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 Gospell 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 forme 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 lawes into Divine and humane into morall ceremoniall and politick and into Ecclesiasticall and civil INtending chiefly to prove the vanity and nullity of a power called ecclesiasticall 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 lawes 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 morall actions made and published by a legislatour armed with a judiciall 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 Gospell 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 soveraign 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 soveraign power obliging men to obey upon penalties Law saith Campanella without penalty is no law but counsell That form is expressed in short in the Digests Legis virtus c. the vertue of the law is to command to forbid to permit to punish The soveraign power giveth the form of law to any matter that is the subject of a mans dutie or obedience either to God or man yea it giveth form to the lawes 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 counsell and it may be furnished the matter and contrivance of the law as Tribonianus to Iustinian 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 lawes is not the enforcer of them among the Mahumetans nor any where else without a Moses but with those people whom he doth encline 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 transgressours 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 lawes not anothers commanding in his own name and not in the name of another and therefore those that are invested with judiciall soveraign 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 ecclesiasticall 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 Iustinian 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 crosse the will of the other which is not conceivable 2. Ministers and church-judicatories are not to command any lawes much lesse their own lawes but only deliver the commands of a superiour 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 lawes 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 priviledge that although he be a minister of God as well as
by their practise for they assumed no jurisdiction but having perfected the Confession of Faith the Catechisme 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 lesse 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 councels synods under an orthodox magistrate ever enjoyed or ought to have I wonder much they would ascribe judiciall authority to ministers in synods which they themselves had not never look't 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 immediatly from Christ not by the intervention and the chanell 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 enjoyned 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 lawes made authoritatively by the Governours of churches under Iesus 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 subordinates 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 wayes 1. in coercive power 2. in judgement or judiciall determinations that are to passe for lawes 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 ecclesiasticall having none they must be beholden to another power which indeed makes it to be power all externall power and jurisdiction being but childrens play ens rationis a bubble a name without a thing without a power of coercion 2. For judgement if ecclesiasticall 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 then 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 subordinates as Surgerie being subordinate to Medicine proveth the affinity betwixt Medicine and Surgery Yea if subordinate jurisdictions stand in pari gradu and in equall distance from the power they are subordinate unto it argueth an identity of jurisdictions among them as if the jurisdiction of a colledge of physitians and of a corporation of merchants be both subordinate to one magistrate it is manifest that the jurisdiction of that colledge 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 equall distance in subordination from one spring-head 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 thred so may the same wise politicall 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 equall 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 rationall but the richer and the most potent give law to the rest The philosophers permit us to weigh and interpret their lawes but the magistrate enjoyneth blind obedience to his Seneca saith that the magistrates law doth not dispute but commandeth and Tullie in his thâ—…d book de natura Deorum saith I am to receive from thee O philosopher satisfaction from reason but I am to yield to the lawes that our ancestours have delivered us though they give no reason In like manner all presbyterian synods namely the generall assembly of Scotland do not give so much leave to inferiour ecclesiasticall judicatories or private persons to examine their decrees by a judgement of discretion as those of Beroea took to themselves when they examined St. Pauls doctrine and searched the Scripture to know whether it was so as he preached for their ecclesiasticall constitutions have force of law only because they have the sanction of an ecclesiasticall assembly and are not to be disputed by any inferiour judicatory whereas the nature of an ecclesiasticall 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 perswaded 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 ecclesiasticall
