ecclesiastical estate are subject to the magistrate civil, so ought the person of the magistrate be subject to the church spiritually, and in ecclesiastical government; and the exercise of both these jurisdictions cannot stand in one person ordinarily."* Again, " The magistrate neither ought to preach, minister the sacrament, nor execute the censures of the church, nor yet prescribe any rule how it should be done, but command the ministers to observe the rule commanded in the word, and punish the transgressors by civil means. The ministers exercise not the civil jurisdiction, but teach the magistrate how it should be exercised according to the word." The laws and statutes of Geneva do at once ratify the ecclesiastical presbyterial power of jurisdiction or censure, and withal appoint, that ministers shall not take upon them any civil jurisdiction, but where there shall be need of compulsion or civil punishments, that this be done by the magistrate.t Yea, under a popish magistrate (as in France), and even under the Turk himself, many churches do enjoy not only the word and sacraments, but a free church government and discipline within themselves, rectio disciplinæ libera, which is thought no prejudice to the civil government, they that govern the churches having no dominion nor share of magistracy. Vide D. Chytræi orat. de Statu Ecclesiarum in Græcia, &c.

I know well that there are other horrid calumnies and misrepresentations of presbyterial government, besides that of encroaching upon magistracy; but they are as false as they are foul. And although we go upon this disadvantage which Demosthenes (being loadened with a heavy charge and grievous aspersions by schines) did complain of, that, though by right, both parties should be heard, yet the generality of men do, with pleasure, hearken to reproaches and calumnies, but take little or no pleasure to hear men's clearing of themselves or their cause; and that his adversary had chosen that which was more pleasant, leaving to him that which was more tedious. Nevertheless I must needs expect from all such as are conscionable and faithful in this cause and covenant, that their ears shall not be open to calumnies, and shut upon more favourable informations. And, however, let the worst be said which malice itself can devise, it shall be no small comfort to me, that our Lord and Master hath said, "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my name's sake."§

I know also that a government and discipline in the church (the thing which I now undertake to plead for) is a very displeasing thing to those that would fain enjoy liberty, either of pernicious errors or gross profaneness. But (as Maimonides saith well) "we must not judge of the easiness or heaviness of a law, according to the affections and lust of any evil man, being rash (in judgment) and given to the worst vices, but according to the understanding of one who is most perfect among men, like unto whom, according to the law, all others ought to be," More Novechim, part 2, cap. 39. No marvel that the licentious hate that way wherein they shall find themselves hemmed in, if not hedged up, with thorns. And that they may

The Second Book of the Discipline of the Church of Scotland, c. 1. See the Laws and Statutes of Geneva, translated out of the French, and printed at London 1643, p. 9, 10.

De Corona, orat. 5, in initio.

§ In orat. contra Ctesiphontem.

|| Matt. v. 11.

¶ Psalm ii. 3; Luke xix. 14.

the more flatter themselves in their sinful licentiousness, they imagine that Christ's yoke is easy, and his burden light, to the flesh as well as to the spirit, to carnal as well as to spiritual men. For my part, if I have learned Christ aright, I hold it for a sure principle, that in so far as a man is spiritual and regenerate, in as far his flesh is under a yoke; and in so far as he is unregenerate, in as far his flesh is sine jugo without a yoke. The healing of the spirit is not without the smiting of the flesh."*

When I speak of this divine ordinance of church government, my meaning is not to allow, much less to animate any in the too severe and over-strict exercise of ecclesiastical discipline and censures. It was observed by Jerome, as one of the errors of the Montanists: Illi ad omne pene delictum ecclesiæ obserant fores:† They shut the church door (that is, they excommunicate and shut out of the church) almost at every offence. I confess the greater part are more apt to fail in the defect than in the excess, and are like to come too short rather than to go too far. Yet a failing there may be, and hath been, both ways. The best things, whether in church or state, have been actually abused, and may be so again, through the error and corruption of men. The Holy Scripture itself is abused to the greatest mischiefs in the world, though in its own nature it serves for the greatest good in the world. The abuse of a thing which is necessary, and especially of a divine ordinance, whether such abuse be feared or felt, ought not, may not, prejudice the thing itself. My purpose and endeavour shall be (wherein I beseech the Lord to help my infirmities) to own the thing, to disown the abuses of the thing, to point out the path of Christ's ordinance without allowing either rigour against such as ought to be tenderly dealt with, or too much lenity towards such as must be saved with fear, and pulled out of the fire, or at all any aberration to the right or left hand.

