Discipline and censures in the church are intended, 1. For the glory of God, that his name may not be blasphemed, nor the doctrine of the gospel reproached, by occasion of uncensured scandals in the church. 2. For keeping the ordinances of Christ from profanation and pollution, that signa gratiæ divinæ, the signs of God's favour and grace, and the seals of his covenant, may be denied to unworthy scandalous persons. 3. For preserving the church from the infection of bad and scandalous examples, it is fit to put a black mark upon them, and to put away the wicked person, as the Apostle saith; for a rotten member if it be not cut off, and a scabbed sheep, if not separated from the flock, may infest the rest. 4. For the good also of the offender himself," that he may be ashamed," and humbled, 2 Thes. iii. 14; 2 Cor. ii. 7. This afflicting of the sinner with shame and sorrow, may, and shall, by the blessing of God, be a means to the destruction of the flesh, 1 Cor. v. 5; that is, to tame and mortify his lusts, and so far removere prohibens, that he may be the better wrought upon by the word. I conclude: Church government being instituted by Christ, and having a necessary use in the church, the Erastians gain nothing by comparing it with the word; because it is not so necessary as the word; therefore it is not necessary at all. Or, because it is not efficacious in the same manner as the word is, therefore it is not efficacious at all. The Apostle saith," Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel," 1 Cor. i. 17. What if he had said, “Christ sent me not to rule but to preach the gospel?" Then had the Erastians triumphed. Yet this expression could not have proved that church government is not an ordinance of Christ, more than that can prove that baptism is not an ordinance of Christ. A negative in the comparative, will not infer a negative in the positive.

Obj. 3. "I could never yet see (said Mr Coleman) how two co-ordinate governments, exempt from superiority and inferiority, can be in one state."

Against this I instanced in the co-ordinate governments of a general and an admiral, of a master and a father, of a captain and a master in one ship. Mr Hussey, finding he cannot make good Mr Coleman's word, tells me, p. 7, that he meaneth two supreme co-ordinate governments. Where first he loseth ground, and tacitly yieldeth that church government and civil govern

ment, distinct from each other, do well consist, as long as they are not supreme, but as two armies under one head. No inconsistency, therefore, of congregational and classical elderships, and of provincial assemblies, with the subordinate magistrates and civil courts in cities and counties. Next, we shall find also in Scripture two co-ordinate supreme governments, for the civil and ecclesiastical sanhedrim of the Jews were both supreme and co-ordinate, and there was no appeal from the sentence of either; as is evident by that disjunctive law, Deut. xvii. 12, "And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest (that is to the priests, ver. 9), or unto the judge (that is, the assembly or court of judges, as I have cleared elsewhere), even that man shall die." But I have also answered more fully this objection concerning co-ordination, chap. 8.

Obj. 4. Ministers have other work to do, and such as will take up the whole man. "To this argument (saith Mr Hussey, p. 8) Mr Gillespie maketh no answer at all, though St Paul useth the very same argument to discharge the preachers from the oversight of the poor, Acts vi. 2, God forbid we should leave the care of the word of God, and serve at tables." It will not be unseasonable to mind both him and Mr Prynne, that the canonized names, by them used stylo Romano, St Paul, St Matthew, St Mark, &c., ought to be laid aside, except they will use it of all saints. And why not as well St Moses, and St Aaron (whom the Psalmist calls the "Saints of the Lord)?" Or why not St Aquila, St Apollos, St Epaphras? &c. Methinks men professing reformation ought not to satisfy themselves in using this form of speech only of such as have been canonized at Rome, and enrolled saints in the Pope's calender. And as strange it is that Mr Hussey makes Paul to act in the business, Acts vi., before he was either saint or apostle. Now to the argument. I did answer at first (though Mr Hussey is pleased not to take notice of it), p. 36, that where Mr Coleman objected, ministers have other work to do, he might as well have added, that when ministers have done that other work, and all that ever they can, yet without the power of church government, they shall not keep themselves nor the ordinances from pollution; that is, church government is a part of their work, and a necessary part, which hath been proved. I thought it enough to touch

an answer where an objection was but touched; another objection in that very place being more insisted on (and with more colour of reason) concerning the fear of an ambitious enactment.