the minister of the Gospell yet he may command in his own name the law of God which the minister of the Gospell 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 disinabled to have a power of legislation by that he should loose all capacity to bear any office of jurisdiction Camero is very expresse in his tract de Ecclesia p. 369. where having shewed 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 addes in neither kind the church hath power to make lawes having said a little before that what proceedeth from the church ought rather to be called admonitions and exhortations then lawes Musculus is no lesse expresse in his common places p. 6â—1 We do confidently assert that all that power by which authentick lawes 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 faithfull 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 sheweth 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 ecclesiasticall 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 judicatorie 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 physitians which must convince the party of the necessity of vielding to this or that remedy their commands must have alwayes 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 Lawes are variously divided into Divine and humane ecclesiasticall and civil morall ceremoniall and politick Some call those divine which are made by God and those humane which are made by men others call them divine lawes which rule the conscience and those humane laws which govern the outward man But none of these divisions are without their defects for humane lawes govern and oblige the conscience as the Apostle tells us Ro. 13. and albeit all humane lawes are not divine yet all divine lawes 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 lawes into morall policick and ceremoniall hath its defects for I conceive that the morall law is the ground and basis of the ceremoniall and politick and a rule by which God is to be worshipped State cities families fathers husbands children servants must be governed So that the ceremoniall law is but the morall law applied to the use of divine worship and the politick or civil law is but the morall law applyable to the practise 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 diverse and so are the military lawes distinct from the matrimoniall 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 morall and ceremoniall law be called civil 4. Because when the Scripture speaketh of the perfection of the law of God of those that walk in the lawes of God that the law of Moses was read every Sabbath that many dayes passed without law the whole body of the lawes 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 faineth no such thing as a judicatory ecclesiasticall for ecclesiasticall causes a civil bench where the judges decided civil or politick causes for so we should need a third bench of judges medling with morall matters and causes Yet Mr. Gillespie p. 14. grants that the Jewes had no other civil law but Gods own law and besides that the Levites judged not only in the businesse of the Lord but also in the businesse of the King 1 Chron. 2. v. 30. 32. And so falls down the division of lawes into ecclesiasticall and civil for 1. They differ not in kind otherwise then a man from an animall this being the genus the other the species 2. All lawes devised by men whatever subject and matter they are about are civil politick and lawes of that power that giveth them force and vigour of lawes such are all the constitutions about discipline of the church which in vain they call ecclesiasticall 3. If a law were to be called ecclesiasticall because it handleth lawes for the government of the church we should need as many kinds of lawes as there be societies in the world and we should have one peculiar classis for lawes to govern schools and Universities another to govern societies of merchants a third for societies of drapers I do not deny but that a law may be as properly called ecclesiasticall as a law is called nauticall military testamentary matrimoniall either because they are about matters of churches armies wills husbands wives or because they were invented for the benefit of churches souldiers married people and the like but in vain do they think to call a law ecclesiasticall because not only it is of church-matters but also because it must be made by ecclesiasticall men and receive form and sanction from them and because all causes matters which they call ecclesiasticall must be judged by ecclesiasticall men For 1. As ecclesiasticall power if there be any such thing must be subordinate to the civil as we have proved before so ecclesiasticall lawes to the civil lawes 2. Ministers having no power of legislation nor of jurisdiction therefore lawes to govern Christians in churches need not to take their name from church minister or ministery 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
Divines should draw an argâ—ment for ruling elders out of the 2 Chron. 19. see pag. 15. besides whereas it is the opinion of all Rabbins and most Dâ—vines that in that place 2 Chronic. 19 there is mention but of one Sanedrim which Iosaphat did â—…form Mr. Gillespie maintaineth that there is mention made of two one ecclesiasticall of which Amariah was president and anotheâ— civil in which Zeâ—adiah was Speaker for saith he where was it ever heard of that a Priest was President of a court and â—n sacred things and causes that a civil magistrate was president 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 Senat among the Iewes one ecclesiasticall the other civil For 1. he himself doth not deny but that the great Sanedrim was an intermixture of persons and preceedings what need then to have a partition of power 2. He takes for granted that the high Priest was the president of the great Sanedrim if he was no absurdity then he should be president of a civil court such as they cannot deny the great Sanedâ—im was 3. If he were president of a civil court and Priests and Levites sate with him in the same court what need we suppose another court called ecclesiasticall when the first court might supplie 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 