I have had much ado to gain so many horo subcisivæ from the works of my public calling, as might suffice for this work. I confess it hath cost me much pains, and I think I may say without presumption, he that will go about solidly to answer it will find it no easy matter. Subitane lucubrations will not do it. But if any man shall, by unanswerable contrary reasons or evidences, discover error or mistake in any of my principles, let truth have the victory, let God have the glory. Only this favour (I may say this justice) I shall protest for: First, That my principles and conclusions may be rightly apprehended, and that I may not be charged with any absurd, dangerous or odious assertion, unless my own words be faithfully cited from which that assertion shall be gathered, yea also without concealing my explanations, qualifications, or restrictions, if any such there be; which rule, to my best observation, I have not transgressed in reference to the opposites. Secondly, That as I have not dealt with their nauci, but with their nucleus, I have not scratched at their shell, but taken out their kernel (such as it is), I have not declined them, but encountered, yea sought them out where their strength was greatest, where their arguments were hardest, and their exceptions most probable; so no man may decline or dissemble the strength of my arguments, inferences, authorities, answers

Origen. in Lev., hom. 3.-Quid percutit? carnem. Quid sanat? spiritum. Prorsus ut illa deficiat, iste proficiat. Jerom. ad Marcellum.

and replies, nor think it enough to lift up an axe against the outermost branches, when he ought to strike at the root. Thirdly, If there be any acrimony, let it be in a real and rational conviction, not in the manner of expression. In which also I ask no other measure to myself than I have given to others. It is but in vain for a man to help the bluntness of reason with the sharpness of passion; for thereby he looseth more than he gaineth with intelligent readers; the simpler sort may peradventure esteem those ovlivnuiva, those despicable nothings, to be something, but then they are deluded not edified. Therefore let not a man cast forth a flood of passionate words when his arguments are like broken cisterns which can hold no water.

If any replier there be of the Erastian party, who will confine himself within these rules and conditions, as do not challenge him, so (if God spare me life and liberty) I will not refuse him. But if any shall so reply as to prevaricate and do contrary to these just and reasonable demands,

I must (to his greater shame) call him to the orders, and make his tergiversation to appear.

I shall detain thee (good reader) no longer. The Lord guide thee and all his people in ways of truth and peace, holiness and righteousness, and grant that this controversy may (I trust it shall) have a happy end to the glory of God, to the embracing and exalting of Jesus Christ in his kingly office, to the ordering of his house according to his own will, to the keeping pure of the ordinances, to the advancing of holiness, and shaming of profaneness, and finally to the peace, quiet, well-being, comfort, and happiness of the churches of Christ. These things (without thoughts of provoking any either public or private person) the searcher of hearts knoweth to be desired and intended by him who is

Thine, to please thee,

for thy good to edification.

GEO. GILLESPIE.

CHAPTER I.

THAT IF THE ERASTIANS COULD PROVE WHAT THEY ALLEGE CONCERNING THE JEWISH CHURCH GOVERNMENT, YET IN THAT PARTICULAR THE JEWISH CHURCH COULD NOT BE A PRECEDENT TO THE CHRISTIAN.

OBSERVING that very much of Erastus's strength, and much of his followers' confidence, lieth in the Old Testament, and Jewish church, which, as they aver, knew no such distinction as civil government and church government, civil justice and church discipline, I have thought good, first of all, to remove that great stumbling-block, that our way may afterward lie fair and plain before us. I do heartily acknowledge, that what we find to have been an ordinance, or an approved practice in the Jewish church, ought to be a rule and pattern to us, such things only excepted which were typical or temporal, that is, for which there were special reasons proper to that infancy of the church, and not common to us. Now if our opposites could prove that the Jewish church was nothing but the Jewish state, and that the Jewish church government was nothing but the Jewish state government, and that the Jews had never any supreme sanhedrim but one only, and that civil and such as had the temporal coercive power of magistracy (which they will never be able

to prove), yet there are divers considerable reasons for which that could be no precedent to us.

