs none, and permits none to interpret it, but obey it according to the letter.  
Laws are variously divided: into Divine and humane; ecclesiastical and civil; moral, ceremonial and politic. Some call those divine, which are made by God; and those humane, which are made by men: others call them divine laws, which rule the conscience; and those humane laws, which govern the outward man. But none of these divisions are without their defects: for humane laws govern and oblige the conscience, as the Apostle tells us Ro. 13. and albeit all humane laws are not divine, yet all divine laws are so far humane, as the magistrate giveth a sanction to them, and imposeth an obligation in the court of man to obey them.  
Likewise the division of laws into moral, policick and ceremonial, hath its defects: for I conceive that the moral law is the ground and basis of the ceremonial and politic, and a rule by which God is to be worshipped, State, cities, families, fathers, husbands, children, servants must be governed. So that the ceremonial law is but the moral law applied to the use of divine worship; and the politic or civil law is but the moral law appliable to the practice and conversation of life at home and abroad.  
The holy Scripture putteth no such distinction. 1. God was alike the author of them all.  
2. God only and Moses his deputy on earth did give a sanction and stamp of obligation to them all.  
3. The matter indeed was divers; and so are the military laws distinct from the matrimonial and testamentary, and yet are they all comprehended under the civil law, because the civil magistrate giveth force of law to them alike: upon that account why may not the moral and ceremonial law be called civil?  
4. Because when the Scripture speaketh of the perfection of the law of God, of those that walk in the laws of God, that the law of Moses was read every Sabbath, that many days passed without law; the whole body of the laws given by Moses is understood, without any such partition.  
5. Because the same persons judged every causes and matter punishable by the law, there being, as Mr. Gillespie feigneth, no such thing as a judicatory ecclesiastical for ecclesiastical causes & a civil bench where the judges decided civil or politic causes; for so we should need a third bench of judges meddling with moral matters and causes. Yet Mr. Gillespie, p. 14. grants that the Jews had no other civil law but Gods own law; and besides that the Levites judged not only in the business of the Lord, but also in the business of the King, 1 Chron. 2. v. 30. & 32.  
And so falls down the division of laws into ecclesiastical and civil; for  
1. They differ not in kind, otherwise then a man from an animal; this being the genus, the other the species.  
2. All laws devised by men, whatever subject and matter they are about, are civil, politic, and laws of that power that giveth them force and vigour of laws: such are all the constitutions about discipline of the church, which in vain they call ecclesiastical.  
3. If a law were to be called ecclesiastical, because it handleth laws for the government of the church, we should need as many kinds of laws as there be societies in the world, and we should have one peculiar classis for laws 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 ecclesiastical, as a law is called nautical, military, testamentary, matrimonial, either because they are about matters of churches, armies, wills, husbands, wives; or because they were invented for the benefit of churches, soldiers, married people, and the like: but in vain do they think to call a law ecclesiastical because not only it is of church-matters, but also because it must be made by ecclesiastical men, and receive form and sanction from them, and because all causes & matters which they call ecclesiastical must be judged by ecclesiastical men. For  
1. As ecclesiastical power (if there be any such thing) must be subordinate to the civil, as we have proved before; so ecclesiastical laws to the civil laws.  
2. Ministers having no power of legislation nor of jurisdiction; therefore laws to govern Christians in churches need not to take their name from church, minister or ministry, but from the magistrate, who is the maker, latour and giver of them, and binds men to a submission to them under penalty.  
Musculus, in the above-quoted place, disproveth at large this division of laws into civil and ecclesiastical, and tells us, how far laws are to be called ecclesiastical, though they be in truth the magistrates laws; only because they are made by him for the good of the church: for as properly, saith he, laws may be called scholastical and Academical, because they were made for the good and benefit of schools or Universities; and so far, and no further, can it be allowed that laws should be ecclesiastical.   

CHAPTER IU.  
Of the nature of judgement: what judgement every private man hath, what the magistrate, and what ministers, synods and church-judicatories. They have no definitive judgement, as Mr. Rutherfurd asserts; but the magistrate hath the greatest share in the finitive judgements: which is proved by some passages of Mr. Rutherfurd, and of Pareus and Rivetus. Who is the judge of controversies?  
NOt to run over all the acceptions of judgement, which I have handled in my Paraenesis, I will mention but one, that serveth to decide the whole controversy, which lieth in a narrow room, whether the magistrate, or pastors assembled in a presbytery and synod, or even private men be judges of controversies about faith and discipline.  
judgement is an act, by which every man endowed with reason, or pretending to have any, upon debating within himself, and weighing things to be done or to be believed, at length resolveth peremptorily what either he will do himself, or will have others to do, about things he conceiveth to be true, just and useful. For to the nature of judgement it is not required, that the thing that a man will do himself, or will have others to do, be true, just and good; it being enough that he apprehendeth them to be so.  
I make two judgements; one private, the other public. The private I call judgement of discretion, by which every one having weighed and debated within himself the truth, equity, goodness or usefulness of counsels, advices, commands, doctrine and persons, at length chooseth and pitcheth rather upon this then that: this judgement may be called judgement of knowledge and apprehension.  
The public judgement is the delivery of ones private judgement so far as concerneth others, by which a man uttereth what he conceiveth fitting for others to do or believe.  
This judgement in ministers, presbyteries, synods, wise men, counsellors, physicians and others not invested with any jurisdiction, and who have more authority than power, is called advice, counsel, declaration, when they deliver their sense, meaning and opinion upon any debated subject, concluding something which they conceive others are to embrace, believe or practise.  
In magistrates and men invested with jurisdiction, both this public judgement and the private have the same operation; as in ministers, synods, counsellors and the like: but over and above it causeth them to command what they conceived fitting to be received and practised.  
By the public judgement Pastors do what St. Austin saith, Epist. 48. to Vincentius; pastoris est persuadere ad veritatem persuadendo; pastors are to bring to truth by persuasion: sed magistratus est cogendo; but magistrates are to bring to it by constraint and by commanding.  
From these public judgements every private man is to appeal to his private judgement of discretion; not yielding and giving his assent to the declarations, canons, sentences of ministers, any further than by his judgement of discretion he conceiveth them to be true, just and useful; not obeying actively the commands of the magistrate, in case he conceiveth them, by the same judgement of discretion, to be against faith and good manners.  
The staring thus and dividing of judgement decideth, as I conceive, all the questions and doubts arising about this subject, and answereth all Mr. R●therfurds and Gillespies definitions and objections concerning judgement.  
They make a fourfold judgement; apprehensive, discretive, definitive, and infallible, which belongeth only to Jesus Christ. The definitive, they say, is proper to ministers and church-judicatories. But they forget the main judgement, which giveth life and force to all the rest, and is the magistrates, when he bringeth to execution things well debated by the judgement of declaration, and approved of by the judgement of discretion.  
In that division of theirs they also commit two great errors. 1. That they make of one judgement two; for to the judgement of discretion they add a judgement of apprehension, which differs only in degrees from the other; and were these judgements distinct, yet they go always together, and are always in the same person, and do belong to the private judgement. 2. They ascribe a definitive judgement to pastors and church-judicatories, which they themselves had need to explain what they mean by: for, 1. must every private man stand to it, and not appeal from it to his judgement of discretion? 2. if they do not stand to it, what inconvenience, harm or danger, or worse consequence can befall him, than any one that despiseth good counsel or advice, which put no obligation, except they be reduced into laws and commands by the magistrate? 3. must the magistrate adhere to that definitive judgement, and command them without debating within himself whether those definitions be agreeable with his own public or private judgement? which indeed is to make of him an executioner. If he must not stand to the definitions of pastors and synods, but rather they must stand to what he conceiveth most fitting; than it is evident that that judgement of pastors, called by them definitive, is of no validity, and hath need to take another name, since neither magistrate nor private men are obliged to stand to it, except they be convinced that it is reasonable, and that its definitions are true, just and useful.  
The evidence of this truth about judgement is so clear, that Mr. Rutherfurd and Gillespie are unwares carried sometimes to deliver the substance of what we said before. I will allege but two passages out of Mr. rutherfurd's book, of the divine right of church-government; for there he overthroweth his definitive judgement of pastors or church-judicatories, and setteth above it not only the judgement of the magistrate, but also that of every private man: for sure, that definitive judgement that may be reversed and rejected without any redress by the ministers, cannot be of any weight or validity.  
The first passage is ch. 25. quest. 21. p. 668. The magistrate is not more tied to the judgement of a synod or church, than any private man is tied to his practice. The tye in discipline, and in all synodical acts and determinations, is here as it is in preaching the word: the tye is secondary, conditional, with limitation, so far forth as it agreeth with the word; not absolutely obliging, not Papal qua, nor because commanded, or because determined by the church; and such as magistrates and all Christians may reject, when contrary to or not warranted by the word of God. If such words had fallen from Grotius or Mr. Coleman, they would have been branded for rank Erastianisme. If all the presbyterians will but put their names with probatum est to them, all controversy will be ended, and the power in the hands of church-officers will be no longer distinct from that of the magistrate, and all presbyterian jurisdiction of excommunicating, deposing, and making laws authoritatively, will be taken away. So that, if we give credit to Mr. Rutherfurd, all acts, sentences and excommunications pronounced by synods and presbyteries, are no further valide, then as they are conceived by the magistrates and private men agreeable with the word.  
The other passage of Mr. Rutherfurd doth no less pull down the definitive judgement of ministers, and by it all presbyterian jurisdiction; p. 577. As the church is to approve and command the just sentence of the civil judge in punishing ill doers; but only conditionally, so far as it is just: so is the magistrate obliged to follow, ratify, and with his civil sanction confirm the sound constitutions of the church, but conditionally; not absolutely and blindly, but only so far as they agree with the word of God.  
Studying brevity, I am loath to load the reader with authorities out of most eminent divines, Zanchius, Martyr, junius, Pareus, Camero, Rivetus, and others; all jointly proving, 1. that all the judgements and sentences of synods, church-judicatories, presbyteries, are mere counsels, advices, and no laws obliging to obedience or to assent, except they receive the ultimate sanction from the magistrate; 2. that the magistrate ought not to take the ministers or synods judgement barely because it comes from them, but follow his own judgement. I will allege but one or two out of Pareus, and one out of Rivetus,  
That of Pareus is on the 13. Rom. All faithful, even private men, aught 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, suppress 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 jews made of Pilate, saving to him, If he had not been a malefactor, we would not have delivered him to thee?  
Rivet on the decalogue hath these words: We join 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 Gospel 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; than what he hath himself approved of to be the truth, let him embrace it and spread it. There he maketh no more of synods, than a Prince of his state-counsellors, or a sick man of his physicians, whose judgements they take for counsels 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 senate, as prudent doctors and learned, gathered to give counsel; and their result is like the advice of physicians about the health of the body.  
By what I have said of judgement, and alleged 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 doubtless the ministers of the Gospel have by their education, function and ministerial duty, that public 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 enforceth 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 enjoin 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, physicians in physic, each professor of art in his art, not only because they are more versed in that thing they profess, but also ex officio, have a judgement that carrieth and giveth more authority; but it being fallible, and therefore subject to the revisal of others, whether magistrates or subjects, and not attended with command obliging to obedience, either active or passive, it is only authentic to them that are persuaded and convinced to yield to it.   

CHAPTER V.  
An examination of the 30. chapter of the confession of faith made by the River. Assembly of Divines. That in their Assembly they assumed no jurisdiction, nor had any delegated to them from the magistrate, and therefore were not to attribute it to their brethren. That the ecclesiastical jurisdiction is the same with the magistrates jurisdiction. Mr. Gillespies reasons examined.  
THe reverend Assembly of Divines, in the 30. and 31. chapters of their Confession of Faith, are strong assertors of a double jurisdiction. Before I come to examine what they say, and their proofs alleged in the margin, I would be well understood, that I do not quarrel against the spiritual jurisdiction over the inward man in the ministry; when a minister doth command from Christ, and the people yields obedience, being once enlightened and convinced: all is done on both parts willingly, and not by constraint: the weapons of that jurisdiction are not carnal, and yet very mighty; not by putting away by excommunication, but by pulling down the strong holds of sin, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ, 2. Cor. 10. v. 4. & 5. The Lord jesus Christ, (say they, sect. 1.) as King and head of his Church, hath therein appointed a government in the hands of Church-officers distinct from the civil magistrate.  
It may be the Rev. Assembly do only intent to adjudge jurisdiction to other church-assemblies and synods, and none to themselves, for these reasons.  
1. They were bound by their charter by which they were called, not to exercise any jurisdiction and authority ecclesiastical whatsoever, or any other power, (for these be the words of the ordinance;) and besides, are en joined, not to assume any authority, but to advise and give counsel upon such things as shall be propounded to them, and to deliver their opinions and advices.  
2. And the same they did by their practice; for they assumed no jurisdiction, but having perfected the Confession of Faith, the Catechism, & platform of government, they presented them to the Parliament under the name of humble advice: for they were not to determine any thing authoritatively, albeit they pretend no less was due unto them, as they speak in the 31. chapter sect. 3. that ministers in synods may determine authoritatively matters of religion.  
3. But both the power which was delegated to the Assembly, and the exercise of that power during their sitting at Westminster, being a lively representation of the extent of power which all counsels & synods under an orthodox magistrate ever enjoyed or ought to have, I wonder much they would ascribe judicial authority to ministers in synods, which they themselves had not, never looked for, were not to have, and which they never saw practised before in any assemblies convocated by the magistrate.  
4. Had the Lord Jesus Christ instituted a jurisdiction distinct and independent from the magistrate, they were to disclaim that ordinance which delegated a power which was none of their own, but was derived immediately from Christ, not by the intervention and the channel of the magistrate, unto themselves as ministers of Christ: and if any ordinance before their sitting was to be expected, it was not to be directed to the ministers, but to the people, who were to be enjoined to suffer the ministers to exercise that jurisdiction which they authoritatively challenge from Jesus Christ.  
5. Had the jurisdiction of the Assembly been acknowledged, the magistrate, as our brethren the Scots speak, should have submitted to all resolutions of the Assembly, being no longer humble advices, but canons, decrees and laws made authoritatively, by the Governors of churches under jesus Christ.  
But what sense can be given to these words, when they say, there is a government distinct from the magistrate? Is it such a distinction as is betwixt subordinate's, or betwixt coordinates'? If the magistrates power and the presbyterian power are coordinates', each must needs be independent one from the other; which how inconsistent it is under one magistrate, we have discussed in another place. If these powers be subordinate, it must be one of these three ways: 1. in coercive power; 2. in judgement or judicial determinations, that are to pass for laws, obliging all sorts of people to obedience either active or passive: 3. in the affinity of power in nature and definition, which necessarily imports subordination betwixt them. 1. For matter of coercive power, the ecclesiastical having none, they must be beholden to another power, which indeed makes it to be power; all external power and jurisdiction being but children's play, ens rationis, a bubble, a name without a thing, without a power of coercion. 2. For judgement; if ecclesiastical men cannot execute their power without the magistrate, the question will be whether he shall execute their injunctions as a judge and interpreter, or as a sergeant and executioner, not interpreting the commands of the court, but fulfilling them with a blind obedience and judgement: for there is no medium betwixt these two. If as a judge, than he ought to judge of the judgements of ministers, ere he doth command them to be observed; and so in a manner all determinations of ministers will be but counsels and advices, seeing before they have force of law and of rule, they must receive the ultimate judgement and approbation from the magistrate. 3. Subordination of powers implieth affinity of definition and nature betwixt the subordinate's: as Surgery being subordinate to Medicine, proveth the affinity betwixt Medicine and Surgery. Yea, if subordinate jurisdictions stand in pari gradu, and in equal distance from the power they are subordinate unto, it argueth an identity of jurisdictions among them: as if the jurisdiction of a college of physicians and of a corporation of merchants be both subordinate to one magistrate, it is manifest that the jurisdiction of that college and of that corporation are but one, as springing from one head of jurisdiction; thus if the jurisdictions of a church and of a corporation are of equal distance in subordination from one springhead of jurisdiction, no doubt the jurisdiction of that church and of that corporation are but one jurisdiction.  
Now that the nature of the jurisdiction of pastors, churches and synods, is the same with that of magistracy, & needeth not to be coordinate with it, it is evident by many proofs.  
1. There is the same use of judgement, prudence and discretion: as by the same yard one may measure cloth, silk and thread; so may the same wise political head, and the same prudence and discretion govern a state, a church, and a family. Dionysius the tyrant used to say, he did employ the same art in governing his school at Corinth, and his Kingdom of Sicily.  
2. There is the same nature of law in both jurisdictions: for the nature of the law consisteth not in its being just, equal and honest; but in its being published by him or them that are invested with magistracy. The better men, (that is, not the wiser and the most rational, but the richer and the most potent) give law to the rest. The philosophers permit us to weigh and interpret their laws; but the magistrate enjoineth blind obedience to his. Seneca saith that the magistrates law doth not dispute, but commandeth: and Tully in his th●…d book de natura Deorum saith, I am to receive from thee, O philosopher, satisfaction from reason; but I am to yield to the laws that our ancestors have delivered us, though they give no reason. In like manner all presbyterian synods, namely the general assembly of Scotland, do not give so much leave to inferior ecclesiastical judicatories or private persons, to examine their decrees by a judgement of discretion, as those of Beroea took to themselves when they examined St. Paul's doctrine, and searched the Scripture, to know whether it was so as he preached: for their ecclesiastical constitutions have force of law, only because they have the sanction of an ecclesiastical assembly, and are not to be disputed by any inferior judicatory; whereas the nature of an ecclesiastical law should be quite different from the civil, viz. that it should not be the product of a jurisdiction compelling or requiring to assent or obey, except the inward man be persuaded and convinced. It may be our presbyterian brethren will say that, for example, excommunication hath no further validity of sentence, then as it is just, and done deservedly: which indeed proves the nullity of all excommunications; for all being done in the name of Christ, all must needs be just and valid, and every one excommunicating in the name of Christ should excommunicate infallibly, and his excommunication should be an effect of an unerring judgement; which till it be known to be infallible, a man may justly question the validity of his excommunication.  
3. In this also there is a great affinity and agreement betwixt the jurisdiction they call ecclesiastical, and the civil (and therefore no need to make two of one;) that ecclesiastical presbyterian jurisdiction is bounded by the same limits as is the civil jurisdiction, which is against the nature of all other jurisdictions different from the magistrates power, though subordinate to it, as is the marital and paternal powers; none doubting but a father in England hath a power over his son in France, and that a wife is subject to her husband however distant from him. Now it is granted by all, that the jurisdiction of churches combined, and that of synods never went beyond the magistrates jurisdiction; that the churches of Persia, Aethiopia and India were not tied to observe the deciees of the first council of Nice, nor the reformed churches of France those of the synod of Dordrecht, neither the church of Barwick to submit to the orders of the general assembly of Scotland: and yet some do not stick to maintain, that a man excommunicated in Scotland, is also bound by the same sentence in France or Holland, because, if we may believe them, it is reasonable that the sphere of activity within which excommunication acteth should as much spread down wards as upwards; and that since a man bound by excommunication at Edinburgh is also tied in heaven, good reason he should be bound and fast in any part of the earth.  
4. This also which all churches, classes and synods assume, makes their jurisdiction wholly concurring in nature and property with the jurisdiction of the magistrate; which is, that as in all civil and political assemblies, the major and the stronger part in votes, not in reasons, doth carry it; so decrees and canons, because the major part have voted them to be such, are therefore receivable by inferior ecclesiastical judicatories, as they call them: whereas, since they pretend that ecclesiastical jurisdiction is of a quite different nature from that of the magistrate, it were most convenient that it should not be like it in this main particular, but that private men or churches should adhere to truth, not to multitude; not numbering the votes, but weighing the reasons.  
And indeed this was well considered by the Parliament, in their ordinance for calling of the assembly: for though they took upon themselves that power of legislation & jurisdiction, whose votes are not weighed, but numbered, and which cannot be otherwise exercised in this world; yet they very prudently conceived, that such a jurisdiction could not be assumed by churchmen, as such, in matters of religion: for they never intended, that whatsoever should be transacted or defined by the major part of the ministers of the Assembly, should be received for a canon and an ecclesiastical law, that should stand in force; since they expressly enjoin, in the rules which they prescribed to the assembly, 1. that their decisions and definitions should be presented to the Parliament, not under the name of law made to them, but of humble advice; 2. that no regard should be had to the number of the persons dissenting or assenting, but that each party should subscribe their names to their opinion.  
5. Another argument to prove that the ecclesiastical and the magistrates power are not coordinate, but that the ecclesiastical is subordinate to that of the magistrate, and that they both are of the same nature, is, that both of them, magistrate and ministers, challenge not only the duty of messengers from God, in delivering to the people the laws of God; but also as judges exercise power about making new laws, which do oblige to obedience for conscience sake: for the assemblies & presbyteries of Scotland do not only press obedience to the laws expressly set down in Scripture, but also to their canons, decrees and constitutions.  
6. Another argument to prove the identity of the powers ecclesiastical and civil is, that both are conversant about laws and constitutions that are made by men: such are most of the canons and constitutions of synods and ecclesiastical assemblies, which are no more express Scripture then the Instinian Code: and therefore it is altogether needless to constitute two coordinate humane legislative powers.  
7. But suppose that all the decrees, canons, constitutions of presbyteries and church-assemblies were word of God, and divine precepts, this very thing, that they are divine constitutions, and that one jurisdiction or other must be conceived enjoining by a sanction, and commanding obedience to them, argueth that ecclesiastical and civil jurisdiction are but one: For what can the ecclesiastical jurisdiction do more, then to give a sanction to the laws of God? which thing the magistrate is to do. If he must give a sanction to the decalogue, why not to all other precepts which are equally of divine institution?  
8. It is absurd to put under the Gospel a difference betwixt the jurisdiction or law of Christ, and the law of God the universal Monarch, as Mr. Gillespie speaketh p. 261. for there is no precept of the decalogue, there is nothing good, holy, honest and of good report, but is the law of Jesus Christ: and therefore since the magistrate cannot be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a minister of God, as St. Paul calls him, but he must be a minister of Jesus Christ, and that he cannot be keeper of the decalogue and of the law of God under Moses administration, but he must be also the keeper of the law of Christ; what need to constitute two coordinate judicial powers, each of them being pari gradu subordinate to Jesus Christ?  
Lastly, if the Kingdom of Jesus Christ is not of this world, and that this Kingdom, as our brethren tell us, is the presbyterian government, than this Kingdom must have a jurisdiction and laws quite different from the Kingdom and jurisdiction of this world; which yet doth not prove true by the parallels we have made of both jurisdictions.  
Mr. Gillespie, a member of that Assembly, pag. 85. endeavoureth to show what a wide difference there is betwixt these two jurisdictions, in their nature, causes, objects, adjuncts: but I might upon the same grounds maintain the like wide difference betwixt martial, naval, testamental, paternal, marital and civil power; all differing, and yet subordinate to that of the magistrate. I might also attribute to each society its peculiar power; placing in a college of physicians a medical power, subordinate to God the God of bodies, health and outward safety, as the civil is subordinate to the God of the Universe, and the ecclesiastical to Christ. For if the God of nations hath instituted the civil power, and the God of saints the ecclesiastical, as Mr. Gillespie speaketh; what hinders but that the God of nature hath instituted the medical power? And if moral good be the object of the civil power, and spiritual good of the spiritual power; why may not bodily health be the object of the medical power?   

CHAPTER VI.  
Whether jesus Christ hath appointed a jurisdiction called ecclesiastical, as King and head of his Church. Of the nature of the Kingdom of God. In what sense the magistrate is head of the Church.  
WE proceed to examine what the River. Assembly say, that Jesus Christ hath instituted this ecclesiastical ●…sdiction as King and head of his Church. Mr. Gillespie, one of their body, and therefore the best interpreter of their meaning, saith in his 2. book chap. 5. that Jesus Christ hath two Kingdoms: 1. a general, as he is the eternal Son of God, the head of all principalities & powers, reigning over all creatures; 2. a particular Kingdom, as he is mediator, reigning over the church only: by which church he understandeth a visible church of saints, combined in such a body as is the church of Scotland, enjoying the ordinances and the discipline of Christ. And of this Kingdom he understandeth Matth. 16. v. 28. There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom. So doth Beza against Erastus, who, with Mr. Gillespie, out of those words of Christ, my Kingdom is not of this world, concludeth two things: 1. that the ecclesiastical government is distinct from the civil or that of the magistrate; 2. that that Kingdom is an aggregation of many churches under one presbytery.  
In the 6. chap. of the same book he is very prolix to prove, that Jesus Christ, as mediator and head of the Church, hath not appointed the magistrate to be his viceregent in the government of the church in the second acception.  
I confess that the holy Scripture mentioneth two Kingdoms; but that both these be visible ones, I deny flatly: particularly, that Jesus Christ is called King and head of the church, in reference to the visible congregations of Christians, or that by the body of Christ is meant the visible assembly of those that make outward profession of the Christian religion.  
Let us then consider in this Kingdom of Jesus Christ as mediator, the nature of the King and head, of his sceptre, sword, power, weapon's, keys, fullness; that so we may see if all these qualifications, yea if any one of these are proper to any visible church particular and national.  
Both Rivet and Reynolds, in their comments upon the 110. Psalm, make this Kingdom wholly spiritual, not of this world, much less seen in this world, though known to be in this world. It is that Kingdom which is many times mentioned in the Gospel; but never once taken for a visible government of men professing outwardly the name of Christ, but for the Kingdom of grace, and that government which Christ hath over those whom he ruleth by his spirit of adoption. The keys of this Kingdom are the door of utterance in the ministry, whereby men have entrance: these keys keep out from coming in those that are without doors, but never put out any that are once in; and therefore most absurd it is to ground the power of excommunication upon the power of the keys, committed by Jesus Christ to the Apostles: if the Kingdom of which Christ speaketh is the Kingdom of heaven or of grace, will they say that an excommunicated person is put o● of the Kingdom of grace? The sceptre and sword of this Kingdom is the word of God. The weapons are not carnal; nor are they used to the putting a man out by excommunication: but to the pulling down the strong holds of sin; not by tying a man with church-censures, but bringing into captivity his imaginations to the obedience of Christ. This truth broke through the darkness of popery, and was acknowledged by those that were oppressed by the Pope's tyranny: so in the year 1080. the advocate of the Emperor confut. 9 saith, that the preaching of Gregory the 7. was new, since the church had no other sword then that of the spirit, which was the word of God. This language was acknowledged by the canonists to be in the mouths of the Pope's adversaries, who yet kept within the communion of Rome, never dreaming of a Wicleff or a Luther; as can. inter. 33. quest. 3. Ecclesia non habet gladium nisi spiritualem, qui non occidit, sed vivisificat.  
The law of this Kingdom is not the discipline or censure of the church, but the law both of the Gospel and of faith, called also the law of the spirit. For by the power of that Kingdom, described by the holy Ghost in the new Testament, and mentioned in 50. places, is not in any of them understood the ecclesiastical power, or any such thing as the power of ministers, presbyteries, synods, to make decrees, canons, to determine authoritatively, to suspend, excommunicate and absolve: but always is meant that power that translateth from darkness to light, and from the power of satan unto God; by which we are made sons of God, joh. 1. v. 12. by which we are enlightened, Act. 26. v. 18. and raised unto newness of life.  
The fullness of that Kingdom is, the saving gifts and graces given to the members. The head of this Kingdom is Jesus Christ, our King, Priest and Prophet, ruling by his spirit his subjects which are his members, offering, satisfying and interceding only for them, teaching none savingly but them.  
There is no governor 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 governor's 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 general calling and duty, their persecutions, afflictions, maladies; and particularly the ministers of the Gospel are main agents in God's hands for the building up of that Kingdom. What they know they do, is the least part of their ministry; they themselves being ignorant, what and how they work by it in men's hearts. God's chief minister is Christ in the word: the power is the efficacious working of the word: the keys 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 effectual on those that of unwilling are rendered willing: so that it is rather the jurisdiction of the word, then of the minister: for the ministers operation in the ministry is like to that of the artists in their chemical operations, where they are rather spectators than 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, pouring 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 inquire, 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 than of other societies: for as the callings of a physician, merchant, smith, seaman, so of a Christian, as Christian and church-member, 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 itself.  
In that sense the magistrate may be said, for these three or four reasons, to be head of a visible national 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 needless to make of one power two; and therefore the magistrate being the supreme governor in the managing of that power exercised alike in all kinds of societies within his dominion, he may very properly be the supreme governor 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 external 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 virtue 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 Gospel of Christ in England, than all the godly ministers put together in the days of Queen Mary.  
Let but one single magistrate countenance religion, this will avail more than thousands of greenham's 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 stress of duty laid upon Queen Elizabeth to advance Christ's Kingdom in England, then on 100 Bradfords, Latimers and Ridleys in Queen Mary's days.  
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 rendered 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, until 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 synods 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 styled the sovereign judge, head, ruler, and governor 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, godliness and happiness. The 1. is provisio mediorum conducentium ad finem optimum, provision of the means conducing to the best end: 2. remotio impedientium, the removing of hindrances: 3. actualis directio in illum finem, an actual direction & ordering things to that end.  
These 3. conditions Javellus a Romish Bishop lays down to assert the sovereign 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 ecclesiastical court to a superior ecclesiastical court; and saith, that from an ecclesiastical court to a civil, as to the magistrate, there is no appeal, but a removal by a declinator, a complaint, a refuge. But we having proved that synods, presbyteries, etc. 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 superior 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 sovereign magistrate, and why may it not be lawful for subjects to appeal from the judgements of subjects to the supreme magistrate? and why may it not be lawful to the supreme magistrate to review the judgements of his subjects, to ratify 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 redress him, help him, and disannul the first sentence. I confess, 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 disannul 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 superior that could relieve them, and quash the sentence against them; they repaired to him only as to a mediator and intercessor.  
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 governor of the church than the sovereign magistrate: but I will not trouble the reader with many quotations. Yet to show that this is no new doctrine, I might produce some famous Romish authors, who thought no less 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 Gregory of Tours, and the practice 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 showeth, that the Bishops of that time did hold, the King, assisted by his counsel 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 council of Orleans, and not to King Clovis. So speaketh the author of the Review of the council of Trent, lib. 6. cap. 5. The ecclesiastics in France do not hold their ecclesiastic jurisdiction from the Pope, but from the King; though the jesuits teach otherwise.   