And for the objection now in hand, Mr Hussey hath made it no whit stronger by his instance from Acts vi. For, 1. The apostles did not wholly lay aside the care of the poor. Sure Paul (afterward an apostle) took great care of the poor at divers times, and in divers places, as himself recordeth; but such taking care of the poor as did distract and hinder them from the main work of preaching the gospel, this was it which they declined; and in that respect the work of baptizing also did give place to the work of preaching, 1 Cor. i. 17. Likewise the work of discipline must be so ordered, as may not hinder the principal work of preaching the gospel; which is very possible, yea probatum est; for where church government is exercised, there are as painful preachers as any in the world, and such as neglect none of their other work. 2. To take special and particular care of the poor, did belong, by Christ's institution (whose mind was no doubt known to the apostles), to the office of deacons, and for that reason the ministers of the word ought in like manner to be relieved of that burden by deacons: but church government doth belong to the elders of the church, of whom some labour both in doctrine and government, others in government only.

But neither must the argument go so, I have another thing to ask: What is that other work which will take up the whole man? Mr Hussey, p. 12, expounds Mr Coleman's meaning, "That the preaching of the gospel would take up the whole man, especially in our time: our knowledge of the Scriptures is to be acquired by ordinary means," &c. And in his Epistle to the Parliament he saith, "I found the minister charged only with preaching and baptizing, which being performed with such zeal and diligence as is needful, is abundantly a sufficient employment." And so he takes off the minister not only from government, but from visiting particular families, especially the sick; from catechising and examining those who are to be admitted to the Lord's supper, from the celebration of the Lord's supper itself, to say nothing of the solemnisation of marriage, yea, from disputations in schools concerning the controversies of the time, which yet him

self so much calls for. And why? The minister hath other work to do, and such as will take up the whole man, which is to preach and baptize.

5. Obj. If acts of government be put in the hands of church officers, there is fear of an ambitious ensnarement, which Mr Coleman proved by an arguing from his own heart to the hearts of other men. "Mr Gillespie's answer to the matter of ambition (saith Mr Hussey, p. 10), is only by involving the civil magistrate in the same danger of ambition." And here he falleth out into a concertation, professedly with my answer, but really with Mr Coleman's answer; for the foundation of his argument was universal. Might I measure others by myself, and I know not why I may not (God fashioneth men's hearts alike, and as in water face answers to face, so the heart of man to man)," &c. Hereupon I replied, "Is this corruption only in the hearts of ministers, or is it in the hearts of all other men? I suppose he will say in all men's hearts; and then his argument will conclude against all civil government."

66

And now per omnes musas I beseech him, which of us involveth the magistrate in ambition? Must I be charged with involving the magistrate because I discovered that Mr Coleman's argument involveth the magistrate? He might as truly say he is not the traitor that commits treason, but he is the traitor that reveals treason. And why saith he that my answer was only concerning that involving of the magistrate? Did I not first show that the two scriptures on which Mr Coleman's argument was grounded, did not prove it; though now Mr Hussey tells us, Mr Coleman did but allude to those scriptures (I am sure it was all the scriptural proof which was brought for that argument upon which so much weight was laid), "which I will not trouble my reader withal," saith he. A pretty shift, when a man cannot defend the argument, then, forsooth, he will not trouble the reader. Next, did I not deny that which Mr Coleman did take for granted, that we may reason from this or that particular corruption in one man's heart, to prove the same particular corruption in all other men's hearts, and that Paul taught us not so, Phil. ii. 3? Did I not also answer in his own words, that his brethren's "wisdom and humility may safely be trusted with as large a share of government as themselves desire ?" Did I not lastly answer,

T

that if his whole argument were granted, it cannot prove that there ought to be no church government, for where the thing is necessary, abuses must be corrected and amended, but must not take away the thing itself? Unto which exceptions nothing hath been replied nor offered to vindicate or make good that argument which was publicly of fered to the parliament. If such men were fit to put the reverend Assembly and all the ministry of England to school again, to learn to dispute, let every pious and wise man judge. And so I am led on to another objection.