Sanedâ—im the one ecclesiasticall over which Amariah was the other civil whose speaker was Zebadiah for in these quoted places he saith that the government of the Iewes in Christs time was not as Iosephus thinks aristocraticall simply but was an ecclesiasticall aristocracy it was in the hands of the chief priests that they judged of all causes but only capitall 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 Christs time so neither in Iosaphats time 6. What need to call the Sanedrim in Christs time ecclesiasticall since it had the judgement of all causes and over all persons as usually the magistrates tribunall hath except in capitall causes 7. But could the judgement of capitall causes taken from them make the Sanedrim in Christs time more an ecclesiasticall assembly then when they had the judgement of the said capitall causes must a court be called ecclesiasticâ—… 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 ecclesiaâ—…icall courts because they have no power to punish a man by death 8 So then before the 30. year of Christ when the Iewes had the judgement of capâ—…all causes their Sanedrim if we believe Mr. Gillespâ—e was not an ecclesiasticall 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 sheweth how weakly Mr. Gillespie proveth that there was an ecclesiasticall and a civil Sanedrim in Iosaphats time whenas he cannot so much as deduce them unto Christs time nor after Christs time but by one at a time stiling that one Sanedrim as it serves his turn sometimes civil sometimes ecclesiasticall hoping by this means to find his ecclesiasticall Sanedrim Matth. 18. to whom our Lord sends the party offended for a redresse 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 externall the other of conscience or internall That ecclesiasticall 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 satisfie him in He is confident that by it a double jurisdiction is made good I will set it down in his own words A murtherer condemned to death if he be truely penitent the spirituall court doth absolve him and yet the civil magistrate shall punish him with death though he be never so penitent which evidently proveth that the civil and ecclesiasticall judicature do not enterfear but are of a quite different nature Else how can the magistrate punish him as guilty who is absolved by the Consistory or how can the Consistory absolve him whom the magistrate doth condemn The Consistory by absolving him in the spirituall court doth not thereby at all opposethe sentence of condemnation which the magistrate hath given against him in the civil court The condemnation in the civil court stands in force even then when in the spirituall court it is no longer a condemnation but is changed into absolution upon his repentance The magistrate doth not regard repentance because his office doth not extend to the care of souls the Consistory must absolve and comfort the penitent lest Satan should tempt him to dâ—spair The magistrate cannot take exceptions that the Consistory absolveth him whom the magistrate hath condâ—mned nor can the Consistory take exception that the magistrate puts him to death whom the Consistory hath absolved I adde for further illustration if the absolution given by the Consistory were upon grounds of his being innocent or that his crime did not deserve death this I confesse would thwart the sentence of the civil mag strate but the Consistory meddleth not with the sâ—ntence of the magistrate nor with his civil punishment but labours to keep his soul being penitent in a right posture and to strengthen it against temptations The argument holds as well on the other side The magistrate may absolve a man after he hath satisfied for his crime in the civil court though the same man should stand condemned in the spirituall court When the sentences are so directly contrary and yet the judicatures do not enterfear nor at all meddle nor make one with another these must be acknowledged courts of a different nature The case propounded maketh nothing against me nor for a jurisdiction of presbyteries classes and synods to depose excommunicate and make lawes authoritatively independent and distinct from the magistrate which is the hinge of all our controversie 1. Properly ministers do not absolve or pardon neither are they otherwise pardoners then saviours but only upon the demonstrations of repentance they do declare pardon of sins and remission either past or to come For I do not enter into a controversy betwixt Rever and learned Mr. Baxter whom I give thanks for his kind usage and civilities and my self whether repentance goeth before remission or followeth it but however the minister doth no further forgive then in declaring that God either hath forgiven sins already or will forgive them So that he neither pardoning nor sealing forgivenesse of sins
prescribed how far some rites of Moses were dispensable We have then three expositions of the words of Christ whatsoever ye shall bind c. none of which make for a presbyterian excommunication but contrarily they destroy it for all these three expositions are sutable to the literall and mysticall meaning which is absolute and without condition Christ promising to bind and loose in heaven whatsoever shall be bound and loosed on earth whereas those that expound that place of binding and loosing of excommunication are forced to put a condition to the absolute words of Christ telling us that they must be understood clave non errante in case there is no errour in him that excommunicates And therefore Beza against Erastus and some others fearing the many inconveniences and absurdities that follow upon the literall sense that Gods binding and loosing in heaven should steer according to the binding and loosing on earth by excommunication and absolution expounds the words of Christ as if he had said whatsoever shall be bound and