CHAPTER VII.  
The strength of Mr. Gillespies reasons, to disprove that the magistrate is not chief governor of the church under Christ, examined.  
ALl that I have said doth sufficiently overthrow what Mr. Gillespie allegeth for a double jurisdiction, and against the magistrates being the chief governor of the church under Christ. To make good that, in a hundred places he doth much under value the magistrates power in sacred things: namely p. 187. that the magistrate, though Christian and godly, doth not exnatura rei, and in regard of his particular vocation, intent the glory of jesus Christ, as mediator and King of the church. In the next page; The glory of jesus Christ, as mediator and King of the church, is not the end of magistracy. And in the same page he saith, that the end of magistracy is not godliness & honesty, but peace and quietness. Pag. 235. he saith, the magistrate is not to rule in the name of Christ. Pag. 250. he saith, the magistrate of England is not a member of the church as a magistrate, but as a Christian. In the 294. page; the civil magistrate is God's viceregent, not Christ's: and ibid. If the magistrate be supreme head and governor of the church under Christ, than the ministers of the church are the magistrates ministers as well as Christ's, and must act in the magistrates name, and as subordinate to him; and the magistrate shall be Christ's minister, and act in Christ's name.  
By all this he declareth his opinion, more than he proveth it. But to elude whatever strength this carries, I further add, that God maketh use of two main instruments to promote and advance the Kingdom of Christ as mediator.  
1. The first is the sacred function, wholly set a part by God to preach the glad tidings of God reconciled to the world: which function was first laid on Christ, and then on the Apostles and the ministers of the Gospel, who are embassadors and messengers of & from Christ. In this function there is no jurisdiction annexed, but what the spirit in the word hath upon men's hearts for their conviction and conversion. In the exercise of this function there is no law made by him that bears it, but the law of the spirit; no censure inflicted, but on such as either willingly and not by constraint undergo it, and chose whether they will or no; or when it pleaseth God in judgement to afflict the despisers of God's ministers & ordinances. This function, I grant, is not exercised in the magistrates name, but Christ's, nor is it subordinate to him.  
2. The second thing servient (if I may so speak) and subservient to the promoting of the Kingdom of Christ, is the magistrate and magistracy; in as much as (which I said before) it cannot be that ministers and people assemble, synods be called, an outward government settled, laws published, good men rewarded, bad men punished, heresies and heretics rejected, ministers maintained, union preserved, except ministers, people, synods be invested with a power of magistrate and magistracy.  
These two, as I suppose, being undeniably true, all Mr. Gillespies assertions  will be found built upon the sand. The magistrate having not the sacred function on him, is no minister nor ambassador of and from Christ, neither doth the inward operative jurisdiction annexed to the sacred function arise from magistracy ex natura rei. In that regard the minister preaching the Gospel, and exercising his pastoral function, is not the magistrates minister, but Christ's. But as magistracy is the second necessary instrument which God employeth to promote the Kingdom of his Son in the world; and for as much as it cannot be so much as imagined, that magistracy is inherent in all pastors and assemblies of churches and synods; no doubt but the ministers in that consideration may be called the magistrates ministers, as both in the same respect are Christ's ministers. If Christ's Kingdom cannot be nor ever was promoted without magistracy actually present and acting, than the magistrate is a main minister of Christ in those acts.  
Reverend and learned Mr. Lightfoot, in his Harmony of the New Testament, upon the 1 Cor. 5. clearly evinceth, that church-officers cannot be so much as conceived to govern the churches without magistracy either assumed or delegated: for having told us, that every synagogue of the Jews had magistracy within their own body, judging betwixt party and party in matters of money, Health, damage, yea inflicting corporal punishments; he addeth, all things well considered, it may not be so monstrons as it seems to some, to say, it might very well be so in those times of Christian congregations: for since, as it might be showed, Christ and his Apostles, in platforming the model of Christian churches in those times, did keep very close to the platform of synagogues; and since the Romans in those times made no difference betwixt jews judaizing, and jews that were turned Christians, for as yet there was no persecution raised against Christianity; why might not Christian congregations have and exercise their double function of ministry and magistracy in them, as well as the jewish synagogues? and if that much controverted place, 1 Tim. 5. 17. should be interpreted according to such a rule, it were neither irrational nor improbable. Here by the way one may see, that in synagogues there were several functions, but one Imperium and jurisdiction, which was that of magistracy; 2. that the churches of Christians were modelled according to jewish synagogues; 3. that every church had both ministry and magistracy.  
By this likewise down goeth what he saith, that the magistrate, though Christian and godly, doth not in regard of his particular vocation intent the glory of Jesus Christ, as mediator and King of the church. The main end as well as duty of magistracy is, the care of religion, and so of Christian religion: his aim is, and aught to be, not so much peace and quietness, as godliness and honesty. Must a magistrate hid his power, which is his talon, in a napkin? were not Adam, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by their paternal, magistratical power tied to promote Gods true worship?  
It is very strange doctrine, when he saith p. 189. that the end of an ecclesiastical sentence, as delivering to Satan, is, that men may learn not to blaspheme; but the end of the magistrate in punishing blasphemers, is only that justice may be done according to law, and that peace and good order may be maintained. A rank papist could hardly speak more crudely. Ought not this to be the end of the magistrate in punishing transgressors, if it be not by death, that they may change their lives, and be better than they were? Were not reformation of life the end for which a blasphemer is punished, but only peace and quietness, the magistrate might as well let him go unpunished, if he can but obtain his end, which, as Mr. Gillespie saith, is peace and quietness; which hath been often obtained when no blasphemers were punished. It is observed, that in Augustus' time there was for 12. years through all the Roman Empire peace and quietness, though the life of all his subjects were a perpetual blasphemy against God.  
But, I pray, how can Christ's church be ruled by magistracy, except it be in the name of Christ, promote the interest of Jesus Christ, and aim at the glory of Jesus Christ? When he saith, that the magi●…rate of England is not a member of the church as a magistrate, but as a Christian, and that he governs not as a Christian, but as a magistrate; I confess I understand not, why I may not say as well, that a pastor is not a member of a church as pastor, but as a Christian: for there be in the church as well Balaams and false teachers, as persecuting magistrates. Why may I not say, that a father is not to teach the fear of the Lord to his son as a father, but as a Christian? for the magistrate is not to rule and order affairs of the church as a Christian, but as a magistrate: otherwise a Christian, without the office of magistracy, might do the like. How can the duty about the exercise of a power be divided from the power itself, as that a magistrate should be by his duty of magistracy keeper of both tables, and yet should have no power given from God for the keeping of these tables?  
But, which is most all furred, how can the keeping of the two tables under the Gospel be separate from the keeping of the doctrine and discipline of the Gospel, as that the magistrate should be keeper of one, and the pastors of the other? If the magistrate under the old Testament was keeper not only of the decalogue, but also of the covenant of grace, by which the people of Israel was distinguished from the rest of the world; what hinders but he should be under the Gospels' administration a keeper both of the law and Gospel? except Mr. Gillespie say, that the priests were keepers of the law whereof David speaketh in the 19 Psalm, and the magistrate keeper of the two tables given in mount Sinai.  
As for the magistrates being a member of the church, and therefore no head or governor of the church; I believe he is as much liable to submit and stoop his will to the commands of Christ in the ministry, 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 Gospel as many Jesus Christ's, I would yield unto them all alike jurisdiction over the wills and minds of men; but deny them an external coercive judicial power over their bodies, estates, liberties, etc.   

CHAPTER VIII.  
Mr. Gillespies manifest contradictions in stating the magistrates power in matters of Religion.  
BUt I will plainly show, that in this matter Mr. Gillespie doth manifestly contradict himself, and stands on no sure ground: for what he hath taken from the magistrate in some places, in others he restoreth to him: In some he grants as much to the magistrate as if he had been another Erastus; in others he gives him nothing at all, and makes ecclesiastical and civil jurisdiction to be res disparatae, or things as much different as wisdom and a candlestick, being of several classes and predicaments, so that one hath nothing to meddle with the other. Thus pag. 253. these be his words: We deny that in a well-constituted church, it is agreeable to the will of Christ for the magistrate either to receive appeals, properly so called, from the sentence of an ecclesiastical court, or to receive complaints exhibited against that sentence by that party censured, so as by his authority upon such a complaint to nullify or make void the ecclesiastical censure.  
This indeed is imperium in imperio, a jurisdiction within a jurisdiction, and independent from it. Mr. Gillespie would not have a man to appeal from the presbytery or synod, or make complaints to the magistrate, nor a magistrate to receive the complaints; but he is contented that the magistrate should act the part of an executioner, in compelling the party censured to submit to the church-censure: which indeed is a most ungodly and tyrannical proceeding, like that of Pope Julius the 2. who would have King Lewis the 12. to execute the sentence against the Waldenses by destroying them by the sword, and burning their cities, without taking any cognizance of the fact. And since all church-censures do signify just nothing, without a power of magistracy giving its sanction for effectuating the sentence of the church; here, if we believe Mr. Gillespie, the pastor is like the intellect, and the magistrate the will, this following with a blind obedience the dictates of that.  
But who shall judge, when the church is well constituted, that then the magistrate may not receive complaints and appeals? and may not sometimes wrong proceed und unjust sentences pass in a well-constituted church, so long as a church never so pure is not infallible? and on the contrary, may not an unsettled church be very just in their censures? why then should it be more agreeable to the will of Christ to receive appeals from a just sentence in an unsettled church, then from an unjust one when the church is well-constituted? But when was ever such a well-constituted church, unerring in their judgement, as all appeals from their judgement to another should be unlawful? was or is that church well-constituted, that either ever clashed with magistracy, or was divided in itself, as now it is?  
Now we shall find Mr. Gillespie playing two other parts: under the one he ascribeth to the magistrate as much as ever they challenged; under the other vizard he chalks a middle way of magistrates power in sacred things, in which he seems to give something to the magistrate, but in truth gives nothing: however he is sure to raise a dust of distinctions, that neither satisfy one nor the other.  
Pag. 259. he allegeth the 25. article of the confession of the church of Scotland, which saith, that to Kings, Princes, rulers and magistrates chief and most principally the conservation and the purgation of religion pertaineth; so that not only they are appointed for civil policy, but also for maintenance of the true religion, and for suppressing idolatry, and all superstition what soever.  
He who never had heard of a double jurisdiction, ecclesiastical and civil, or of a power of excommunicating, deposing, making laws, and determining so authoritatively about matters of faith and discipline, that the magistrate is not to revise their judgements, or receive complaints from church-judicatories; he who never, I say, had heard of these positions, would never deduct them by any consequence out of the words of the confession of Scotland quoted by Mr. Gillespie: for quite contrary, they unite all power into one; make the magistrate sole governor of churches, national, provincial, and consistorial, and sole judge of heresies, canous, decrees, and church-censures; and besides overturn all Mr. Gillespies ground, upon which he thinks to have laid very fast the fabric of his ecclesiastical jurisdiction independent from the magistrate; and lastly, reinvest the magistrate with the right and power which Mr. Gillespie hath taken from him, when every where he denieth these three things, 1. that the magistrate as magistrate intends the glory of Jesus Christ, no otherwise then a seaman or a picturedrawer as such, (see p. 187.) 2. that he is to rule in the name of Christ, p. 235. 3. that a magistrate as such is subservient to Christ as mediator. But let us examine by parts the force of the words of the confession of Scotland, and how they agree with Mr. Gillespies usual determinations.  
1. That article of the confession ascribeth to the magistrate at least an equal jurisdiction over ecclesiastical persons and things which he hath over civil, for they say, he is appointed not only for civil policy, but also for maintenance of the true religion: so that equally he is charged by God to extirpate heresies, reform the church, and to purge the Commonwealth from seditions, abuses, crimes, etc.  
2. Yea the article puts a great deal more stress of duty upon the magistrate to govern the church, and maintain and reform the true religion, then to rule the Commonwealth; besides, making the end and aim of magistrates and magistracy not so much peace and quietness, as honesty and godliness; and not so much the glory of his dominions, as that of Jesus Christ.  
3. But how can it be that, as the article saith, the magistrate should be appointed by God chief and principally for maintaining the true religion, for purging it from heresies, schism, idolatry, etc. and yet the while he should not rule in the name of Christ, nor should be subservient to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ as mediator, as Mr. G●llespie speaketh? Can the Lord jesus appoint officers, whose office and place is chief and principally to promote the interest of jesus Christ, and yet those officers shall not intent that which chief they are to intent, and are appointed for, namely the glory of jesus Christ, and the advancement of his Kingdom? How can the article stand with what he saith p. 187. that magistrates as such do not intent the glory of jesus Christ, otherwise then a seaman, a printer, a merchant? So that by what he saith, the magistrates act towards the promoting and advancing Christ's Kingdom hath no more congruity than the act of a physician building a house, which he doth not build as a physician, but as an architect and builder. Thus Mr. Gillespie maketh not a magistrate or magistracy, but his Christian profession, subservient to the interest of jesus Christ.  
4. But how can the magistrates principal duty be to purge religion, extirpate idolatry and heresy, with a power only depending on God, except his judgement, in discerning what is true religion and what idolatry, be as absolute and independent on any judicatory, as his power and duty is? It God hath placed in the same person or persons both a duty and a power to reform and purge religion, sure he hath not denied him the main condition required to the discharge of that duty, and the exercise of that power; and that condition is the duty of a judge, whose judgement of a law or sentence, whether right or wrong, goeth always along with his judical power: so that the magistrate must judge with a judgement of discretion, and approbation of the truth, the goodness & equity of any matter propounded to 〈◊〉 by presbyteries and synods, before it be law, 〈◊〉, decree, or judicial sentence, obliging externally men to obedience.  
This language of the article of the confession of Scotland falls sometimes from Mr. Gillespies pen, as pag. 187. It lies upon the magistrate to advance that high and eminent vocation of his, that Christ may be glorified as King of the church: and p. 191. he saith, magistrates are appointed not only for civil policy, but for the conservation and purgation of religion. But Mr. Gillespie may be well excused, if he let fall such passages from his pen, pulling down with one hand what he hath set up with the other; for Beza, a great advocate of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and by whom it hath taken a great rise, will sometimes thus forget himself, namely in an epistle of his (it is the 83.) to a nameless friend, beating down at one blow his ecclesiastical jurisdiction independent from the magistrate. The words are: Docet nos igitur Dei verbum, etc. The word of God teacheth us, that it is the duty of magistrates, to be even the chief guardians of ecclesiastical order. Therefore their charge is to look and provide, that a presbytery rightly constituted according to the word of God, do act all things lawfully, and when need is, to interpose their authority, that things well judged and constituted be performed, that the ring leaders of disorders be restrained and punished according to their deserts. So likewise it is the office of the presbytery, to implore the aid of the magistrate when needful, and obey him when he rightly admonisheth. Certain it is, the magistrate is made here sole judge, to pronounce when the presbytery is well constituted, and its judgements are right, and to interpose his authority as he seethe cause. And at the end of the epistle, officium magistratus vel hoc praecipuum est, ut qui Domino ministrant legitime vocentur, & rite officio suo fungantur; It is even the chief duty of the magistrate, that those that minister to the Lord be lawfully called, and perform well their office. Thus the magistrate is made judge of the lawfulness of the call, and when ministers discharge their places aright. Sure he that hath the power to judge of the lawfulness of a call, hath likewise power to make the call null and void, in case it be not valid enough in his apprehension and judgement. Good Lord! what need is there to trouble the world with a distinct power from the magistrate, which is thus evacuated and made void by another power?   

CHAPTER IX.  
The concessions of Mr. Gillespie, which come to nothing by the multitude of his evasions and distinctions. The vanity and nullity of his and other men's divisions & distinctions of power. Martyr, Musculus, Gualterus alleged against the naming of a power ecclesiastical, when it is in truth the magistrates power. The positions of Maccovius, about the power of the magistrate in sacred things, not hitherto answered by any.  
THus we see that even Erastus could say no more than 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 weakness & unsoundness, 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 internal power in the ministry, 2. and the external 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, than 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, than the whole bagful of wiles and policies of the fox.  
It were an endless 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 ecclesiastical 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, ecclesiastical 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 politic way, or in an ecclesiastical way: thus they make an ecclesiastical civil power residing in the magistrate.  
Next, they divide ecclesiastical power into intrinsical and extrinsecall, into direct and indirect; the extrinsecall and indirect they yield to the magistrate: thus you have again an ecclesiastical power belonging to the magistrate. Again, they have an objective and formal ecclesiastical power, which needeth a further subdivision to be understood: for they make an objective ecclesiastical power conversant about persons and things; and this, they say, belongeth only to the magistrate; and a formal ecclesiastical power, in which the magistrate hath his share with the ministers: so that of these two ecclesiastical powers, objective and formal, it will prove that the magistrate hath 3. parts, and the ministers but one: for this ecclesiastical formal 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 ecclesiastical way, which they say is the ministers portion.  
Pag. 261. he hath an ecclesiastical power, which he divides into perfect and imperfect, which he calls pro tanto: of this stamp is this division of ecclesiastical power into the power of every way, and the power more suo: which distinctions are so subtle, that they are beyond Scotus apprehension. He hath also a division of ecclesiastical power into imperative and elicitive; this is proper to ministers, that to magistrates: and then an ecclesiastical 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 ecclesiastical power into perfect and imperfect : for whereas they make the perfect ecclesiastical power to belong to the ministers, and the imperfect to the magistrate; here they make the ecclesiastical 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 man's common sense and logic.  
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 several ecclesiastical 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 scandal, and a power under the notion of formality of crime. And, to draw to an end of dividing, they have more divisions of ecclesiastical 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 ministry. Now of all these divisions of ecclesiastical powers, the magistrate hath always 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 ecclesiastical power, brought by Amyraldus and some others, quite different from the rest, being not a dichotomy, but a trichotomie; not a division into two, but three coordinate powers; the one belonging to the magistrate, the second to lay-elders and deputies of the church, and the third appertaining to ministers. These three ecclesiastical powers he maketh to be conspicuous in all ecclesiastical assemblies and synods: where the magistrate hath his ecclesiastical indirect extrinsecall power, as they call it, the ministers have their intrin●…call direct ecclesiastical power, and the lay-elders have a less intrinsecall direct ecclesiastical power, for it hath not found a name yet; for it is (say they) neither of the nature of ecclesiastical power belonging to the magistrate, nor of that which is proper to ministers, but a mongrel ecclesiastical power, in regard they cannot perform by their power those acts that belong either to magistracy or ministry. 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 ecclesiastical policy: and that power, they say, they have common with the magistrate, who over and above hath his ecclesiastical power, which neither the ministers nor lay-elders have any thing to do with. Lastly, the ministers have their ecclesiastical power distinct from the ecclesiastical power of both.  
The bare relating of these divisions of power and modifications of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, is sufficient to confute them; so that there is little need of authority to witness 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. come 13. class. 4. § 9 showeth the little need of multiplying powers, whenas that of the magistrate is sufficient; and that David, Solomon, josias, being civil magistrates, did think that religion belonged to their care; and Constantinus, Theodosius, justinianus, had no greater thought then to constitute the true church of God.  
Musculus is yet more pregnant, loc. come. de magistratibus: what hinders, I pray, but that this may be ecclesiastical, which is done neither by the church itself, nor in the name and by the power of the church, but is done, commanded and enjoined by the magistrate within the church, in the name and power of God, and to procure the good of the church, and repress the evils committed in the church? A little lower he hath these express and golden words: the way and nature of government cannot bear, that in the same people there be two authentic powers, two divers 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 less express: They distinguish betwixt ecclesiastical and political 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 needful in a greater commonwealth, where ordinary magistrates cannot attend all businesses; but these are created by the magistrates authority, and aught to do all by his command, and not lie a peculiar power of their own, distinct from that of the magistrate. Such passages, and many more, I allege in my Paraenesis p. 16. and 17. No marvel if those that recede from the plainness of the Scripture, have knit themselves such nets and wind of powers, in which while they think to be safer they lose themselves.  
With the help of those distinctions and divisions of power, M. Gillespie stretcheth and shorteneth his ecclesiastical power as a leathern point: sometimes lengthening it so far, as that the magistrate may take hold of it by one end; and sometimes giving both ends and the middle into the hands of the ministers.  
I will allege one or two more places out of Mr. Gillespies book, by which his art will appear in extending and contracting his ecclesiastical power; one while making the magistrates and ministers to share the power between them, another while giving to either, all or nothing.  
Pag. 263. speaking of the extent of the ecclesiastical power of the magistrate, he is useful, saith he, and helpful to the Kingdom of Christ the mediator; magistracy being serviceable to purge the church of scandal, to promote the course of the Gospel, and the edification of one another. But how? not perfectly, but protanto; not every way, but more suo; not intrinsically, but extrinsecally; not primarily, but secondarily; not directly, but ex consequent●; not sub formalitate scandali, but sub formalitate criminis, or not under the notion of scandal, but of crime.  
I allege this not to confute it, having elsewhere shown the weakness and nullity of such divisions: what a lame and impotent thing is eccle●asticall power, that needeth so many wooden legs and crutches? But, I pray, doth not the magistrate punish blasphemy as a scandal, and a contagious offence communicative to others?  
Pag. 264. The coercive part, in compelling the obstinate and unruly to submit to the presbyterial and synodical sentence, belongs to the magistrate: not as if the magistrate had nothing to do but to be an executioner of the pleasure of church officers, or as if he were by a blind and implicit faith to constrain all men to stand to their determination; God forbidden. The magistrate must have his full liberty to judge of that which he is to compel men to do; to judge of it not only judicio apprehensivo, by understanding and apprehending aright what it is, but judicio discretivo, by the judgement of Christian prudence and discretion, examining by the word of God the grounds, reasons, and warrants of the thing, that he may in faith, and not doubtingly, add his authority thereto: in which judging he doth judicare, not judicem agere; that is, he is judex suarum actionum, he judgeth whether he ought to add his civil authority to this or that which seemeth good to church-officers, and doth not concur therewith, except he be satisfied in his conscience.  
Whoever examineth narrowly the extent of power which he yields to belong to the magistrate, will soon discover that all the ecclesiastical power is to be managed by the magistrate. 1. He maketh all synodical or presbyterian power to be of no force, without a coercive power: 2. that the magistrate must have his full liberty to judge of the sentence, before he causeth it to be executed: 3. that the magistrate having both the last judgement of approbation, and of that they call imperative, or command, to yield obedience to the declarations and sentences of synods or consistories, it is plain, he is the sovereign judge of all ecclesiastical judgements, sentences and debates, and that they are but counsels and advices, till the magistrate approveth of them, and commandeth them.  
This single passage of Mr. Gillespie granted unto him, might serve for an answer to all his book, & would overthrow all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. And indeed all the controversy lieth in the narrow compass of these few lines of his, the matter of which by right should have been the main subject and bulk of his book, and not have been so slightly passed over: for this is the very hinge, on which Gualterus and Maccovius conceive that the whole controversy betwixt Erastus and his opposites hung, and which, as it is stated by Maccovius, will give a bone to pick till doomsday to the assertors of an ecclesiastical jurisdiction; it is a Gordian knot, which they will never disentangle, but by cutting of it, the truth of it being so undeniable, that it was never answered by Walaeus, Apollinus, Triglandius, nor by Mr. Gillespie, who indeed in this paragraph allegeth the substance of Maccovius positions, but doth not answer them to any purpose.  
The three positions of Maccovius are brought by several in various terms, but all to the same purpose, and are these.  
1. It is the duty of the magistrate to look and take order that the word of God be preached with purity, that the Sacraments and the discipline of the church be duly administered, and to make a diligent enquiry into the ministers performing of these, and to punish them if either they miss, or do amiss in the discharge of their places. Which words of Maccovius, Rivetus upon the decalogue doth express in equivalent terms. It is the duty of ministers to infuse doctrine, to wound by censures, to administer the sacraments immediately and personally, and, as they speak, ex officio, by their office. Now the magistrate, under whose authority these things are to be done, if ministers do not perform them, by his grave and commanding power may and aught to force them, and enjoin them to do these things, and to do them well; and to punish them that do otherwise then they should do.  
2. The second position of Maccovius is; Since no determinations or sentences of presbyteries and synods have any force of obligation in them to obedience, without the sanction of the magistrate; therefore not the presbyteries and synods, but the magistrate is the supreme judge, giver and maker of all constitutions, sentences and determinations of consistories and synods.  
3. The third is; The magistrate is either to put his seal of sanction, and give his judgement of approbation to all the judgements, sentences and definitions of synods, with a blind judgement, and stand, without disputing within himself, to what they agreed and decreed among themselves; or he must disapprove those things that in his own apprehension are not good and convenient, and approve what he conceiveth to be true, just and fit. Whatever the opposers chose, they are at a stand; for they make the magistrate either a sovereign judge and arbiter over all ecclesiastical matters, or a sergeant and blind executioner of the judgements and sentences of synods and presbyteries.  
Mr. Gillespie being not able any way to make invalide the strength of these positions of Maccovius, only saith, that the magistrate, in having the last view and cognizance of all ecclesiastical determinations, and giving his sanction to them, does not judicem agree, but jud●care; which I know not how to English, but that in so doing he doth not the part of a judge, and yet doth judge of the thing. But what strength hath this? That man doth the part of a judge, in whose power and breast it is to make valid and currant, or to disannul whatever is debated and determined by others. Of much like strength is it, when he saith, that the magistrate judgeth whether he ought to add his civil authority to this or that, which seemeth good to church-officers, and doth not concur therewith, except he be satisfied in his conscience. Which if he may do, the magistrate hath as much as Maccovius proveth to belong to him: for in that he is not satisfied, and doth not concur with the judgements of church-officers, he maketh all their judgements void & null & of no force, to oblige either actively or passively any man or assembly under his jurisdiction. Had not the states of the low-countries' approved and ratified the synod of Dordrecht, their decrees would have been but counsels, advices, and answers of prudent and wise men, and had not put any obligation upon the ministers, churches, schools and academies within their dominions, more than upon England or France, to be conformable to their determinations.  
Next, in the conclusion, Mr. Gillespie saith, that this doth not make him supreme judge and governor in ecclesiastical causes, which is the prerogative of jesus Christ; nor yet doth it invest the magistrate with the subordinate ministerial forinsecal directive judgement in ecclesiastical things or causes, which belongeth to an ecclesiastical, not to a civil court.  
I understand not wherefore he bringeth this; for what he hath said before doth sufficiently evince the magistrate to be sovereign judge and governor over all persons, and in all ecclesiastical causes and censures, so long as they are of no force, and cannot be brought to execution, except the magistrate approves of them, and commands them. It seemeth Mr. Gillespie, by these words, would put it to the vote, who must be the supreme judge and governor in ecclesiastical causes; whether the ministers, or the magistrate. It is sure enough, if we believe him, the magistrate must not be. It remains then that the ministers should be the supreme judges and governors: for all M. Gillespies drift is, to take from the magistrate that which he saith duly pertaineth to the ministers, and in short, to put, as he conceiveth, the saddle upon the right horse. For to what end should he except against the magistrates being invested with the power of supreme judgement and government in ecclesiastical causes, but to reinvest the ministers into it, and to declare, that that usurpation in the magistrate was done to the prejudice and wrong of the ministers, to whom it is due by right?  
Here then Mr. Gillespie maketh the ministers of the Gospel supreme judges and governors in ecclesiastical causes; whereas he always before declined those titles, as belonging only to and being the prerogative of Jesus Christ. But suppose ministers in synods and consistories had also the coercive power, and were invested with that external jurisdiction, that giveth force and sanction to all their censures; this, I trow, would not make them more or less supreme judges and governors in ecclesiastical causes, than the magistrate invested with the same power. Since then the magistrate takes no more upon himself, than such an external jurisdiction as ministers might well assume by the delegation or concession of the magistrate; why should Mr. Gillespie hence infer, that this power in magistrates maketh not them supreme judges and governors, whenas the same jurisdiction laid upon ministers neither maketh them supreme judges and governors in ecclesiastical causes? No hurt then to the magistrate by this inference, only that it seemeth to acknowledge, that some do hold the magistrate to be supreme judge and governor in ecclesiastical causes, giving him a prerogative which belongeth only to Jesus Christ. I believe none of his opposites spoke in that crude manner. Magistrates are not unerring judges; they fail many times in their judgement, both declarative and of discretion: so do the ministers; and therefore there is no supreme visible judge and governor in ecclesiasticals, to whose decisions, determinations and commands a conscience is obliged to yield further than it is enlightened or convinced: for there being a tribunal in every one's conscience, usual appeals are made to it from the magistrate, yea from the sentences of synods and presbyteries. This is the prerogative of Jesus Christ, by a sovereign judgement and determination to resolve the intellect, incline the will, and convince the conscience. The magistrate is not made by any of Mr. Gillespies opposites, as far as I know, otherwise supreme head or governor in ecclesiastical causes, than Martyr, Zanchius, Pareus, etc. make him head of the church.  
He further saith, that what he stated about the power of the magistrate in ecclesiastical things, doth not invest him with the subordinate ministerial forinsecal judgement in ecclesiastical things or causes. I think, if Scotus were living, he would hardly understand what is the meaning of ministerial forinsecal directive judgement; for the word ministerial is no way forinsecal: for the stile of forinsecal maketh the minister sit in a court of judicature as the judges at Westminister Hall, giving sentence which both parties must stand to, except they can appeal, or expect a redress in a superior court. Again, the word directive agreeth no better with forinsecal, than the Papal title of servant of servants with God on earth, and the spouse of Christ: for whereas the word forinsecall giveth no leave to the plaintiff or defendant to interpret the judgement of the court to his own sense or apprehension; on the contrary the word directive doth it, and giveth those that attend the word, and hearken to the directions of the minister, a privilege like that which St. Paul yieldeth to the people of Beroea, who having heard St. Paul, would be well satisfied ere they gave credit to him; for they searched the Scriptures, to know whether it was so as St. Paul would have them to do, or as he said unto them, and gave them directions.   

CHAPTER X.  
Whether the Lord jesus Christ hath appointed, as the River. Assembly saith, officers in government distinct from the magistrate. The strength of the place 2 Chron. 19 by them alleged, examined: That the elders in that place are not church-officers. An answer to Mr. Gillespies arguments, endeavouring to prove that josaphat appointed two courts, one ecclesiastical, another civil.  
IT remaineth in the examen of the first section of the 30. chapter of the confession, we should speak a word of the church-officers, in whose hands the River. Assembly saith a government was appointed distinct from the civil magistrate.  
God indeed hath appointed in the church, officers distinct from the magistrate; as he hath appointed in the law the magistracy of Moses to be distinct from the Priesthood of Aaron, and the Priests and Levites to have a distinct function from that of the rulers, elders, captains, judges, etc. But God never appointed the jurisdiction of Aaron and of the Priests and Levites to be distinct from that of Moses and of the supreme magistrate; nor ever meant with the diversity of offices and officers to introduce a diversity and distinction of jurisdictions. For were the jurisdiction exercised by church-officers of so distinct a nature from the magistrates jurisdiction, as the paternal jurisdiction is distinct from the marital, and both from that of the magistrate; one could not thence infer, that they are not all three subordinate to one superior jurisdiction: Coordinate jurisdictions, as of fathers, husbands, masters of families, Majors of towns, are all subordinate to one supreme jurisdiction.  
But to prove that church-officers are not appointed by God in a government distinct from that of the magistrate, but in subordination to it, the reverend Assembly make use of one place of Scripture, in their humble advice for government; which though they quote in the behalf of a double jurisdiction, yet it doth totally overthrow it: their words are;  
As there were in the jews Church elders of the people joined with the priests and Levites in the government of the church, (as appeareth in 2 Chronic. 19 v. 8, 9, 10. etc.) so Christ, who hath instituted a government and governor's ecclesiastical in the church, hath furnished some in his church besides the ministers of the word with gifts for government, and with commission to execute the same when called thereunto; who are to join with the ministers in the government of the church, Rom. 12. 7, 8. 1 Cor. 12. v. 28. which officers reform churches commonly call Elders.  
One party or other is mightily mistaken, and do wrest the Scripture against the sense of the holy Ghost, so clearly manifested in the literal meaning. I wish with all my heart, that as the reverend Divines and Mr. Gillespie propound to the Christian church, that of the Jews for an example of jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate; so they would take no other umpire and judge, to make good that double jurisdiction, than this text they have chosen: for I am confident, they will find their condemnation in it; no place in the Scripture more evidently asserting the confusion of jurisdictions amongst the Jews then this. Me thinks the presbyterians & anti-presbyterians both drawing this text to their advantage, are like Salmasius and the ministers of Leyden, about the question of wearing long or short hair; the ministers making use of the same text 1 Cor. 11. against long hair, that Salmasius doth against short. But the whole context, from the 8 verse to the end of the chapter, is wholly for us.  
1. The text saith verse 8. that josaphat appointed for the judgement of the Lord and for controversies, Levites, Priests and chiefs of the families of Israel: here than you have first no distinction of judicatories, but rather of the heads either of families, or so called for their wisdom, from all the 12. tribes of Israel, to one judicatory or Sanedrim, as the Rabbins & the best interpreters think.  
2. In setting them over affairs there is no distinction mentioned, as that the Priests & Levites should manage the ecclesiastical, & the heads of families the civil; for expressly all kinds of debates, about matters criminal & not criminal, were to be judged by them jointly. So then the elders of the Jewish church cannot be a fit parallel with the elders of the church of the new Testament; since the elders under the old Testament were judges even in capital causes, but under the new they were not: besides that the elders under the old Testament were to make but one council & one judicatory with the Commonwealth, with the Judges and Princes of the land; but neither the Rev. Assembly nor M. Gillespie will allow the elders of the new Testament, to have any thing to do to sit as church-officers with the judges of the land, and to decide causes betwixt blood and blood.  
3. But the eleventh verse, concerning Amariah the chief Priest appointed to be over all matters of the Lord, and Zebadiah for the King's businesses, doth further clear, that there was no such thing amongst the Jews, as a government distinct from that of the magistrate; though many cry here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if it were a strong place for a distinct and double jurisdiction: for it is plain here, that Amariah the chief Priest was appointed to be, as Mr. Gillespie confesseth p. 146. the Nasi or Prince of the Sanedrim, and chief ruler of the Senate, whereof mention is made in the 8. verse, and which was made up of Priests, Levites, and the elders of the people of Israel, and judged of such causes and matters as usually a high court of Parliament do. This Amariah, in that place of chief-presidency in the Senate, is said to be over all matters of the Lord; because, as all manner of laws, constitutions and ordinances, were all from God the author and latour, and from Moses under God the giver of them all; so every matter or business concerning any of those laws violated and broken, or that needeth further explanation, by reason of the infinity of cases, and the seeming contradictions between one law and another, was truly and properly called the matter of the Lord, and was debated in the Senate: for no doubt all causes about ceremonial laws, and judgements concerning degrees of marriages, inheritances and such like, were as well matter of the Lord, as the judgement of leprosy, sacrifices and the like. In that Senate which debated such matters of the Lord, was Amariah Mr. Speaker. Mr. G●…spie acknowledgeth that he was the ruler and judge of the people, for thus he speaketh p. 140. that the high Priest was a ruler of the people, as well as of the Priests and Levites, is man fest from Act. 23. v. 5. where Paul applieth to the high Priest that law, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. Thus M●. Gillespie pleadeth for us, with as strong arguments as we could ever produce for ourselves: viz. 1. that the jurisdiction of the high Priest, as such, was not distinct from that of the magistrate, neither before nor since Christ's time; 2. that his jurisdiction was not annexed to the Priestly office, but to the office of a judge and ●uler of the land; 3. that he judged of the matters of the Lord as judge, ruler and Prince of the Senate, and not as a high Priest; 4. that, there being not two Senates, as Mr. Gillespie acknowledgeth, in Christ's time, nor before his time, one ecclesiastical, another civil; that one S●nate that was standing could not properly be called either ecclesiastical or civil, ●ut the magistrates Senate, endowed with one, and that external, jurisdiction in all causes and matters, and over all persons.  
4. Now for Zebadiah, the case is clear, that he was appointed either Steward, or Mr. Controller, it may be chamberlain of the King's household; or rather a principal minister not of State, but set over his family, lands, armies, moneys, jewels, etc.  
5. This alone, that jehosaphat appointed both Amariah and Zebadiah to be chief magistrates and rulers, one over the matters of God, the other of the King, evinceth, that all jurisdiction was united in the King, depended on him, and was subordinate to him. For it is plain out of josephus, lib. 9 cap. 1. that these two magistrates, Amariah and Zebadiah, and the setting of them over the matter of God and the business of the King, was an act of sovereign jurisdiction or of magistracy; summos magistratus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex amicorum numero praeposuit.  
6. The matter judged in that Sanedrim where Amariah was Speaker, argueth that it was no ecclesiastical court. Mr. Gillespie understandeth betwixt blood and blood, not of capital offences, but concerning forbidden degrees of marriages. Which though it were, he must prove that matrimonial causes belonged to the cognizance not of civil, but of ecclesiastical tribunals; which no man will ever be able to prove.  
7. To take away all doubt, but that Amariah was appointed the chief ruler of the people of God under the King, in all matters that concerned the laws given by God to his people, of whatever nature they were, and Zebadiah Governor under the King of the King's house and affairs; there is a pregnant place 1 Chronic. 26. vers. 30. and 32. For in the 30. verse Hashabiah and his brethren, even one thousand and seven hundred officers on this side jordan westward, are said to be set over the business of the Lord and the service of the King; and 〈◊〉 the 32. it is said, that David made ruiers over the Reubenites, the Gadites and the half tribe of Manasseh, for every matter pertaining to God, and the affairs of the King.  
First, here we see neither Priests nor Levites, but men of other tribes, set promiscuously over both the matter of the Lord and the affairs of the King.  
2. Who seethe not that the matter of God is the matter of the Commonwealth, even all judgements, laws, constitutions appointed by God, by which the people of God were judged and righted; and that the affairs of the King were those that pertain to the King's demesnes, rents, army? etc.  
3. And who seethe not, that all the affairs and all the matters that needed to be ordered and regulated in those places and tribes, are divided into two classes, viz. into the matter of God or the people of God, and the affairs that respected the Kings own business and service?  
4. What absurdity then would it be to imagine, that the affairs of the King were civil businesses, judged and handled by secular men, and the matter of God ecclesiastical causes, judged by ecclesiastical men in an ecclesiastical judicatory? For (even admitting Mr. Gillespies sense) why should not the affairs of the church be the affairs of the King, since he was set by God, and appointed to reform it? and why should not the affairs of the Commonwealth be the affairs of God?  
8. Mr. Gillespie p. 14. is of another mind than he meaneth to be p. 140. whence we have quoted him for us; for in the 14. page he approveth, that the reverend and learned assembly of Divines should draw an argument for ruling elders out of the 2 Chron. 19 see pag. 15. besides, whereas it is the opinion of all Rabbins, and most Divines, that in that place 2 Chronic. 19 there is mention but of one Sanedrim which josaphat did ●…form; Mr. Gillespie maintaineth that there is mention made of two; one ecclesiastical, of which Amariah was precedent, and another civil, in which Ze●adiah was Speaker: for, saith he, where was it ever heard of, that a Priest was Precedent of a court, and ●n sacred things and causes, that a civil magistrate was precedent of a court, and that in civil causes, and yet not two courts, but one court? But where will he make good that distinction of power and Senate among the jews, one ecclesiastical, the other civil? For 1. he himself doth not deny, but that the great Sanedrim was an intermixture of persons and precedings: what need then to have a partition of power? 2. He takes for granted, that the high Priest was the precedent of the great Sanedrim: if he was, no absurdity than he should be precedent of a civil court, such as they cannot deny the great Saned●im was. 3. If he were precedent of a civil court, and Priests and Levites sat with him in the same court, what need we suppose another court called ecclesiastical, when the first court might supply both? 4. But that this was but one court, it is plain by what he saith p. 29. and 33. and so that there is no place for his double jurisdiction and Senate or Saned●im, the one ecclesiastical, over which Amariah was, the other civil, whose speaker was Zebadiah; for in these quoted places he saith, that the government of the jews in Christ's time was not, as josephus thinks, aristocratical simply, but was an ecclesiastical aristocracy, & it was in the hands of the chief priests; that they judged of all causes but only capital, because the judgement and the cognizance of them was taken from them after the 30. year of Christ; which he proveth p. 33. out of Constantin l'Empereur. 5. So then, by these concessions, as he cannot make a double Sanedrim in Christ's time, so neither in josaphats' time. 6. What need to call the Sanedrim in Christ's time ecclesiastical, since it had the judgement of all causes and over all persons, as usually the magistrates tribunal hath, except in capital causes? 7. But could the judgement of capital causes taken from them make the Sanedrim in Christ's time more an ecclesiastical assembly, then when they had the judgement of the said capital causes? must a court be called ecclesiastic●…, because it hath no power to punish by death? were it so, all court leets and court-Barons and the court of the Exchequer were ecclesia●…icall courts, because they have no power to punish a man by death. 8 So then, before the 30. year of Christ, when the jews had the judgement of cap●…all causes, their Sanedrim (if we believe Mr. Gillesp●e) was not an ecclesiastical, but a civil court, and yet it was made up of Priests, Levites, and elders of the people, and judged of all causes and persons: which showeth how weakly Mr. Gillespie proveth, that there was an ecclesiastical and a civil Sanedrim in josaphats' time, whenas he cannot so much as deduce them unto Christ's time, nor after Christ's time, but by one at a time, styling that one Sanedrim, as it serves his turn, sometimes civil, sometimes ecclesiastical; hoping by this means to find his ecclesiastical Sanedrim Matth. 18. to whom our Lord sends the party offended for a redress, in those words, tell it unto the church.   