First. Casaubon (exerc. 13, anno 31, num. 10) proves, out of Maimonides, that the sanhedrim was to be made up, if possible, wholly of priests and Levites; and that if so many priests and Levites could not be found as were fit to be of the sanhedrim, in that case some were assumed out of other tribes. Howbeit I hold not this to be agreeable to the first institution of the sanhedrim. But thus much is certain, that priests and Levites were members of the Jewish sanhedrim, and had an authoritative decisive suffrage in making decrees, and inflicting punishments, as well as other members of the sanhedrim. Philo, the Jew (de vita Mosis, p. 530), saith, that he who was found gathering sticks upon the Sabbath, was brought ad principem et sacerdotum consistorium, ἐπὶ τὸν ἄρχοντα ᾧ συνήδρευον μὲν ἱερεῖς, that is, to the prince or chief ruler (meaning Moses), together with whom the priests did sit and judge in the sanhedrim. “ Jehoshaphat did set of the Levites, of the priests, and of the chief of the fathers of Israel, for the judgment of the Lord," &c. 2 Chron. xix. 8.

Secondly. The people of Israel had God's own judicial law, given by Moses, for their civil law, and the priests and Levites instead of civil lawyers.

Thirdly. The sanhedrim did punish no

man unless admonition had been first given to him for his amendment. Maimonides, de fundam. legis, cap. 5, sect. 6, yea, saith Gul. Vorstius upon the place, though a man had killed his parents the sanhedrim did not punish him unless he were first admonished; and when witnesses were examined, seven questions were propounded to them, one of which was, whether they had admonished the offender, as the Talmud itself tells us, ad tit. Sanhedrim, cap. 5, sect. 1.

Fourthly. The sanhedrim, respondebat de jure, did interpret the law of God, and determine controversies concerning the sense and intent thereof, Deut. xvii. 8-11; and it was on this manner, as the Jerusalem Talmud, in Sanhedrim, cap. 10, sect. 2, records: "There were there (in Jerusalem) three assemblies of judges, one sitting at the entry to the mountain of the sanctuary, another sitting at the door of the court, the third sitting in the conclave made of cut stone. First, addresses were made to that which sat at the ascent of the mountains of the sanctuary; then the elder (who came to represent the cause which was too hard for the courts of the cities) said on this manner, I have drawn this sense from the holy Scripture, my fellows have drawn that sense; I have taught thus, my fellows so and so.' If they had learned what is to be determined in that cause, they did communicate it unto them, if not, they went forward together to the judges sitting at the door of the court, by whom they were instructed, if they, after the laying forth of the difficulty, knew what resolutions to give. Otherwise all of them had recourse to the great sanhedrim; for from it doth the law go forth unto all Israel." It is added in Exc. Gemar. Sanhed. cap. 10, sect. 1, that the sanhedrim did sit in the room of cut stone (which was in the temple) from the morning to the evening daily sacrifice. The sanhedrim did judge cases of idolatry, apostacy, false prophets, &c., Talm. Hieros. in Sanhed. cap. 1, sect. 5.

Now all this being unquestionably true of the Jewish sanhedrim, if we should suppose that they had no supreme sanhedrim but that which had the power of civil magistracy, then, I ask, where is that Christian state which was, or is, or ought to be, moulded according to this pattern? Must Must ministers have vote in parliament? Must they be civil lawyers? Must all criminal and capital judgments be according to the

Yet all

judicial law of Moses, and none otherwise? Must there be no civil punishment without previous admonition of the offender? Must parliaments sit, as it were, in the temple of God, and interpret Scripture, which sense is true and which false, and determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience, and judge of all false doctrines? this must be if there be a parallel made with the Jewish sanhedrim. I know some divines hold that the judicial law of Moses, so far as concerneth the punishments of sins against the moral law, idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, adultery, theft, &c., ought to be a rule to the Christian magistrate; and, for my part, I wish more respect were had to it, and that it were more consulted with. This by the way. I am here only showing what must follow if the Jewish government be taken for a precedent, without making a distinction of civil and church government. Surely the consequences will be such as I am sure our opposites will never admit of, and some of which (namely, concerning the civil places or power of ministers, and concerning the magistrate's authority to interpret Scripture) ought not to be admitted.

Certainly, if it should be granted that the Jews had but one sanhedrim, yet there was such an intermixture of civil and ecclesiastical, both persons and proceedings, that there must be a partition made of that power which the Jewish sanhedrim did exercise, which, taken whole and entire together, can neither suit to our civil nor to our ecclesiastical courts. Nay, while the Erastians appeal to the Jewish sanhedrim (suppose it now to be but one) they do thereby engage themselves to grant unto church officers a share, at least, yea, a great share, in ecclesiastical government; for so they had in the supreme sanhedrim of the Jews.

