instrumentality the Reformation was effected, were unable entirely to perfect their work, yet they all, more or less? clearly, indicated their judgment that the two jurisdictions, civil and ecclesiastical, ought to be, and to remain co-ordinate and distinct, mutually supporting and supported, but each abstaining from interference with the other's intrinsic and inherent rights, privileges, and powers. In some countries this high and true theory was clearly developed, in others more obscurely, and in some not at all. In no part of Reformed Christendom was it so distinctly stated, and so fully realized, as in Scotland; and nowhere was it so thoroughly rejected as in England. In England, indeed, the exact counterpart of the Romish system was established, the king's ecclesiastical supremacy rendering him equally judge of ecclesiastical as of civil matters. It was soon found that in this, as in all other things, extremes meet; the king, by a slight transfer of terms, became a civil pope, and the country was oppressed by a complete civil and spiritual despotism.

In the mean time, the great principle of truth and freedom, the principle of distinct and co-ordinate civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions, was assailed on the Continent by Erastus, and became a subject of speculative thought and controversial literature. Unfortunately for the cause of truth and freedom, the great men of the Reformation had nearly all departed from the scene of their labors and triumphs before the Erastian theory was fully brought forward, so that it was not at once met and overthrown as it would otherwise have been. And besides, it was too accordant with the views and feelings of men of secular minds not to obtain a ready credence and a hearty welcome from politicians, who can form no higher idea of a Church than an engine of State, from lawyers who can conceive no higher rule than statutory enactments, and from irreligious and immoral men, who equally detest and fear the strict and pure severity of divinely authorized Christian discipline. In England, also, the despotism of the Prelatic hierarchy tended to produce, in the minds of all zealous assertors of freedom, an instinctive dread of ecclesiastical power, and rendered many men Erastians from terror and in self-defence, not because they had studied the theory, and been convinced of its truth. Such men were ready to

oppose the establishment of Presbyterian Church government on the ground of divine right, not because they were convinced that no system of Church government can justly lay claim to an authority so high and sacred; but because they were apprehensive that it would produce a species of spiritual despotism as oppressive as that which they had just been striving to abolish. In vain did the Scottish statesmen and divines answer and refute their objections; their fears were not removed, and fear is a mental emotion that cannot be set aside by argument.

But Selden, Whitelocke, Lightfoot, and Coleman took up the subject on other grounds, which, though difficult, were not equally unassailable by reason. Their chief argument was one of analogy, although, as they used it, the appearance which it bore was that of identity. They held that the Christian system ought to resemble, or rather to be identical with, the system of the Mosaic Dispensation; and they attempted to prove, that there were not two distinct and co-ordinate courts, one civil and the other ecclesiastical, among the Hebrews, but that there was a mixed jurisdiction, of which the king was the supreme and ultimate head and ruler, and that, consequently, the civil courts determined all matters, both civil and ecclesiastical, and inflicted all punishments, both such as affected person and property, and such as affected a man's religious privileges, properly termed Church censures. From this they concluded, that the civil magistrate, in countries avowedly Christian, ought to possess an equal, or identical authority, and ought consequently to be the supreme and ultimate judge in all matters, both civil and ecclesiastical, inflicting or removing the penalties of Church censure equally with those affecting person and property. The arguments on which they most relied were drawn from rabbinical lore, rather than from the Bible itself, although they were very willing to obtain the appearance of its support, by ingenious versions, or perversions of peculiar passages of Scripture. Selden's argument has been already stated, and need not be repeated. The value of Lightfoot's authority may be estimated somewhat lower than is usually done, if we take into consideration, not merely the amount of his learning, but the soundness, or the reverse, of his judgment." As, for instance, he strenuously maintained that the Jews are

He held also, that the expressions, "the keys of the dom of heaven," and "binding and loosing," had no ence to discipline, but merely to doctrine, in which o he differed from almost every person, both before and his time. His opinion of the Septuagint was equ variance with the views of the most eminently learn judicious men. In short, whatever may be said of tensive and minute rabbinical lore, it is impossible to his judgment as entitled to much deference, conseq his advocacy of Erastian principles will not avail mu their support.