CHAPTER XI.  
A case propounded by Mr. Cesar Calandrin, which he conceiveth to assert a double jurisdiction, examined. Of the two courts; one of magistracy or external, the other of conscience or internal. That ecclesiastical jurisdiction must belong to one of them, or to none.  
MY noble and reverend friend Mr. Caesar Calandrin propoundeth a case, which he hath often desired me, by word of mouth and by letters, to satisfy him in. He is confident that by it a double jurisdiction is made good. I will set it down in his own words.  
A murderer condemned to death, if he be truly penitent, the spiritual 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 ecclesiastical 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 spiritual 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 spiritual 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 condemned: nor can the Consistory take exception, that the magistrate puts him to death whom the Consistory hath absolved. I add, 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 confess, would thwart the sentence of the civil magistrate: but the Consistory meddleth not with the sentence 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 spiritual 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 laws authoritatively) independent and distinct from the magistrate; which is the hinge of all our controversy.  
1. Properly ministers do not absolve or pardon, neither are they otherwise pardoners than 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 River. and learned Mr. Baxter (whom I give thanks for his kind usage and civilities) and myself, 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 forgiveness of sins, can have no judicatory 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 tribunal, 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 hindrance 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 itself clear, and condemneth where it is conscious of its guiltiness. But no pastor hath a particular knowledge of any persons evidences for heaven, but what he gathereth by outward signs; and so all acts of his, either of absolution or of condemnation, are merely 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 pastor absolving is no act of court, but an act of the same nature with the preaching of the Gospel, 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 ministry.  
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 pastor, except he hath personally offended some of them, or oweth them money: in which case his reconciliation is no appearance in any court; only a brother or a creditor 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 pastor 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 persuaded 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 concern the magistrate to take an account of the fact of the minister in absolving 〈◊〉 prisoner, and as if the pastor 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 amiss, 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 enjoin him to do it. And thus far the external 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 Commonwealths, 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 aim 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 physicians office in curing diseases, or look to the health of horses and other cattle: every office hath its several care, but not its several 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 lawful 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, gaol, executioner, all conditions necessary in every judicatory; 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 compel 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 dismiss when he pleaseth.  
14. I shall willingly admit two courts, whereof I have spoken largely in my Paraenesis, one called forum externum, the external 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, colleges, corporations, etc. and the other called forum internum, or the court of the conscience. 1. In this God hath set a tribunal, a judge, a witness, a plaintiff and defendant. 2. In that all is carried by outward evidences, whether in a synod, presbytery, 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 laws, 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 stress 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 laws, injunctions or commands of magistrates, pastors, 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 man's court or conscience; and in that court I do not conceive he would put a greater tye, than 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 physician; whom in relation to his sick patient, either being alone, or sitting in a college among his brethren, I might make to exercise a jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate, and parallel the physician with the pastor, the patiented with the penitent, the college of physicians with the consistory, the curing of the patiented with the absolving of the penitent, and so make the case propounded in the behalf of ecclesiastical jurisdiction appliable to the medical jurisdiction, changing only the persons. Yes I might show, that a parallel being made, the medical would outvie the ecclesiastical, as being less 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. Physicians more properly cure diseases, than ministers pardon sins: 3. Physician's judgements of the nature of diseases are more certain and evident, than 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 several 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, schoolmen, 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 ecclesiastical court, but, as they have confessed that ecclesiastical jurisdiction is improperly so called, so have they thought no less of an ecclesiastical court.  
He also findeth fault with me for saying, that excommunication was no act of ecclesiastical power, because exercised in the court of man; and saith, Is not preaching as much an act of the external court as excommunication, when both are done alike with words outwardly? I grant that the preaching of the word is an external 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 juridical acts, but because they are the subject and matter not only of suits and controversies depending on the court of man, but also of laws and orders made in the same court: as if a man preached not at all, or preached amiss, and erroneously or seditiously, that act of his may create an action in the external court of man; so may all other actions I have named; as if one sell another man's 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 forinsecal acts, but are either natural, moral actions, or acts of function, and not of jurisdiction: as in a physician, to cure the sick, in a seaman, 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 forinsecal. 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 forinsecal and juridical act, binding men to outward obedience, either actively or passively, and of the same nature with other juridical 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 forinsecal court, as well as buying and selling, which are no forinsecal 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 Gospel to the forum internum, or the court of conscience; which I did, not in regard of the outward act, but of the preaching to the heart, and of the operation of outward preaching, as believing, loving, trusting, all which are performed in the court of conscience.  
This serves for answer to what he saith next, If the key of the word, for all it hath external acts, may nevertheless belong to the forum internum, why may not the key of censure as well? since both are alike in relation to the soul and the inward man. The handling of the key of the word, as it is outwardly pronounced, is an act not of jurisdiction, but of function, performed in the forum externum; but as it is a preaching to the heart, it is an act performed in the forum internum, or the court of conscience: but the handling of the key of censure is an act of jurisdiction over the outward man, however the inward man be affected, and compelling to an outward obedience; and therefore belongeth not to the forum internum, in which such acts as preaching to the heart, loving, believing, denying one's self, are performed.  
What he saith, that both the key of the word and of censure have relation to the soul and the inward man, proveth not that excommunication is not an external act of an external jurisdiction. For an act of outward jurisdiction in the forum externum, may produce a good effect in the forum internum, even in the soul of a man: such effect may excommunicationbring forth, though it be an act of magistracy and outward jurisdiction; so may the laying hold of a malefactor, and the sentence of the magistrate passed upon him, be a sovereign remedy for the salvation of his soul, and be nevertheless an act of magistracy & of the forum externum. In short, there being but two courts conceivable, one external, the other internal, this of the conscience, the other of magistracy; I know no medium between them two, no more then betwixt command and counsel, and betwixt the power of the word and the power of the sword.   

CHAPTER XII.  
Of the nature of calling to the ministry. Ministers are not called by men, but by God, by a succession not of ordination, but providence. The plea for succession is Romanish. Ministers are no successors in their ministry to the judaical Priests, but to the Prophets.  
SInce no religion can stand without a church, and meetings of Christians about Divine worship, and no church without government, and no government without governor's, which the River. Assembly calls church-officers, and no governor's without a commanding power and a rule to govern others by; it will be requisite to inquire into four things; 1. the calling of the church-officers; 2. the extent of their power, and of the obedience due to them; 3. whether all church-officers are invested with the power of the keys, and of binding and losing, as the River. Assembly seemeth to say; 4. by what rule and discipline they are to govern▪ For the calling of ministers, I have handled that subject at large in my Paraenesis. I make the calling to be as much of divine authority, as the reverend Ministers of London do in their jus Divinum of the ministry, yea more; holding, that they have no call from men, but from God immediately; that their mission is from Christ and the Apostles; that all the acts of church-ministers, people, and magistrate about receiving a minister, are not to send him, but to acknowledge Gods call and mission, and publicly to declare their willingness and readiness to accept of his ministry among them: for all these following acts are necessarily to be supposed, before a man be acknowledged a Minister of the Gospel, and set apart by God for the great work of saving souls.  
1. The acts of his internal calling, or rather his disposition: which are a strong desire and resolution to consecrate his life, time and studies, that he may be a minister of the Gospel; and a persuasion that he is by God thereunto called.  
2. The acts which do make up his external calling, and by which men acknowledge Gods call, are, 1. an examen (by a competent number of grave, pious and learned ministers) of him that intends to take the ministry upon himself; of his parts, abilities, learning, doctrine; also of his life and conversation; which they must testify publicly, whereby it may appear to all, that they hold him every way fit to labour in the word and doctrine. 2. The election of a particular church, requiring his pains amongst them, and desiring him to be their ordinary pastor and teacher, to administer unto them the ordinances of the word and sacraments.  
This act, though it hath much of humane right, and seemeth to depend on man's will and choice; yet in a right-constituted church, and in an assembly of good men met in the name of Christ, there is much of Gods call concurring with the choice made by men. Thus Ezech. 33. at the beginning, God declareth by his Prophet, that whatever watchman the people should choose, he would repute that choice to be his act, in that he would punish those that should slight the admonitions of the watchman, and did not take them for God's warnings, and would take an account of the watchman for his failing in the care of men's souls. Which place of Ezechiel doth much confirm what I have said chapt. 2. of the nature of right; where I shown, that things that are of Divine right may be said also to be of humane right, and things that are of humane right to be also of Divine right. This observation I have from my precious and learned friend Mr. Sadler; and much might a man say upon it, to show that as in the administration of the church of the Jews, so in that of the Christians, Divine and humane right, government, laws, injunctions, commands, go along together, without needing to be parted into two coordinate distinct classes of jurisdiction, the one ecclesiastical, distinct and independent from the other which they call civil. One may also thereby see, that much labour is lost in asserting the jus Divinum of the ministry, as if it had nothing of humane right, or as if a call from men were not also a Divine call. For if magistrate and people should choose themselves a watchman over their own souls, to divide the word unto them, why should not this act be reputed a Divine choice, and a Divine installing in the call, as well as the choice of the watchman whereof mention is made in Ezechiel?  
3. The third act towards the making up the external call, is a public licence to exercise the ministry whereunto he is called by the voice of God, the choice of the people, and the public testimony of other ministers. This act of giving licence, being an act of jurisdiction, is performed under an orthodox magistracy by the magistrate himself; but under an heterodox or heathen magistracy, by the keepers of the confederate discipline, who supply the place of magistracy.  
The 4. act is, a solemn begging of God a blessing by the ministers met in a coetus, presbytery, or synod, or otherwise, by prayer and fasting, upon the resolution of the party that is to take the ministry upon him, the choice of the church, and the licence of the magistrate. This action may be performed with laying on of hands; a rite which may be used for decency and ornament, not for necessity, as if the calling was null without it: and so Musculus, Bullingerus, Gualterus, Martyr, and Mestrezat, late reverend Pastor at Paris, all tell us.  
I know of no ministerial ordination, but that which is performed this way; and it is much like for the nature of it to Gods making man and wife: to the doing whereof there is no concurrence of a minister or ministers requisite, but only to beg a blessing upon the man and the woman that intent to join themselves in the state of matrimony: in which action the minister contributes no more to the integrity of it, than his grace before dinner doth to make it a meal; though I confess there is more in the prayer of a minister towards the perfecting of the last act of ministry, then in his prayer before the consummation of matrimony, or before a meal. For I should think any ministers call null before men, that was not first blessed by a solemn prayer, and a consecrating to God both of the ministers and people. I have been induced to believe, that ordination is completed by these 4. acts; because 1. I find it most agreeable with the word; 2. by them the calling is no less, if not more of Divine authority, for this way there is as much caution against those that enter into the ministry by the window, and not by the door, as is observed in Zion College. I make not only the ministry to be as much of divine institution as the reverend ministers of London in their jus Divinum of the ministry; but besides, I make the ministers call to be wholly divine, and receiving nothing from or by men; which the reverend ministers do not: for as men do not institute ministry, so neither ministers; it is with them both as with the doctrine of a preacher, which we try whether it be from God or men, but we give no authority to it. And as besides in ward evidences, by which we discern a divine wisdom in the Scripture, we have some outward marks and testimonies which make it currant to be of divine authority, even among those that do not believe: so may we say of the call of every minister; which neither other ministers nor the people make either to be a call, or a divine call: only by what they see of the man by his life and doctrine, and by those mentioned conditions required in all those that God hath inwardly called, they no way doubt but whom God hath called inwardly he also will call them outwardly without any act of man, but to render a testimony to Gods call: which testimony is given partly by the party himself, approving himself to all men; partly by other markers, the choice of the church, and the licence of the magistrate. 3. By that method we answer, without any difficulty, the Papists question, how reformed ministers came by their calling, and what succession they have; which tye of succession is laid upon the presbyterian ordination; which will be easily proved void and null, if the succession hath been never so little interrupted; at which time if we have recourse to God's immediate call and necessity, as the 31. article of the confession of the reformed churches in France hath, attributing more to the mission of God then to that of men; what inconvenience is it to give the same glory to God at all times, and as well at one as at another; and to hold, that God hath no other succession then that of his providence, that God and the ministry are more magnified, if ministers receive their office immediately from God, then by the hands of men? what need we endeavour to salve and make up a lineal succession interrupted by this shift of necessity, the which if it gives more glory to God, it may be well converted into a necessity not to be without it? For doubtless this plea of succession making all ordinations valid, is a rank Romish one, and very strongly asserting, if admitted by us reform, that there is no visible church but the Roman. For if it be granted to them, that as there is no church without ministry, so no ministry without ordination, and no ordination without lineal succession from the Apostles; they will easily prove that succession failing, the ordination hath also failed, and with it the ministry, and so the church; which can never recover a being, without a succession be showed from the Apostles downward; as the Vestal virgins, when their fire was out, did not kindle it at the fire of men, but of God. 4. It serves to remove an old mistake, that the ministers of the Gospel are successors to the Priests and Levites; whereas they have rather succeeded the Prophets. It is true, the Priests and Levites were also Prophets, as they were keepers of the law, and were to read and expound the Scripture, and in that office I grant the ministers of the Gospel have succeeded them: but in that the prophetical office was not continued in all those that were only prophets by a lineal succession of ordination, but merely by a succession of the providence of God, who never left himself without witnesses, Seers and Prophets, whom he raised not by any call of man, but of God; no doubt but now God calleth the ministers, the true Prophets of the new Testament, by the same succession and ordination of providence, not by a creation and installing by man. That the ministers of the Gospel did not succeed the priefthood, it is manifest; for that being ritual & typical, ended in Jesus Christ, there remaining only the prophetical office common to the prophets both under the old and under the new Testament: to which first (which I note by the way, and it is much material to our present purpose, and the main argument of the book) as no jurisdiction was annexed under the administration of the old Testament, but what they had over the uncircumcised in heart; so neither is it convenient the ministers of the Gospel should have any other.  
This being the nature of ministerial calling, or ordination (if a man will call it so) and no superinduction of character, power, duty, gift or licence being conferred by the ordaining ministers; so neither is there any thing taken away by any act of theirs, of deposition or exauctoration; only every one withdraweth his feather, protection and countenance: the magistrate withdraweth his licence; the ministers say, they will not hereafter hold him a fellow and partner in the work of the Gospel with them; the people declare their dislike of the man, and profess they will make use no further of his ministry; which act is no more an act of jurisdiction, than the refusing to take physic is an act of jurisdiction over the physician.   

CHAPTER XIII.  
The nature of the ministers power, and of that of binding and losing: the power of the keys. Amyraldus and Mr. Lightfoots judicious exposition of the power of binding and losing. The power of governing and ruling is not the ecclesiastical contended for. Mr. Gillespies arguments answered.  
NExt we are to consider the nature and extent of the power of the ministers of the Gospel, 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 cross. 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 synodical or ecclesiastical power, of deposing, excommunicating, and of making laws and canons authoritatively; but always meaneth the virtue and efficacy of the spirit of God in the word and ministry, 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 darkness 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 powerful 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 wisdom and salvation of God, and opposed to the power of Satan and darkness, Act. 26. 18. Col. 1. v. 13. a power described in magnificent terms and mightily emphatical, 2 Corinth. 10. v. 6. etc. This is the power called otherwise the power of the keys, and of binding and losing, 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 losing, no other keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to the church-officers: though properly speaking, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of binding and losing, 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 keys; the opening of the heart with those keys 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 losing 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 Gospel 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 Idiom, to bind and to lose: 2. in inflicting corporal 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 express 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 losing, and the two chief stays, namely this place of Matth. 18. of binding and losing, 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 losing and binding, in his Harmony Matth. 16. which doubtless doth carry in it more solidity and weight than 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 losing was given only to the Apostles, as far as some part of Moses law was to stand in practice, 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, etc. Christ promiseth to the Apostles such an assistance of his spirit, and giveth them such a power, that what they allowed to stand in practice should stand, and what to fall, should fall; in short, what they bond on earth should be bound in heaven. And that exposition is the more receivable, because the Greek text speaks not of binding or losing persons, but things, saying, not, whomsoever you shall bind, but whatsoever things ye shall bind, etc. that is, whatsoever things ye shall dispense with or oblige unto.  
He also on the 1 Cor. 5. parallels this place of binding and losing to Joh. 20. v. 22. whose sins yea retain, they are retained, etc. 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 losing, 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, etc. none of which make for a presbyterian excommunication, but contrarily they destroy it: for all these three expositions are suitable to the literal and mystical meaning, which is absolute and without condition; Christ promising to bind and lose in heaven whatsoever shall be bound and loosed on earth: whereas those that expound that place of binding and losing of excommunication, are forced to put a condition to the absolute words of Christ, telling us, that they must be understood clavae non errante, in case there is no error in him that excommunicates. And therefore Beza against Erastus and some others, fearing the many inconveniences and absurdities that follow upon the literal sense, that Gods binding and losing in heaven should steer according to the binding and losing 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 than 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 soulsaving ordinance, as the River. 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 counsel he hath decreed: but still the difficulty will be, how the minister is acquainted with God's secret and not revealed will; and if he be acquainted with it, how can an outward action, in which the pastor may err, be a consequent of an unerring sentence of God?  
But however the power of the keys and of binding and losing is to be understood, the new Testament speaketh of governments in the church, and of ruling and rulers, and it enjoineth the faithful to obey those that rule over them; and St. Paul biddeth Timothy not to receive lightly an accusation against an elder. So fare then the word of God alloweth a government distinct from that of the magistrate, and endoweth the ministers of the Gospel with a power of ruling and governing. But this power is neither of the nature of the magistrates power, nor of that they call ecclesiastical, 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 Physicians.  
This being the ministerial power in a shadow, it is more expressly 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 Ambassadors from Christ; none have such an errand: there is no tye of obedience like that to their commands. But still this ministerial 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 enjoin the commands of God, but also their own: but the ministers of the Gospels' 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 enjoined 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 counsel; and that counsel 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 mutual 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 God's 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 laws, 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 pastoral power commandeth only understanding, free and wise men, that are able to judge, 1 Cor. 10 v. 15. like those of Beroea, who so harkened 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 ecclesiastical presbyterial power, like that of the magistrate, requireth obedience to its laws, ordinances and decrees, not because they are good, just and equitable, but because it so pleased the lawgivers; 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 ministerial power requireth no obedience to its commands, but of such as are persuaded or convinced of the goodness, truth and equity of the law and sentence. The Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth both to believe, be persuaded, & to obey; which intimateth that he truly performeth the pastoral commands, who believeth in the name of the Lord Jesus: for this is the main commandment 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 alms 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 suitable 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 ecclesiastical jurisdiction.  
The place 1 Tim. 5. v. 19 against an elder, etc. he much urgeth: but the following verse showeth that in that context there is no mention of a church-judicatory, where men are convented, witnesses confronted and heard, and a judicial sentence pronounced. It is the duty of pastors to reprove sin and sinners privately, if the offence be private, and publicly and in an open assembly, if the sin be committed in the face of the church, and to the scandal of all: and yet S. Paul giveth a good caveat, that the pastor of the church should not lightly aim 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. Paul's 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. Paul's time Christian churches being modelled after the platform of Jewish synagogues, besides ministry in them, had also magistracy; and that it were neither improbable nor irrational 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 general 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 presbyterial 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, etc. where the spiritual weapons are lively set out, he understandeth of excommunication p. 292. and in verse 6. and having in readiness to revenge all disobedience, he findeth ecclesiastical power and censure, no less than that of excommunication. But of all places, I much wonder he can paraphrase 2 Cor. 2. 8. for ecclesiastical 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 show your judicial power in absolving the incestuous man from the sentence of excommunication. Of the same weight is that proof of ecclesiastical 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 River. Assembly, to prove a government of church-officers distinct from the civil magistrate, allegeth in the margin Esaias 9 v. 6, 7. merely 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 merely intended to describe the Godhead of Christ, the assumption of humane nature, and 〈◊〉 gloriousness and strength of his spiritual and mystical 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 keys, 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 laws 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 ecclesiastical and external government placed in the hands of church officers, than the place of Esaias alleged by the River. Assembly; for this place, as well as the other, as Beza noteth upon Revel. 3. 7. speaketh of the mystical Kingdom of Christ that hath no end, of which Luc. 1. v. 32. & 33. but of this power in the hands of church-officers we are to speak in the ensuing chapter.   

CHAPTER XIV.  
That the power of the keys and of binding and losing are not committed to all church-officers, but to the ministers of the Gospel only.  
IN the third place, we are to take notice that the River. Assembly doth not declare, nor Mr. Gillespie, what they mean by church-officers; whether the dispensers of the word and Sacraments only, or with them the lay-elders & deacons': for they invest them promiscuously with the power of the keys, of binding and losing, and of remitting and retaining sins, against the opinion of Amyraldus, Walaeus, Apollonius, and most of the presbyterians, who attribute the power of the keys only to ministers ordained; as indeed it doth not belong to any others to preach, and to administer the sacraments. Therefore one would have expected the assembly should make some distinction both of officers and power. It may be by the word respectively they meant, that a part of the power of the keys and of binding and losing doth belong to lay-elders, as far as concerneth governing and censuring; but to the ministers belongeth not only the same portion of power common to lay-elders, but, over and above, the power of preaching, administering the sacraments, voting in synods, and determining authoritatively of controversies of faith.  
But how can they make good by the Scripture, that lay-elders are invested with the power of the keys, and of binding and losing, since this power was bequeathed only to Peter, and with him to all the ministers of the Gospel, as ambassadors from Christ, to whom God hath committed the word of reconciliation, 2 Cor. 5. v. 19, 20? Is there any mention in the Scripture of church-officers that have a power of the keys, and of binding and losing, and yet have not the word of reconciliation committed to them?  
I cannot deny but that God sometimes maketh use of private men to bind and to lose in several acts of theirs; as when they convert others, which otherwise is the work of the public ministry, and when a brother forgiveth hearty a brother, and beseecheth God to forgive him, or a wronged party complaineth to God in secret of a notable injury received openly, for which he cannot have satisfaction by men. And of this kind of binding and losing by private men may be understood the words Matth. 18. v. 18. as Theophylactus, Erastus and Gualterus expound them. But this private men do not by any duty inherent in their outward calling and office, but by a dispensation of God, whose spirit bloweth where it listeth, employing the ministry of a weak simple woman or artificer, either to confound or convert the great and wise ones of the world; sometimes binding and losing without any intervention of private men's prayers and complaints, but only at the sight of some great oppression sustained, even when the party oppressed is taken away, or of blood shed, which as it doth cry to heaven, so may it be said to bind in heaven.  
Therefore ministers being by virtue of their office and calling to bind and to lose, I do not understand how any other persons, as lay-elders and members of presbyteries and synods, should have an ordinary power to bind and to lose, and have the keys of heaven committed to them, and yet not be entrusted with the word of reconciliation, and with the preaching of the Gospel. Hath the Lord Jesus Christ given a commission by halves, so as that some church-officers shall have a power of binding and losing (for the River. Assembly ascribeth to all church-officers indifferently that power) who are not to have the power of preaching and of administering the sacraments?  
I further acknowledge, that the church hath had from the time of the Apostles helps of government, of which Ambrose speaketh, and such as the Jewish synagogues had; but that they had one part of the power of the keys (which they will have to be the government) & had not the other part (which is of preaching the Gospel and converting men to Christ) I read not where, neither in Scripture nor in antiquity: for as the power of the keys cannot be severed from the power of binding and losing, so neither of these two qualifications will admit a division; as that lay-elders should have but a share in the handling of the keys, and ministers should have them entirely.  
Whosoever readeth the outlandish divines, all presbyterians, will find, that they ascribe no power of the keys to other church-officers than ministers of the Gospel; that what power other officers, as lay-elders, have, is merely by concession of the pastors, and, as Maresius saith, by communication. Loco 15. §. 75. these be his words: sic residet penes senatum ecclesiasticum omnis jurisdictio ecclesiastica, ut illa proprie sit radicaliter in pastoribus, in senioribus vero qui illis assident communicative. So Capellus, the sium parte priore, dividing the church-officers, thes. 32. gives the whole power of the keys and of excommunicating to the pastors, not the rectors. pastors habent potestatem docendi, arguendi & increpandi, &, si opus sit, à sacris arcendi atque submovendi, quod excommunicare dicitur. So that they do but claw the other church-officers with the key of discipline, which, as Maresius speaketh, is radically in the pastors: and to that purpose speaketh a great Divine, whom I allege Paraenes. p. 600. when lay-men sit in councils, and there deliver their opinions as judges, about articles of faith and the use of the keys, this is done more by the concession of pastors, then by any right or ancient custom.  
Here by the way it is observable, that as the power of binding and losing and the power of the keys are convertible and equivalent terms in a proposition, so one of them is not more divisible than the other. Now sure it is, there can be no such thing as a less measure of power of the keys committed to lay-elders, and a greater to ministers: for this power of the keys being a power of introducing men into the church, either visible or invisible, specially that power by which God opens the hearts of men by the preaching of the Gospel; it cannot be conceived that it ought to be or is performed by halves, as that the lay-elders should have one half of that power committed to them, and that Jesus Christ had given them the keys of heaven, but not the main operation of the keys; as if one should give the keeping of his keys to his steward, but not the power to open the doors with them. Since than it is not likely that the Lord Jesus Christ hath committed the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven by halves, the like also must be thought of the power of binding & losing, which are by all divines taken for one and the same.  
It is the opinion both of the river. dissenting brethren, and of the River. Assembly, (in a book called reasons of the dissenting, etc. p. 6. and 58.) that both keys are given together, and not one without the other; though, as the River. Assembly saith, one may be abler to exercise one than the other: which showeth 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 River. Assembly saith, both keys 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 keys and of binding and losing are committed solely to the ministers of the Gospel, 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 losing, that this said power should appertain to the ministers of the Gospel only, and that neither lay-elders, deacons' nor members of churches, be enabled to excommunicate by any warrant of binding and losing from Christ.  
None of these things being, as I hope, deniable, and the power of excommunication being thus restrained to the ministers of the Gospel 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 keys, and of binding and losing, committed to the ministers of the Gospel, or that their power is none of the power of the keys, but exorbitant, transcending the limits set by Christ, and bringing forth acts which are none of Christ's.   

CHAPTER XV.  
That God hath not given to the church-officers of the Gospel a certain platform of government, and that it is arbitrary and of humane institution, and therefore not to be administered by a power distinct from the humane.  
THe fourth and the last thing to inquire into in this 30. chapter of the Confession of the River. Assembly is, the rule and model that church-officers are to govern by: which were it granted to be expressly set down in the Scripture, would be no stronger an argument for a government placed in church-officers distinct from the magistrate under the new Testament, than it was under the old, when there was a very exact form of church-government, and yet no way distinct from that of the magistrate. Which makes me much wonder, that in that church, loaden with such an infinite multitude of rites, ceremonies, constitutions, laws, whereof the Christian church is wholly freed, there was no distinction of government and jurisdiction from that of the magistrate; and yet that there should be such a distinction of jurisdiction in the Christian church, which hath no model nor scheme of discipline, as the Jewish church had, but such as in prudence is assumed by the joint consent of pastor and people. That there was no platform of government given to church-officers by Jesus Christ or the Apostles, may be proved by a cloud of witnesses: I will content myself with a few. Camero in his book of the church p. 369. saith, that the Christian church hath no need of certain laws, seeing it is made up of men of ripe years, not of children under pedagogy: and a little lower, non est ecclesia certis circumstantiis alligata, the church is not tied to certain circumstances. The like saith his scholar and great admirer Amyraldus, namely in his Synopsis Salmuriensis cap. 30. of the ecclesiastical power §. 4, 5, & 6. So speaketh Capellus in his Thes. Theol. parte priore de potestate & regimine ecclesiae thes. 40. where we have these words: in tantum valet ecclesia constitutio & definitio, quantum est ratione subnixa; The constitution and definition of the church is so far valid, as it is grounded upon reason: therefore not upon the Scripture. Much more large and as express he is in the third part of Thes. Salmurienses, de vario ecclesiae regimine, thes. 16. and 17. So is Mestrezat no less express in his book of the church, lib. 3. cap. 12. God hath defined nothing in the external order and polity about the worship of God, but only hath prescribed that all things should be done decently and orderly. But were there any platform of government, judicious and learned Mr. Lightfoot, the most able and unpartial judge in this matter, will tell us (Harmon. on the 1 Cor. 5.) that it was according to that of the Jewish synagogues, which yet was assumed by a voluntary and prudential choice, not upon any special command from Christ or his Apostles. Which notion of his, which was also mine before we could or had conferred one another's notes, doth lead us into many considerations.  
1. It doth decide the argument of the precedent chapter, proving that the power of the keys and of binding and losing is committed not to all church-officers indifferently, but to the ministers of the Gospel only. For if it be reasonable, as the River. Assembly saith in their humble advice to the Parliament, and as we have examined before, that the Christian church should have their elders as well as that of the jews, it is alike reasonable, as Mr. Lightfoot saith, that the nature and extent of both jurisdictions and powers should be the same; and that, if the elders among the Jews did not act in synagogues as men invested with the power of the keys, and of binding and losing, but with the power of magistracy, the like should be conceived of the elders of the new Testament. That the elders of the church of the Jews had power of magistracy, it is evident by their acts, as fining, imprisoning, casting out, whipping, and the like; and in that the elders of the new Testament are most unlike those of the old: and therefore the Jewish elders could be no precedent to the Christian elders: not the facto, because these never exercise that power; nor the jure, for the River. Assembly will acknowledge that the elders of the old Testament had a right to those acts of magistracy which they performed in their synagogues, but will deny that now the Christian elders have such a right: although for my part I know no inconvenience to assert that the elders in both times had alike right to all mentioned acts of magistracy, though for some reasons it is not found so expedient under the Gospel by the presbyterian churches.  
2. We may well conceive, that if the act of putting out of the church was an act of magistracy under the old Testament, there is no reason it should be now otherwise.  
3. That likewise if the church of the Jews 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 laws as he did to the church of the Jews, 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 express laws, 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 ecclesiastical, which mainly is conversant about laws, 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, laws and constitutions do flow. And it is so much the more absurd and unreasonable that constitutions, decrees, canons, discipline, merely of humane institution, should be ordered and commanded by a power and jurisdiction merely Divine, and distinct from that of the magistrate; when as all constitutions, laws and ordinances given to the Jews, and all being of Divine institution, were notwithstanding ordered and commanded by the magistrate, & not by the keepers of an ecclesiastical jurisdiction distinct from the civil.   