loosed in heaven shall also be bound and loosed on earth that is the minister excommunicating on earth doth but declare what God hath already done in heaven which is the opinion of some schoolmen namely of Dominicus à Soto lib. 4. dist 14. qu. 1. art 3. saying that the words ego te ligo I excommunicate thee are equivalent to these I declare that God hath already excommunicated thee But I think this exposition is cumbered with more absurdities then the vulgar 1. Who knoweth the mind of God 2. and whether he hath excommunicated from the inward or from the outward communion surely not from the inward for then excommunication should not be a soul-saving ordinance as the Rever Assembly tell us nor from the outward this being an act of man not of God except one say that the minister outwardly acted what in his secret counsell he hath decreed but still the difficulty will be how the minister is acquainted with Gods secret and not revealed will and if he be acquainted with it how can an outward action in which the pastor may erre be a consequent of an unerring sentence of God But however the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing is to be understood the new Testament speaketh of governments in the church and of ruling and rulers and it enjoyneth the faithfull to obey those that rule over them and St. Paul biddeth Timothy not to receive lightly an accusation against an elder So farre then the word of God alloweth a government distinct from that of the magistrate and endoweth the ministers of the Gospell with a power of ruling and governing But this power is neither of the nature of the magistrates power nor of that they call ecclesiasticall which we have proved to be wholly the same with the magistrates power This power of the ministers ruling and governing is something like that power that Princes and masters of heathen schools had over their disciples scholars and auditors as Plato Zeno Aristotle who had a great power over their minds but no jurisdiction over their bodies estates and outward liberties it is true they kept them in awe respect and obedience but it was a voluntary submission to their precepts like that of Alexander the great to the commands of the Physitians This being the ministeriall power in a shadow it is more expressely set down in the Scripture and no doubt that power is the noblest power and greatest power in the universe next to that of creating and redeeming the world a power that the Son of God had and managed in this world none have such warrant of authority as to be Ambassadours from Christ none have such an errand there is no tye of obedience like that to their commands But still this ministeriall power commands and authority and the obedience due to them are not of the nature of the power and obedience observed in churches or magistrates judicatories For 1. The magistrates and churches judicatories do not only enjoyn the commands of God but also their own but the ministers of the Gospells power is only to deliver what they have received of the Lord 1 Cor. 11. even Moses Deut. 4. v. 5. acknowledgeth that he taught nothing but what God enjoyned him 2. Accordingly a member of a church doth not obey the word of his Pastor but of God Col. 2. v. 22. Marc. 7. v. 7. 1 John 3. v. 24. chap. 5. v. 3. When the pastor hath no command of the Lord as 1 Cor. 7. v. 25. then he delivers his own judgement and counsell and that counsell a church-member hath no command to obey though he ought to have discretion and condescension enough to follow it if he conceiveth it tends to mutuall edification Yet in a church constituted there being need of a power of magistracy either delegated or assumed by a confederate discipline and a magistrate-like jurisdiction being set up in his congregation he ought as every church-member even when he apprehendeth no tye to obey the pastors command as Gods command to obey by an obedience either active or passive the commands of that magistrate which himself hath elected when by a joint consent they all agreed upon a form of discipline 3. Church-judicatories if they make any lawes decrees or resolve upon a censure to be inflicted upon a church-member they require obedience and submission without arguing or disputing the case or having the liberty either to yield to them or to decline them if they list But the true pastorall power commandeth only understanding free and wise men that are able to judge 1 Cor. 10 v. 15. like those of Beroea who so hearkened to the voice of St. Paul that ere they obeyed it they consulted the Scripture to know whether it were so as he taught them 4. The ecclesiasticall presbyteriall power like that of the magistrate requireth obedience to its lawes ordinances and decrees not because they are good just and equitable but because it so pleased the law-givers for a man excommunicated never so unjustly is to submit to the validity of the sentence not to the equity which as our brethren and Mr. Gillespie teach us is not in the breast of the party judged but of the judge But the true ministeriall power requireth no obedience to its commands but of such as are perswaded or convinced of the goodnesse truth and equity of the law and sentence The Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth both to believe be perswaded to obey which intimateth that he truly performeth the pastorall commands who believeth in the name of the Lord Jesus for this is the main commandement of Christ as the next is that we should love one another Such commands are not obeyed by the motion of the body but by that of the heart and affections The power of magistracy commandeth the hand to give almes to the poor but the power of the minister commandeth to give them with a ready mind one
