given them a commission to do. And if any such restraints of prohibitions or laws should be laid on us, we ought to obey God rather than men.

5. Distingue tempora. Whatever belongs to the magistrate in matters of religion, more than falls under the former distinctions, is extraordinary, and doth not belong to ordinary government. In extraordinary reformations the magistrate may do much by his own immediate authority, when synods have made defection either from the truth of doctrine, or from holiness and godliness; yet in such a case he ought to consult with such orthodox godly divines as can be had, either in his own or from other dominions. Fest. Hon. disp. 30, thes. 5.

And so much be spoken of the magistrate's power and duty in things and causes ecclesiastical. As we do not deny to the magistrate anything which the word of God doth allow him, so we dare not approve his going beyond the bounds and limits which God hath set him. And I pray God that this be not found to be the bottom of the controversy, Whether magistracy shall be an arbitrary government, if not in civil, yet in ecclesiastical things? whether the magistrate may do, or appoint to be done, in the matter of church government, admission to, or exclusion from the ordinances of Christ, whatever shall seem good in his eyes? and whether, in purging of the church, he is obliged to follow the rules of Scripture, and to consult with learned and godly ministers? although Erastus himself (as is before observed) and Sutlivius (a great follower of him), de Presbyt. cap. 8, are ashamed of, and do disclaim such assertions.

CHAPTER IX.

THAT BY THE WORD OF GOD THERE OUGHT TO BE ANOTHER GOVERNMENT BESIDE MAGISTRACY OR CIVIL GOVERNMENT, NAMELY, AN ECCLESIASTICAL

GOVERNMENT (PROPERLY SO CALLED) IN THE HANDS OF

CHURCH OFFICERS.

This question hath arisen from Mr Coleman's third and fourth rule which he offered to the parliament, excluding all government of church officers, ministers, and elders; that is, as he expounds himself, all corrective government, leaving them no power except

what is merely doctrinal, and appropriating all government, properly so called, to the magistrate only. Mr Hussey, following him, falls in the same ditch with him. The question is not, Whether church officers ought to have any share in the civil government; nor whether church officers may have any lordly government or imperious domination over the Lord's heritage; nor whether church officers may exercise an arbitrary irregular government, and rule as themselves list. God forbid. But the question plainly is, Whether there may not, yea, ought not, to be in the church a ministerial or ecclesiastical government, properly so called, beside the civil government or magistracy. Mr Coleman did, and Mr Hussey doth hold there ought not. I hold there ought; and I shall propound for the affirmative these arguments:

The first argument I draw from 1 Tim. v. 17, Οι καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι, "Elders that rule well." Mr Hussey, p. 8, asks, whether the word elder be prima or secunda notio. If prima notio, Why must not elder women be church officers as well as elder men? If secunda notio for a ruling officer, parliament men, kings, and all civil governors, are such elders. I know no use which that distinction of prima and secunda notio hath in this place, except to let us know that he understands these logical terms. Egregiam vero laudem. He might have saved himself the labour, for who knows not Jerome's distinction? Elder is either a word of age or of office; but in ecclesiastical use it is a word of office. Mr Hussey's first notion concerning elder women is no masculine notion. His second notion is an antiparliamentary notion; for the honourable Houses of Parliament, in the first words of their ordinance concerning ordination of ministers, have declared, that, by the word of God, a bishop and a presbyter or elder are all one; for thus beginneth the ordinance: "Whereas the word presbyter, that is to say, elder, and the word bishop, do in the Scripture intend and signify one and the same function," &c. Therefore parliament men and civil governors cannot be the elders mentioned by the apostle Paul, except Mr Hussey make them bishops, and invest them with power of ordination. Besides this, if kings and parliament men be such elders as are mentioned in this text, then the ministers of the word must have not only an equal share in government, but more honour

men.