Mention has already been made of Coleman's se preached before the House of Commons, on the 3 July, 1645. That sermon must be noticed as part Erastian literature, not so much on account of it merits, as on account of other works to the compos which it gave occasion. Towards the end of the se various advices and directions are given, as calcula promote the peace and welfare of the kingdom; these, one point on which Coleman dwelt strongly w unity of the Church, and the best way to procure that For this he gives several directions, of which the foll are the chief:-"1. Establish as few things jure di can well be. Hold out the practice, but not the g 2. Let all precepts held out as divine institutions hav Scriptures; an occasional practice, a phrase upon t a thing named, are too weak grounds to uphold building. I could never yet see how two co-ordinat ernments, exempt from superiority and inferiority, in one State; and in Scripture, no such thing is foun I know of. 3. Lay no more burden of government the shoulders of ministers than Christ hath plainly lai them; let them have no more hand therein than the Ghost clearly gives them. The ministers will have work to do, and such as will take up the whole m ingenuously profess I have a heart that knows bette

snarement, and I have cause. I see what raised Prelacy and Papacy to such a height, and what their practices were, being so raised. Give us doctrine; take you the government. Give me leave to make this request, in the name of the ministry; give us two things, and we shall do well: -give us learning, and give us a competency. 4. A Christian magistrate, as a Christian magistrate, is a governor in the Church. All magistrates, it is true, are not Christians; but that is their fault: all should be; and when they are, they are to manage their office under and for Christ. Christ hath placed governments in his Church. Of other governments besides magistracy I find no institution; of them I do. I find all government given to Christ, and to Christ as Mediator; and Christ, as head of these, given to the Church. To rob the kingdom of Christ of the magistrate and his governing power, I cannot excuse, no, not from a kind of sacrilege, if the magistrate be His."*

Sentiments such as these could not but be agreeable to the Erastian members of parliament; yet they seem to have thought that Coleman had spoken with more plainness than prudence, for while they ordered the sermon to be printed, as was customary, they did not give him the thanks of the House-an omission which was extremely unusual. But the principles stated in Coleman's sermon were not allowed to remain long unassailed. On the 27th of August George Gillespie preached a sermon before the House of Lords; and when it was published, he appended to it a small pamphlet of nine leaves, entitled "A Brotherly Examination of some Passages of Mr. Coleman's late printed Sermon." In this short treatise, Gillespie not only answered and refuted Coleman, but also completely turned his arguments against himself; proving, first, that the proper rule for human conduct in all things, but especially in religious matters, was to obtain as much of divine guidance, or to establish as much by divine right as possible. He then proceeds to examine in succession Coleman's directions or rules in a very masterly manner, annihilating or reversing each with great strength and clearness of argument. It is proved, that Coleman's principle, that in every divine institution Scripture must speak expressly, would involve a dangerous tampering with Scripture, and would

* Coleman's Sermon, pp. 24-28.

P

established both by argument and by illustration. answer to Coleman's assertion, that he can find no tion of any government except magistracy, Gillespie from Scripture, that obedience is directly comma spiritual governors, who are over us in the Lor who must have been distinct from the civil magis a time when there was no Christian magistracy. In but very clearly stated argument, Gillespie refute man's dangerous assertion, "that all government to Christ as Mediator, and Christ, as head of thes to the Church;" and states the distinction between government as God and as Mediator, by the right standing of which important idea the whole Erasti troversy must be decided.

Coleman soon afterwards published a pamphlet, e "A Brotherly Examination Re-examined," which tinguished chiefly by boldness of assertion and fee of argument. To this Gillespie replied in another, the title, "Nihil Respondes," in which he so sharply exposed the weakness of his antagonist's rea Irritated by the castigation he had received, Colem lished a bitter reply, to which he gave the not very gible title of "Male Dicis Maledicis,"-meaning, do to insinuate, that Gillespie's answer was rather of a character, or, to use a phrase of modern times, di a bad spirit. This Gillespie answered in an exce vigorous pamphlet, entitled, "Male Audis," in w swept rapidly over the whole Erastian controversy as Coleman and some of his friends had brought it f convicted him and them of numerous self-contrad of unsoundness in theology, of violating the c which they had sworn, and of inculcating opinions both civil and religious liberty. To this Coleman attempt to reply, feeling, probably, that he wa matched.

Several of these controversial pamphlets appeare