Obj. 6. Schools of divinity will advance learning and religion, and get us an able ministry more than ecclesiastical government can do; so Mr Coleman in his Sermon, p. 26. Yea, Mr Hussey calleth for schools, that there may be unity found among the preachers of the gospel, together with more learning and knowledge, p. 12-15 (where, by the way, the Jesuits are much beholden to him, and Protestant writers very little). In his Epistle to the Parliament he desireth that ministers would unbend their thought of government, and think on ways to get knowledge. I should have thought multum scientiæ, parum conscientiæ, might be as seasonable a complaint. Knowledge and learning are indeed most necessary, and, I am confident, shall flourish more under presbyterial government than either under Popery or Prelacy. School disputes need not hinder ecclesiastical government that ought to be done, and this not to be left undone. There is a practical part which belongs to presbyteries and synods, as well as a contemplative part belonging to schools: which made the divines of Zealand to offer this among other articles, to be advised upon by the synod of Dort, that they who are preparing for the ministry, may (after their education at schools, before their settling in the ministry) be, for some space, present in presbyteries, to learn church government.1 That which a minister must do, is work; and that work is labouring in the word and doctrine, in ruling and watching over the flock, in dispensing the ordinances to them as a faithful steward. But Mr Hussey, p.

1 Synod. Dord. sess. 18. Et quia vocati ad ministerium regimini ecclesiæ aliquando sunt præficiendi : ecclesiarum vero regimen in scholis exacte non addiscitur, non abs re foret si aliquot ante vocationem mensibus, in urbibus celebrioribus potestas illis fiat ut intersint presbyteriis, &c.

15, tells us, the minister must not be called from his study to examine notorious offences, which, indeed, suiteth his notion of schools. The Grecians did not intend schools for any such work; for to them exon was rest from work, and oxolačev to be idle, to take a vacation; that is, from other affairs, and from a practical life, to attend reading and studies. If schools be made to serve for all those necessary uses which church government will serve for, then there is much said, but otherwise nothing against us.

Obj. 7. But quis custodiet ipsos custodes? If the power of government and censures be in the hands of church officers, how shall they be censurable and punishable for their own offences? How shall the censurers themselves be censured? This objection I find in the eighth epistle of Dionysius Areopagita (or whoever he was that wrote under that name). It was made by one Demophilus. What then say you? Must not the profane priests, or such as are convicted to have done somewhat amiss, be corrected; and shall it be lawful to them alone, while they glory in the law, to dishonour God by breaking of the law?" A little after this, direct answer is made to the objection: "But if, perhaps, any among these err from that which it becometh him to do, παρὰ τῶν ὁμοroywv åyíív éπarop✪wongerai, let him be corrected by the saints of his own order; and so order shall not be intermixed with order, but each one shall be exercised in his own order

and administration." As the faults of church officers deserve the greatest censures, so, in all the reformed churches, where the free exercise and administration of church discipline is received, there is greatest severity of church discipline against church officers, and especially against ministers of the word, when any such are, upon just proof, convicted of scandal. It is too much diffidence (and groundless, I dare say) to apprehend that ministers who have taken upon them the bond of such a covenant, and joined in such a reformation, will yet be ready to connive at any scandalous person of their own coat. And if a classis should happen to commit such an error, yet there can be no such fear in this particular from a provincial or national assembly, which, in a well-reformed church (as they are constituted of choice, able and godly, both ministers and others assembled from divers quarters, so) use to correct (not to confirm) the maladministration in inferior ecclesiastical courts. I speak