and maintenance than kings and parliament See how well Mr Hussey pleadeth for Christian magistracy: It is also an antiscriptural notion, for some of those elders that ruled well, did labour in the word and doctrine, as Paul tells us in the very same place; these, sure, are not civil governors. Wherefore Mr Hussey must seek a third notion before he hit the Apostle's meaning. It is not hujus loci to debate from this text the distinction of two sorts of elders; though among all the answers which ever I heard or read, Mr Hussey's is the weakest, p. 11, that by elders that labour in the word and doctrine, are meant those ministers whose excellency lies in doctrine and instruction; and that by elders that rule, are meant those that give reproof. He contradistinguisheth a reproving minister from a minister labouring in the word and doctrine. The very reproof given by a minister will be (it seems) at last challenged as an act of government. It is as wide from the mark, that he will have the two sorts of elders to differ thus, that the one must govern and not preach, the other must preach and not govern; not observing that the text makes ruling to be common to both. The one doth both rule and labour in the word and doctrine; the other ruleth only, and is therefore called ruling elder, non quia solus præest, sed quia solum præest. But to let all these things be laid aside as heterogeneous to this present argument, the point is, here are rulers in the church who are no civil rulers. Yea, this my argument from this text was clearly yielded by Mr Coleman in his Maledicis, p. 8: "But I will deal clearly (saith he), these officers are ministers, which are instituted not here, but elsewhere; and these are the rulers here mentioned." Therefore he yieldeth ecclesiastical rulers (and those instituted) distinct from magistracy; neither is it a lordly but a ministerial ruling of which our question is. "For my part (saith Mr Hussey) I know not how lordship and government doth differ one from another." Then every governor of a ship must be a lord; then every steward of a great house must be lord of the house. There is an economical or ministerial government, and of that we mean.

My second argument I take from 1 Thes. v. 12, "And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you." Пpoïarapèvovs vμwv, qui præsunt Προϊσταμένους ὑμῶν,

vobis. Hence doth Calvin conclude a church government distinct from civil government ;1 for this is a spiritual government, it is in the Lord; that is, in the name of the Lord, or (as others) in things pertaining to God. Hence also Beza argueth against episcopal government; because the elders in the apostolic churches did govern in common. But, saith Mr Hussey, p. 18. "Pasor telleth us that rpoïoráμai, with a genitive case, signieth præcedo, and then it signifieth no more but them that go before you, either by doctrine or example." I answer first to the matter, next to the force of the word. For the matter: certainly the pooracía, or ruling power of ministers, is not merely doctrinal or persuasive, as is manifest by 1 Tim. v. 17, where those who are not convinced of two sorts of elders, are yet fully convinced of two sorts of acts, the act of ruling, and the act of teaching. Whatsoever that text hath more in it, or hath not, this it hath, that those who labour in the word and doctrine, are rulers; but they are more especially to be honoured for their labouring in the word and doctrine. Next, as to the force of the word: if it be true which Mr Hussey here saith, then the English translators that read, are over you,-Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Gualther, and others that here follow Jerome, and read præsunt vobis,-Arias Montanus, who reads præsidentes vobis, have not well understood the Greek. But if Mr Hussey would needs correct all these and many more, why did he not at least produce some instances to show us where the words προϊστάμενος, οι προεστώς, οι Tроσтáтns, or #роorasia, or mрoorareía, are used for no more but a mere going before, either by doctrine or example, without any power or authority of government. Yea, if this here be no more but a going before, either by doctrine or example, then every good Christian who goeth before others by good example is poïoráperos. Neither will that of the genitive case help him; for see the like, 1 Tim. iii. 4, roû idíov öikov kadās προϊστάμενον, one that ruleth well his own house:" Mr Hussey will make it no more but this, one that goeth before his own house, by teaching them, or by giving them

66

1 Præsunt in Domino. Hoc additum videtur ad notandum spirituale regimen. Tametsi enim reges quoque et magistratus Dei ordinatione præsunt, quia tamen ecclesiæ gubernationem Dominus peculialiter vult suam agnosci, ideo nominatim præesse in Domino dicuntur, qui Christi nomine et mandato ecclesiam gubernant.