CHAPTER XVI.  
The 31. chapter of the confession made by the River. Assembly examined. The use of synods. Two things are humbly represented: first, that for a reunion of jurisdictions over all persons and in all causes, a convocation made up of ministers only be reestablished during the sitting of Parliament: the second is, that ministers may be put into the same capacity as all other ranks of freeborn people, to sit and vote in Parliaments. Of the power of synods, and that of the magistrate in calling of them. The synod of the Apostles was extraordinary, not exemplary. The exception of the brethren of Scotland against the 2. article of the 31. chapter of the confession examined. The uses & abuses of synods: that they are not the way to compose differences in matters of religion, if their canons are beyond counsels and advices.  
HAving examined what plea the River. 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 counsels, is more superficially to be handled: for what we have said before of the jurisdiction of churches, plainly showeth 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 external 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 judicial power then a company of merchants or seamen, 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 aught to be made up only of ministers of the Gospel, that have wholly set apart themselves for the work of the ministry and study of Divinity. For as the supreme magistrate usually calls men of that calling and profession about which he is to make laws, as being the most fit to give counsel in the thing they are called for; so doubtless 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 fit 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, ecclesiastical and civil, that lay-men must be judges in civil courts, and ministers in ecclesiastical assemblies, as it hath barred lay-men from sitting, at least from voting in synods and counsels, so hath it removed clergymen from sitting and being judges in civil courts and Parliaments: which opinion hath outgone 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 ecclesiastical men in their courts and judicatories: thus lately Bishops in England sat in Parliament. I confess that Popes, to advance the building of their empire within the empires of magistrates, Kings and Emperors, would be sure to have an oar 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 counsels. But some Protestant magistrates in reforming popery, as they have not so much relinquished and parted with their own right as popish magistrates, to lose 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 loss 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 men's 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 ecclesiastical, 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 judicial proceed in whatsoever court, assembly, Parliament, synods, presbyteries, being acts of the magistrates jurisdiction, the minister now considered as as member of a Christian commonwealth, aught to enjoy the same privilege as the other members of it. All which make me conceive, that it was more heat than 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 reunited.  
2. There being in a Parliament men of all sorts and ranks, gentlemen, lawyers, physicians, apothecary's, merchants, and they all having an equal interest to maintain religion, lands, liberty, laws, 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 privilege that others of their fellow-citizens enjoy.  
3. It is known that men do not sit and vote in Parliament as merchants, physicians, silk-men or drapers, and that if there be new laws to make, or old to alter, suppose about some manufacture, as cloth-working, a member of Parliament being professor 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 professor 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 public authority, then, I say, none of the members give their votes as professors 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 physician voteth not in the quality and capacity of a physician, no not when laws are made for physicians and apothecary's, although when they are in debate, a physician may discourse pertinently of physic, as a physician and skilful in his art. This is the very case of ministers of the Gospel, 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 physic or manufacture doth not divest a man from being a good and understanding Commonwealths-man, so neither doth the pastoral calling.  
4. It seems to me very unreasonable, yea unconscionable, that any man's 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 counsel 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 public deliberations, were he never so able to serve the Commonwealth by his wit, wisdom and industry, and the need never so great, merely because of his habit, and his profession of the ministry. 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 fit, but also that he is not thereby hindered from attempting any noble action which might turn to some great public 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 ministry ought not to keep him off from being employed to use all his industry to serve the Church of God or his country in such a way. But why is not a physician disenabled 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 physic.  
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 wished 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 Gospel.  
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 needful to make laws and constitutions subservient to it, why should ministers of all men be left out, whose education and profession renders them more capable to advise for the obtaining of that great end?  
7. Since also there is such a complication betwixt the church & state, as they cannot so much as be imagined asunder, and that most laws and constitutions made by men are grounded upon (and have some warrant from) Divine writ, and that those that appoint by law oaths to be taken, should at least be well advised about the nature of the oath; I do conceive, that since all ranks are promiscuously called to advise about these, of all men ministers, best furnished and stored with knowledge, and acquainted with the right and plea of conscience, upon which equity, right and law is grounded, should not be forgot. Why should not men, who make it their whole employment to study the judgements of God, be as fit judges in Parliaments and high courts of judicature, as Physicians or merchants.  
8. There is the same reason for ministers to sit in Parliament, as there was for priests and Levites to sit in synagogues and judicial assemblies of the Jews, and in all consultations of state; it being certain that the great Sanedrim was a mixture of Priests and Levites with the Princes and heads of the people.  
9 There is equal reason, that if the supreme magistrate calls say-men to sit and vote in synods, he should call the clergy to sit and vote in Parliament.  
10. There was no such thing so much as heard for many hundred years after the fourth age, that ministers and Bishops should be thought incapable to sit and vote in the supreme courts of the nation. I could prove it by the practice of Italy, Germany, France, Spain and England, for above 7 or 8 hundred years, even far within popery; that though the Pope had much advanced the hatching of his two eggs, ecclesiastical & civil jurisdiction, yet all state-assemblies were not distinguished either from synods, or from civil courts, but promiscuously men of all ranks and professions, Senators, Bishops, Lords, Priests, Gentlemen, did sit and vote in one assembly and place, about any matter whatsoever, rite, law, discipline or ceremony. Neither is it to be conceived, that the causes debated in these assemblies were divided into two classes, and that when ecclesiastical matters were handled, clergymen did then vote, and lay-men sat mute; and when civil were in agitation, than the clergy were silent, and lay-men did only appear as judges: which is indeed a pretty conceit, but will not serve for a double jurisdiction. He that will see that further proved at large, needs but only read Blondellus de jure plebis: etc. and Mr. Prinne in his book of Truth triumphing over falsehood.  
A thing very considerable it is, that during all these ages clergymen, because they were most skilled in controversies of divinity, & exercised to speak in public, were also thought the fit to judge right from wrong, and to meddle with secular matters; and therefore in courts of law or chancery, clergymen dispatched more businesses than the laity, handled all cases, except (it may be) criminal matters and wills, not being permitted to be executors of Testaments; otherwise they filled the courts so far, that there were no knowing men, yea none that could read or write but they: hence to this day no court, Justice of peace or lawyer, but hath his clerk, and they say still, legit ut clericus, he reads like a clerk. This I find much urged by a famous lawyer, a Romanist, John du Tillet, in his memoirs, who speaking of the encroachments of the Popes of Rome, saith that they have always endeavoured to sever what from the times of the Apostles was united, and to make of one jurisdiction two; which yet they could not so distinctly separate, but that still to our days one may see it was not so in the beginning: and this old form, saith he, hath remained to the having, even in our days, a medley of clergy and laity in our courts of Parliament.  
But I foresee that some of the presbyterian brethren will take me at advantage, for saying that ministers may vote in synods, and there being invested with judicial authority, make canons, laws and constitutions, which bind churches to obedience: for if they may have that judicial power in Parliaments, which doth oblige all men and societies, and so churches, to obedience; why may not they have the same right & power in synods?  
I hope the river. brethren will not so require me for my pains in being their advocate, retorting my plea made in their behalf against myself. But I willingly grant, that the ministers of the Gospel have alike power of sitting and voting in synods, and in supreme courts of the magistrate: but how? viz. if they be called to it by the magistrate; and so their acts, whether they sit in synods or Parliaments, are a production of the magistrates jurisdiction delegated to them; and as such they oblige all men, societies and churches. Besides, as I said, ministers sitting in Parliaments and synods do discourse and debate matters touching doctrine & church-discipline, as ministers of the Gospel; but they reduce what they discoursed of into laws, and stamp their authority and sanction upon it, as men invested with judicial authority from the magistrate: just as I said of physicians, who vote in Parliaments not as such, but as judges of the land.  
Against the ministers sitting and voting in Parliament it may be objected, that thereby they would be kept off from the main care they are to attend, which is over souls, and from the preaching of the Gospel. I answer 1. that their particular calling, which is to be ministers of the Gospel, ought not to keep them off from a moderate taking care and looking over things that are of less concernment, as that of family, land, estate, suits in law, much less to mind the general good of the nation, in which religion and peace are mainly concerned. 2. There being two branches of the power of the magistrate, one of legislation, the other of jurisdiction; this latter power is exercised by judges, Mayors, Sheriffs, Sergeants and the like: This power as men that have otherwise a constant profession which taketh them wholly up, as physicians, soldiers, mariner's, and the like, cannot well manage, so neither ministers of the Gospel: but for the power of legislation, the managing of which doth not take a man up so much, there is no doubt but that as a physician may take it upon him, so also may a minister. For the making of a law is like the making of a coach, which being made in few days, will be many years adriving by the coachman, before there be need of a new one: so in a well-constituted state, a good law, which requireth but a little time to make it, will continue many hundred years. A minister may be well dispensed with for a little intermission of his ordinary calling, to contribute his counsel to the making a law, which may be of very good use a long time; though there be no need he should busy himself further, like a coach-driver, to see by a power▪ 〈◊〉 jurisdiction, the law to take right course, and be well obeyed. I believe if in the first Parliament of Queen Elizabeth, that drove away popery and settled the Protestant religion, many of the godly ministers that suffered persecution in Queen Mary's days had been sitting and voting in Parliament, the then-reformation would have been much more complete. 3. Some ministers may be found, whose parts lie less for preaching, and more for government, and who have wise politic heads: why may not such be fit members in Parliament? 4. As there is no reason to deprive a man of his right, because he cannot always attend to make use of it: so must not a minister be devested of his right to sit in Parliament, because it may be he cannot always attend it. A physician would be loath, because of his great practice, to be made incapable to sit in Parliament; so would a Divine, however much taken up with the work of his ministry.  
The premises considered, I conceive that the River. Assembly doth part with its own right, when they say in the last section of the third chapter, that synods and counsels are to conclude nothing but what is ecclesiastical, and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary, or by way of advice, for satisfaction of consciences, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate. By which as they seem to keep off magistrates and lay-men from sitting and voting in synods, so they bar themselves from sitting and voting in Parliament.  
But if such assemblies as were the great Sanedrim, the synagogues of the Jews, the conventions that I have mentioned for 7. or 8. hundred years in Christian states, the politic ecclesiastical Senates among the Helvetians, and that which was settled in the first reformation by the Prince Palatine of the Rhine; if, I say, such assemblies, in which there is a mixture of men and causes, are lawful, as indeed it were very fit there should be no assemblies of public concernment but of this nature; why may not in these assemblies lay-men conclude in ecclesiastical matters, and ministers in civil? If they may not, or it must be with distinction and caution, how shall the conscience of a man sitting in those assemblies, if he be a layman, be resolved, when he may intermeddle while ecclesiastical matters are debated; and likewise if civil things be in agitation, how far a minister sitting in the same company may interpose & vote? must, when civil affairs are handled, the ecclesiastical persons first be required to vote, or must they petition to have that liberty? It may be they mean, that when the assembly is upon ecclesiastical affairs, that then the laity should likewise petition the clergy for a liberty of voting and intermeddling.  
But suppose a member of this assembly be both a Statesman and an elder of a church, and therefore an ecclesiastical man, must he change his name and personage as the nature of the matter handled requireth, professing not to interpose in such a business in the capacity of a church-officer, but as a member of the Commonwealth?  
And how shall the conscience of a man be resolved what is an ecclesiastical affair, what a civil, that he may not doubt when he may vote and intermeddle, when he must sit mute and silent, or go out of the assembly? For the casuists have not yet determined what is ecclesiastical, what civil: for some of them make the discipline of the church of humane constitution, and therefore to be ordered, directed and commanded by the same power that giveth sanction to all humane laws. And if it be put to the question, when, how often, in what place synods are to be convened, what time they must sit, & what matter they must handle, may not the layman then interpose as in a business of his classis? may not also ecclesiastical persons do the like? Besides, 100 constitutions may be found of such a mixed nature, that it is not yet resolved what classis they pertain unto, whether ecclesiastical or civil: such are the laws about wills, marriages, tithes, tenths, usury, collections for the poor, appointing of days for fasting or thanksgiving, laws for pious uses, and the like.  
Will this expedient serve to resolve the conscience, viz. if such an assembly of mixed persons and causes be named neither a council or synod, nor a civil judicatory, but an assembly, or some other name participating of the nature of both? as if names could alter the nature of the thing, and satisfy the conscience.  
In short, I believe the reverend assembly both wrong themselves, and no way satisfy men's minds and consciences, in not stating what is ecclesiastical, what is not, and how far this or that man may meddle in ecclesiastical and civil matters, what name is to be given to this or that assembly.  
I am crowded with matter that were worth deciding about synods; which argument I handled largely in the 22. and 23. chapters of my Paraenesis. The power of synods is decisive, directive and declarative: they decide by way of discussion and disputation; they direct by way of counsel; and they declare their opinions as expert and well known and read in the thing that is in question. Coercive and judicial power they have none, but what is delegated from the magistrate or from private churches: so that though the authority of a synod is greater than that of a private church, yet the power of that church is greater than that of a synod.  
If there be an union of churches, as there ought to be even under an orthodox magistrate, all canons and decrees are no otherwise binding as laws, then as they have the stamp of magistracy upon them: Supremi magistratus approbatio est supremum arrestum, ut loquuntur, saith Festus Hommius disp. 18. thes. 4; and disp. 17. thes. 3. the approbation of the magistrate is the supreme decree. And not only reformers, but also some Romanists, namely the author of the Review of the council of Trent, a learned book, and which the learned Dr. Langbane thought his pains worthy in his youth to turn into English. Lib. 3. cap. 13. the Emperor, as is commonly known, the Monarch of churches, is precedent to the synodal sentences, gives them force, composeth ecclesiastical orders, giveth law, life and policy to those that serve at the altar. Is it credible, that a Romanist should be of a more sincere judgement in this matter then a reformed Christian, such as Mr. Gillespie?  
Those that are for a judicial power of synods over churches do allege the synod of the Apostles; which being infallible, is no example to us, no more than the miracles of Christ and the Apostles argue that ordinary ministers must work miracles. When private churches can be sure that a synod in these days is led by such a spirit of infallibility, they may yield to it without disputing; yet not without examining, as did those of Beroea, who tried the Sermon of St. Paul, whether it was agreeable to other scriptures: and were there now a synod made up of 40. or 50. men like Peter and Paul, a church should reverence their orders; but yet that synod should have no coercive jurisdiction over the church, but such as overcometh the inward man by persuasion, and leadeth him as it were captive to the obedience of truth. And in case men and churches were not persuaded, or did delay obedience and submission, I say that such an Apostolical synod could bring neither churches nor men to an outward conformity to their sentences, laws and decrees, without a power del●…ated from the magistrate, or some magistracy seated in churches.  
Let us come to the second section.  
As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers and other fit persons, to consult and advise with about matters of religion; so, if magistrates be open enemies to the church, the ministers of Christ of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they with other fit persons, upon delegation from their churches, may meet together in such assemblies.  
There is nothing in this section but I will willingly grant. 1. They yield that magistrates may call synods; 2. that a synod is an assembly of men convocated by the magistrate; 3. who are to advise the magistrate about ordering matters of religion and discipline; 4. under an orthodox magistrate, as synods receive their jurisdiction from the magistrate, so private churches under them aught to receive their orders and constitutions as laws of the magistrate: but under an heterodox magistrate, synods receive their authority from private churches; so that canons and decrees of synods are so far valid, as they are approved or ratified by private churches, that have conferred the power, they being then in lieu of the magistrate.  
The general assembly of Scotland, perceiving that this article doth much weaken ecclesiastical power under an orthodox magistrate, hath thought fit in their general assembly at Edinburgh Aug. 27. sess. 23. to put a gloss or comment upon it, saying that the assembly understandeth some part of the second article of the thirty first chapter, only of Kirks not settled or constituted in point of government: and that although in such Kirks a synod of ministers and other fit persons may be called by the magistrates authority and nomination, without any other call, to consult and advise with about matters of religion; and although likewise the ministers of Christ, without delegation from their churches, may of themselves and by virtue of their office meet together synodically in such Kirks not yet constituted; yet neither of these aught to be done in Kirks constituted and settled. So they will have the second article to be understood of churches not constituted or settled: in which case, they say the magistrate may call synods; else they say it doth not belong to him, but to the ministers, who then ought to assemble of themselves, without any commission from the magistrate: which is expressly against the literal meaning of the second article, which, as all others of the confession, is of things that are to be received, believed and practised at all times, and which they count of Divine right, and for which therefore they allege places of Scripture, namely Isa. 49. v. 23. King's shall be thy nursing fathers; a place which, in my opinion, maketh little to the purpose, no more than the place out of 1. Tim. 2. v. 2. where we are bidden to pray for Kings, doth to prove the power of magistrates in calling of synods. Neither doth that place, 2 Chronic. 19 v. 9 etc. avail much, but only that magistrates may call and constitute assemblies in general: for there is no speech there of any ecclesiastical assemblies, for they were not yet thought on at that time. The 29. and 30. chapters of 2 Chronic. for the magistrates power of calling synods, is of the same stamp. It is true, chap. 29. v. 4. Ezechiah gathered Priests & Levites together, but it was to make an exhortation to them; not that they should congregate into a synod invested with judicial authority: I think that none ever yet dreamed of it, that synods in the old Testament could be proved out of that place. The last place Prov. 11. v. 14. speaketh of counsellors, in the multitude of which there is safety; but not a word there of calling of them, nor that those who were called were Priests and Levites, but rather any other. One would almost think that they had a mind to weaken a good cause, and make invalid the power of the magistrate, by alleging places that make nothing for it: but however they will have them to pass for valid proofs, that magistrates by divine right are to call synods. But to the matter: I am quite of another mind then our brethren the Scots are, and I desire to be judged by any other then by them, whether there be any spark of reason or truth in their saying. Is it not more like that in a well-constituted church things must run their wont channel, & that the power of calling synods belongeth to the magistrate; but the church being in a troubled condition, than that ministers, yea any good man should contribute his helping hand toward the reforming of the church, whether by way of synods or otherwise, without expecting orders from the magistrate? In turbata ecclesia omnis homo miles est Christianus & minister. But who sees not but the drift of our brothers the Scots is, to constitute a jurisdiction independent from that of the magistrate?  
The third section or article of the 31. chapped: of the confession needeth a comment, to make it agree with the second: it belongeth to synods and counsels ministerially to determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience, to set down rules and directions for better ordering of the public worship of God and government of his church, to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his word. First, they do not define what synods are here meant, whether convocated by the magistrate or by private churches, or even convocated by the ministers themselves. If by the magistrate, how can a company of men called to advise him make constitutions valid, except they be first submitted to the judgement and approbation of him by whose authority they were assembled? The like judgement may we make of the decrees of synods convocated by the common consent of private churches. If the ministers assemble of their own accord, were they so many Apostles, they must have some magistracy to give vigour of law obliging to obedience, either actively or passively, else their canons would have no jurisdiction, but over them they could overcome by persuasion.  
The fourth article or section is; all synods or counsels since the Apostles time, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred: therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as an help in both. A synod is no rule but to him that is willing to make it a rule. All the synods power and authority is only so much as either the magistrates will is, or a conscience enlightened or convinced is persuaded to yield unto. I know no middle way to create authority. There is a rare saying of Festus Hommius disp. 18. thes. 2. de council. authoritate: the foundation of all synodical authority is an agreement with the divine truth and ordinance, whereof we must be first evidently and clearly made certain, before the synod get any authority with us. So that synods are of authority, when men and churches are clearly convinced of the equity, reasonableness and truth of their decisions.  
I am not of the opinion of Gregory Nazianzen and Bazil, who condemned all synods generally; for I believe they are of very good use, and necessarily to be had, so that the members be not invested with any judicial power independent from the magistrate, or from particular churches, whose decisions be counsels and advices given to them both, not laws: otherwise I think little or no good is to be expected from them, and that they are not a way to decide controversies.  
1. Judges in an assembly never so upright must be indifferent to persons and causes; but so cannot ministers be in a synod: for a synod made up of orthodox Divines, is no competent judge of Arminians. Therefore it is no marvel if the council of Trent did condemn the Lutherans in the first Session, before they ever heard them; or that a late synod at Charenton, prepossessed against independent churches in England, did as it were anathematise them, though none of the members of that synod, being 80. in number, had hardly seen the face or writings of any of them. 2. It seemeth to be against all courses and proceed of courts, either of law or chancery, that both plaintiffs and defendants should sit as judges in one judicatory to determine their own cause. 3. If there be but one party, either the defendant or plaintiff, sitting & voting, no doubt but he will cast his adversary out of the court; therefore there being no other than Protestant's sitting and voting in the synod of Dordrecht, the Arminians could not choose but lose their cause: besides that it is no less unreasonable, that one party should submit to the judgement of his adverse party. 4. It seemeth neither just nor reasonable, that churches and men should submit to the major part of the members stating and concluding of any matter of religion, rather than to the weight of the reasons of the minor part dissenting. Should in synods always the major number of votes carry it; in a general council, made up of Papists, Lutherans, Calvinists, no doubt but that party that is most numerous, though it carrieth it but by one vote, would give religion and faith to all the rest: therefore the late long Parliament did wisely decline to adhere rather to the major part of the members in the assembly, who had voted for a presbyterian government, reserving to themselves the liberty to weigh the reasons of both, not to number the persons. Hence we may gather, how unreasonable it is in matters of faith and religion, that that which is not the act of all, should be reputed as done by all; when as it may fall out, that the major part hath out-voted the minor but by one suffrage: for usually all collections, syntagmes of confessions of faith, canons and decrees, go currant and are published to the world, as if all the members had consented to them, with a nemine contradicente. Thus the late confession of faith and directory go for currant to be the opinion of the assembly, because they were the act of the major part of them; albeit many godly and learned men among them had no hand in framing the 30. & 31. chapters of the confession. In affairs concerning temporal life it may be born with, when what hath been voted by the major part of the counsel or Senate goeth for the act of all: and this was one of the state-precepts that Philip the II. gave to Margerite Governess of the low-Countrves by the report of Strada. 5. In all great differences betwixt nation & nation, army and army party and party, the judges that are appointed to reconcile them must propound conditions by which parties in extremes should come to some accommodation and moderation, each side if need be complying and parting with some of his right, to prevent a continuance of strife. But such a composition cannot be expected in or by a synod, for making up differences in religion, since each side apprehendeth his opinion to be the truth, and would think it a great sin to balk any part of it, or admit an accommodation.   

CHAPTER XVII.  
That the jewish Church-officers had not a jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate. Mr. Gillespies distinction, that they were not materially but formally distinct, examined. The argument of Amyraldus, that though they had a distinct jurisdiction, yet the example of the church of the jews is no pattern to the Christian church, discussed, and proved to be of no validity.  
THis subject, touching the identity or diversity of jurisdiction ecclesiastical and civil among the Jews, well understood, will decide the whole controversy: which Mr. Gillespie well apprehendeth, and therefore perceiving the strength of this plea, that good reason it is, that the ecclesiastical power should be distinct or not distinct in the church of the Jews as well as in that of the Christians, since the power of the keys and of binding and losing, of censuring, excommunicating, and making laws authoritatively be the same in both churches; and therefore, that it cannot be supposed without great inconvenience that the jurisdictions were indistinct amongst the Jews, but distinct amongst the Christians; this, I say, being considered by him, makes him withal endeavour to lay hold on that opinion that maketh jurisdictions distinct in the Commonwealth of Israel; for this supposition he takes to be the groundwork of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction.  
But I will not enter far into this matter, having in the examen of the 30. chapter of the confession of the River. 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 fabric 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 show or likeliness for a double jurisdiction among the Jews, 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 Jews, 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 endless 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 Jews, 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 conjoined among the Jews, 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 sovereign magistrate, and was also over matters of religion. Lud. Capellus part 3. de ministerii verbi necessitate thes. 18, 19, etc. 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 river. 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 ecclesiastical judges distinct from the civil. judicious R. Hooker is very express for us in his 8. book of ecclesiastical 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 governor, on whose supreme authority they did all depend. I have alleged elsewhere Mr. Lightfoot wholly concurring with Richard Hooker.  
Mr. Herbert Thorndike, a judicious writer and much versed in the antiquities of the Jews, is wholly for an identity of jurisdiction among the Jews. In 8. chapter he saith, that when Moses was dead, a Precedent 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 Precedent of the Sanedrim was always a Priest; and showeth, that the chief ruler of the Commonwealth was ruler over persons and causes of all kinds, without any distinction of civil and ecclesiastical. 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 jews 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 ministered. 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. doctrine 197. acknowledgeth the same identity of jurisdiction among the Jews.  
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 Senate after the thirtieth year of Christ was ecclesiastical, and yet was over all persons and causes, except capital; and that there was not then any other senate extant; but that before the thirtieth year, the same senate having the judgement of capital 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 ecclesiastical senate, were also members of the civil senate: 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 ecclesiastical causes, and the ecclesiastical after the 30. judging of civil.  
But I could never understand why he calls the senate after the 30. year of Christ merely ecclesiastical, because it did not judge of capital causes, though it had cognizance and judgement of all other matters Can the judging or not judging of capital and criminal causes alter the constitution and name of an assembly or court, so as that when it judgeth of capital causes it must be called civil, otherwise it must be called ecclesiastical?  
Now because there is some obscurity in that concession of his, that the church and state were the same materially, we will hear what his countrymen say to that, in a late book printed anno 1657. called A true representation of the present divisions of the church of Scotland, that we may the better weigh his recantation, or rather modification, when he saith, that though they were the same materially, yet they were distinct formally: the words are pag. 18. The church of God being restrained to that one people of Israel, their church and commonwealth were materially the same by divine constitution, so that none could be members of the commonwealth but such as were also members of the church, and so professors of the true religion, as now under the Gospel it may be otherwise. Now let us hear Mr. Gillespie pag. 6. They were formally distinct in respect of distinct laws; the ceremonial was given to them in reference to their church state, the judicial was given to them in reference to their civil state. But if they were distinct in regard of the judicial and ceremonial laws, why may they not be united in regard of the moral law? For Mr. Gillespie passeth over the moral law, and leaves it uncertain who is to be the keeper and guardian of it, and whether it was given in reference to their church state or in reference to their civil state, or whether a third power, jurisdiction or state must not be constituted, that is neither civil state nor church state, to which the moral law hath reference: for sure there was some union of jurisdictions in the protection and defence of the moral law, which was as it were the bottom and the basis upon which the ceremonial and judicial were grounded, and is of far more large extent than the ceremonial and judicial put together; and from which, in so many difficulties that are incident for the clearing of ceremonial rites and judicial sentences, there must be continual appeals to the keepers of the moral law; which being at least equally in the custody of the magistrate and church-officers, and both parties having a joint interest in the moral law, as to see all men and businesses governed and squared thereby, they also to that end must conjoin their power and jurisdiction. For indeed the moral law is no more different from the politic, then from the law given to families, fathers, masters, husbands; only the politic law is the practice of the moral, or is the moral law applicable to cities, families, etc. In like manner the ceremonial law is but the moral law applied in the practice of religious service: for the moral law saith, God only is to be worshipped; the ceremonial saith where, how, when & by whom. So that as all laws are streams from the moral law, so must all jurisdiction be from one fountain of magistracy. It seems that Calvin had the same thought, when in his harmony of the Pentateuch he reduceth all laws under one classis.  
But to examine a little nearer his distinction of material and formal; I do not understand what he meaneth by formal in opposition to material: for the jurisdictions that are one materially, must be also one formally. Let us suppose two coordinate supreme senates, as Mr. Gillespie would have them, among the Jews, one civil, and another ecclesiastical; and that (as he would have it) the same men were members of one and the other: I say, if they do not differ materially, neither do they differ formally, so long as no law, order or constitution, civil or ecclesiastical, can have any force without the joint consent of both, and except both senates put their seals of confirmation to what either of them hath decreed. For example, the appointing a day of public humiliation by the ecclesiastical senate, must be also an act of the same men sitting in a civil senate, who, if they will have the injunction to stand, must make orders subservient to it, that there be no markets nor courts that day kept; otherwise those that keep markets or courts upon such a day by virtue of former warrants from the civil senate, will not know how far they are to obey the injunction of the ecclesiastical senate, without a dispensation from the civil senate. This double jurisdiction is in effect but one; for the same men appointing a day of humiliation in an ecclesiastical senate to be kept, forbidden also in a civil senate all markets and courts to be kept: and though one part of the injunction was made in one senate, and the other part in the other senate; (which is very impertinent, and a needless multiplication of businesses) yet those two jurisdictions must at length be resolved into an integral one; as when Protector, Lords and Commons, that make up one Parliament, must unanimously agree that all the votes and orders shall end in the same law and act. I confess there can hardly be clashing of powers, judgements & votes, betwixt these two supreme senates, such as Mr. Gillespie supposeth, so long as the same men are members of both senates; but withal I should count it a needless and senseless multiplication of senates, and that in vain the same matter and cause were to be decided by two coordinate senates, when as one senate would serve the turn: for however, at length the two senates, as they meet in the same persons, so must they in the same accord and agreement; which is all one as if it were but one jurisdiction.  
Again, it is observable, that diversity of things and persons to which laws and constitutions have relation, doth not constitute a diversity of power and jurisdiction, specially when the same men are to make the same laws and constitutions: for as the same men making laws about navigation and the militia, cannot be said to act from two powers and jurisdictions they are invested with; so neither if the same men do make laws, as for example, about God's worship, and the militia.  
Briefly, I believe Sir Thomas More in all his Utopia cannot parallel such a piece of constitution of state, made up of two jurisdictions, both coordinate & subordinate each to the other, materially the same, not formally, where of the same men are members. A happy state indeed, in which there can be no clashing, except the same man be opposite to himself, or that the members of the ecclesiastical senate forget to day, what they decreed yesterday when they met in a civil senate. But since these two senates are materially the same men, what need we give them several names and forms, for some accidental circumstances of time and place, either because they do not sit in the same place, or that they are upon several businesses? must the same members of Parliament, sitting to day upon religion, be called an ecclesiastical senate, acting by an ecclesiastical power, and to morrow sitting to order the militia of the state, it may be in another place, be called a civil or military senate, acting by a civil or military power?  
But most of those that are for ecclesiastical presbyterian jurisdiction, finding no probability in the opinion of Mr. Gillespie, viz. that among the Jews there was a jurisdiction in the hands of church-officers distinct from that of the magistrate, go another way, and admit willingly an identity of jurisdiction, but withal say, that from the coalition of jurisdictions amongst the Jews, it cannot be inferred that the same aught to be under the Gospel; that that church in its pedagogy is no pattern to the church in its maturity: thus speaketh Amyraldus in his book of the government of the church chap. 3. p. 91. Whoever commits these two powers into the hands of the same persons, he not only brings back the church into its infancy, as if it were still under the pedagogy of the law, but also casts it into that confusion from which the condition of those times did deliver it.  
A man upon better grounds may invert this paralogism, and make use of this reasoning of Amyraldus to prove the quite contrary to what he drives at; and so imitate smiths, who with the same tool pull out & drive in a nail: for had the Jews had a government of the church distinct from that of the Commonwealth, I would thence infer, there is no further need among Christians of such a division, but rather of a coalition of powers; that the Jews being rude and weak in knowledge, under a burdensome administration, loaden with ceremonies and legal rites, where the sixth part of the people was either judge, elder, leader, Priest, Prophet, Levite, or officer in the levitical service, had need to have many keepers, guardians, tutors, many helps of government; so the governor's might be very well parted into ecclesiastical and civil, and so the whole government might be shared betwixt the two supreme powers, the keepers of each having wherewithal to employ themselves: but the Christian church being wholly freed from the burdensome administration of laws and officers, and having no platform of government, neither hath it need of an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, when there is no ecclesiastical law or constitution.  
Thus, were I of Mr. Gillespies opinion, that among the Jews the government of the church was distinct from that of the Commonwealth, I would speak in the language and words of Amyraldus, and infer, that for the same reason that the Jews had a double jurisdiction, the Christians may be very well without it.  
But the opinion of Amyraldus, that there was no distinction of jurisdiction among the Jews, rendereth his inference for a double jurisdiction under the Gospel much more groundless, weak and absurd: for if under a burdensome administration, when they had need of many pedagogues, and schoolmasters, yet they were governed without distinct government of church and state; much less do the Christians need such a distinct government, seeing they are freed from the necessity of having so many schoolmasters, guides, watchmen, and masters, to govern them, and teach them so many rudiments, and unriddle them all the ceremonies: besides that, sure God never gives distinct governor's, but also he giveth a distinct law and discipline, to be a rule to govern by; which yet God never did.  
Though I am so far of the opinion of Amyraldus, that the government of the church was not distinct from that of the state; yet I am not of his mind in this, to think that identity of government would bring a confusion in Christian states: for I count that identity so needful and necessary, whether the state be never so much or never so little burdened by men, laws, constitutions, and businesses to dispatch, that in a state loaden with laws and businesses, as the Commonwealth of the Jews was, two jurisdictions coordinate would have brought an horrible confusion, and multiplication of suits and businesses, and in a state less encumbered with laws and businesses, that double jurisdiction would still bring more work than need be if there was but one jurisdiction.  
The argument of Mr. Gillespie, to prove that there were two coordinate jurisdictions among the Jews, because of the wide division and distinction of offices amongst them, neither the King being to take upon him the Priesthood, nor the Priest the Kingdom, as it makes nothing for him, so doth it rather plead for an identity of jurisdiction under the new Testament: for if when the functions were so distinct, that the King could not offer incense and be Priest, nor the Priest King, yet there was no distinction of jurisdictions; much less is that distinction needful under the new Testament, when nothing hinders but that Kings may be ministers, and ministers Kings.   