here of the ecclesiastical offences of church officers; their other offences belonging wholly to the civil cognizance and jurisdiction. Obj. 8. But "let the Scripture speak expressly, and institutions appear institutions, and all must bow." It is asked, Why we must not prove a must be, as well as a may be; and whether do our proofs amount to an institution and a jus divinum? For satisfaction in this point also, I answer, The question which for the present I speak to, is not whether Christ hath, in his word, limited and determined us to any one particular form of church government, so as no other form can be admitted as lawful or agreeable to the word; much less do I now inquire what is that particular form or kind of government which Christ hath instituted; but the present controversy with the Erastians is, Whether Christ have not appointed and instituted a government in his church, in the hands of church officers, distinct from civil government? As it is one thing to inquire whether it be the will of God, that there be a civil government or magistracy; that is, that there be not an anarchy in a nation, but some rule and government; another thing to inquire whether God hath, in his word, limited a nation to any one particular kind of civil government, and if any, what it is so it is one thing to inquire whether it be the will of God that there be an ecclesiastical government, or an intrinsical power of ruling in the hands of church officers, distinct from the civil government; another thing to ask, whether the word determineth any one kind of church government as necessary, and which it is. The former, not the latter, is our present controversy. Yea, in very truth, the Erastians do oppose not only the institution, but the lawfulness and agreeableness to the word of God, of a church government distinct from the civil; for their principles and arguments tend to the investing of the civil magistrate with the whole and sole power of church government, as that which belongeth to him only, and that jure divino; so that, if their principles hold good, it shall be unlawful and contrary to the word of God for church officers to claim, or assume, or exercise, any government or power of censures. Though (I say) the clearing and vindicating of the lawfulness of a distinct church government doth overthrow the Erastian principles, yet, that I deal the more clearly and fully for the satisfaction of all such as may be satisfied, this I

may

avouch and aver, It is jure divino: it is the will of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ, the King and Head of his church, that there be a church government in the hands of church officers distinct from the civil government; it is de necessitate præcepti, of the necessity of precept that it be so; it is sin and a violation of Christ's institution if it be not so. I am confident the arguments which I have brought, chap. 9, will reach this point, and fully conclude it, especially if the strength of them be put together. Yet, now, to drive the nail to the head, I add these following arguments directly inferring and proving an institution :—

First, The Scripture speaks of church government in the same manner, and with the same height, fulness and peremptoriness of expression, as it speaketh of other things which are without any controversy acknowledged, even by the Erastians themselves, to be institutions of Christ. For instance, let the Erastians prove against the Socinians, the necessity and perpetuity of the ordinance of baptism; that it ought to continue always in the church, and that by virtue of an institution and precept of Christ: I will undertake, by the like medium, to infer the like conclusion concerning church goI will bring the like argument concerning vernment. Again, let them prove the necessity, perpetuity, and institution (I say not now of the word itself, or of preaching, but) of the ministry, or of the pastoral office: church government. I do not now compare or parallel the government with the ministry of the word дио ad necessitatem medii vel finis, as being equally necessary to salvation, nor yet as being equally excellent; but this I say, the one is, by the Scripture language, an institution and ordinance of Christ, as well as the other. One ordinance may differ much from another, and still both be ordinances.