good example, though the very next words tell us there is more in it, and that is authoritative government, "having his children in subjection." So ver. 12, tékvwv καλῶς προϊστάμενοι, ruling their children well. Pasor is not at all against my sense, but for it for if Mr Hussey will make Pasor to say that apoioráma with a genitive, doth never signify any more but præcedo, then he makes him to say both that which is manifestly false, and in so saying, to contradict himself; for Pasor tells us also, the word signifieth præsum; and for that he cites 1 Tim. iii. 4, where it is with a genitive. Sometime indeed with a genitive it may be turned præcedo, as Pasor saith, but he citeth only Tit. iii. 8, where it is not Genitivus personae (as 1 Thes. v.) but rei; and we may also read præstare, as Arias Montanus, to excel or be chief in good works, or to maintain, as our books have it. But furthermore I shall offer for answer to Mr Hussey the observation of an excellent Grecian. It is Salmasius, de Primatu Papa, p. 18, 19.1 Пporragia, to speak properly, is another thing than pwrooraoia; the former signifieth a power of jurisdiction and government, the latter a precedence or placing of one before another; although they are sometimes used promiscuously, and although poorára are also npwroorára. Yea they have the very names of pooráraι and poеor@res or potoráμevo (if you look to the native etymology of the words), from their precedence or standing before, even as antistites quasi ante stantes, and prætor quasi præitor: such names being chosen (for mollifying and dulcifying of government) as might hold forth precedence, rather than high-sounding names of power and authority. I shall add but two testimonies of ancient Grecians: Plato, epis. 7, near the end: Η μεγάλης προεστὼς πόλεως, καὶ πολλῶν ἀρχούσης ἐλαττονων, τῆ ἑαυτοῦ πόλει τὰ τῶν σμικροτέρων χρήματα διανέμη μὴ κατὰ Sixny: Or if he that ruleth some great city, and such as hath the dominion over many smaller cities, should unjustly distribute to

1 Et hoc nomine difert πρωτοστασία 2 προoraría, quod hæc præsidentiam cum potestate, sive præposituram cum jurisdictione ac coercitione tribuat, πρωτοστασία vero ut in loco quis sit priore collocatus, tantum efficit. Пpooraríav Hesychius κυβέρνησιν interpretatur gubernationem vel administrationem. Et notum qui dicerentur proprie προστάταν in republica atheniensium.

his own city the means and substance of those lesser cities. Dionysius Areopagita, epist. 8, speaking of Moses' supreme power of rule and government over Israel, which was envied by Korah and his faction, calls it τὴν τοῦ λαοῦ προστασίαν.

Well, Mr Hussey will try if his logic can help him, if his Greek cannot : "Whatsoever this person is that is to be beloved, he is supposed not instituted in this place, the subject is supposed not handled in any science." The like he saith afterward, p. 22, that we cannot prove from 1 Cor. v. that Paul did institute excommunication, but at most that he supposed an institu tion. For my part, that scripture which supposeth an institution, shall to me prove an institution; for I am sure that which any scripture supposeth, must be true. And herein, as I take it, Mr Coleman would have said as I say, for in his fourth rule he proved the institution of magistracy from Rom. xiii. yet magistracy is not instituted in that place, but supposed to be instituted.

A third argument I take from Heb. xiii. 7, "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God:" ver. 17, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give an account." Bullinger and Gualther refer this verse both to magistracy and ministry; and so far they are ours, in sharing the rule and government between both, and in making obedience due to both. But Calvin and many others do better expound the text of ecclesiastical rulers or governors only: wherein Salmasius followeth the Greek scholiasts, who expound the text of bishops or elders who did in common govern the church. See Walo Messal. p. 137, 138. That it is not spoken of civil but of ecclesiastical rulers, may thus appear: beside that it were hard to take ἡγούμενος in the 17th verse in another sense than it hath ver 7, or the rulers that watch for the soul, ver. 17, to be any other than the rulers that had spoken the word of God, ver. 7, it is further to be noted, that the Apostle speaks of such rulers as the believing Hebrews had at that time, as is evident by ver. 24,"Salute all them that have the rule

1 Aretius Comment. in Heb. xiii. 14, Primum apostolus salutat suo nomine ipsorum præpositos, hoc est

ἡγουμένους, quo nomine intelligo tum ministros,

tum etiam seniores, qui reliquos auctoritate regebant, et in officio detinebant.