church-officers of the Gospell a certain platform of government and that it is arbitrary and of humane institution and therefore not to be administred by a power distinct from the humane THe fourth and the last thing to enquire into in this 30. chapter of the Confession of the Rever Assembly is the rule and modell that church-officers are to govern by which were it granted to be expressely 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 then 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 lawes 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 modell 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 my self with a few Camero in his book of the church p. 369. saith that the Christian church hath no need of certain lawes 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 tyed to certain circumstances The like saith his scholar and great admirer Amyraldus namely in his Synopsis Salmuriensis cap. 30. of the ecclesiasticall 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 expresse he is in the third part of Thes Salmurienses de vario ecclesiae regimine thes 16. and 17. So is Mestrezat no lesse expresse in his book of the church lib. 3. cap. 12. God hath defined nothing in the externall 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 unpartiall 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 prudentiall choice not upon any speciall command from Christ or his Apostles Which notion of his which was also mine before we could or had conferred one anothers notes doth lead us into many considerations 1. It doth decide the argument of the precedent chapter proving that the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing is committed not to all church-officers indifferently but to the ministers of the Gospell only For if it be reasonable as the Rever 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 Iews 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 Jewes did not act in synagogues as men invested with the power of the keyes and of binding and loosing 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 Jewes 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 president to the Christian elders not de facto because these never exercise that power nor de jure for the Rever 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 Gospell 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 Jewes never knew nor exercised in their synagogues a jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate neither now are the Christian synagogues or churches to know or exercise such a distinct power 4. But strange it is that since God giving such very exact lawes as he did to the church of the Jewes yet he gave not to that church a jurisdiction distinct from that of the magistrate it should now be quite otherwise and that God that gave no expresse lawes discipline or rule for the government of the Christian church yet should invest them with a power distinct from that of the magistrate 5. It seems altogether incongruous that that power and jurisdiction as is the ecclesiasticall which mainly is conversant about lawes constitutions and rules which are instituted and ratified by men and do not oblige either actively or passively but as they are commanded by men I say it is altogether unreasonable that such a jurisdiction should not be placed in the magistrate he being the fountain and spring from whom all humane jurisdictions lawes and constitutions do flow And it is so much the more absurd and unreasonable that constitutions decrees canons discipline meerly of humane institution should be ordered and commanded by a power and jurisdiction meerly Divine and distinct from that of the magistrate when as all constitutions lawes and ordinances given to the Jewes and all being of Divine institution were notwithstanding ordered and commanded by the magistrate not by the keepers of an ecclesiasticall jurisdiction distinct from the civil CHAPTER XVI The 31. chapter of the confession made by the Rever Assembly examined The use of synods Two things are humbly represented first that for a re-union of jurisdictions over all persons and in all causes a convocation made up of ministers only be re-established during the sitting of Parliament the second is that ministers may be put into the same capacity as all other ranks of free-born 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 counsells and advices HAving examined what plea the Rever Assembly can have in the 30. chapter of their confession for a government distinct from that of the magistrate the 31. chapter which is of synods and councells is more superficially to be handled for what we have said before of the jurisdiction of churches plainly sheweth that the jurisdiction of synods is no otherwise distinct from that of the magistrate for since synods must be made up of church-officers it is not possible they should impart to synods what they have not in churches and that those that have not a jurisdiction in churches distinct from that of the magistrate should delegate to themselves a power which they never had I admit willingly the necessity of synods as the first section doth synods being necessary whether magistrates be orthodox or not 1. for preserving and restoring truth 2. for uniting churches in one judgement 3. for keeping an externall communion of Saints And it were to be wished as the magistrate of England hath set up again the Lords house so they would re-establish a house of convocation or an assembly of ministers meeting at the same time that the Parliament sits treating such questions in matters of religion as should be propounded to them by the Parliament or they themselves should petition the Parliament to be handled not being invested with more judiciall power then a company of merchants or sea-men called by the Parliament to give their advice about trade and navigation in which convocation the major part of votes should not be so much regarded by the Parliament as the weight of their opinions and reasons and therefore as it was in the last assembly