Secondly, Church government is reckoned among such things as had an institution, and which God did set in the church, 1 Cor. xii. 28. It is a good argument for the institution of pastors and teachers, that God set them in the church, as we read in that place, and Christ gave them to the church, Ephes. iv. 11. Will not this, then, hold as well for the institution of a government in the church? That the governments mentioned, 1 Cor. xii. 28, are ecclesiastical and distinct from civil, is already proved, chap. 6. Thirdly, If it be the will and command

ment of God that we be subject and obedient to church governors, as those who are over us in the Lord, as well as to civil governors, then it is the will of God that there be a rule and government in the church distinct from the civil. For relata se mutuo ponunt vel tollunt, if we be obliged, by the fifth commandment, to honour magistrates as fathers, then it is the will of God that there be such fathers; so, when we are commanded to know them which are over us in the Lord, and to esteem them highly, 1 Thes. v. 12; to honour doubly elders that rule well, 1 Tim. v. 17; to be subject and obedient unto ecclesiastical rulers, Heb. xiii. 17, with ver. 7, 24, doth not this intimate the will of God, that pastors and elders be over us in the Lord, and rule us ecclesiastically?

Fourthly, That which, being administered, is a praise and commendation to a church, and, being omitted, is a ground of controversy to Christ against a church, can be no other than an ordinance and necessary duty. But church government and discipline is such a thing as, being administered, is a praise and commendation to a church, 2 Cor. ii. 9; Rev. ii. 2; and, being omitted, is a ground of controversy to Christ against a church, 1 Cor. v. 1, 2, 6; Rev. ii. 14, 20; therefore,

Fifthly, The rules and directions concerning an ecclesiastical government and discipline are delivered precept-wise in Scrip1 Cor. v. 13, ture; 66 Put away that wicked person from among you;" 2 Thes. iii. 14, "Note that man" Tit. iii. 10, “A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject." Augustine, Lib. contra Donatistas post Collationem, cap. 4, saith, that church censures and discipline are exercised in the church secundum præceptum apostolicum, according to the apostolic precept, for which he citeth 2 Thes. iii. 14.

Sixthly, There is an institution and command, Matt. xviii. 17, "Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." In which place there are three acts of the church, that is, of the assembly of church officers: 1. They must be met together to receive complaints and accusations: "Tell the church. 2. They give sentence concerning the case: "If he neglect to hear the the church," &c. Where hearing is required, and obedience, there must needs be an authoritative speaking or judging; so that they who would prove the church here hath only

power to admonish doctrinally, because it is said, "If he hear not the church," they may

as well prove that the judges of Israel had no more power but to admonish doctrinally, because it is appointed, Deut. xvii. 12, that the man who will not hearken to the judge shall die; and is it not there expressed that the judge shall put him to death, more than it is expressed here that the church shall declare the offender to be as an heathen and a publican. 3. They must bind such a one by excommunication: "Whatsoever ye bind on earth," &c.

Neither could it ever enter in the thoughts of Jesus Christ to command one church member, or private brother, to esteem another brother as an heathen and a publican, whom he would not have so esteemed by the whole church; and least of all can it be the will of Christ that one and the same person should be esteemed by one of the church to be as an heathen and a publican, and, withal, be esteemed by the whole church as a brother, a good Christian, a church member, and, accordingly, to be freely admitted to the ordinances.

CHAPTER XI.

THE NECESSITY OF A DISTINCT CHURCH GOVERNMENT UNDER CHRISTIAN AS WELL AS UNDER HEATHEN MAGISTRATES.

Some, when they could not deny but there was a church government in the primitive and apostolic churches distinct from all civil government, and church censures distinct from all civil punishments, yet they have alleged (though no such thing was alleged of old, neither by Constantine and other Christian emperors, nor by others in their behalf) that this was for want of Christian magistrates, and that there is not the same reason for such a church government or censures where there is a Christian magistracy. See Mr Hussey's Plea, p. 24; as likewise Mr Prynne in his Diotrephes Catechised. Mr Coleman's Re-examination, p. 16, calls for an instance where the state was Christian. For taking off this exception I shall observe,

First of all, Grotius1 (otherwise no good

1 Annot. in Luke vi. 22.-Reperti sunt et qui judicia ista ecclesiæ putarent inhibenda, quoties Christianas potestates Deus concederet sæculo, &c. At Christi leges multo plus exigunt quam in commune