CHAPTER XVIII.  
The cause of mistakes in stating the nature of the church, and calling that the true church which is not. Three acceptions of the word church in holy writ. The meaning of the word church Math. 18. v. 17.  
IN treating of the church, I conceive a world of writers, both Papists and Protestants, might have spared themselves much labour about the nature, power, trueness, fallibility, antiquity, succession of it, if both parties had not walked in the dark, and if they had agreed upon some few and very easy common principles, consonant to holy Scripture and reason. How many volumes on our side are written, to state how far the Romish church is a true church, to vindicate us from schism, to prove that we have a right succession of churches, power and ministry, that the English church is a true Catholic church, that the reform in France have likewise a right to that title? One party yields more than needs must; and fearing to want for themselves a right of church-succession and Baptism, they will acknowledge the Romish church to be a true church, and yet with such metaphysical reservations and modifications, that from a metaphysical goodness they insensibly descend to a moral, making of a magistrates power an ecclesiast call, of a cadaver and carcase a living body, of an aggregation of churches under one presbytery of the same extent with the jurisdiction of the magistrate, the only true church of Christ. This made the late English hierarchy conceive, that their best course was to approach as near as they could to the Romish, yea to be one church with them; that otherwise they could not make their power, calling and succession good, nor clear themselves from the guilt of schism. So that as all parties have been equally mistaken in their grounds, so have they hardly understood one another, raising doubts where there were none; some by that weakening their own cause, and strengthening that of their adversaries, who took all concessions for truths, putting their opposites to very great straits. For not knowing well how to deny the church of Rome to be a true church, and that salvation is to be had in it; and not being able to show an uninterrupted succession from the Apostles time, as the Romanists can do, nor vindicate themselves from schism; each party is very eager to call his neighbour schismatic, rending the seamlesse coat of Jesus Christ, that name being liberally bestowed by the Romanists upon the Protestants, and by some of these upon those that adhere to the dissenting brethren: each of them, Papists and Presbyterians, challenging that seamlesse coat of Christ, even right of church and ecclesiastical power; and therefore for fear of schism & rendings, they will be sure to cast lots upon it, that they may have it whole and entire. Whereas had both been well informed of the nature of church and of schism, and that suceession is a needless plea, neither availing the Romanists a whit, nor prejudicing any way the reformers, Baronius, Bellarmin, & Stapleton, as well as Whitaker, Chamier, and the like, might have saved the world so much labour in reading them; the first in putting the reformers upon the task of proving themselves a true church, and the latter in taking off the aspersion of schismatics: for than no doubt all the hard task had been on the Romanists side, who being not able to make invalid our grounds about the nature of the church, the power of the church, the calling of pastors, their succession, and of schism, had been wholly put upon vindicating themselves, and not weakening our title; for it had been to little purpose, so long as we had retained the same grounds, which do put us into a firm and unmoveable possession. About the nature of schism Dr. Owen (whose grounds, which is very strange, though we never conferred our notes together, are those that I stand upon in treating of the nature of the church) hath so well resolved the world, that it is but in vain for any one either to write after him or against him. And having in my Paraenesis handled the nature of the church, & intending here only an extract of it, I will say only so much of it as will make way to what I mainly intent to prove, viz. that the parity and independency of churches each from the other in power of exercising all church acts, best agreeth not only with Scripture, antiquity, and the opinion of Zuinglius, Musculus, Bullingerus and Erastus, but also with the sense of the seven dissenting brethren, sitting twelve years ago in Westminster together with the other members of the assembly of Divines; yea that many foreign divines, and other learned men, Salmasius for one, no way intending to favour the cause we have in hand, have been strong patrons of it in several of their writings, and treating of the right of churches and of the power of the magistrate over them, have laid the same foundations as we.  
I find in holy writ, specially in the new Testament, that the word Church is taken properly three ways. I. for the mystical body of Jesus Christ, the elect, justified and redeemed, whereof the Gospel is full; thus Hebr. 12. v. 23. and Ephes. 5. v. 26, 27. etc. II. for the universality of men through the world outwardly called by the preaching of the word, yielding an external obedience to the Gospel, and professing visibly Christianity; of this mention is made 1 Tim. 3. v. 15. and 2 Tim. 2. v. 20. III. for a particular visible congregation, with one accord meeting in one place for the worship of God according to his institution; which is spoken of Rom. 16. v. 4. Gal. 1. v. 2. 1 Cor. 16. v. 1. 2 Cor. 8. v. 1. 1 Thess. 2. v. 14. Act. 9 v. 31. Act. 15. v. 41. 1 Cor. 16. v. 19 yea such a church as is confined within a private family, as Rom. 16. v. 5. St. Hierome upon the 1. of the Galatians takes the word church properly either for a particular church, or for that church called the Body of Christ, which hath neither spot nor wrinkle: dupliciter ecclesia potest dici; & ea quae non habet maculam & rugam, & vere est Christi corpus, & ea quae in Christi nomine congregatur; relating to the words of Christ Matth. 18. v. 19 where two or three, etc. which cannot be understood of a national church.  
There be two places in the new Testament where the word church is taken otherwise: namely Act. 19 v. 41. for a concourse of people; & Matth. 18. v. 17. a place so much controverted, and which when we speak of excommunication requireth we should insist upon it. It sufficeth here to say, that if by it were meant an ecclesiastical assembly of pastors and elders, some other parallel to it might be found in the old or new Testament. I am sure as there is none in the new, so neither in the old; where the words kahal or gnedah are taken sometimes for the whole congregation, as Deuter. 31. v. 30. where Moses pronounced a canticle in the hearing of the whole church or congregation; and yet the 28. verse showeth that by the whole congregation the magistrates and elders are meant: thus Levit. 4. v. 13, 14, 15, and 21. where if the people had trespassed ignorantly, the church, that is the assembly of magistrates and elders, are commanded to offer atonement for the sin; and Deut. 23. v. 1. the eunuch, the bastard, the Moabite and the Ammonite are barred from the congregation or the church, that is from public employment; for a converted Moabite was not forbidden from the Jewish church. Sometimes for a senate of judges and magistrates, called Synedrium; as Proverb. 26. v. 26. and so it is interpreted by the LXX. and there you have a plain exposition of the word church Matth. 18. for the like cause of wrong and injury is spoken of in both places, and the like judicatory: so Ecclesiasticus 23. v. 24. the adulteress is convented before the church, that is before the judicatory of judges and elders. Which places manifestly declare, that Christ meant such a judicatory amongst the Jews, whereof the words heathen and publican make further proof; and that Jesus Christ spoke of the same kind of judicatory and men, as ordinarily were found when he spoke the words: but it is evident that neither in Christ's time, nor ever since his time, the word church was taken for an assembly or senate of ecclesiasticals, or an assembly of pastors. So that, was there any such sentence of excommunication or censure inflicted by the church upon the party that did the wrong, this judgement or sentence must needs be pronounced by such a Synedrium or senate of judges and elders, endowed with judicial authority, as the word church was usually taken for among the Jews. But suppose the word church was not used by Christ in that sense, our brethren should show us that Jesus Christ did speak it in a Scripture sense, and as it was taken in the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, namely (as they would have it) for an assembly of Christian church-officers invested with judicial authority. Here one controverted place of Scripture must be expounded by another: and while there is very great likelihood that Jesus Christ meant a senate ordinarily sitting amongst the Jews to decide controversies of wrong betwixt brother and brother, and which was not made up of officers distinct from the magistrate, or men delegated by him; if they will weaken our plea and exposition, which is very rational and natural, and make it as probable and likely that he spoke of a company of church-officers distinct from the magistrate, they must look out some parallel place either in the old or new Testament, where the word church is so understood; which I am confident they will never find.  
But to yield as much as I can; though I find not where in the old Testament the words kahal and gnedah, church, signifying such an assembly of church-officers, yet I find 1 Sam. 19 v. 20. the word lahakath mentioned, where it is spoken of a company of Prophets, which word our brethren might as well interpret a church: but neither would this serve their turn; for in that place of Samuel quoted, those prophets were not sitting in a senate, church or college, nor were they about any church act, but were travelling in the highway: and however, our Lord Jesus Christ had no reference to such a church or assembly of prophets, who as prophets were never endowed with a judicial power. Samuel indeed was over them as an Arch-prophet; but as such he had no jurisdiction in Israel, but as a Prince and Judge of the people.   

CHAPTER XIX.  
That a particular assembly of Christians meeting in one place about the worship of God, is the only true visible church mentioned in Scripture. That that church considered as an assembly of Christians, bringeth forth other kinds of acts than it doth considered as a society of men: by which the nature and extent of the power of a private church is made clear and evident.  
HAving mentioned the acceptions of the word Church in the new Testament; there being not any visible assembly either according to the first or second acception, it remaineth, that a particular assembly of Christians meeting in one place with one accord, about the worship of God, enjoying the same ordinances, hath the true denomination of a church. This church, presbyterian, particular church or congregational, is the true adequate subject of all church-right, discipline and power; which it enjoys partly by a divine positive right, as it is a congregation of Christians, partly by a divine natural civil politic right, as it is a society of men endowed with wisdom, prudence and liberty, to govern themselves by such laws as they find most convenient for their subsistence.  
The first is a divine positive right: for however men are so, or otherwise commanded by some external power, yet the pastor is to look for a flock and people, and the people for a pastor; and both are to meet in as convenient a place and competent a number as they can, to enjoy the ordinances of Christ, by hearing the word, praying, and partaking of the Sacraments, by a warrant and command from Christ. By the same right, warrant and command, the pastor or pastors of the church are to perform all the pastoral acts, as to preach to those that will hear, not by constraint, but willingly, to command in the name of Christ, to exhort, to dehort, to beseech men to be reconciled to God, to lay out Christ in the promises of the Gospel, to denounce the judgements of God to the impenitent and unbelievers, to admit to the Eucharist all baptised persons, and visibly professing Christianity, who are not ignorant, or public infamous offenders ', or profane, refusing none by any judicial act of theirs denouncing sentence of excommunication, or any other censure, but by their general duty as Christians, by which they are bound not to have communion with such unfruitful workers of darkness. Otherwise they are to impose nothing, no injunction, no censure or punishment, but on such as without constraint and willingly undergo it, and are contented so to do. The other acts of a pastor out of the congregation are, to offer himself, sent or unsent, to visit and comfort the sick, the prisoner, the widow, the fatherless, to see all persons and families that are of his flock, to be the same at home as at church, of the same Gospell-conversation, and that all ranks be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, to respect no man's degree or person in delivering his message from Christ, saying even as John Baptist to Herod, it is not for thee to keep thy brother's wife; briefly, to do the office of a faithful minister in season and out of season.  
The acts of the people in a society of church-members are double; some do respect the pastor, others the fellow-members. Those that respect the pastor or pastors are, to maintain, observe, respect and honour them, first for their callings sake, looking upon them as Ambassadors from Christ, and then for their work, and the word that they bear; to receive their commands as commands of Christ, and yet not with a blind obedience, but first being persuaded and convinced, yea judging them by the judgement of spiritual men, and by a judgement of discretion and approbation, proving the pastors doctrine, though it came out of another St. Paul's mouth.  
The acts and duties of church-members as such one towards another are, to love, edify, forbear, and submit one to another. But a main act of a church-member as such is, not to submit his own reason to the number of his fellow-members, in assenting to or dissenting from such a doctrine, act, or law made by them, but to the weight, and to what he by his reason enlightened by the word conceiveth to be most good, true, just and reasonable; yet, for conformity sake and mutual edification, yielding as far as he may.  
The acts of the power of the church by a natural divine politic 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 college or school: these acts are, to do all things orderly; to choose their own church-officers; that orders made by the major part of the society shall oblige the minor dissenting part; to choose 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 chief 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 descent 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 proceed for order and discipline should be stayed. Were not 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 physician or a merchant, and nothing being seen but the outside, they must be all governed by the same dictate, which appeareth prima front to be reason to a man considered as a man, and not as he is a Christian, lawyer or physician. And as Dionysius governed his Kingdom and school by the same dictates of reason; so must a society of merchants, a college of physicians, a family, and so a society of Christians.  
Of these two kinds of acts, as every society hath one proper to itself, as it is a society of merchants, physicians, 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 college of physicians, who, as physicians, join in consultation upon a case propounded to them, send bills to their apothecary's, examine and judge of the worth of those that are candidates, or have licence to practise physic, 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 choose a precedent, censors and officers; they make choice of time and place to sit; they do all things orderly; they admit or expel members; they give authority and licence to practise physic; they bind themselves to stand to those orders that are made by the major part of their fellows; which act is no act of physicians as physicians, 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 ecclesiastical jurisdiction, it being in truth no other than what is assumed by all societies, whose orders do pass for laws 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 men's common reason & prudence, than 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 express 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 external 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 laws of Christ, and approved to every one's conscience, but because like laws 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 expressly by God, in as much as they require external 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 collector saith from them, that for remedying disorders, and taking away or preventing gross errors, there must be a power of restraint and coercion used; and in regard that every particular church is to be as well considered in the quality of a civil society, as a society of church-members.   

CHAPTER XX.  
That the power attributed to private churches by the reverend dissenting brethren doth very well accord with the power of magistracy in matters of religion, as it is held by Erastus, Bullingerus, Musculus, Grotius, Mr. Selden, and Mr. Coleman. This same is proved by reason, and by the testimony of Mr. Burroughs, writing the sense of all his brethren, as also by the practice of the churches in New-England.  
WHen at first I undertook to write of this subject, I had no other design but to assert the nullity of a double external jurisdiction, and to prove that, there being no such thing, neither in Scripture nor reason, as an ecclesiastical power, all jurisdiction that was not united under and appertained not to the magistrate, & was not a power of coercion, was no jurisdiction. Neither was I then less dissenting from the churchway and power retained by the river. brethren of the congregation, then from the presbyterian brethren; and the rather because I saw both parties carried with as much eagerness of opposition against Erastus and Mr. Coleman, as they were among themselves: besides, not fancying to myself otherwise, but that all jurisdiction called ecclesiastical, and assumed by whatsoever society of men, either single or made up by the aggregation of many societies, which was not subordinate to the magistrates power, was alike against reason and Scripture. But being not able to study my main matter intended, without enquiring into the nature of the power that both parties assumed to themselves, I found that the tenets of the brethren of the congregational way could very well accord with mine, and, which was not yet by any considered, that the right of particular churches, as the dissenting brethren hold, might very well consist with that measure of power that Erastus, Bullingerus, Musculus, Gualterus, Grotius, Mr. Selden, & Mr. Coleman allowed to the magistrate in matters of religion and over churches; and that independency of private churches (I mean independency from presbyterian classical and synodical judicatories) doth no way hinder their right and liberty, nor their dependency on the magistrate, nor cutteth short the magistrate of the sovereign power he ought to have overall societies and persons, and in all causes and matters. Lastly, I found that this way of reconciliation was most agreeable with Scripture, reason, the practice of the Jews, and of the primitive church of Christians; besides was confessed so by many learned men, who though seemingly otherwise affected, and carried by more heat, than knowledge of what was passed or held in this Island, have notwithstanding in their tracts about the power of churches, and discipline, laid the same grounds that the dissenting brethren have delivered.  
I need not be very long in proving, by reason that this reconciliation betwixt the advocates of the magistrates power in matters of religion, and those that plead for the right of churches, is already made to our hands by what I have already handled. I add further these following considerations.  
1. Since every private church hath within itself a power of magistracy, and that all magistracy, in whatever society it be seated, is subordinate to the magistrate of those societies; it doth consequently follow, that that magistracy wherewith every private church is invested, is also subordinate to the magistrate: for, as I have demonstrated, since no society of church-members, (no more then of citizens, merchants, physicians and the like) can be imagined without laws, discipline, and power of restraint and coercion, so neither can it be imagined that such a power is not dependent on the magistrate: for if a member of a society be obstinate and refractory, and will not be ruled but by coercion and compulsion, & it be more than church-members as such can do, to reduce him by exhortation and good advice; then church-members must act also by a power of magistracy, either assumed or delegated: however it be, that power of magistracy is subordinate to the sovereign magistrate.  
2. It is a maxim in Scripture, Philosophy and common reason, that theorems or propositions that are true asunder, are no way contradictory one to another. Now these two following propositions are of an undeniable truth, viz. The magistrate is a sovereign governor over all persons and societies, and in all matters and causes, whether they pertain to religion or no; and this, Every particular church hath a right and power to govern itself, without any dependence either on other churches or church-judicatories. Each of these propositions being considered as true asunder, must also be very consistent, and no way clashing one with the other.  
3. That the right of churches may well stand with the power of the magistrate, may appear by example of many societies, as families, corporations, halls, whose intrinsical power of magistracy agreeth exceeding well with that of the magistrate over them: for none doubteth but every father of a family hath a power to govern his children, household and servants as he listeth, being in his own as it were house a magistrate and a Priest; yet none hitherto questioned but that paternal and economical powers are subordinate to the power of the magistrate, for even the civil law and so many constitutions about regulating the power of fathers, masters and husbands, and yet allowing them their authority at home, are an argument that their fatherly power is consistent with their subordination to the magistrate.  
4. There be, as I shown above, two kinds of acts to be performed in a church; one as they are church-members, the other as they are a society, that for their government must assume some part of jurisdiction of the same nature with the magistrates power. In the managing of the acts of the first kind there is no subordination of the church to the magistrate, but only in the second: for preaching, hearing the word of God, administering the sacraments, walking holily, submitting one to another, are no acts of power subordinate to the magistrate; and under that consideration I will grant the right of churches not to depend on the magistrate: but as these acts in a churchway cannot be exercised without a power of magistracy assumed, in this regard a church may be said to be subordinate to the fountain of magistracy. For it is with these two kinds of acts in subordination to God and the magistrate, as with the body and the soul. For none doubts but the faculty and gifts of reasoning, apprehending truth, loving God and our neighbour, believing in Christ, are no acts subordinate to the power of the magistrate: but as reasoning, faith, love, must be supposed resident in the body of man, and that the man in doing acts subordinate to the magistrates power, as going, ordering, commanding and obeying, doth carry along his reason, faith and love; in like manner, as it is not possible to consider a man performing the acts of reason, faith and love, and not being the while subordinate to the power of the magistrate; so a church even performing those acts of church-members as such, in as much as the second kind of acts that are subordinate to the magistrate must be joined with the first, cannot be considered without it be subordinate to the magistrate.  
5. If the power of churches were not subordinate to the magistrate, many inconveniences would follow. 1. That some churches gathered by the magistrate and his acts of appointing time, place and stipends, should not be subordinate to him. 2. Or if he should gather none, and besides appoint no public worship to take place in all parts of his dominions, but leave that wholly to the will of those that congregate of their own accord, this, I say, would in a very short time breed irreligion or heathenism in most places and most tanks of men: for than it must be conceived, that not one of 20. would congregate of themselves, & that the 19 parts not being called upon, nor any way invited by public ordinances set up in all places of men's abode, atheism or neglect of all religion would soon ensue in most parts. And a persecuting magistrate, as in the primitive church, were ten times rather to be wished, than one careless and neglecting to set up ordinances: for by one of these two ways, either by persecution, or by countenancing and commanding the worship of God, the magistrate causeth religion to flourish; by doing neither one nor the other, he takes the way to abolish it, as Julian the apostate was about to do, if God had not the sooner cut him off.  
6. But suppose it be granted on all sides, that the magistrate is bound to do what King Edward did or Queen Elizabeth, to banish popery, to set up protestantisme and an orthodox ministry in all parishes throughout England (which acts cannot be performed by a few particular churches with all their church power;) sure it must be also granted, that all those acts of a magistrate in ordering affairs of religion are in his disposal, and depending on him.  
7. Since then the magistrate must have the ordering of those affairs of religion which he himself hath constituted, if he should not likewise be the supreme governor of those churches which he hath not erected, but were gathered by the members of churches of their own accord, there could not but a great confusion arise in men's minds, as well as in the state; it being no small business to distinguish the power of the churches that are subordinate to the magistrate, and the power of those churches that are not.  
From reason I descend to the authority of the river, brethren, both in old and new England, dissenting from the presbyterians. In old England the reverend pious Jeremy Burroughs will be in stead of all the rest of his brethren; for in the eleventh chapter of his Irenicum he professeth to deliver not only his own judgement, but also that of his brethren with whom he had occasion to converse. Whoever shall peruse his book throughout, specially the fifth chapter, will find that he attributeth as much power to the magistrate over churches, as any of the opposites to the presbyterian brethren. Which power of the magistrate while he asserteth, he never conceives it should overthrow his other positions, namely, in the seventh chapter, concerning the right and power of churches; or that his stating the right, liberty and power of churches, could not consist with the power of the magistrate over them. Now he is very express in the said chapter for the power of the magistrate in sacred things.  
Pag. 21. he saith that magistrates in their magistracy are specially to aim at the promoting of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ the mediator; and there and throughout that long chapter you have these conclusions. 1. That the church and Commonwealth of Israel were mixed in one: that there is no reason it should be now otherwise. 2. That the power of the magistrate is alike in the times of the old and new Testament; and were it so that nothing were set down of it in the new Testament, that it is enough it is a law not only granted to the Israelites, but also of the light given to the very heathens, whose power of magistracy was to govern religion as well as other things. 3. That it is most unreasonable, that a magistrate turning either from the heathenish or Jewish religion, should enjoy less power in matters of religion than he had when he was a Jew or heathen. An infidel magistrate (saith he) converted to Christian religion is thereby better enabled to perform the duty of his place, than before; but he had the same authority before. 4. He holds, that the magistrate hath a sovereign judgement of his commands, though unskilful in the things commanded. A magistrate that is not skilful in physic or in navigation, yet he may judge physicians and mariners if they wrong others in their way. 5. He asserts largely the power of the magistrate in matters of religion, by the example of the Kings of Judah and Israel, yea of the Kings of Niniveh, and of Artaxerxes interposing his power in matters of religion, for which Ezra blesseth God; whosoever will not do the law of thy God and the law of the King, let judgement be executed upon him. Here one may see, as the law of God and the law of the King may stand together, so the power of the magistrate may very well consist with the power, right and liberty of a private church. And the like he doth by many passages of Scripture which he urgeth; namely Isa. 49. v. 23. King's shall be thy nursing fathers, etc. and Esa. 60. 10. Revel. 21. v. 24. the Kings of the earth shall bring their honour to the church, and Rom. 13. 4. and 1 Pet. 2. 13. He adds, since the Scripture speaks thus generally, for thy good, for the punishment of evil-doers and the praise of them that do well, we must not distinguish where the Scripture doth not.  
Now let us go to New-England, where none will deny but a power and right of churches is maintained suitably to the sense of the dissenting brethren in old England, and yet they ascribe no less to the magistrate in matters of religion then Mr. Burroughs. Witness the result of a synod at Cambridge in new England, published an. 1646. They say, magistrates must and may command matters of religion that are commanded in the Word, and forbidden things therein forbidden; by the Word meaning the whole Word both in the new and old Testament. In short, they hold for substance what I said before of the two kinds of acts performed in every private church: one looking immediately at the external act of the body, and the duties and sins which appear in the carriage of the outward man; and this they say the magistrate looketh at, and commandeth or forbiddeth, in church and out of church; see pag. 15. and therefore they say pag. 40. every church considered as a civil society needeth a coercive power. They say further, that this power is needful in churches, to curb the obstinate, and restrain the spreading of errors.  
Pag. 49. they invalid the example of Uzziah, often alleged by the Romanists and the presbyterians (though Mr. Gillespie, as I remember, never maketh use of it in his great book) and say, that this act of Azariah thrusting out Uzziah was an act of coercion, and so of magistracy, and a civil act, which priests and Levites were allowed to do, and which they made subservient to that command of God, that none should burn incense but the sons of Aaron. For I believe any officer under the sovereign magistrate might do the like, in case this later should go about to violate a command of such a high nature; for being an under-magistrate, and invested with power of coercion, he obeyeth the greater master, and maketh use of his power to hinder a notable breach of God's express command.  
Having thus made good that there is a fair correspondency and concurrence of the right and power of private churches with the magistrates power over them, I do not see but my principles and those of the dissenting brethren are very agreeable & consonant in the main. It may be a few of them will call that power in every particular church ecclesiastical, which I call a power of magistracy; and they will call excommunication an act of the ecclesiastical power, which I conceive to be rather an effect of the power of magistracy settled in every particular church. But the difference is not great, since we both make that church-power (call it what you will) a power of jurisdiction and coercion, which must needs be subordinace to the power of the magistrate, since both are of the same kind; and upon that account excommunication is a law of the power of coercion, & so of magistracy. In short, whereas some of them will say of all church-censures, that they are the product of a positive divine power, I say they are the result of a natural civil power, subservient to the divine power in the exercise of the first kind of acts of church-members as such: & sure Mr. Burroughs and the result of the synod in New-England come very near, if not altogether to my sense. For Mr. Burroughs pag. 27. maketh but two powers residing in a private church, one of admonishing, persuading, desiring, seeking to convince, the other a power restraining. This latter power I call a power of magistracy, because by the first power men are not outwardly restrained nor wrought to outward conformity; and accordingly, excommunication must needs be a product of that restraining power. So that the difference is not at all real, but nominal.  
I find in Musculus, in his common-places concerning magistrates, the same power of magistracy in churches. The passage hath been alleged above: there he saith, that that power exercised in churches is notecclesiasticall, but the power of the magistrate.   

CHAPTER XXI.  
That a church made up of many particular churches under one presbytery invested with a judicial power over them, is not of the institution of Christ.  
WE are brought insensibly to know the nature of a Christian church instituted by Christ, which, as I said, is a particular visible one meeting in one place to celebrate the same ordinances, whereof mention is made 1 Cor. 11. v. 18. and chap. 14. v. 23. and Act. 13. v. 42. and 44. In this church the Lord Jesus Christ hath properly instituted the ministry: for Christ hath not instituted a catholic visible church, much less a national church under one presbytery: but this appellation of church is like the word man, which denotes a nature common to many singulars, and yet is properly said of John or Peter. For as many fountains are not a fountain, and many schools are not a school, and many families are not a family; so many private churches are not properly a church. We shall find below Amyraldus saying most truly, and very pertinently to our argument, that the appellation of church doth not properly belong either to the catholic visible church, or to a national church, such as are the English, French, Helvetian churches; which are rather a knot or collection of churches, than a church.  
That such a church, made up of many private churches under one presbytery, is not of the institution of Christ, nor ex necessitate praecepti, but of the free pleasure of each private church, who without any violation of the command of Christ, may either remain single, or aggregate itself to other churches under such a presbytery, may be proved by several arguments.  
1. I begin with the testimony of the Rev. Assembly in their humble advice, who lay no greater stress of necessity upon it, then that it is lawful and agreeable to the word of God that such a thing be.  
2. If the Lord Jesus Christ had instituted such a presbyterian church, it were fit it should be told us what is a competent number of churches requisite to be under a presbytery, whether only three or four, or more, it may be two thousand. If so many, why may not a hundred thousand churches be under one presbytery? If so many, why not all private orthodox churches that are dispersed through the world? If a presbytery may be over all the catholic visible church, since this presbytery must have a precedent 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 catholic 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 churchway, to hear the word, it may be denominated a church, and have warrant from Christ to be so called. But our brethren cannot show us that all the private churches of Scotland under one presbytery can be called properly a church, being rather a political and prudential consociation: and could they show 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 judicial power from Christ to make laws authoritatively, to excommunicate, to exauctorate, and inflict censures without any appeal, than 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 marquis of Huntley, who 8. years after, viz. in the year 1616. was released from that excommunication by the Archbishop 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 Emperor 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, than 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 national presbyterian church, so neither the national church itself.  
6. It is no less 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 several dominions, in the confines of Geneva, Savoy, Burgundy & 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 keys, and of binding and losing, 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, than 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 than a private church to associate; she hath that liberty either to subject herself 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 ecclesiastical 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 Emperors it was a power of consent, every particular church reserving to itself 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 Emperors. But under Christian Emperors no church-judicatory ever had any power but by commission from the magistrate, as we shall likewise show afterwards. And the diversity of rites and customs of churches, as in fasting, keeping Easter, using divers forms of liturgies, forbidding of appeals from Africa to Rome, though all these churches were under the magistrates jurisdiction, doth show, that as the supreme magistrate permitted many countries' to enjoy their customs & municipal laws, 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 ecclesiastical 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 intensiveness of the power of a national church hath ever been, and aught to be still, so much as private churches were willing to yield, for they always reserved to themselves a full church-power, taking the decrees and constitutions of other churches rather as examples and friendly advices; so the extensiveness of that power hath been always limited by the bounds of the magistrate, so that each church was more or less 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. King's be subdued, these 33. Church's would cease to be independent on each other, and in stead of 33. churches depending each on their magistrate, one national church should be moulded, of the same extent of power as the magistrate that ruleth over them.   

CHAPTER XXII.  
That the greatest opposers of the dissenting brethren, namely Salmasius, Amyraldus, and others, have laid down the same grounds for the right and power of particular churches, and so confuted rather their own fancies, then invalidated the tenets of the brethren. The question whether Rome be a true church briefly resolved. That Amesius, and john Mestrezat late minister of Paris, in their writings, have held the power of private churches to be independent from any church-judicatory.  
THe spirits of men are now a little more calm, and not so eager either at home or abroad, and the quarrel not so fierce with the independents, as it bathe been these 15. years: I having myself been a poor instrument to disabuse some of my countrymen, who partly by their misunderstanding, paitly by the false reports and ill will of the common enemy to all goodness & good men, were possessed of very harsh opinions and conceits of them, & passed a strange censure upon them, as enemies to all order and discipline, and men of dangerous and pernicious tenets to all humane societies. The very children amongst them did question whether they were shaped like other men. Amyraldus made a great book of Invectives against them, and turned them into Sodomites, frantics, and enemies of all order and discipline. Salmasi●s and Maiesius were no less bitter against them. A national synod net at Charenton, where Amyraldus had a standing, but no vote, condemned them. But as this synod condemned them as the council of Trent did the Lutherans, before they heard them; so did all these authors I have named fall upon them without mercy, before they had any particular knowledge of them, or any certain information of their supposed pernicious manners.  
Yet for all that, those very men that wrote so much against them, as they refuted rather their own fancies, than 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 groundwork for the parity and independency of churches, as the reverend brethren dissenting from the assembly of Divines have done.  
He allegeth Vignier (a French author writing above 70. years ago, highly valued, as the truest historiographer that ever put pen to paper, by the most learned and pious Prelate Dr. Usher) in his ecclesiastical 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 democratical; for every church had equal power to teach the word of God, to administer the sacraments, to absolve and excommunicate heretics, 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 controversies. 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 than we may see our brethren's sense, 1. that every particular church is independent, free to govern itself 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 judicial authority, only a liberty to admonish, advise and counsel.  
In the 8. chapter he hath a long passage, whereof the drift is, 1. that particular churches are no less free asunder, than 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 Roven; 4. that the power of synods over churches is of the same humane and civil right with the power of a judicial 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 alike managed, both by ecclesiast call assemblies 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 mere 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 expressly 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 Germane churches, as of particular churches, to distinguish them from that universal 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 several particular churches which were in Achaia, not by the name of the church of Achaia, or the Achaean 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 always 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 national 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 true 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 heretical churches? for if every private 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 styled a church? And so I conceive that the question about the trueness of the Romish church, which hath so puzzled men, may be easily resolved.  
I have but one passage more of Amyraldus to allege, 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 the council. author. thes. 28. saith, that private churches ought to retain their full right, liberty and power untouched, 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 equal in power and dignity, and are independent. 2. That the consociation under the heathen Emperors was voluntary and by consent. 3. That under Christian Emperors a consociation was introduced by humane right; so that what was at first by free and mutual consent, came afterwards under the Christian Emperors 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, Belgic 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 joined with the same band of discipline, and under the direction, counsel, advice, not the command or judicial 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 counsel, every church reserving to themselves full right and power as to those acts of their discipline, and the acts of binding and losing; 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 disannul or evacuate the judgement: which makes the Romanists take those applications to the Bishop of Room, as an acknowledgement of supremacy over all the churches.  
To these authorities Iwill add 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 equal 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 chapped. ●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 mutual confederation and consociation amongst them in classes and synods, that by a common consent they may be helpful one to another with as much commodity as may be, chief 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 useful 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 Frenchman, 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 judicial power given by Christ to classes, synods & presbyteries over particular churches, but merely assumed prudentially for mutual 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 order's sake; as the reverend man wrote to me but a few weeks before he died.   