where 20. did not prevail against one dissenting brother so this convocation should return to the Parliament not the result of the whole assembly because carried by the major part of the members but the names of parties assenting and dissenting This convocation I humbly conceive ought to be made up only of ministers of the Gospell that have wholly set apart themselves for the work of the ministery and study of Divinity For as the supreme magistrate usually calls men of that calling and profession about which he is to make lawes as being the most fit to give counsell in the thing they are called for so doubtlesse none are so fit to be advised with in matters concerning religion as those that are most learned and versed in it for I hold them not only the fitter members in an assembly convened to treat of matters concerning religion but also not unfit yea as fit as any other men to sit and vote in Parliaments For this opinion of a double jurisdiction ecclesiasticall and civil that lay-men must be judges in civil courts and ministers in ecclesiasticall assemblies as it hath barred lay-men from sitting at least from voting in synods and councels so hath it removed clergy-men from sitting and being judges in civil courts and Parliaments which opinion hath out-gone the Papists in some things for though they do not permit lay-men to have votes yea hardly to sit in synods yet do the popish magistrates admit ecclesiasticall men in their courts and judicatories thus lately Bishops in England sate in Parliament I confesse that Popes to advance the building of their empire within the empires of magistrates Kings and Emperours would be sure to have an oare in every boat yea more for though they have members of their own in civil courts yet they permit no members of civil courts to sit and vote in synods and councels But some Protestant magistrates in reforming popery as they have not so much relinquisht and parted with their own right as popish magistrates to loose their right in calling and voting in synods so have they more wronged the clergy debarring them from sitting and voting in their courts which I humbly conceive to be a losse to the magistrate and a wrong and injury done to the ministers and thereupon I propound these considerations 1. Debarting of the ministers from sitting and voting in Parliament hath occasioned and confirmed mens minds specially of ministers in that opinion that there is such a thing in Scripture and reason as a government in the hands of church-officers distinct from that of the magistrate and that there is a double jurisdiction two judicatories one civil whereof the magistrates and laity are members and judges and another ecclesiasticall in which ministers only must sit and vote for ministers think it but reasonable that since they are kept off by the laity from being members in Parliament and in all civil judicatories so likewise the magistrate and the laity should not be admitted to sit and vote in synods whereas it being certain that there is no ground in Scripture or reason for a double jurisdiction a government distinct from that of the magistrate and all judiciall proceedings in whatsoever court assembly Parliament synods presbyteries being acts of the magistrates jurisdiction the minister now considered as as member of a Christian common-wealth ought to enjoy the same priviledge as the other members of it All which make me conceive that it was more heat then reason that made so many write against the Bishops voting in Parliament besides it was no good work to divide jurisdictions which by the ministers sitting and voting in Parliament like other ranks of men were re-united 2. There being in a Parliament men of all sorts and ranks gentlemen lawyers physitians apothecaries merchants and they all having an equall interest to maintain religion lands liberty lawes wife and children of their own it is altogether unreasonable that ministers that are alike concerned in all these and are as well members of the Commonwealth as the best of them should notwithstanding as it were be culled out from having that priviledge that others of their fellow-citizens enjoy 3. It is known that men do not sit and vote in Parliament as merchants physitians silk-men or drapers and that if there be new lawes to make or old to alter suppose about some manufacture as cloth-working a member of Parliament being professour of that craft which is in agitation is the most able to discourse upon that subject and to state how the thing may be regulated and this he doth as a professour of the craft about which the law is to be made but when the thing debated is to be carried by vote receive the stamp of law of publick authority then I say none of the members give their votes as professours of the art and science which they exercise in the Commonwealth and which is debated in Parliament no not if a member were a chief justice of England
sit what matter they must handle may not the lay-man then interpose as in a businesse of his classis may not also ecclesiasticall persons do the like Besides 100. constitutions may be found of such a mixt nature that it is not yet resolved what classis they pertain unto whether ecclesiasticall or civil such are the lawes about wills marriages tithes tenths usury collections for the poor appointing of dayes for fasting or thanksgiving lawes for pious uses and the like Will this expedient serve to resolve the conscience viz. if such an assembly of mixt persons and causes be named neither a councell 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 mens minds and consciences in not stating what is ecclesiasticall what is not and how far this or that man may meddle in ecclesiasticall 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 counsell and they declare their opinions as expert and well known and read in the thing that is in question Coercive and judiciall 