And further, the Jews had their synagoga magna, which Grotius on Matt. x. 17, distinguishes from the sanhedrim of seventyone; for both prophets and others of place and power among the people, præter, roùs avvideous, besides the members of that sanhedrim were members of that extraordinary assembly, which was called the great synagogue, such as that assembly (Ezra x.) which did decree forfeiture and separation from the congregation to be the punishment of such as would not gather themselves unto Jerusalem, in which assembly were others beside those of the sanhedrim. Of the men

of the great synagogue I read in Tzemach David, p. 56, edit. Hen. Vorstius, that they did receive the traditions from the prophets; and it is added, Viri synagogæ magnæ ordinarunt nobis preces nostras,—The men of the great synagogue did appoint unto us our prayers, meaning their liturgies, which they fancy to have been so instituted. The Hebrews themselves controvert whether all the men of the great synagogue did live at one and the same time, or successively; but that which is most received among them is, that these men did flourish all at one time, as is told us in the passage last cited, where also these are named as men of the great synagogue, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Zerubbabel, Mordecai, Ezra, Jehoshua, Seria, Rehaliah, Misphar, Rechum, Nehemiah. Rambam addeth Chananiah, Mischael and Azariah.

Finally, as prophets, priests, and scribes of the law of God, had an interest in the synagoga magna after the captivity, so we read of occasional and extraordinary ecclesiastical synods before the captivity, as that assembly of the priests and Levites under Hezekiah, 2 Chron. xxix. 4, 15, and that sy nod of the four hundred prophets, 1 Kings xxii. 6. Herod also gathered together the chief priests and scribes, Matt. ii. 4. I conclude that if it should be granted there was no ecclesiastical sanhedrim among the Jews distinct from the civil, yet, as the necessity of a distinct ecclesiastical government among us is greater than it was among them, in respect of the four considerations above-mentioned, so likewise the priests had a great deal more power and authority in the Jewish church, not only by occasional synods, but by their interest in synagoga magna, and in the civil sanhedrim itself, than the Erastians are willing that church officers should have in the Christian church.

CHAPTER II.

THAT THE JEWISH CHURCH WAS FORMALLY DISTINCT FROM THE JEWISH STATE OR

COMMONWEALTH.

It hath been by some (with much confidence and scorn of all who say otherwise) averred, that excommunication and church government distinct from the civil hath no pattern for it in the Jewish church. "I

"the

am sure," saith Mr Coleman in his Brotherly Examination Re-examined, p. 16, best reformed church that ever was, went this way, I mean the church of Israel, which had no distinction of church government and civil government." Hast thou appealed unto Cæsar? unto Cæsar shalt thou go. Have you appealed to the Jewish church? thither shall you go. Wherefore I shall endeavour to make these five things appear: 1. That the Jewish church was formally distinct from the Jewish state. 2. That there was an ecclesiastical sanhedrim and government distinct from the civil. 3. That there was an ecclesiastical excommunication distinct from civil punishments. 4. That in the Jewish church there was also a public exomologesis, or declaration of repentance, and, thereupon, a reception or admission again of the offender to fellowship with the church in the holy things. 5. That there was a suspension of the profane from the temple and passover.

First. The Jewish church was formally distinct from the Jewish state. I say formally, because ordinarily they were not distinct materially, the same persons being members of both; but formally they were distinct, as now the church and state are among us Christians. 1. In respect of distinct laws, the ceremonial law was given to them in reference to their church state, the judicial law was given to them in reference to their civil state. Is. Abrabanel, de capite fidei, cap. 13, putteth this difference between the laws given to Adam and to the sons of Noah, and the divine law given by Moses, that those laws were given for conservation of human society, and are in the classes of judicial or civil laws. But the divine law given by Moses doth direct the soul to its last perfection and end. I do not approve the difference which he puts between these laws. This only I note, that he distinguisheth judicial or civil laws for conservation of society, though given by God, from those laws which are given to perfect the soul, and to direct it to its last end, such as he conceives the whole moral and ceremonial law of Moses to be. Halichoth Olam, tract 5, cap. 2, tells us that such and such rabbies were followed in the ceremonial laws; other rabbies followed in the judicial laws. 2. In respect of distinct acts, they did not worship God and offer sacrifices in the temple, nor call upon the name of the Lord, nor give thanks, nor receive the sacraments as that state, but as that church. They