CHAPTER XXIII.  
The consistency of the right and power of private churches with the magistrates power in ordering public worship, proved by the example of the jews: that they had through all the land particular convocations, synagogues or churches, called also colleges or schools, where the Prophets & sons of the Prophets taught, especially on the sabbath-day: that they were independent from any church-judicatory. How synagogues were altered from their first institution, and that being converted into Christian churches, they retained the same right, power and way of government.  
THe most convincing proof for the consistency of the right and power of particular churches with the magistrates power, in ordering, settling and commanding the public Divine worship of the Nation, is the example of the Commonwealth of the Jews; wherein we are informed of three main things, which taken into consideration, will clear all doubts about the right and power of particular churches, and the magistrates jurisdiction in matters of religion and public worship. 1. That in the Commonwealth of Israel, at their first institution, there were particular churches throughout all the land, near every family's dwelling-place, called synagogues. 2. That these churches were independent both from any of their own, & of the Priests or Levites judicatories. 3. That the while the magistrates power and jurisdiction remained whose, entire and undivided, over all persons, and in all causes and matters, particularly in ordering, settling and commanding the public national worship of God.  
For the first, that such churches were instituted in the land of Canaan, we have a very express proof Leviticus 23. v. 1, 2, and 3. Speak unto the children of Israel, etc. six days 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 Gospel a sabbath-days journey; and to travel 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 than 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 one's dwelling. Now that this convocation cannot be meant of national and festival meetings, is evident for those were appointed but thrice in the year, and far from every one's 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 colleges, where Prophets and their sons or scholars dwelled and taught daily: but on the sabbath-day they had a more solemn meeting of all those that dwelled near, for prayer, expounding of the law, exhortations, conferences; the main action being performed by the Rabbis: yet the disciples were not silent, but sat at their feet, ask 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 privilege 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 bless the Lord in the congregations, and Psal. 68 v. 26. bless ye God in the congregation: which doubtless 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. Psalm v. 9 doth not obscurely mention them, for the Psalmist relates that while the works of God sounded by hail, rain and thunder, the faithful, not only under a shelter of stones and timber, but of God's 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 Zion, more than all the dwellings or tents of jacob. 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 wilderness, yet he is much more taken with that glorious manifestation of his between the cherubins, whereby God setteth out the Lord Jesus Christ. Also Solomon, 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 freedom for the faithful in those convocations and synagogues, more than 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 Gospel, 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 colleges and schools; and therefore Philo in the life of Moses calleth them both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, houses of prayer and of learning: of which you have mention 2 Kings 6. v. 1. where 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 college 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 College at Naioth in Ramah, where he did not only teach publicly upon sabbaths ayes, but also instructed upon other days his disciples or young prophets, called his sons, as appeareth by the 20. verse; except by prophesying be meant uttering marvellous things of God's greatness, goodness, 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 prophet, 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 showeth manifestly, that their ordinary employment was to do what the prophets of the new Testament do, to exhort, teach, comfort-rebuke; no less 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 hide 100 in a cave; and in the 2. book chap. 2. v. 16 the sons of the Prophet's seed 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 Prophet's 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 prophesying, 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 than he was; where by the sanctuary doubtless is meant such a house of convocation or school. And in the 27. Psalm, that one thing that David desired of the Lord was, no doubt, to have communion with God and with the faithful 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 legal 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 until 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 prophetical office, viz. to pray, and teach: God forbidden 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 than the houses of convocation where they taught; so neither do we read that there was any consociation of all these convocations into one national 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 aught but the law, whereof the magistrate was the keeper and guardian, nor to thwart the duties of the public worship commanded, such as were the kill of the  at set times, the appearing of the males three times in the year at the place that God was to choose, and performing all the sacrifices, oblations and rites enjoined: 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 within fulmission embraced their say 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 anon, when we inquire into the nature of these convocations, when they went currently under the name of synagogues, and all jointly were not one Commonwealth in one country, but lived dispersed: for then every lynagogue was sui juris, and governed itself; though some R●manists would persuade 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 Patriarches of the Jews, lib. 8. tit. 18. de Iudae●s coelicolis, or Samaritanis; but those Patriarches were not over any matter concerning law or religion, but were only public treasurers of money 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 Senate 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 superior to an inferior, 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 faithful people lived under idolatious Kings, as under Jeroboam and his successors; for they could not depend on the Sanedum at Jerusalem, since it was a capital crime to appeal or repair about any matter to Jerusalem, or attend at those solemn meetings enjoined 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 ass 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 process 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 than the law of their nation, which received vigour, strength and protection from their own magistrate, who was a friend and protector of their law, religion and liberty; when afterwards they lived under those that were no good friends to their laws 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 judicial 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 governor's 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 Doctors, Rabbis, 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 capital matters, they were rather civil courts than churches; but after the 30. year of Christ, this judgement of causes for life and death being taken from them, than they were to be called churches or ecclesiastical assemblies. Which is a very frivolous exception as ever was devised, and showeth the weakness of his cause. For is a court more or less civil, because it hath or hath not the judgement of capital causes? By that reason most courts in England should be ecclesiastical, 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 Jews 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 Emperors. For as the Jews began to be the first professors of Christian religion, so the first churches were synagogues of the Jews 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 departed, 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 john 16. v. 2. they shall put you out of the synagogue, show, that synagogues of the jews should become Christian churches, and that those that professed the name of Christ, or at least believed in him secretly for fear of the jews, were not to departed, that by their means the whole synagogue might be won: and therefore the Lord jesus 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 jesus 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 bids his people flee out of Babylon. And indeed we do not read that Crispus, chief ruler of the synagogue, and other believing jews, did forsake the synagogue; or that when the whole synagogue was converted, it did presently lose the name of a synagogue, but kept it, as we see james 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 jews & Christians; for Suetonius saith that Claudins did restrain the jews, who by the impulsion of Christ did raise tumults. So that in expelling the jews, the Christians were comprehended; for it is said Act. 18. v. 2. that Aquila and Priscilla, though Christians, were commanded to departed from Rome. And as the Christians suffered as jews, so what privileges they enjoyed, it was a grant unto the jews: and as in the 9 of Claudius the jews, and with them the Christians, were banished; so in the first year of his Empire the same liberty that was granted unto the jews, did also belong to the Christians.  
So then the synagogues were the first origine and platform of Christian churches, and after those synagogues the gentiles converted did model 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, etc. 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 jews was a law and ordinance of Moses: for neither of them was. For it never came to be in use among the jews, 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, imitators of the jews, and who had the law and the covenants, yea the Lord jesus 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 admonition and exclusion, because they could not make use of the sword, which was not committed to them: and this was the cause of bringing in excommunication. Now that the Christian magistrate may punish wicked deeds, there is no further need of excommunication.   

CHAPTER XXIV.  
That the Christian churches under heathens were governed by a confederate discipline, or a power of magistracy, as the synagogues were, appointing men, which Ambrose calls elder, to decide such matters as otherwise were to come under the magistrates cognizance. This practice is grounded upon 1 Cor. 6. v. 1, 2, etc. and confirmed by Origen, justin Martyr, Ambrose and Mr. Lightfoot. That the power of these elders continued still under Christian Emperors, with some alteration, they erecting in lieu of them Episcopal courts. That all church-power was the Emperor's power. That the very heathen magistrates knew no other but that all power was annexed to them.  
HAving hitherto made good that there is no such thing as a government in the hands of church-office●s distinct from that of the magist●…e, and proved the nullity of that distinction 〈…〉 ●…call & civil jurisdiction by reason, Scripture and the example of the jews; it followeth we should prove that since the time that the 〈◊〉 church began, whether under the h●… the ●or under Christian emperors, it was not governed by a jurisdiction distinct from that of magi●…acy; and that neither ●he h●…hen no● the Christian Emperors ever knew any 〈…〉 as an ecclesiastical power not sub 〈…〉 to the magistrates power; yea that the 〈…〉 did but in words challenge a power 〈…〉 from that of the magistrate, and that 〈…〉 they made but one of two, and acknowledged that it could not be so much as 〈◊〉 they should be exercised asunder: and 〈…〉 reason that the learned of th●m, as 〈◊〉 and others, maintain that one of them 〈…〉 subordinate to the other, er●ing on●… 〈◊〉, that they subordinate ●…e civil to the 〈…〉.  
〈…〉 then being converted into 〈…〉 churches, and also turned over to 〈…〉 same jurisdiction of confederate 〈…〉 power of magistracy assumed by 〈…〉 the members of each synagogue, yet 〈…〉 ●ewish synagogues had been always 〈…〉 ●ccuted, and had enjoyed their confe●… d●…cipline for the most part by edicts from 〈…〉 magistrate under which they lived, that was the reason that they bade a greater measure of freedom to ex●… their confed●… are ●…cipline and acts of coercive a● 〈…〉 dicall ●…wer over all persons of their own body and religion, and in all causes, except in causes capital, and the meddling with any thing whereby to free themselves from paying taxes & 〈◊〉 But the Christian churches, though mo●…ed after the pattern of the jewish synagegues, being continually either under perse●…o●…, or in rear of it, could not put forth those acts of coercive ●…risdiction, unless it were a putting ●ut of the congregation, which thing may be done without much noise: but inflicting badly or pecuniary punishment could not ●e w●…l made use of, without discovering too much and laying themselves open to persecution. Besides that the members of Christian churches, being not members of the same notion, and therefore led by the only interest of and love to religion, a coerc●…e jurisdiction was nothing so necessary, nor was it any thing so frequent to put out of churches as out of synagogues: so that the differences between church members being rather differences in their judgements then any want of chari●…, that magistracy assunted at first by the synagogues when afterwards it was devolved to the Christian churches, looked rather like an a●…trators judgement and counsel. Yet still by that modified magistracy they decided and composed not only matters of faith, but also all differences in matter of wrong, either in goods, money or good name, between brother and brother; setting over, besides the most eminent that laboured in the word and doctrine, some of less eminency among them, to decide differences and controversies of another nature. And no doubt but St. Paul points at this practice 1 Cor. 6. vers. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. and 7. a notable place, which yet was never pressed to the utmost meaning. For  
1. St. Paul there enjoineth the Corinthians, rather than to go to law, to appoint some men besides those that labour in the word, to decide all matters that one man might have against another.  
2. He giveth the same measure of power in settling matters of religion or faith, and in composing differences that are usually judged in the magistrates court: for learned Diodati by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, matter or business, saith we must understand civil business; and the Dutch Annotations say that this matter is worldly business. So that St. Paul makes the church-power no more ecclesiastical than civil: for the same confederate discipline gave power to ministers to preach, and administer the sacraments, as did to chosen men of their body to compose friendly, by their wisdom and authority, such differences as are usually the matter of all courts of magistracy.  
3. The words of the Apostle, Do ye not know that the sa●nts shall judge the world? I conceive to be equivalent to these; Seeing ye do now live under a heathen and persecuting magistrate, and yet there arise such contentions and debates amongst you, as are judged for the most part in secular courts, with the breach of charity, and loss of time and money, specially the judges being no friends to your persons and religion; your best way is to have them taken up friendly by Christian arbitrators of your own churches, until God at length, after you have long suffered, be pleased to set over you a Christian magistrate, to whom you may repair when such differences arise amongst you.  
It is observable, that the holy Apostle, when he saith, is it so that there is not a wise man amongst you? etc. and, set them to judge who are least esteemed, speaketh ironically, implying that were there no wise men amongst you, such as you must appoint, yet the matter they are set over is not so knotty and hard, but that men the least esteemed amongst you, so that they were honest men, might well understand and decide it.  
Reverend Mr. Lightfoot, upon the closure of the fifth chapter and the beginning of the sixth of the first to the Corinthians, is of opinion that this is the meaning of that place: these be his words; Afterwards to take the Corinthians off from going to infidel judges, he requireth them to decide the matter themselves, till the time come that the saints shall judge the world; that is, till the time come that there shall be a Christian magistracy.  
Origen upon the 21. of Exodus Homil. 11. makes it clear that this is the meaning of the Apostle, by telling us the practice of churches in his time: Principes populi & presbyteri plebis debent omni hora populum judicarc, semper & sine intermissione sedere in judicio, dirimere lights, reconciliare dissidentes, in gratiam recordare discords; The heads and elders of the people ought every hour to judge the people, always and without intermission to sit in judgement, decide controversies, reconcile those that have differences, and make those friends that are at variance. Here is magistracy assumed by church-members, when, by their consent, elders and wise men are appointed to take up such differences in a friendly way, and such controversies betwixt brother & brother, as otherwise were to be adjudged before secular judges. I should ask here our presbyterian brethren, by what power, ecclesiastical or civil, were from metters decided and judged in origen's time? and in case by that assumed power of mag●…acy any one had been either put by from the communion, or put out of the assembly; what needed he to have recourse to the ecclesiastical power, when the other power was sufficient to have do●… it? yea when the ecclesiastical power could never do it without a power of magistracy? These be the words of Anton. de Dominis lib. 5. cap. 2. without a lay-power we can do nothing; we cannot by our ecclesiastical power put out, take off, and expel.  
The same Origen, in his 1. book against Celsus, speaketh of that magistracy assumed by consent and mutual agreement, called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. There be some appointed to inquire into the manners and ways of their living who frequent churches; that so they may keep those off from coming into their assembly, that slain their lives by foul and unworthy actions, and admit with all readiness those that are otherwise, and make them daily better.  
Though by their power of magistracy assumed by consent they might put out any one that was already a church-member, yet it seemeth it was not the settled practice in origen's time; but only, as to admit good men, so not to receive into their society those that they did not know to be such. No excommunication was then in use with him: for as the admitting a good man into church-fellowship is no absolution, so the not receiving a bad man into the church is no excommunication. This is confirmed by Justin Martyr in his 2. Apology, where he saith, No man else is permitted to receive that aliment called with us the Eucharist, but he that believes our doctrine is true, and hath been washed by the washing for remission of sins. For there Justin speaketh not of church-members; only he saith, that heathens and unbaptised men are not to partake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, or to have any part in those mysteries. Of the custom of excluding church-members, I confess we read in Tertullian and Cyprian, answerable to the Niddui and Cherem of the Jews.  
Tertullian, in the 2. chapter of his Apologetic, speaketh of the like confederate discipline or power of magistracy taken up by consent; and in the 39 chapter he maketh an enumeration of all the parts of that discipline.  
I should now have done with Origen, intending next to allege Ambrose confirming what Origen saith concerning the practice of the church, agreeable to the counsel and command of St. Paul; only I will take notice farther from Origen, of the face of the church in his time, and of the power assumed then by the Christians. Celsus, a great Philosopher, and enemy to the Christians, did accuse them that they had a discipline quite different from the laws of the Romans, that they kept private conventicles, and there had a particular secret covenant, law and discipline, no less repugnant to the laws of the Emperor, then if they had been in open rebellion. And indeed even among the Grecians these private meetings were sometimes forbidden, although the state were nothing concerned in them, they being to no other end but to perform some religious service. For Cornelius Nepos, that Alcibiades, was condemned to die for performing some religious worship, it may be sacrifice at his own house. Origen answereth, by alleging an example very fit to our purpose, and appliable to the nature of the power that Christians and private churches do exercise under a persecuting magistrate. He bringeth an example of a stranger living among the Scythians, who must either conform himself to the ungodly laws of that nation, or be a law unto himself. This same stranger, saith Origen, cannot be said to violate the laws of the Scythians, if he doth not worship Statues, but doth privately worship the true God, and in a right manner, and if he be a law unto himself. This is the case about the nature of the power exercised by churches, and an answer to that so much urged objection, that the Christian churches have been long without a magistrate, therefore governed by a power distinct from that of the magistrate. For  
1. Origen implieth, that if the laws of the Scythians had been good and tolerable, that then this stranger had been obliged to obey them.  
2. The laws of the magistrate being ungodly, this stranger living in his dominion must do his best, that he, his family and adherents be a law and a magistrate unto themselves, and perform by a dictate of conscience what the magistrate was to enjoin and command. Here none will say, that this stranger, living among the Scythians, governeth himself by a power distinct from that of the magistrate: for so Philosophers and Mathematicians, who were often forbidden in Rome, and banished, yet lurking in corners, and having private conventicles, might likewise be said to be governed by a power Philosophical & Mathematical, distinct from that of the magistrate; and a son, to whom God hath given the grace not to hearken to a bad father, must not be said to govern himself by a power distinct from the paternal, for indeed such a son is a father to himself. The like may we say of private churches under a persecuting magistrate, who are fain to settle a magistracy by consent of all the members of the churches; as the synagogues were feign to be used when they lived under a magistrate that was not of their own nation and religion: then they performed by a confederate discipline, what the magistrate was to enjoin and command them. The confession of Basilartic. 6. hath a notable saying, speaking of the duty of magistrates to propagate the Gospel as they are magistrates: This duty was enjoined a magistrate of the gentiles; how much more ought it to be commended to the Christian magistrate, being the Vicar of God? If then the heathen magistrate fails of his duty, in not propagating the Gospel, those that live under him, and are better minded, aught to supply the part of the magistrate in that particular; and yet in doing of that they do but perform their own duty and business: like as a master leading his horse down the hill, his man being out of the way, doth both his own business and that of his man, and both employeth his own strength in guiding an unruly horse, and supplieth that of his man: or (which expresseth more lively the thing in hand) as the Duke of Somerset, in training up Prince Edward in the true religion, did both do his own duty and that of Henry the 8. his father; who being wanting to his duty in showing his power & authority to have his son brought up in the true Protestant religion, Somerset, Cranmer and others were not to be wanting to theirs; and yet were not to act by a power distinct from the power of the King: for if so, then when ever a power is exercised rightly, and yet against an unlawful command of a superior, we had need to give a new name to that power, and there would be as many kinds of power, as duties to be performed.  
Having done with Origen, I come to Ambrose, whom I was to allege upon the 1. of Timothy, relating to the places of St. Paul and Origen, and to the power of magistracy assumed by churches. There he teacheth the custom both of the synagogues & of Christian churches, of having elders that composed, in stead of the magistrate, controversies arising amongst church-members; saying that first synagogues, and afterwards churches had elders, without whose advice there was nothing done in the church; and wondereth that in his time, which was about the year 370, such men were out of use: which he thinks came by the negligence, or rather pride of some Doctors, who thought it was beneath them to be esteemed the less in the church, as S. Paul saith of them, while they are to decide controversies, not as judges invested with a coercive power, but only as arbitrators and umpires.  
But the true cause why these elders ceased, which he wisheth had been still continued, he mentioneth not: but the true cause is, when the magistrate, that was for above 300. years heathenish, became Christian, these arbitrators and elders ceased in great part, at least they were more out of churches then in churches, and in stead of them the Emperor's created judges, which yet retained much of the nature of those whereof Origen and Ambrose speak, and which were invested (as most of the Lawyers affirm, as Cujacius for one, & with them my Rev. Father, in his book de Monarchia temporal, and in his Hyperaspistes lib. 3. cap. 15.) not with a coercive jurisdiction, but, as they term it, audience: hence comes the Bishops and Deans and Chapters Audit. However such arbitrators sat in a court, and were chosen by the Christian Emperors, and were not members, as before, ever since St. Paul's time, chosen by the members of that church where the contention did arise betwixt brother and brother: and at that time it was not thought a violation of the command of St. Paul, if a wronged brother had gone to secular judges, because they were not infidels, but Christians, faithful, and saints, as the Apostle termeth them, 1 Cor. 6. 2. therefore it was free for any layman or other, either to repair to the Audit of the Bishop, or to the secular judge. Which custom Ambrose doth not like so well, as when Jew's and Christians were obliged by the law of their discipline to have controversies decided by their own elders. Certain it is that these elders, (though they were not, as Ambrose wished they had been, in his time arbitrators in those churches whereof they were members) kept that office a long time under Christian Emperors, but with more authority and dignity, because they were countenanced by the Emperors their masters. We have them mentioned pretty late, even in Theodosius, Honorius and Arcadius time: for in one law they enjoin that ordinary judges should decide the contentions between Jews and Gentiles, not their own elders or arbitrators. Thereupon it is worth considering, that that title which in the Theodosian Code is de Episcopali audientia, in the Justinian Code is de Episcopali judicio: a main proof, that these judgements in episcopal courts had much still of the nature of those references in churches under the heathen Emperors.  
These episcopal courts were set up by the Emperors, to favour the clergy, that they might be judged in prima instantia by their own judges: for if either party had not stood to the sentence of that court, they might appeal to the secular court. The words of the 28. Canon of the council of Chalcedon are very express: If a clerk hath a matter against a clerk, let him not leave his Bishop, and appeal to secular judgement, but let the cause first be judged by his own Bishop.  
Now this episcopal court being in substance the same power with that of the elders mentioned by Ambrose, which were first in synagogues, and then in Christian churches under the heathen Emperors, one may plainly see how weak and sandy the grounds are upon which ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the power of the keys, and of binding and losing, in the hands of church-officers is built; which government, say they, is the government of Christ, and is to be managed by those church-officers by a warrant from Christ the mediator. For Constantine erecting an episcopal court, and empowering the judges of the court to decide causes and controversies, did not intent to give them a commission of binding and losing, or to put into their hands the keys of Heaven, so delegating a power which was none of his to give; but only granted what was in his own power, namely, that some magistrates under him should set all things in order in the church, and among the clergy. Besides, he intended to set up that magistracy, which was through the necessity of the times assumed first by synagogues, then by Christian churches under persecution: for sure Constantine did not place the power of the keys & of binding and losing in the exercise of that power managed either by the elders, which Ambrose mentioneth, or by the episcopal court erected by himself. Neither Constantine nor any of his successors did ever conceive, that churches were to be governed by any other power then their own, as all other societies of men were.  
In this episcopal court any cause between man and man, clergyman or not, was decided; capital only excepted. For matters of faith, I confess there be many Emperor's sanctions, forbidding secular courts to meddle with them: but this doth not argue that the clergy had any power more than declarative, not sancitive. For  
1. This very sanction, that secular courts should not meddle with matters of faith, was a law of the Emperor, and the episcopal courts or synods could not challenge any power therein, but by a commission from the Emperor.  
2. The Emperors did not conceive themselves obliged to receive laws concerning faith from the Bishops, or that coming from them they had a stamp of authority through all the Emperor's dominions, except they were approved of and ratified by them.  
3. The Emperors did not think themselves much obliged to receive laws of doctrine and faith from the Bishops, in regard that most of the laws and constitutio is concerning the fundamental points of faith were composed, reduced and inserted into the Code, without so much as taking counsel or advice of the Bishops; though we never read that they ever complained thereof. Only a late famous Lawyer and a Papist, in his book de justinianei seculi moribus cap. 2. maketh a great complaint thereof; which is a strong argument that the magistrate did not then acknowledge any ecclesiastical power seated in the clergy.  
4. And the power that the Emperors challenged to belong solely to them, to call synods, to choose members, to review their acts, to approve, ratify, disannul, or give them the vigour and strength of laws obliging all churches and men to obedience, either active or passive, is an argument, that what ever combined churches under the heathen Emperors did, in calling of synods, making laws and decrees, and requiring from all churches and church-members obedience to them; the Emperors did not conceive otherwise of those acts of theirs, but as of acts of magistracy taken up by consent, for want of a Christian magistrate, and which was to last no longer than till the time that God should send a Christian magistrate. For had not these been the thoughts both of the Emperors and the Bishops at that time, how came it that Constantine the Great, & the other Christian Emperors that came after him, did not rather wish the Bishops & clergy to call synods upon their own authority, as they were wont to do? and how came it that Odious, Spiridion, & Paphnutius did not dissuade Constantine from taking upon him to call synods, telling him that it was more than did belong to him, and speak in the language of Mr. Gillespie, that ministers by virtue of their office are to call and assemble synods; that it is altogether unreasonable that they should be abridged of what they had enjoyed for 300. years, and now lose a main branch of their ecclesiastical power; that hitherto it was not so much as thought on, that magistracy, which is not a thing essential to the church, should so far entrench upon the government of Christ, wherewith the ministers are solely entrusted? But these notions came not into the minds either of the Emperors, or of Osius, Eustatius, Paphnutius and others, nor of Hierom, who questioned the validity of a synod that was not convocated by the Emperor. These good men did not quarrel either at the convocation of synods, or at the making or giving of laws to churches by the sole authority of the Emperors.  
5. A further proof that neither the Emperors, nor the Kings after the Roman Empire was broken in pieces, conceived that Bishops and clergymen had any judicial power distinct from theirs, is, that for many 100 years in most parts of the Roman Empire, as it then was, Emperors and Kings kept state-assemblies, where both clergy and laity sat and voted, without any such distinction of power ecclesiastical and civil.  
I should here show, as I promised in the beginning of the chapter, that the very heathens never knew any such distinction of power: for although the law of nature and nations taught them, that there must be a sacred function distinct from others, yet they never knew nor understood that the jurisdiction of that function was distinct from that of the others: for many thousand years neither the people of God nor the heathens knew any such distinction. Aristotle in the third of his politics ch. 10. speaking of heroic Kings, the Kings, saith he, were judges and moderators in all divine matters. So was the Roman Senate, both before and after it was governed by Emperors; for it was wont to consecrate Emperors; and the name of Pontifex Maximus, of which they were so jealous, was taken by the Emperors even till Gratians time. In short, they always conceived that a common magistracy and sovereign power was made up of these two main ingredients, viz. ceremonies about religion and humane laws, both put in trust with the sovereign magistrate.  
One thing I cannot but observe: that the very heathens by the light of nature have gone here beyond Mr. Gillespie. For, to confirm a common error, that the church jurisdiction is wholly independent from the magistrate, and that the end of magistracy is only the protection of temporal life, having nothing to do with promoting the eternal good of the soul, to confirm, I say, this error, he teacheth us that magistracy is not subservient to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ the Mediator ex natura rei. But this error is refuted by the very heathen, namely Aristotle, in his 3. book of Politics ch. 16. where he saith, that the scope of politics is not simply to live, but to live well. I should ask Mr. Gillespie, when a magistrate turneth from heathenism to Christianity, whether his first duty is not to seek the Kingdom of Heaven, both for himself and all that are under his charge.  
There is also a notable passage of Pareus among his Miscellanea Catechetica, artic. 11. aphoris. 18. where he lamenteth that heathens should surpass Christians in this particular, in attributing more to the magistrate for ordering matters of religion, and that they in this point should be more orthodox: these be his words; Ac sane dolendum est, rectius in hoc capite sensisse olim ethnicos, qui unanimi consensu regi suo demandarunt curam religion's & cultus Deorum, idque persuasi tam jure naturae quam gentium.  
As pregnant a proof, that the same persons amongst the heathens had the managing of religious as well as civil affairs, is that of Cicero, in his Oration pro domo sua ad Pontifices: the words are these; Praeclare à majoribus nostris constitutum est, quod vos eosdem & religionibus Deorum immortalium & summae reipublicae praeesse voluerunt; ut amplissimi & clarissimi cives rempublicam bene gerendo, religiosissimi religiones sapienter interpretando, rempublicam conservarent. It was excellently well ordained by our ancestors, that the same persons should be put in care with matters of religion, and the supreme government of state: that so, whilst the most noble and renowned citizens should see to the right ordering of the Commonwealth, and the most religious to the right interpreting of religious matters, the frame of the Commonwealth might be preserved and secured.  
But I will not enter farther into this large subject handled by others.   

CHAPTER XXV.  
That ecclesiastical jurisdiction as it is held by the Romish church, better agreeth with reason and the letter of the Scripture then that of the presbyterian brethren. That some Romanists have ascribed more power to the magistrate in sacred things than the presbyterian brethren.  
THat ecclesiastical power of deposing, excommunicating, and making laws authoritatively, as it is assumed by the Pope and the Romish clergy, is not only more consonant to reason, and the literal sense of the Scripture, but also very agreeable with their corrupt principles in doctrine and practice: whereas quite contrary, the ecclesiastical power with all its appurtenances as it is assumed and held by the presbyterians, is altogether dissonant from the holiness 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 express place of Scripture for a double jurisdiction, except they both make use of that of St. Luc. 22. v. 38. alleged 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 temporal jurisdiction to the spiritual, conceiving it altogether inconvenient to constitute two coordinate powers, since one must be supreme, and the supreme must include the inferior; and that the end of the temporal being subordinate to the end of the spiritual, those that have the managing of the temporal jurisdiction must likewise be subordinate and subject to the spiritual 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 temporal power, must be obedient to all acts and sentences of the spiritual jurisdiction, which the ministers of God in the Gospel are entrusted with: so that the magistrates power being subordinate to the ecclesiastical, all appeals from civil judicatories must be valid, and so all sentences of excommunications of what persons soever. But the same ecclesiastical power, as it is challenged by the presbyterians to be coordinate to the power of the magistrate, rendereth 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 sovereign nor subordinate, as is the ecclesiastical. Neither is it less unreasonable, that the same man, subject both to the ecclesiastical 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 temporal power subordinate to the spiritual, yet they hold that Kings and magistrates are no less subject to the censure of excommunication than 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 address, 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 witness, §. 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 laws obliging for conscience sake? Can a sovereign 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 sovereign 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 Catholic church; for he doth but expel 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 than the jurisdiction of the magistrate under which they live: for the ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction is not limited by men's 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, than a presbytery of Scotland may as well excommunicate a man in Germany, as in Scotland.  
5. The Papists arguments, namely Bellarmin's and others, are very urging, that, supposing there be but one true church and body of Christ, and that that church and body is the Rom●sh church, there cannot be a Commonwealth within another Commonwealth, and a jurisdiction within another jurisdiction, except one be subordinate to the other, and one depend on the other; therefore that either the spiritual power must depend on the temporal, or the temporal on the spiritual, for fear of a continual clashing and conflict. But our brethren not allowing the necessity of dependence of one jurisdiction on the other, do unavoidably run upon many rocks of inconveniences (which the papists prudently avoid) such as is an endless crossing and thwarting of contrary laws, commands and orders, one of the other, while men do not know which to obey first; as I have largely showed in the 15. chapter of my Paraenesis.  
6. Besides, it doth very well stand to reason, (what the Romanists would have) that one body of a church should have one governor, and one government, which is that of Christ: but so doth it not, that the presbyterian government should be the government of Christ, and yet not be received by all the members of the church of Christ; as they cannot deny but that there are many churches, which yet do not hold presbytery to be the government of Christ.  
7. It is very compauble, that in one government there should be many ●anks and sorts of men contributing th●ir ca●e towards it; so that all these cares be not coordinate, but subordinate, and every rank of men take care in its proper place, and with subordination to some principal power, that must have the chief care of it. This the Papists as they hold, so they practise: for they make the magistrate but subservient to the care that the Pope is to take in governing the church, yielding to his judgement and commands, and executing his decrees and bulls without control. But the presbyterians, that are not yet agreed how to level the duties of the ministers and of the magistrate about taking care of the government of the church, have cast us into an endless uncertainty, which of them is to have the greatest & chiefest care. For whereas Rivetus saith, that the magistrates chief and first care is the administration of sacred things and the government of the church, and his second care the government of the Commonwealth; Walaus, Apollonius, Mr. Gillespie, and a hundred more will tell us, that that care doth mainly and first belong to ministers, and next to them that magistrates have an auxiliary ecclesiastical power, by which they are to aid the ministers in the government of the church. So that if each party conceiveth that the care of the church doth not belong chief to the other, but that he is to look to it as he thinks fitting, and not to trust the main care with any one but himself, I fear we shall need a third party to take care that these two may care but for one thing.  
8. Those words of Jesus Christ, I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and, whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc. and, against that church (which they say is the Romish church) the gates of Hell shall not prevail, seem literally to confer a very great power, yea to give an infallibility; the power of remitting and retaining sins, and of granting indulgences, being not repugnant to the non-erring power. But the giving this great power of the keys of Heaven, and of binding and losing, expressed in very high and emphatical terms, cannot be appliable to a presbyterian church, against which the gares of hell shall not prevail; nor can it stand with the little modulus of power of a presbytery, which yet hath found no legs to walk on; they not resolving us yet whether the pastor, or the people, or both must excommunicate, that the sentence of excommunication may be valid, nor how fare it reacheth.  
9 Particularly, that saying of the Papists, that there cannot be a greater argument that their judgements are infallible than this, that God ratifieth them in Heaven, is much according to the literal arguing of the Scripture, saying, that whatsoever shall be bound, etc. that is, as they interpret it, whatsoever shall be decreed by them and passed on earth, shall afterwards be ratified and approved in Heaven. For were their judgements fallible, then God would not have tied himself by his promise to approve of all the erroneous judgements of men, which they say cannot be said without blasphemy. But the fallibility of the judgements of presbyterian judicatories is repugnant to the letter of the Scripture, which promiseth to ratify all the judgements that are passed by men on earth.  
10. So for the power of the Pope in absolving and losing men from their oaths and promises, and fidelity due to their sovereign, it doth very well agree with the letter of the Scripture, whatsoever ye shall lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, for here is a power given without any modification. But that of presbyterian judicatory not challenging such a power, and yet grounding their power upon the same Scripture, must so much the more recede from the Scripture; and therefore they need a place of Scripture as pregnant for their power, as the Romanists have for theirs.  
11. Lastly, the jurisdiction held by the Papists is a true & valid jurisdiction, for it is coercive, and extendeth to the body, estate, liberty and good name; the Pope and Bishops have their prisons: but the presbyterian is a name without a thing; for they are loath to call it coercive; it must be then persuasive. I wish they would hold there, & suspend their excommunication of any person, till he be persuaded so to be, which I think he will never be: or till they can inform him, that excommunication is an ordinance of Jesus Christ, as well as the preaching of the word, and the administration of the Sacraments, as they tell us in the 63. page of their answer to the reasons of the dissenting brethren; which neither do I think they ever will be able to do.  
12. But though the ecclesiastical presbyterian power, as it is held to be independent, and not subordinate to the magistrate, is less consonant to Scripture and reason then the papal ecclesiastical power; yet I must say thus much for the brethren of the presbytery, that their excommunication, as they hold it from a power coordinate and independent from the magistrate, is more consistent with reason, than that excommunication held by the learned and river. Dr. Hammond, agreeth with his subordinating the ecclesiastical episcopal power to the magistrate, as supreme governor of the church under Christ: for according to the Doctor's opinion, one cannot conceive of the power of excommunicating, but as the power of the magistrate, and of excommunication but as a law of the magistrate; which yet I believe he will not grant. For were he willing to grant thus much, then besides that he and I should not differ, he would get reason and Scripture more on his side, then 〈…〉 ur brethren of the presbytery or the Pap●…s have.  
Now that some remaining within the communion of Rome have acknowledged as much as we concerning the nullity of a double jurisdiction, the power of the magistrate in sacred things, and the nature of the Kingdom of God, I could prove by many of them; truth breaking forth through the darkness of popery, whereas Mr. Rutherfurd and Gillespie were blind in so clear day of revealed truth.  
I have already alleged Claude Fauchet & John du tiler, who t●ll us that there was no such thing as a double jurisdiction for many hundred years after Christ: and with them agreeth the author of the Review of the Council of Trent wh●… the 6. book chap. 5. saith, that the 〈…〉 F●ance hold their jurisdiction not from the Pope, but from the King of France. We have also alleged Tos●atus upon the 16. of Nauhew, asserting that among the Jews there was no distinction of jurisdiction.  
Hotomannus, a famous Lawyer and a Papist, in his book of the Liberties, hath these words: It is certain that ecclesiastics as ecclesiastics have neither fisck nor territory, nor any jurisdiction, but only liberty to declare what is fitting to be observed, without receiving or execut on of their opinion.  
But I will insist only upon two or three considerable places out of the said Review of the Council of Trent, that one would think had been spoken by Frastus or Mr. Coleman.  
In the 3. book cap. 11. he hath these words: If the Prence be learned and capable, what reason ●s there to exclude him from presidency? It were indeed more beseeming and becoming his dignity, to let the Bishop's a●sp●te, yea one of them to manage and order the action, or such as he himself will choose, res●…ving to himself the presidency, yea the determination, the confirmation and execution, after he hath viewed and understood all: the importance and consequence is too great, when it concerneth salvation, a Prince hath no less interest than a Prlest. Here we have a Paput granting, that the magistrate is not only to preside in synods, but also to have the last determination and judgement of all-debates.  
In the 7. book ch. 6. he ascribeth a function, but no jurisdiction, to the clergy and pastors; and he hath this passage worthy to be written in golden letters, for it doth disannul and make void all consistorial, classical and synodical canons, sentences and definitions, which are no acts of the magistrate. King's ought not to meddle with the administration of the Sacraments, nor with the business of ceremonies, or preaching, or other ecclesiastical ministerial acts: but for appointing of the order of ceremonies, purging out of abuses, extirpation of schism and heresies, church-policy, and the like, they may, they ought, and they have always done it, either by putting their own hands to the work, or by commanding of it, or else by appointing and constituting laws, statutes and ordinances.  
The author did here only forget to tell us by what power the magistrate must do this. Is it by a political or ecclesiastical power, direct or indirect, intrinsecall or extrinsecall? None but Mr. Gillespie could tell us. Sure he that takes all and doth all by his own power and authority, needs no copartners in the managing of his power, but delegates and substitutes in the exercise of it.   