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 then that of a private church yet the power of that church is greater then 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 authour of the Review of the councill 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 Emperour as is commonly known the Monarch of churches is president to the synodall sentences gives them force composeth ecclesiasticall 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 judiciall power of synods over churches do alledge the synod of the Apostles which being infallible is no example to us no more then 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 dayes 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 tryed 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 perswasion and leadeth him as it were captive to the obedience of truth And in case men and churches were not perswaded or did delay obedience and submission I say that such an Apostolicall synod could bring neither churches nor men to an outward conformity to their sentences lawes and decrees without a power delâ—…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 vertue 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 ought to receive their orders and constitutions as lawes 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 generall assembly of Scotland perceiving that this article doth much weaken ecclesiasticall power under an orthodox magistrate hath thought fit in their generall assembly at Edenburgh Aug. 27. sess 23. to put a glosse 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 vertue of their office meet together synodically in such Kirks not yet constituted yet neither of these ought 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 expressely against the literall 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 alledge places of Scripture namely Isa 49. v. 23. Kings shall be thy nursing fathers a place which in my opinion maketh little to the purpose no more then 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. c. avail much but only that magistrates may call and constitute assemblies in generall for there is no speech there of any ecclesiasticall assemblies for they were not yet thought on at that time The 29.
clergy-man or not was decided capitall only excepted For matters of faith I confesse there be many Emperours sanctions forbidding secular courts to meddle with them but this doth not argue that the clergy had any power more then declarative not sancitive For 1. This very sanction that secular courts should not meddle with matters of faith was a law of the Emperour and the episcopall courts or synods could not challenge any power therein but by a commission from the Emperour 2. The Emperours did not conceive themselves obliged to receive lawes concerning faith from the Bishops or that coming from them they had a stamp of authority through all the Emperours dominions except they were approved of and ratified by them 3. The Emperours did not think themselves much obliged to receive lawes of doctrine and faith from the Bishops in regard that most of the lawes and constitutio is concerning the fundamentall points of faith were composed reduced and inserted into the Code without so much as taking counsell 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 Iustinianei seculi moribus cap. 2. maketh a great complaint thereof which is a strong argument that the magistrate did not then acknowledge any ecclesiasticall power seated in the clergy 4. And the power that the Emperours challenged to belong solely to them to call synods to chuse members to review their acts to approve ratifie disannull or give them the vigour and strength of lawes obliging all churches and men to obedience either active or passive is an argument that what ever combined churches under the heathen Emperours did in calling of synods making lawes and decrees and requiring from all churches and church-members obedience to them the Emperours 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 then till the time that God should send a Christian magistrate For had not these been the thoughts both of the Emperours and the Bishops at that time how came it that Constantine the Great the other Christian Emperours 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 Oâ—ius Spiridion Paphnutius did not disswade Constantine from taking upon him to call synods telling him that it was more then 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 loose a main branch of their ecclesiasticall power that hitherto it was not so much as thought on that magistracy which is not a thing essentiall 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 Emperours or of Osius Eustatius Paphnutius and others nor of Hierom who questioned the validity of a synod that was not convocated by the Emperour These good men did not quarrell either at the convocation of synods or at the making or giving of lawes to churches by the sole authority of the Emperours 5. A further proof that neither the Emperours nor the Kings after the Roman Empire was broken in pieces conceived that Bishops and clergy-men had any judiciall power distinct from theirs is that for many 100. years in most parts of the Roman Empire as it then was Emperours and Kings kept state-assemblies where both clergy and laity sate and voted without any such distinction of power ecclesiasticall and civil I should here shew 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 politicks ch 10. speaking of heroick Kings the Kings saith he were judges and moderators in all divine matters So was the Roman Senat both before and after it was governed by Emperours for it was wont to consecrate Emperours and the name of Pontifex Maximus of which they were so jealous was taken by the Emperours even till Gratians time In short they alwayes conceived that a common magistracy and soveraign power was