over you, and all the saints," and those rulers did watch for their souls. But they had no Christian or godly magistrates that watched for their souls, or whom the Apostle would thus salute with the saints. But the word is ἡγουμένων, saith Mr Hussey, p. 18, which is ducum,-them that lead you. The Apostle hath indeed chosen a word free of ambition; yet, saith Beza, auctoritatis maximæ, it is a word of the greatest authority. The Syriac hath the same word here, by which he rendereth vbeрvýaeis, 1 Cor. xii. 28; and if you consult the Septuagints, the word youμeros, except very rarely where it signifieth ódnyòv, seu vice ducem (and then, to speak properly, subjection and obedience is not due to the youperos), as Exod. xxiii. 23, where yet it was an angel that was the guide, and so not without authority,-they do usually and in innumerable places use this word to express one invested with power and authority of government; and the same Hebrew words which they render by youuevos and ȧpovyouperos, are likewise by them translated ἡγεμὼν, δυνάστης, βασιλεὺς, σατρόπης, πατριάρχης, ἄρχων, ἀρχηγὸς, στρατηγὸς, ἀρχιστρατηγὸς, προστάτης and ἐπιστάτης ; all which are names of superiority, command, and government; ὁ ἡγεμὼν, the governor, Pilate's highest title, Matt. xxvii. 2. And Erastus, lib. 5, cap. 2, p. 312, saith, the magistrates of the Gentiles were called by the names of ἡγεμόνες and βασιλεῖς. Now ὁ Яyouuevos and oЯyev are the same in signification. Stephen, in Thes. Lingua Gr. citeth out of Plutarch ἡγούμενος τῆς Γερμαvías; and tells us that yéopar with a genitive, and ἡγοῦμαι generally is used for præsum. O youuevos is Joseph's greatest title, to express his government over Egypt, Acts vii. 10, yea, Christ himself is called youuevos, to express his governing or ruling power over his church, Matt. ii. 6. Salmasius doth at once show us, both that the Apostle means the elders of the church under the name ἡγουμένων, and that the same name is used for civil magistrates, yea emperors. See Walo Messal. p. 219, 220. Far be it from all the ministers of Christ to arrogate or assume any such dominion as belongs to the civil magistrate, or to lord it over the Lord's inheritance. Nay, here that rule must take place, Luke xxii. 26, ἡγούμενος ὡς ὁ διακονῶν, “he that is chief, as he that serveth." Only the Holy Ghost gives to church officers those names of au

is

thority which are given to civil magistrates, thereby to teach the people of God their duty, and that there is another government beside the civil, whereunto they ought to submit and obey in the Lord.

Mr Hussey's next answer is that where our books have it, "Obey them that have the rule over you;" the word is Teileσbe, which is no more but be persuaded. For proof whereof he tells us out of Pasor, that rei0w is verbum forense, a word whereby the advocates persuade the judges; yet we cannot say that the judges obey the advocates. I answer, Let him make of Teilw what he can, the passive, neiloμa, doth frequently signify I obey, or obtemper; for which signification H. Stephanus, in the word πείθομαι, citeth out of Xenophon πείθεσθαι τεῖς ἄρχουσι; out of Plutarch, πείΘεσθαι τῷ δεσπότη; out of Plato, πείθεσθαι Tw Dew. If we come to the Scripture phrase, I am sure, in some places, reídeoðaι signifieth a thing of another nature than to be persuaded forensically, as James iii. 3, " Behold, we put bits in the horses' mouths, that they may obey us,” πρὸς τὸ πείθεσθαι αυτοὺς ἡμῖν. But here, when we speak of the obedience of church members to church officers, it is a free, rational, willing, Christian obedience; yet obedience it is which we owe to spiritual rulers, as well as that which we owe to civil magistrates. Sure Gualther and Bullinger did understand weitere here to be more than be persuaded; for they apply this text to the obedience due to magistrates. And Mr Hussey might have also observed that Pasor renders πείθομαι by pareo, obedio, for which he citeth Gal. iii. 1, τῆ ἐληθεία μὴ πείθεσθαι, “ not to obey the truth." And are ons he renders inobediens, refractarius, as Rom. i. 30, yorevoir àweideis, "disobedient to parents." I know that weideoda is also used for to be persuaded, but I verily believe Mr Hussey is the first man that ever quarrelled the word obey in this text, and turned it to be no more but be persuaded. Yet if he shall well observe that which followeth in the very next words, rai iweikere, “and submit yourselves" (which, in Theophylact's opinion, noteth here intense obedience: They must not only eiket, yield, but weiker, yield with subjection and submission-this relateth to authority, nor can we say that the judges do vrеike to the advocates, nor travellers to their guides), he himself shall be persuaded to cast away this gloss, and to seek a