CHAPTER XXVI.  
The description of excommunication in terms received by most of our opposites, though otherwise variously defined by them. That for four thousand years no such excommunication was in use, either among the heathens or the jews. An answer to some objections. That the legal uncleanness was no type of the moral. That the Priests judging of the leprosy is no plea for excommunication, nor for ecclesiastical jurisdiction.  
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 principal and main tool in the hands of the man of sin to build up the Roman Hierarchy, 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 myself, & give but a breviary in few chapters of what I design, 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 less difficulty make good, that it is repugnant to reason, Scripture, and the practice of all nations, heathens, jews, 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 less, is from the Eucharist, as the greater is from the assembly of Christians: others not only from the external communion, but also from the internal. Some hold that only Bishops, yea that one only Bishop may excommunicate, as Ambrose did Theod●sius: some think that presbyters 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 excommunicated: othe●s e●e●…t them Those that make three communions, according to the three several 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 exclusion ●…t of the communion of the whole Catholic 〈◊〉 church; whereby they warrant th● power of the Pope in excommunicating Emperors 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 virtue 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 judicial act or sentence of excluding scandalous persons and offenders from some church-priviledges, by churchmen or church-members 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 superior 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 less 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 Jews.  
2. That at that time when some think it had a beginning, even when the Jews were carried into captivity, it did not begin.  
3. That there is no ground for such an excommunication communication nor practice 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 show 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 Jews: 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 judicial act of the people of Athens: neither was that an excommunication whereof Caesar speaketh in his Commentaries, being a forinsecal sentence pronounced by the Druids, who were judges of the land, and meddled 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 idolworship. Dionysius Halicarnasseus in the year from the building of Rome 254 saith, that the Senate 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 laws concerning their public worship. Also Lampridius telleth us, that Alexander the Emperor reviewed the sentences of the college of Augurs: also Tertullian in his Apologetic 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 Jews; and first examine what they have to show 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 judicial 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 allege 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 corporal 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 ecclesiastical 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 stress 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 judicial sentence, but rather in excommunicating and withdrawing ourselves from the communion of the wicked: for so are the words Numbers 16. Separate yourselves from among that congregation, and bid all the people to departed from the tents of these wicked men. Such excommunication I shall willingly grant, whereby we may avoid and reject heretics and heresies; flee from the devil, but not put the devil to flight by excommunication. The best way to eschew the unfruitful works and workers of darkness, and to have no communion with them, is to withdraw from their communion.  
They urge much legal uncleanness, for which they say men were separated from the rest of the congregation. This, Mr. Rutherfurd saith p. 285. was a ceremonial excommunication; thereby silently confessing that real excommunication was not in use, till all the ceremonies were taken away. Suppose that the legal uncleanness had been a type of the moral, it could not be a type of a thing then present, but of a future: but we have proved that the legal cleanness was a type of Christ's righteousness, & the legal uncleanness a type of those that being not clad with Christ's righteousness, were separated from Christ and his elect, as the goats are from the sheep. A perfect righteousness, such as was the legal, cannot be a type of the moral righteousness, which is imperfect: and the want of legal cleanness doth very well prefigure the want of Christ's righteousness, but it doth not so well shadow out the want of moral righteousness, 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 legal uncleanness was but a ceremonial excommunication, I long to hear from him but one only example in all the old Testament of a real excommunication, which was typified by the ceremonial excommunication, or that ever any man was kept from the  or the sacrifices for a moral uncleanness: which he will never be able to show. Besides, this sequestering or separating of a leprous or legally unclean person was no judicial act of the Priests and Levites, more than 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 legal rite cannot be applied to excommunication, which they say is a judicial act that may be performed by every minister of the Gospel. And therefore the Papists have very good reason on their side, who being not willing to lose their power of excommunicating, nor to forgo the usual 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 leprosy, 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 showed 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 ecclesiastical 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 physicians, 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 than the Priests did.   

CHAPTER XXVII.  
That neither in the time of Ezra such an excommunication began. That the casting out of the synagogue did not answer that excommunication. That there is no ground for it nor practice of it in the new Testament.  
SOme are of opinion that excommunication had its beginning in Ezras (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 wont magistrate, and usual legal proceed, 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 several 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 ancestors, 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 supplied 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 shortened their privileges: 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 country as the nation. Hence we are satisfied how the chief Priests came to give Paul power to lay hold on the Jews 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 several synagogues, dispersed in Judea, Egypt, 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 die. But what ever were the degrees or species of excommunication, and by what title so ever called and distinguished among the Jews, 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 mixed 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 limbs, 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 ecclesiastical than any of the rest, as if casting out was a censure inflicted by churchmen, and whipping and cutting of limbs were civil censures inflicted by others. Sure a magistrate, by the same power that he causeth a cutpurse to be whipped, 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 ecclesiastical and civil, spiritual and temporal, 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 showeth that excommunication was not answerable to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or casting out of the synagogue; for those that in the synagogue had power to put one out of it, had not power to bar him either from killing the  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 Jews synagogues.  
5. Neither do we find to the contrary, but that a man put out of one synagogue might in the same town or country 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, etc. 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 thyself 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 showed, that the Christians succeeding the Jews, 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 always more persecuted, and never had so large privileges and liberties granted them as the Jews 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. expel 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 expel 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 allege 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 Gospel there was less need of discipline, because the number of pastors was greater than of church-members; the great work of the ministry 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 terror, supplied the place of a discipline: therefore Bucer on the 16. of Matth. giveth us this reason, why no external 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 external power, the Lord jesus did supply it by a miraculous and singular power, and by special weapons, and a sword, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 12. v. 10.  
But that extraordinary way of striking terror 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 Jews 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, allegeth 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 Jews, for want of a Christian magistrate, and not upon any commission granted to the ministers of the Gospel independently from the magistrate, or grounded upon the power of the keys & of binding & losing: for it were a less 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 grossly abused, and made to speak what it never intended, and that which hath as much strength for upholding the Romish hierarchy, as the presbyterian ecclesiastical 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 alleged 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 Gospel only.   

CHAPTER XXVIII.  
That the whole context Matth. 18. v. 15, 16, 17, and 18. maketh nothing for excommunication; neither judas non-admission (if granted) to the Eucharist, nor the delivering of the incestuous person to Satan, nor yet the self-examination required 1 Cor. 11.  
THe first place is taken from the context in Matthew 18. v. 15, 16, 17, 18. a place clear enough, had it not been handled by men of prejudiced judgements. I will not lose 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 chief restrain myself to calvin's authority, to evince that the whole context maketh nothing at all for such an excommunication, as is a judicial act pronounced independently from the Christian magistrate by the ministers of the Gospel.  
1. Calvin, in the fourth book of his institutions chap. 12. §. 3. and more expressly in an Epistle to the Neocomenses, saith, that the offence Matth. 18, 15. If thy brother, etc. aught 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 thyself only, and there be no witness, 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 scandal, 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 college of three, called a church amongst the Jews, 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, show 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 public 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 counsel, how the party wronged aught 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 judicial sentence pronounced, nor constraint put upon the offending party, but only shame; and that not public, 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 cruel, 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 Jews, 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 jesus 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 jews 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 custom of the jews, that likewise their excommunication must be like that of the jews, 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 jewish church. Now as these were not invested with a power called ecclesiastical 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 express upon the 17. verse, where he saith that the Lord jesus Christ in modelling the church's 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 quarrel is ended; and the church Matth. 18. will prove such a church as was in Moses, joshua, and David's 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 jesus 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 jewish; 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 jews or Christians excommunication, or of such a church as our opposites would have to be understood by the word church, viz. an ecclesiastical senate 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 jesus Christ would mention a church that was never recorded in all the old Testament, and whereof neither the Evangelists nor the Apostles speak?  
Doubtless 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 jews and Romans; not invested with any judicial power, but yet of such authority and gravity, that whoever did reject their wholesome advice and counsel, was as much discredited, as if he had suffered corporal 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 samuel's time, in which the scholars or young Prophets did sit at the feet of the Rabbis, as Mary at the feet of jesus, 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 Lesbian, a nose of wax by Papists, Episcopal 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 chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
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 ways 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 natural, having nothing strained, but most like to be the sense of Jesus Christ.  
As for the 18. verse, concerning binding and losing, we have examined what strength can be in it for excommunication: not discussing whether it may not be as well applied, as chrysostom, 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 judas was partaker of the Eucharist, for it is not much material to know it; all agreeing he was not removed by any excommunication or casting out, and that he did eat of the , 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 eucharist with him; but also from civil commerce, in eating, trading and talking with him. Which exposition is the most natural I know, and proveth that this putting away was no act of ecclesiastical power distinct from the civil: for always 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-martial; so neither should an ecclesiastical 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 than 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 men's worthiness. 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 less concludent, by which the Papists may as well prove auricular confession: If men must confess their sins to God, much more must ministers require every man to confess 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, than 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, than ministers are not to prepare them otherwise, then by showing them and giving them directions for their due preparation, leaving every one to do the work himself.   

CHAPTER XXIX.  
That excommunication is contrary to common sexse and reason.  
THere being no Scripture for excommunication, in the next place we shall see that there is no reason for it. I do not deny but that a private church, as well as any other society, by virtue of a power of magistracy seated in them, may expel a member out of their society: but that this is done in obedience to a positive command of Christ, by a jurisdiction independent from the magistrate, and by warrant from those words, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, etc. I conceive to be absurd, impertinent, & a yoke laid upon Christians necks which is none of Christ's; as if whomsoever pastors do bind or excommunicate on earth, Christ also doth bind or excommunicate in Heaven, and whomsoever they absolve or lose on earth, Christ also doth absolve and lose in Heaven.  
1. Since the words Matth. 16. and 18. be the very same words, it is absurd to understand them in the 16. chapter absolutely, but in the 18. conditionally. Now they would have the words Matth. 16. whatsoever ye shall bind, etc. spoken to Peter, to be without condition and absolute, that God should approve of and ratify whatever opening, losing and binding should ensue upon Peter's preaching and converting of souls; for Calvin, Pareus, and most Divines will not have in that place any thing understood of church-censures, but only of the operation of the word by the preaching of Peter. But though it were granted that in the 18. chapter Christ spoke of church censures by excommunication, what reason is there why they should not be understood as absolute and without condition in one chapter, as well as in the other? For in the 18. chapter they put a condition to the absolute words of Christ, saying that all that is bound on earth by excommunication is not always ratified and approved of in Heaven: for were not, as they say, a modification put to the words of Christ, all the judgements and sentences on earth had need be infallible. It is true, that parallel places of Scripture may admit various senses, as it may be these very words of Christ; or that something more may be employed in one place then in the other. But yet whether both places or either of them be meant of the operation of the word, or of the miraculous power granted unto the Apostles, and particularly, as Mr. Lightfoot expoundeth them, of a power to dispense with the Christian church in something that was to be retained or quitted of the Mosaical laws and rites; yet it must be acknowledged that both places are alike to be understood absolutely and without condition, that whatever should be bound or loosed by them on earth, should also infallibly be either bound or loosed in Heaven. For to understand one place absolutely, and the other conditionally, and clavae non errante, when no error can intervene, I conceive ought not to be admitted in Divinity. In short, either the words Matth. 16. absolutely spoken must be false, and admit some exception, (which cannot be said without blasphemy;) or the same words repeated in the 18. chapter must not be understood of excommunication, nor of any church-censure.  
2. Since it is evident that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of binding and losing, are equivalent expressions, and those both equally committed to ministers; if by the keys are not meant the power of excommunicating & absolving, neither can the power of binding and losing mean excommunication. For sure these keys cannot be understood of an outward admission or exclusion, but only of the conversion of a sinner by the preaching of the word. But suppose that these keys were also to admit into the visible church, yet they can not be employed to put out of the church; a key being an instrument either to let in or keep out, but not to expel those that are in.  
3. Who can conceive that those words Matth. 18. whatsoever ye shall bind, etc. being uttered by the Lord Jesus Christ with such a prefatory asseveration, verily I say unto you, should not be true without a condition and an exception put to them, and yet that the same words Matth. 16. without such a preface should be perpetually & absolutely true? And who would believe that the Lord Jesus Christ had pronounced in such an emphatical way, vertily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind, etc. only to signify an external admission or exclusion; in the doing of which acts, ministers may err out of ignorance either of right or of fact, if not out of hatred, or too much indulgence and favour?  
4. Since they say that a man by excommunication is delivered to Satan; what an uncharitable act do they commit against any one, be he never so wicked, by putting him into such a condition, as they know is worse than his former, when they are not sure whether occasionally it may better him; neither is it in their power to drive away Satan again from the man, as it was in St. Paul? Besides, no man would punish a child, a servant, or a malefactor, with a punishment that shall last to his life's end, as to torture him till death, or to whip him as long as he liveth, or put him in a prison that may prove perpetual: for still the earthly father or judge reserveth to himself the liberty to give over correcting when it pleaseth him. But those that deliver a man to Satan by excommunication, do inflict a penalty which it is not in their power to take off again, being not able when they list to recover a man out of the Devils paws.  
5. Most schoolmen and Divines hold, that the sentence of excommunication is of a quite different nature from the laws and sentences of men, which have the force and validity of law, be they never so unjust, and must be obeyed either actively or passively: for if no law were valid but that which is just and righteous, then should no law be obeyed by any but those that could see equity and justice in it. Which showeth the nullity of excommunication: for whosoever doubts whether such an excommunication was pronounced upon right grounds and good information, or whether excommunication in itself is lawful, may well count the excommunication null and of no weight: yea if the party excommunicated doth but say that he was wrongfully excommunicated, and clavae errante, or that those that did it had no power so to do, he may disannul, as to himself, and so to all others, the excommunication. For as long as the knowledge of a valid excommunication is grounded upon matter of fact, which is known but to few, most men may still question that which they are not concerned to believe, and whereof they have no certain knowledge.  
6. Some to avoid that inconvenience, that God should be made to ratify what the pastor acts in excommunicating, say, and it is the opinion of Beza, that excommunication is rather a declaration of what God hath already done in Heaven, than an act preceding Gods, in approving or disapproving the ministers sentence. But one and the same inconvenience followeth thereupon, whether excommunication be taken for an act preceding the act of God, or subsequent to it. For if excommunication be a declaration of what God hath already done, or decreed to be done; it would follow, that all the acts of pastors in excommunicating were infallible: for if they were fallible, it were not possible to know when excommunication ought to be received for a valid act, until the mind and counsel of God were revealed, and it were known to be agreeable with the censure of excommunication. And therefore Wicliff thought all excommunications void and null, except he that excommunicateth were first informed that the party whom he was to excommunicate was excommunicated by God; and this was held one of his errors in the council of Constance Art. 11.  
7. Calvin in the 3. book of his Institutions chap. 4. § 14. saith, that excommunication is no farther valid, then as binding in heaven answereth to that on earth: for he hath no stronger argument to make void the Romish excommunication, then by retorting, that many among them are either bound or loosed on earth unworthily, which notwithstanding are not bound or loosed in Heaven. If this exception against all Romish excommunication is good in calvin's mouth, why should it lose its strength in my mouth? for by the same argument I disannul all excommunication, because all sentences of God in Heaven do not always correspond to those that are pronounced upon earth.  
8. The same Calvin upon Matth. 18. pleading for the nullity of Romish excommunication, useth this argument; that the power of the keys and of binding & losing belong only to those that have received the holy Ghost. Which indeed overthroweth all kind of excommunication: for if the validity of an outward act dependeth upon the inward grace, the validity of the act will be uncertain till doomsday, to those that know not whether he that hath pronounced the sentence of excommunication is endowed with the holy Ghost or no. Perkins goeth along with Calvin, upon the third of the Revelation, making all excommunication void which is not pronounced by one that hath the spirit: For, saith he, to the society only of the regenerate and faithful is it said, Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc.  
9 But were it so, that every pastor excommunicating had received the holy Ghost, yet the validity of all excommunication could not be thence inferred, since even a man endowed with the holy Ghost, except he hath received a spirit of divination, may be ill informed, and err ignorantly, ignorantia facti aut juris.  
10. Those that by binding and losing in Heaven understand only approving of the sentence passed on earth, have no stronger plea for excommunication, except all sentences of excommunication be the product of an infallible judgement: for God is so far from approving of an unjust sentence, that his will is that it should be disannulled.  
11. But how can it consist with reason, that God at once should ratify, approve, and dislike a sentence pronounced on earth? for they will have him to ratify in Heaven an unjust sentence passed on earth, because, they say, his will is that the party should stand to the sentence though unjust, and not intrude to the Sacrament without he be legally absolved; and yet the while they say that God doth not ratify or approve of an unjust excommunication, because unjust; so that at once the same sentence will be valid and invalid: valid, because legally passed; yet invalid, because unjust.  
12. Those that by binding and losing understand pardoning and retaining sins, though they speak truth, making the place Matth. 18. v. 18. parallel to that of John 20. v. 22. whatsoever sins, etc. yet they say nothing for excommunication, which is neither pardoning nor retaining of sins. It is not pardoning, for then excommunication must be counted a blessing: neither can it be retaining of sins; for since, as they say, the end of excommunication is, that the soul may be saved, retaining of sins, or rather of pardon, cannot be a means to that end.  
13. Since excommunication is a putting out of the communion, I would fain know whither that outing is from the communion of a private church, or from the communion of the catholic visible church, or else from the communion of the Saints, which is spoken of in the Creed; for I know but of these three communions. If it be only a putting out of the communion of a private church, than a man excommunicated in one congregation or parish, is not excommunicated in the neighbour church. If it be a putting out of the catholic visible church, than a man excommunicated in London shall be likewise excommunicated in any part of the world. And if the virtue of excommunication extendeth all over the world (as indeed so it must be, since it reacheth to heaven) than any church or pastors of that communion whatsoever may excommunicate any one within that communion, and a presbytery in Scotland may excommunicate a man in Switzerland: and therefore it must not seem strange, that the Pope doth excommunicate Emperors and Kings, since they are of his communion.  
14. Excommunication cannot be a putting out of the communion of Saints and of the invisible church; of which none is outed but by his falling from grace.  
15. Neither can excommunication be a putting out of a presbyterian church, nor out of such an hierarchy as was lately in England, which are but mere politic systems of many particular societies, either under the magistrate of the land, or under a power of magistracy assumed by common consent, as is the body of the reformed churches in France: for then such an excommunication were rather like a banishment or deprivement of liberty, than a spiritual censure, which are no more bounded and circumscribed by the limits of the magistrate, than remission or retention of sins, or the virtue of baptism, are.  
16. Neither can it be proved that those words, whatsoever ye shall bind, etc. are to be understood of exclusion rather from the Eucharist then from the assembly, or from either; and that there is greater danger of corrupting good manners in receiving the Eucharist with a dissolute man, then in conversing with him: when as quite contrary, to eat with carnal and deboist persons is a more contagious commerce, then to partake of the Eucharist with them.  
17. Neither can they infer out of that Text, whatsoever, etc. or any other, whether a church, a synod, a presbytery, whether one minister or two, may excommunicate. But if the power of excommunicating be included within the power of the keys, and of binding & losing, which we have made good to belong only to the dispensers of the word, and not to church-members or to lay-elders; it will necessarily follow, that one single pastor, set over four or five thousand communicants, must have power to excommunicate alone, without the assistance of other ministers: for every single minister having received entirely the power of the keys, and of binding and losing, must needs also have received ability to do whatsoever is included within that power.  
18. It is to be noted, that Christ doth not speak of binding and losing of men, but of things; for he doth not say, whomsoever, but whatsoever: and therefore our adversaries the Papists extend the power of excommunication further than the presbyterians do, for they excommunicate not only men, but any other living creatures, as Mice, whereof Thuanus hath a notable example.   

CHAPTER XXX.  
That excommunication was mainly subservient to the working of the mystery of iniquity. That the corrupting of the doctrine of the Eucharist made way for excommunication.  
I Should next show 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 always been the principal channels to convey 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 colleagues: for the attaining of which, and to seem great in the eyes of all men, they turned the Eucharist into an idol, and this into a sacrifice, hoping that these mysteries taking once God's 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 special privilege 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 ecclesiastical 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 Jews 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 & weakness both of Jews and Gentiles, 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 midway, and kept to Consubstantiation: yea the best of ours, though they took away both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation, and have allowed no real presence of Christ but in the believer, yet, to the dislike of some of their brethren, they have retained the very outside & 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 Rochel, where Beza was precedent, in the year 1571. a canon was made, which condemned all such as would not grant that the faithful 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 natural, mystical and Sacramental: yea Justin Martyr and Hilary make a mystical union of the divinity of Christ with the bread in the Sacrament.  
2. Next came the crying up of the virtue of the Eucharist, near upon to as great an height as that of baptism. Thus St. Austin, the best of the Fathers, thought the Eucharist was needful to children for their salvation: which when they had made more mysterious than ever the holy Ghost intended, they devised several degrees of penance; 1. of hearers or catechumeni, 2. then of competents, 3. of penitents, and lastly of faithful men and Christians; thus making themselves judges and arbiters of ranks and places that men ought to hold in the church: all which brought along with them excommunication, which from a law of confederate discipline, answerable to that practised among the Jews, grew to such ripeness as to pass for a law of Christ, for a spiritual sword, an arrow to be kept in the quiver of the church, and to be shot at the will and pleasure of the ministers. This is the weapon that hath proved so effectual in the hands of the Pope, that with it and by it he hath built up his mystery of iniquity, and founded an empire within the empire of Emperors, Kings and States. By the same weapon the great church-judicatory in Scotland keepeth all inferior judicatories and churches in awe and subjection: for were this taken away from them, or were the people well informed of the fond and panic dread they have of it, than they would upon more rational grounds be subject to order and discipline.  
But whatever height the power of excommunication arose to, it could never yet be had, but one of these two things ever attended the possession of it: for either the Pope had it by a power of magistracy of his own, by which he kept all magistrates in awe; or it was always disputed and controlled by the magistrate of the place, where the Pope's agents did endeavour to exercise their jurisdiction. This may be proved by the practice of all states within the communion of Rome, specially of France, where the Pope's Bulls of excommunication have been often disannulled and evacuated by acts of Parliament and inferior judicatories, yea by synods convocated by the King. I will produce but one example, which I have read in an old French History, of the life of Lewis the ninth, written by jonville above 400. years ago, cap. 82. where when a Prelate did desire of the King the help of the secular power, for making his excommunications good, the King answered, that with all his heart he would do it; but that first ●t was fit he should be acquainted with the validity of the excommunication. Which evinceth 1. that all excommunications are null, without a power of magistracy to put them in execution: 2. that in the darkest time of ignorance and Popery, magistrates could disannul and make void the Pope's censures, and that they did not conceive themselves obliged to hold his censures valid, with a blind judgement and obedience, but were to judge of them, and so either to confirm them or abrogate them; for so did the Emperors, (before the Popes grew up to their height) from Constantine the great to Justinian, and did regulate, order, and disannul or make void excommunications.   

CHAPTER XXXI.  
The History of excommunication from the first reformation from Popery: how it was received in Geneva, but not settled without disputes and clashings betwixt the consistory and the magistrate.  
THus the abuse of the doctrine of the Eucharist went hand in hand with the use of excommunication, until that in Luther's fuller reformation the first was reform, the other not taken away, but by some of the reformers retained upon the same grounds of Scripture that the Romish was; though not in that height, yet not with moderation, which in vain is looked for in an action that in its very use and practice is altogether unlawful, as excommunicate on is. But nevertheless excommunication, a●ongst other practices of the Romish church, was also abrogated by Luther, and all thoughts of it we●e quite cast off, as of a yoke and relic of Popery, for above 20. years after Luther first preached against the Pope: and it was near to miscarrying at its first new birth: for in the year 1538. he having sounded the minds of his hearers, how it might be introduced, there was a great clamour and complaining amongst them, as if Luther had a mind to lay again upon their shoulders that yoke which they had shaken off from their necks. Some few years after, having again propounded, that his intent was not to put excommunication into the hands of the ministers alone, but to make it an act of the jurisdiction of the whole church, some seemed to consent to it; but most being against it, we do not read that either it was settled at all, or that it was done quietly in his life time.  
We read indeed that Luther did commend it to other churches, and even at the conference or reconciliation that was made betwixt Luther, Bucer and Capito, he did much urge how necessary the use of excommunication might be; and that Bucer declining to deliver his opinion concerning the same, lest he should cross Luther, and thereby retard the main work that they were met about, did only say, 1. that many cities, in lieu of excommunication, had strict laws to punish those that were unruly and wicked: 2. that he professeth in the name of his colleagues of the churches of Switzerland, that they did not intent to give the Eucharist to those whom they should know to be wicked, and to live in impenitency. Bucer in that did but deliver the sense and practise of the Helvetian churches, who at their first reformation received excommunication no otherwise then as a law of the magistrate, and not either as an ecclesiastical censure, or an exclusion from the Lords Supper. For so says Gualterus in his Homilies upon the 1 Cor. 5. The laws of our city punish by excommunication those that are negligent in hearing of the word, or in coming to the Lords Supper, and those besides that by their wicked lives offend the church: such they expel from their tribes, lest they should keep company with others. Let other towns do what they please, since one discipline will not fit every place: we do not envy them their felicity, who receive any benefit by the use of their excommunication, or rather exclusion from the Lords Supper. As in the first reformation at Zurich they had not a presbyterian excommunication, so neither had they a presbytery or ecclesiastical senate, distinct in jurisdiction from that of the magistrate. For the same Gualterus, upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians ch. 12. v. 28. speaking of governments, which he saith are those whereof St. Paul speaketh 1 Cor. 6. v. 12. hath these words; At this day there is no need of such governor's, being under a magistrate: let none therefore overturn the order instituted by God, and trample under their feet the authority of Princes and magistrates, by instituting a new senate, that assumeth power & empire over them.  
But I must tarry a little longer in Germany, and see what the attempt of Luther for introducing excommunication did produce after his death. Matthaeus Flaccius Illyricus did yet with more eagerness 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 practices.  
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 always expelled, either by the Prince or the magistrate of the place, who looked 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 keys 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 internal, when God excludeth men from the assembly of the faithful; the other external and politic, 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, etc. as Chemnitius and Gerhardus, the best expositors of Luther's 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 wickedness, 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 administered by the magistrate. Beza acknowledgeth that this was also the opinion of Musculus, as we have alleged 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-countries': but before it could shoot out, it had many rubs 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 proposal 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 alleged the examples of the neighbour-churches (meaning Zurich, Bern, etc.) 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 than to suffer that the towns senate 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 err 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, Calvin's 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 spiritual 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 ecclesiastical or spiritual jurisdiction distinct and independent from that of the magistrate.  
1. Because the same spiritual senate was made and constituted by the senate 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, Bishop's 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 laws 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 ecclesiastical senate and its laws by the magistrate and the people, there was a sovereign law made, that no sort of men, ministers, magistrates or people, should hereafter presume and attempt to disannul what therein was established by the lawmakers 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 senate 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 tie their hands, as not to be able to repeal, review or reform laws formerly made by them; or that they should believe their laws were composed and given by them with such an unerring judgement, that they needed no further recognition?  
3. This jurisdiction, called by Calvin ecclesiastical, 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 laws of discipline of Geneva this is one, If any one, in contempt of the ecclesiastical 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 ecclesiastical 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 presbyterial court and judgement, and besides did tyre 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 ecclesiastical and spiritual, and a power of binding and losing, or a civil coercive power? and of the two keys 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 spiritual jurisdiction is evidently demonstrated, by the perpetual conflict and clashing, in Calvin's 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 disannul 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 earnestness obtained, that ere any thing were concluded, the opinion of four cities of the Swissers should be desired. Bullinger maketh mention only of one city, namely Zurich, in an Epistle of the Senate 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 fearful to offend Calvin, yet manifestly showeth his dislike of the whole business, and exhorteth him to moderation and mildness. 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 Senate of Geneva.   