made up of these two main ingredients viz. ceremonies about religion and humane lawes both put in trust with the soveraign 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 errour that the church jurisdiction is wholly independent from the magistrate and that the end of magistracy is only the protection of temporall life having nothing to do with promoting the eternall good of the soul to confirm I say this errour he teacheth us that magistracy is not subservient to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ the Mediatour ex natura rei But this errour is refuted by the very heathen namely Aristotle in his 3. book of Politicks ch 16. where he saith that the scope of politicks 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 surpasse 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 religionâ—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 ancestours that the same persons should be put in care with matters of religion and the supreme government of state that so whilst the most
be introduced there was a great clamour and complaining amongst them as if Luther had a mind to lay again upon their shoulders that yoak 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 crosse 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 lawes to punish those that were unruly and wicked 2. that he professeth in the name of his collegues of the churches of Switzerland that they did not intend 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 ecclesiasticall censure or an exclusion from the Lords Supper For so sayes Gualterus in his Homilies upon the 1 Cor. 5. The lawes 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 expell 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 ecclesiasticall senat 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 governours 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 senat 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 eagernesse endeavour to establish excommunication and for that was perpetually at discord with Melanchthon who did not so much dislike the retaining of the Romish excommunication as the introducing of a new one for Melanchthon was such a lover of peace that he would willingly have endured the Romish Bishops should have kept their jurisdiction still so that they had parted with other abuses and practises I could make a volume if I should rehearse all the journeys and removes that Illyricus made from place to place urging every where the necessity of receiving excommunication and for that very reason was he alwayes expell'd either by the Prince or the magistrate of the place who lookt upon Illyricus as a man aiming at setting himself up under a specious pretence of setting up the government of Christ and one who continually jingled the keyes not of Gods but of his own Kingdom which he endeavoured to set up wheresoever he set footing At length partly by his much clamouring being a very eloquent and learned man and the workings of his emissaries partly for the respect that most men bore to the memory of Luther who first went about the same business there was a kind of excommunication received in many Lutheran churches agreeable as they thought to the mind of Luther as he propounded it to them and as he speaketh in his comment upon Joel ch 4. where he maketh two sorts of excommunication the one internall when God excludeth men from the assembly of the faithfull the other externall and politick like an act of magistracy placed in the whole body of the church and not in the ministers and from that excommunication they do not forbid appeals neither do they ground it upon the words of Christ whatsoever ye shall bind c. as Chemnitius and Gerhardus the best expositors of Luthers mind tell us But excommunication had not the same entertainment in Switzerland where Zwinglius begun the reformation almost as soon as Luther did in high Germany For Bullinger in an Epistle to Dathenus relates that in a conference that Zwinglius had with an Anabaptist in the year 1531. this was his opinion concerning excommunication That because churches under a heathen magistrate had no coercive power to punish wickednesse they in lieu of it took up excommunication but once having a Christian magistrate who punisheth and restraineth vices and enormities the use of excommunication ceaseth In the same Epistle Bullinger saith a church may be true that wanteth this excommunication again we maintain that there ought to be a discipline in the church but it is enough if it be administred by the magistrate Beza acknowledgeth that this was also the opinion of Musculus as we have alledged before when he saith that St. Paul would not have delivered the incestuous person to Satan if the magistrate at that time had been a Christian and a favourer of churches Gualterus as we have said but now was of the same mind with his father in law Bullinger for which Mr. Rutherfurd and Gillespie are very angry So then excommunication finding no good entertainment in Switzerland is carried to Geneva by the great man Calvin whom God permitted to be deceived in that particular lest the reformed world should have taken him for infallible There excommunication grew into a great tree that spread its branches far near into France England Scotland the Palatinat and the low-Countreys but before it could shoot out it had many rubbs and oppositions For some years before Calvin was settled in Geneva the reformation had been happily begun by Farell and Viret and yet no excommunication was thought on or practised At the first proposall he made of it many of the town flocked to the Syndics and the other magistrates as he confesseth in an Epistle to Myconius beseeching them not to part with the power and sword which God had committed to them lest it should cause seditions and indeed they proved true Prophets as we shall see by and by Beza in the life of Calvin in the year