CHAPTER XXXII.  
A continuation of the History of excommunication in France, the Low-countrieses, Scotland, the Palatinate. How it came to pass, tha● amongst reformed states the Scottish ecclesiastical jurisdiction ascended to such a height. What plea the reformed churches in France have for excommunication. That it is more justifiable among them then in churches under an orthodox magistrate.  
THe reformed churches of France took their pattern of discipline, and therewithal 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, than 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 springhead. But in France they could not be so happy; and therefore since they could not have a jurisdiction immediately derived from their magistrate, it was requisite they should take up one ●y mutual consent, and by a confederate discipline. For when the magistrate (as it was among the Jews 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 mutual consent, not only in their private churches, but also in their consistories and synods, by which religion and piety may be asserted, and errors 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, than a magistrate, a town, a corporation, or a hall should act by, in banishing or expelling a member of their own body.  
I confess 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 spiritual censure, and a sword committed only to the ministers by a Scripture warrant, and from the power of the keys, and of binding and losing.  
But I much wonder that wise men, having a good foundation upon which they may firmly ground their discipline, should rather choose to build it upon the sand and upon the sea shore, where it may be soon washed 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 general 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 hurtful 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 persisting to have no other grounds for their discipline, than those feigned ones, who seethe not that their discipline must be groundless, since they cast away that which might strongly support it? Thus they are like a man that cuts off his good legs, and buys himself wooden crutches to walk upon.  
This is that doctrine that my Paraenesis was so much blamed for by my countrymen, 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 design; 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 Jews under the Babylonians, Persians and Romans: for whereas before their captivity they had no distinction betwixt church and state, no other discipline than 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 laws 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 not 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 paternal 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 governor: and yet that power whereby he governeth himself, and is master of his own actions, is not distinct from that which a governor 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 Jews was under strange magistrates; I do not see how they will be less exposed to persecution, when ever they hold that their discipline is not of man's devising, but of Christ's 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 mere 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 model left by Christ to his churches, but rather as a collection of rules well digested by humane wisdom 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 rational man will deny my principles. I have alleged John Mestrezat, a very learned man, late minister at Paris, both in my Paraenesis and in my Corollary, 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 prudential, 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 colleagues, 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 weakening our discipline, that on the contrary it doth rather strengthen it, and places it upon its true and natural bottom.  
Geneva's excommunication had the greater influence upon the minds of the Non-conformists and Puritans in England, for the respect they bore to Calvin, more than to the Hierarchy metaphorphosed from Romish to English. For whatever were the thoughts of some Romish Episcopal Doctors, such as the English Hierarchy hath always had, the practice of all Bishop's courts witnesseth, that excommunication was but a law of the Land, and of the opiscopall jurisdiction annexed to the Crown. Excommunication was not much feared, since Prince and subjects left off to be afraid of the Pope's thunderbolts. Wicl●ff begun first to pluck off ●ts vizard, and to condemn both the abuse and the use of excommunication: for the council of Constance reckoned up amongst his errors, this tenet, That it was a comfort to the faithful church, that excommunication and suspension, and such like lying and feigned censures, are not grounded on the law of Christ, but are craftily devised by Antichrist. But that it may appear that Wicliff held no other excommunication then that which is made in the Court of Heaven, the 13. article objected to him as an error clearly showeth it; Whoever leaves off preaching or hearing the word of God, because of man's excommunication, they are excommunicated, and shall be so held in the day of judgement, for betrayers of Christ: and the 11. article. saith, that no man must excommunicate another, except he knows him to be excommunicated by God.  
In short, whereas our brethren the Scots held that all jurisdiction of ecclesiastical assemblies, synods and presbyteries, was derived from Jesus Christ, the English people, at least the magistrate, who would never permit the ecclesiastical jurisdiction to get up, held no jurisdiction but such as was derived from him: for even from King Edward the sixths' time, the sovereign Princes have been very  of Bishops keeping any courts or calling synods, but only in their name.  
Our brethren the Scots had their excommunication from Geneva, as well as the reformed churches of France: only Andrew Melvin did mightily improve and heighten it. But they and the Geneva churches have this disadvantage, which those of France never had, that these have two pleas for their discipline and excommunication: The one is the necessity of a confederate discipline taken up by consent under a cross magistrate; by which plea they may justify all the acts of their jurisdiction: the other plea, if the first prove not strong enough, they have in common with all other reformed churches living under an orthodox magistrate; and that plea is the discipline of Christ; which as it is a second string to the bow of the reformed churches of France, if the first should break, so it is the only string and hold that the Dutch, Scotish, and Geneva churches must hold by: so that if they cannot make good their jus Divinum of discipline and excommunication, they have no plea at all for their jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate, as the reformed churches of France have.  
This book would swell too much, if I should make it good, as I have done in my Paraenesis and Corollarium, that they have outgone all the reformed in the task of building an empire within the empire of another, or in the endeavour to settle a jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate, having while they strive to run furthest from Popery, gone so far about, that they have joined issue with Popery in that particular.  
I find three main causes why in Scotland, more than in any other nation where religion was reform from popery, the ecclesiastical jurisdiction hath highest lifted up its head.  
The first is; it was not so much any humour or design of the godly people, as opportunity that brought it in. For reformation taking its beginning there not at the head, but at the foot, and in opposition to a persecuting magistrate, it was not possible to settle the pure worship of God, without a government and jurisdiction assumed within the jurisdiction (and distinct from that) of the magistrate. They having had it some time under a Romish magistrate, conceived it was to continue in the like manner under a reformed magistrate; and so turned the nenessity of a confederate discipline taken up by consent, as it was by the faithful people of juda under a heathen magistrate, and by the reformed churches of France under a Christian, into a necessity of Divine ordinance: which being much countenanced by the great ones of the land, who rescued the sovereign magistrate from the Popish party, and brought him up from his infancy in the reformed religion; the same men, who were assertors of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction against the magistrate when he was no friend of theirs, had a fair opportunity to keep it still up, when the magistrate was their friend, and in their power and possession; who when he was grown up to years, found the ecclesiastical jurisdiction too deep rooted for him to master, and overbalancing the power that by right (as all other magistrates and Kings in the world) he was to have over all causes, matters and persons. So that from that time when King james (in his ●…per years) came to understand that he was a King, and no King, till he came to be King of great Britain, we read of nothing but clashings and conflicts betwixt church & court, Parliament and ecclesiastical assembly: it being impossible that two coordinate jurisdictions, and of the same nature, could stand together amongst one and the same people in the same country.  
Another cause is, that the members of Parliament, specially the nobility and gentry, being also members of ecclesiastical judicatories, and the ecclesiasticals having over and above an addition of strength by all the ministers of the land, who were not members of Parliament, it could not otherwise fall out, but that the jurisdiction assumed in churches, presbyteries, synods, and assemblies, should not only appear distinct from that of the magistrate, but also be raised to a greater height.  
A third reason is, that the Kings of Scotland having never had that majesty, power, revenue and splendour that other Kings abroad had, and yet the land full of nobility and gentry, who had great jurisdictions, many vassals and retainers, the greatest part of which received no lustre or increase of dignity or wealth from their Prince; these had reason, in emulation or opposition to that small number which the King favoured and protected, to join themselves with the Kirk party, there to find what the court could not afford them.  
I have nothing to say concerning excommunication in the Low-countries, but that they have no better plea for it then the churches of Scotland or Geneva.  
I should now close up the history of excommunication, by relating how it sped in the Palatinate; where I think it was received the last of any reformed church, though that place was one of the first that was reform from Popery. This may be seen in an Epistle of Zanchius to Conradus Hubertus in the year 1568. where he relates, that for many years there was an attempt made to bring in excommunication; which was withstood by many, not so much that they had a dislike of it, as that for some politic reasons it was not judged yet seasonable to stir further in it: however, by the mention that was made of it, the spirits of men have been much alienated one from another. Then he tells us of one George Withers an Englishman, who being to dispute for his degree of Doctor under Boquinus, among other positions had one touching the necessity of introducing excommunication; which was opposed with much eagerness, so far that one of his opponents, being straitened for time, so that he could not allege all that he had to say against excommunication, desired another day of disputation's: which being granted, Zanchius saith, that the disputation grew so hot, that one of the opponents, a Minister, protested openly against the falsity of the position, as contrary to the word of God. At which time Erastus, amongst others, wrote against excommunication. It is observable, that Zanchius did but favour underhand the advocates of excommunication; for he saith, for many honest reasons I would not intermeddle, but keep silence.  
By what I have related of the practice of excommunication in several churches and countries, we may easily conceive and apprehend  
1. That excommunication, when retained upon the account of confederate discipline, and as answering to the casting out of the synagogue among the Jews, may very well consist with the peace, safety and integrity both of life and doctrine, in the churches of France, or any other, under a contrary magistrate.  
2. That excommunication retained by churches under a contrary magistrate, upon the plea of jus Divinum for their discipline and excommunication, may be exercised with as little outward disturbance & dispute, as if they did retain it only upon the account of confederate discipline: but such churches than will not only usurp a power which hath no warrant from Christ, but besides will enslave men's consciences, laying upon them a yoke which is none of Christ's.  
3. But that excommunication, upon what plea soever retained by those churches that live under an orthodox magistrate, is inconsistent both with the outward peace of the nation where they live, and the inward peace and satisfaction of men's minds.  
4. That excommunication as it is retained by the reformed churches in France, or any other, under a magistrate differing from them, and upon what plea soever exercised, either of confederate discipline, or as had by Divine right, is not attended with those clashings, disputes and inconveniences, that it is subject unto among those churches that live under an orthodox magistrate, keeping with them the same unity of faith: & that for these reasons. 1. A church-member excommunicated in France will hardly complain to the magistrate, for he would but slight his complaints, and make a mock of the man; and therefore the party excommunicated must needs sit still, and stand to the sentence against him: but a member of a church excommunicated in Geneva or Scotland, looking upon the magistrate as a friend to the religion he profess●th, and a defendor and protector of his own church-discipline, will be ready, if he can make his cause probably good and plausible, to sue and seek for redress. Hence we see there were more appeals in calvin's time from the church-judicatory to that of the magistrate in the little territory of Geneva, then are in a whole age through all the churches of France. 2. Church-members under a contrary magistrate will be more united in affections and minds, and so will keep closer to the observation of the discipline. 3. Under a contrary magistrate members are usually such as believe what they outwardly profess, and not like those under an orthodox magistrate, where there is more of outward conformity to the religion of the state, which is no hindrance, but rather a furtherance to honours and preferments: and therefore where there is more evenness, soundness, sincerity and zeal, there must be also a greater submission to the church-discipline, and less clashings arising from the variety of dispositions in the members. 4. There is a great necessity of exercising a jurisdiction among the reformed churches in France, for the composing of such differences among themselves as have relation to their doctrine and religion, which otherwise being opened to the popish magistrate, would but bring our religion into contempt and derision. But under a magistrate that is a friend to religion these differences may be, with as little fear of scandal and derision to the profession and doctrine, made up and reconciled by men of his own appointment and choosing, as within a consistory; and as well and better by the consistory, if delegated thereunto, and invested with authority from the magistrate, than any other way, so that there be but one jurisdiction. 5. As there was a great necessity of discipline among the Jews living under an adverse magistrate, which should be in some sort distinct from their jurisdiction; so was there less need either to have it divided from that of the magistrate when he was a countenancer of their religion, or to have any at all more than the law of the land. The like may be said of the Christian churches.  
I will conclude this charter with two or three passages out of Andrew Rivet, my much honoured Uncle when he lived, and whose authority is of great weight with all the Divines of this land, namely the presbyterian ministers, and which taken into consideration, will be found to deliver as much as ever I have asserted, though none yet hath inveighed against him as an Erastian, and an enemy to order and discipline. They are all to be found in his exposition of the decalogue, tom. 1. about the 1373. page.  
It cannot be denied but that the principal duty in asserting and vindicating religion, yea in establishing it, pertained to the King of juda; for when ever the King's mind changed, there was always a change in religion; which change, whether for good or bad, is always attributed to the King, as his act and deed: neither could ever the chief Priests procure a change for the better, or hinder a change for the worse.  
The King, or another magistrate, as he doth not ordain, so he doth not depose formally, as I may so speak, or administratorily; yet he doth it of himself, not only by his counsel, command and authority, for he may command it, when there is just cause of deposing a minister, to those that have that power in the church, who in that case, and there being just cause for it, if they do not obey, and do what he commandeth, are subject not only to wrath, but also to God's judgement.  
Ministers as ministers are subjects to the sovereign magistrate: why then should it not be lawful to appeal from the judgement of subjects to the supreme magistrate? and why may it not be lawful for the supreme magistrate to review the judgements of his subjects, to ratify them if they be good, and to abrogate them if they be bad?  
There is a subjection of the magistrate to the ecclesiastical senate; but not of jurisdiction, as under a command, but of direction and counsel.   

CHAPTER XXXIII.  
The judgement of some Divines yet living both of the argument in hand, and of the writings of the Author. Of some men's strong prejudices against, & harsh censures of him.  
I Have through all this book, and in the first section of my Corollarium, proved, that I have digressed nothing in my Paraenesis from Scripture & reason, about the right of churches, and the magistrates power in matters of religion; but my opinion is also confirmed by two kinds of authorities of learned and orthodox Divines.  
The first kind of authorities is of those that, for the main, concur with me, or rather I with them: such are Zuinglius, Musculus, Bullingerus, Gualterus, Mestrezat, Mr. Jeremiah Burroughs, Mr. Lightfoot, etc.  
The second kind is of those that, though in general 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 heightened the merit of works, concludeth with a ●utissimum est, and flieth to the righteousness 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, Jewel, Zanchius, Reynolds, Camero, Rivet, and many more; who besides by yielding an inch, have given us a whole handful to believe, that what we have discoursed of the nature of power, laws, 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 sovereign Christian magistrate, and that appeals from church-judicatories to the magistrate are grounded upon Scripture, reason, and the practice of all nations, and besides saith, that the magistrate is the supreme governor and head of the church over all causes and persons; whoever, I say, grants these to be truths, must needs overthrow ecclesiastical 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 ecclesiastical 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, than 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 equal stress 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 pastors, 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 than the commonwealth, and more in keeping the first table than 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 long 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, etc. Sic Paulus affatur Christianos Romanos, Minister est Dei tuo bono: ubi intelligit omne bonum, tam  & 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, etc.  
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 merely declarative, having no authority further than their reasons are persuasive 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, etc. 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 ministry.  
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 patiented argueth the physicians power, jurisdiction, command and dominion over the patiented; making the jurisdiction in both alike in these respects. 1. As a physician may suspend his own act in administering physic; so the minister in giving the Eucharist. 2. As a physician inflicteth no censure upon the patiented for refusing to take his physic, only warneth him of the hazard he runs, upon the neglect of taking it; so doth the minister: he that receiveth not and obeyeth not the commandment of God delivered by the minister, cannot be punished for his neglect of the tender of grace, any more than a sick man for refesing to take physic.  
In his disputation de clericorum immunitate & privilegiis thesis 10. he saith, that Princes have power to inflict punishment upon transgressors of the laws that concern the worship of God, the administration of the Sacraments, and the doctrine of faith; and besides, that these laws have no force except they be confirmed and ratified by them.  
In his 12. thesis he saith, that the laws about faith, the Sacraments, divine worship, discipline, and ecclesiastical 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 laws agreed on, if they be just, else to amend and correct them, seeing he is the servant of God both for the spiritual and temporal good. The Latin is much more pregnant: Sane aequum & juilum est, leges & canon's de fide, Sacramentis, disciplina & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 cognition, conscientia & consensu Principis & magistratus politici, si pius & Christianus est, (est enim ille custos utriusque legis divinae tabula:) à quo, si bene constitutae sunt leges, & lights 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 faithful were to receive decrees and orders, because decreed or ordered by the council 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 external obedience, without the consent and the sanction of the magistrate.  
I might add a third sort of authorities, of some in England, France, Scotland and the Low-countrieses, 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 wondered 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 merely of man's 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 calvin's 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 colleagues 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 river. Ministers of deep 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 well overbalance hundreds of those that descent 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 show me favour. He some weeks after returned me this answer, in this excellent well-penned letter in Latin.  
PAraenesis tita (Vir clarissime & eruditissime) sero ad me pervenit; sed tandem pervenit, co●gratior, quo diutius expectata, & ardentioribus votis expetita: nec immerito; nam praeterquam quod mihi pignus extat illius tu●benevoli erga me animi, quem doctissimus & mei amantissimus Dominus Cong●ard mihi conciliavit, eas tam celebres, quae hod●e apud vos inter Presbyterianos & Independentes versantur, controversias quasi in speculo nobis exhibet; ac pro●nde, instar facis micantis, tot mendac●orum ●ebulas, quae aerem nostrum obt●nebrobant, à nobis quam longissime fugat. Non defuere quidem apud nos, qui falsis rumoribus, quos impuri quidam nebulones ad invidiam conslandam huc & illuc disseminarunt, 〈◊〉 sinistras & parum aequas de Ind●…endentibus opiniones conceperant. Sed multi etiam extitere, qui non passi sunt se eo usque abrip●, ut ●nd●cta causa calculo nigro notarent, quos dein●eps post cognit●onem causae absolvi posse pro certo ten●bant. Vtr●sque Paraenesim tuam in apt●ssimum remed●um praebes: illis, ut rubore a●…quo suffusi, sese tandem in damnandis fratribus, quorum vita inculpata, & doctrina sana, nimiae credulitatis arguant; his, ut sibiipsis gratulentur, quod ab omni temerario in fratres innocuos judicio sibi temperarint, quos nunc, veritatis certiores facti, non tantum non anathemate feriendos & diris devovendos, sed etiam pro veris fratribus agnoscendos, & amore sincero amplexandos censeant. Eo vel inviti adigentur quicunque Paraene sim tuam legent; his duabus rationibus: primo, quia fratres nobis exhibet in omnibus quae fidem spectant nobiscum prorsus consentientes: secundo, quia, ut mihi saltem videtur, ita , ita dextre quaestiones circa quas controversiae hodie agitatae versantur, pertractat, ut nullus dubitationi locus relinqui videatur; fundamenta quibus huc usque superstructa fuit excommunicatio subruit; ministros evangeliis in ordinem cogit; immotos summae potestati tibicines supponit; tyrannidem Papalem radicitus evellit; ecclesiae, id est coetui eorum qui Christo nomen dederunt, debitam authoritatem restituit; abusus qui à multis retro seculis in eam sensim irrepserunt, ab origine deducit; adversarios suis contradictionum retibus saepissime involvit, nec raro eos proprio jugulat gladio; & tandem, quod rei caput est, doctrinam fratrum sub proprio ac naturali vultu ita manifeste proponit, ut nullus sit, nisi sponte caecutiens, qui non pervideat mera esse aegrorum somnia, ne quid pejus dicam, quae fratribus falso imputare nonnulli non erubuerunt, & independentiae●stigma illis inurentes, & tanquam politiae omnis ecclesiasticae eversores, ac acerrimos omnium coetuum synodalium hostes eos traducentes. Haec, inquam, Paraenesis tua praestat: unde promptum est colligere, quantae & quam eximiae sint animi tui dotes, quam indefessum studium in evolvendis omne genus authoribus, tum sacris tum profanis, quam tenax in tam varia lectione memoria, & per quam perspicax judic●um in tam multiplicis materiae discretione, ita ut falsum non obrepat sub●imagine veri. Hac nota te prodis verum ac genuinum Petri Molinaei filium, cujus laudibus adhuc personat totus orbis reformatus. Hoc nomine se multum tibi debere profitebuntur quicunque rem literariam amant: hisce me accenseo; Deum suppliciter orans, ut te d●u incolumem servet ad nominis sui gloriam & ecclesiae aedificationem. Vale.  
Tibi addictissimus Vauquelinus. Diepae Prid. call. April. 1657.  
The Gentleman speaking more in commendation of my book than I deserve, modesty makes me forbear to English it: only I think it not amiss 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.  
I Have read Mr. du Moulins book through, and am much satisfied by reading of it. He is a man of great reading, of excellent reasoning, and a solid judgement. Methinks he overturneth clearly all the foundations on which hitherto excommunication was grounded: and till some body appeareth who by stronger reasonings can set it up again, I shall remain of his opinion, that it is a mere humane invention. I was glad to know that the differences between the Presbyterians and those they call Independents were not about points of faith; and this joy of mine was more increased, when I saw that the said Independents do not (as they were falsely charged to do) reject synodal assemblies, yea that they are so far from rejecting them, that, on the contrary, they hold them to be of Divine institution, acknowledging that they are constituted to give good and wholesome advice for the making of laws. I could have wished one thing of Mr. du Moulin; that he had not made the apology for his father against Mr. Daillé and Amyraldus in a controversy that was so different from his: for besides that it may incense them to return him a sharp reply, very many Pastors who are of their opinion, will bring with them a malignant prejudice to the reading of his book, which will cause them to lose the benefit that otherwise they might have reaped by the reading of it.  
About one month after, when I sent him my Corollarium, I gave this answer to his former letter in the same language, as followeth.  
TUus & idem meus Cognardus, vir praestantissimus, transmisit ad me, Vir reverend, literas tuas amicissimas, politissimas, succo & sanguine plenas, & vere Latinas; ad quas deterrerer Latine respondere, nisi plane patria lingua balbutirem. Non facile est dicere quantum illo affectu tuo, quem prolixe testatus es, mihi gratuler, nec minus triumphem in tuo judicio de opere meo: quod ab authore licet laudes, attamen ita sum tenuitatis meae conscius, ut tuam commendationem potius ab argumento mereri existimem. utut sit, est quod tuum judicium, quod mihi instar omnium est, opponam sexcentis in Gallia, Anglia & Belgio viris, qui excaecati praejudicus, omnis rationis usu sibi interdixerunt, ne agnoscant veritatem summae rei, quam in nostra Paraenesi astruimus. Hanc, vir magne, cum retexeris, & multa authoritate polleas, oro, obtestor, d●gneris vindicem esse meum adversus saltem vestrates, nec procul à viciniatua, qui me, tanquam Divini humanique juris, ac disciplinae in Gallia nostra habita eversorem, tum Ministerii deturbatorem, proscindunt. Indignus sim vita, si horum criminum reus; sed si me tam intus & in pectoris recessu nosces, quam sensa mea tibi sunt scriptis comperta, omnino me exolveres hac imputatione, & diceres haec omnia ficta esse ad invidiam conflandum mihi, & deterrendum lectores à conspectu l●bri. Sane mihi mea conscientia fidem facit, cum verbi ministros, tum ipsum ministerium ea à me veneratione coli & suspici, quanta non puto à quoquam; nec minus cultorem esse & vind cem disciplinae (quanquam non po●estatis ecclesiasticae) in ecclesia retinendae. Quid? an is est d●sciplinae eversor, qui statuit sub mag●stratu amico & orthodoxo, ut sub Ezechia, ●o sia, etc. concedere in ejus jura; at sub infenso, haberi per disciplinam confoederatam, qualis retinebatur in ecclesia Iudaica sub regibus Idololatris? Tantum abest ut invid●am placare velim, virtute & defension hujus veritatis relictis, aut me incoepti poeniteat, ut constitutum sit, si vita superstes, ulterius porrigere & edocere, nunquam argumentis & rationibus cogentibus hierarchiam Romanam cum toto mysterio iniquitatis debellatum iri, ut nec potestatem excommunicandi & solio deturbandi reges, à Protestantibus & reformatis, quamdiu ipsi retinebunt potestatem ecclesiasticam in summa rei eandem quae Romana est. Contra vero, principiis nostris de natura potestatis, juris, imperi●, legis, & fori, tum interni tum externi, intellectis & receptis, & excommunicatione probata & posita inter figmenta humana, minimo impulsu corruet moles mysterii in●quitatis, nullis tibicinibus supportata; quos tamen tantillum sustinendae supponunt nostri, sua potestate ecclesiastica & excemmunicatione; & hac ratione non nisi molliter, neque armis decretoriis & jugulum petentibus, argumenta Bellarmini & Stapletoni impugnant. Nam rogo, si licet excommunicare privatum, cur non & regem? si privatus excommunicatus ultimo judicio, scu presbyterii, seu synodi, debet illius stare judicio, nec lites movere, sed expectare Deum vindicem; cur idem rex praestare non debeat, à presbyterio communione aut coetu pulsus? si rex sic potest excommunicari à presbyterio, ut ejus consortium quisque fugere debeat, anon eadem pene est censura quae solio dejiceret, quatenus jam in nullum usum solium occupet traditum Satanae mancipium, quod pro Christiano magistratu subditus ulterius non agnoscat, non colloquatur, ei non supplicet? At nullo negotio haec deliramenta evertit Parae●eseos nostrae pars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dum docet, tum potestatem pastorum, ac proinde Paparum, in volentes tantum esse, & quibus persuaserint; tum nullum judicium, nullam legem, nullam sententiam à qu●quam in quenquam latam, validam esse, nisi ratam à potestate externa cogent●, & ad quam fiat provocatio. Verum enimvero, siquae pastoribus in foro externo datur potestas judiciaria, cum Scriptura ad literam loquatur de potestate maxima quae coelum claud●t & recludit, cujus actus interni, quicunque d●mum ●lli fuerint, rati habeantur in coelis; contra quam ne quidem portae ●…f●rni praevalebunt; supra qua ecclesia aed●fi●ata; si quae, inquam, potestas judiciaria ad●udic●nda sit pastor●bus, plane modus ejus habitus à Pap●s & clero Romano ma●orem invemet fidem, quam modulus à Presbyterianis retentus. Hac via omnino procedendum est ad evertendum Antichristum; non impugnando ceassos errores de purgatorio, coel●batu, transubstantiatione, ciborum abstinentia, pueris notos & obvios: qui tamen sub umbra potestatis ●cclesiasticae ortum & auctum acceperunt. Neque enim dubitandum jam tempore Pauli non orsam fu●sse aed●ficationem impertii ●n imperio; quod imperii aedificandi mol●men fuit g●…uinum iniquitatis mysterium, quoaque cave credas aliis fulcris supportatum f●…sse quam excommunicatione & potestate ecclesiastica longe lateque porrecta, & in omnes nationes, reges, homines, causas & res vendicata & habita. Id thematis, vir magne, tibi ultro suggero, in quod prolixius & felicius commenteris. Id dum animo agitabis, cape Corollarium ad nostram Paraenesim: hanc & illud juxta tuo judicio subjicit  
Tibi addictissimus L. MOLINAEUS. Datum Oxoniae 3. Non. Maia's 1657.  
Soon after I had this answer in French.  
SIR,  
I Have received in due time the letter and book which you have honoured me with. I have read both the one and the other with satisfaction; both because they give me fresh assurance of your affection, and chief for that they strengthen in me the persuasion that the reading of your first book had very deeply imprinted in my spirit. Your positions seem so well grounded, and backed with so many authorities of the contrary opinion, that except you can be convinced of falsehood in the citation of the said authors, I do not see how your said positions can be overthrown. Therefore, for the love I bear to truth when it is made known to nee, I will adhere fast to that which you have, as I think, so clearly demonstrated unto me, till a greater light causeth me to see that I am gone astray in following your steps: and I will not only carefully entertain that truth myself, but also strive to impart it to others, that they being well acquainted with the matter treated of in your books, may have more charitable thoughts of you then those have, who go about to make you a professed enemy to the holy ministry and the discipline. One of my Colleagues, who hath read your first book, hath acknowledged unto me, he is much satisfied by the reading thereof, and told me, that your opinion is so far from pulling down or shaking the stability of our discipline, that quite contrary, it is clear to him, that it builds it up firmly and strenghthens it, laying it upon its natural and true foundations. Another of my Colleagues hath not indeed so openly declared to me, that he found himself overcome by the strength of your reasons; but yet he hath been brought so far, as to doubt and make a question of what heretofore he held to be indubitable. Mr. Lagnel, the fourth of my Colleagues, a person endowed with a most solid judgement, upon the description I made him of the nature of the controversy between the Independents and the Presbyterians, and of the reasons you bring in the behalf of the opinion of the first, adjudgeth the victory unto them. And I doubt not but that those who shall read your writings, laying aside all prejudice, and weighing, as they ought, your reasons, will give glory to God, and entertain so clear a truth, which rendereth to the magistrate and to the church what belongeth unto them, and plucketh up by the root the remnants of Papal tyranny, which have been retained still in the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline, specially among the Scots; of whom you give us a notable example, which ought to make the hearts of all good men start and tremble. So then, although your book hath suffered in its birth those contradidictions which usually are incident to them that fetch out a truth from the tomb, yet you have reason to hope, that the truth delivered in it will render it victorious, and make you see by experience that, tandem bona causa triumphant. Now when I answered your first letter, I thought I was not to write to you, but only of the principal subject of your book, without speaking of the additions; for I had well observed, that what you said of the holy Supper, might be ill interpreted; but I also clearly perceived by the sequel of your discourse, that you understood it in the sense that you explain in your Corollary: so that if all the readers of the book had brought with them such a spirit to the reading of it as mine, you had been freed from the trouble of giving a clear exposition of your meaning. I had also taken notice of the digression you make in your Preface against Mr. Daillé, and Amyraldus; and indeed I did then write to Mr. Congnard my opinion thereof, and that I could have wished for many reasons that you had not meddled with them: but what is written is written; which I hope will not hinder, but that those that follow their opinion concerning the universality of grace, as conceiving it to be grounded upon Scripture and upon the authority of most Doctors, both ancient and modern, and chief of our first reformers, will embrace, if they be good men, the truth which you present unto them, so that they may perceive it without any kind of prejudice. I pray God they may do it. I am sorry I delayed this answer so long but, besides that I am entangled with a law suit, which a naughty man hath troubled me with, I had a great desire that my Colleagues should first have your book communicated to them, that I might tell you their opinion, what they think of it. Be pleased therefore not to take this delay in ill part; and to favour me so far, as to believe that I honour you, and value as much as possible the gifts of God wh●ch shine in you; which will readily put me upon studying all occasions to testify that I am most sincerely,  
Your most humble and most obedient servant VAUQUELIN. From deep this 16. of August, 1657.  
Having since the receipt of this letter desired him to gi' e me leave to publish it in print, he granted it me by this ensuing letter.  
SIR,  
YOur work carrieth its commendation with it, and needeth not to borrow it from others. Yet if you, and those to whom you communicated my last letter, conceive it will signify any thing, and think it fitting to be printed either at the beginning or at the end of the extract of your Paraenesis, I willingly give my consent. I shall not fear to own a truth of that nature which you propound in your book: Amicus Plato, etc. If any body undertakes to confute it, and by the strength and evidence of his reasons, can convince me that it is not truth, but an error coloured over; I will not then fear to disavow it. Those famous authors, whose authorities you bring to defend all your conclusions, will be obliged to do the like, and to sing a Palinodia, when they see that you are gone astray in going the way they led you. But until I see this demonstration, which at present I think impossible, I will stick to that I have embraced; and in the mean while will assure you, that it will be a great satisfaction to me, if I can be serviceable to you in any thing, whereby I may testify to you, that I am in all sincerity,  
Your most humble and most obedient servant VAUQUELIN. From deep the 2. of Oct. 1657.  
Among the persons living that have given their approbation to my Paraenesis, I might mention the late reverend and learned minister of Paris, john Mestrezat, because he was then living when it came forth. I have in my Corollarium inserted his letter written a few weeks before he died; wherein, as in his treatise of the Church, one may see he wholly concurreth with me in the following particulars.  
1. That all private churches are independent from any church-judicatory, and that what power so ever is given, or promise made to a church, ought not to be ascribed to the catholic, national or presbyterial church, but to the private church, made up of Pastor and flock, meeting in one place about the same ordinances.  
2. That combinations of private churches are of very good use, but yet are arbitrary, and of humane institution, and not commanded in the word.  
3. That Jesus Christ never appointed any form or model of church discipline; only hath in general commanded that all things in the church should be done orderly.  
I might add the testimonies of many English Divines, who have approved of the book and argument, with no less good liking then the ministers of Drepe, or Mr. Mestrezat. For I do not doubt but that reverend and learned Mr. Baxter (as it seems to me in the Preface to a late book of his) will come as near me in the main question handled in my Paraenesis, as I differ from him in the other controversy betwixt him and me. But I forbear to name either those that like of my Paranesis or those that dislike i●; having no leave from either of them so to do I am however thus far satisfied, that these later have condemned it before they read it, and when they never intended to read it, either out of contempt o● prejudice: whereas the other have taken the pains to read it over, and been as m ch in the extremes to commend it, as those to discommend it. Should I set down here the various judgments of men, both in England and b yond the seas, it would hardly be believed, that godly and learned men, agreeing in the same holy doctrine of faith, and in fervent charity one with the other, should be so opposite and contrary in their judgement of my book: some condemning it as most pernicious and dangerous, adam engaged damnable book; as if they had spoken of some pieces of Socinus or C●ellius, or of ●n●ther and eternal Gos●ell, written some ●…ndred years a gone by the Friars; besides, a book full of hes casummes and slanders, and wounding the interest of Jesus Christ: on the contrary others commending the book, both for the matter, and the way of handling it, and for the Christian moderation that the author observeth enrough the whole work, equally respecting and honouring those he assents to, and those he dissents from. The later, since they have known me by my works, have had more Christian converse with me by letters and otherwise: but the other, except they be my noble and old friends, did flee from me since as from an heathen and a publican, and an excommunicated person, only for denying excommunication to be an ordinance of Christ; yea so far, that a reverend person protested to a friend of mine, that he would not come in the company where I should be. I thank God, I cannot find in my heart to value and honour any one more or less, for loving me either better or worse for my books sake, so that I find godliness and sincerity shine in them, though in some with much prejudice. I pardon them their uncharitable and somewhat rash censure both of the work and the Author.  
The Lord knoweth my heart, that in delivering what I did, and now do in this present work, I look upon Father, Brother, Kinsmen, English, French, Scots, Dutch, Calvin, Independents, Presbyterians, Erastians', with an indifferent and unpartial eye; not seeking to close with any of them, or fearing to descent from them, nor so much as taking notice whether I please any body or no body; so that I may abstain from known error and sin, and deliver that which to me is truth, and tending to the honour of the ministry; to the rooting out of the churches of God all power that is none of Christ's; to the unsettling the Romish Hierarchy, which hath now no longer any plausible plea from Scripture and reason, for their setting up an empire within the dominions of others; and lastly, conducing to the building up of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ in many men's hearts, and making it appear to be wholly internal and s●…rituall, and only over those that are convinced and persuaded by the spirit of God in the ministry of the word.  
The Lord persuade his people of this truth, as I myself (and I hope rightly) am persuaded and informed, undeceiving them, that he may have all the glory, by their endeavouring with one accord to preserve saving truths by this truth.   
FINIS.