same year, Gillespie published his celebrated work, "Aaron's Rod Blossoming; or, the Divine ordinance of Church Government Vindicated." In this remarkably able and elaborate production, Gillespie took up the Erastian controversy as stated and defended by its ablest advocates, fairly encountering their strongest arguments, and assailing their most formidable positions, in the frank and fearless manner of a man thoroughly sincere, and thoroughly convinced of the truth and goodness of his cause. The work

is divided into three books; the first treating "Of the Jewish Church Government;" the second, "Of the Christian Church Government; and the third, "Of Excommunication from the Church, and of Suspension from the Lord's Table." In the first book, the five following propositions are demonstrated :-" 1. That the Jewish Church was formally distinct from the Jewish State. 2. That there was an ecclesiastical sanhedrim and government distinct from the civil. 3. That there was an ecclesiastical excommunication distinct from civil punishments. 4. That in the Jewish Church there was also a public exomologesis, or declaration of repentance, and thereupon a reception or admission again of the offender to fellowship with the Church in the holy things. 5. That there was a suspension of the profane from the temple and passover." In this part of his work Gillespie boldly met and completely overthrew the united strength of Selden, Lightfoot, and Coleman, on their own chosen field of Hebrew learning.

In the second book or part of his work, "Of the Christian Church Government," the main element of the controversy which he had to encounter is of a nature so abstract, that it requires peculiar clearness of thought and accuracy of reasoning to keep the subject intelligible, and to draw the requisite distinctions. Coleman had in his sermon said, that "a Christian magistrate, as a Christian magistrate, is a governor in the Church," and that "all government is given to Christ as Mediator, and Christ, as head of these, is given to the Church;" from this he drew, though not very distinctly, the inference, that the Christian magistrate is directly the vicegerent of Christ, and therefore rules in the Church; yet when pushed on this point he recoiled, and modified his inference so as to state it in the following terms, "that magistracy is given to

Christ to be serviceable in his kingdom." But this modified statement would not have answered the purposes of the Erastians; and therefore their principle was more boldly and plainly expressed by Mr. Hussey, minister at Chesilhurst, in Kent. This thorough Erastian boldly maintained, both "that all government is given to Christ as Mediator, and that Christ, as Mediator, has placed the Christian magistrate under him, and as his vicegerent, and has given him commission to govern the Church." It will be at once perceived, that the very terms of this proposition involved an inquiry into the nature and extent of Christ's mediatorial sovereignty. To this point, accordingly, Gillespie directed his attention, in his answer to Hussey's argument. He draws the distinction between the power and sovereignty of Christ, as the Eternal Son of God, and as God-man and Mediator. Considered as the Eternal Son of God, as the Word by whom the universe was called into being, he necessarily rules over all, and magistrates derive their power from him: considered as God-man and Mediator, his direct sovereignty is in and over the Church, which is his body; and all power has been given to him both in heaven and in earth, to be wielded by him for the safety and the extension of his spiritual kingdom. A further distinction is drawn by Gillespie betwixt power over and power in any kingdom, which are not necessarily identical, although the one may be employed for the purpose of promoting and securing the other. In this argument, some have thought that Gillespie has drawn his distinctions too fine, more so than was necessary for his argument, or than many would be able to follow or willing to admit. Beyond all question, he has overthrown the Erastian theory, "that the civil magistrate is Christ's vicegerent, and appointed to govern the Church;" but some have been afraid that one aspect of his argument might seem to countenance the Voluntary theory, and to exempt civil government from the duty and responsibility of giving countenance and support to the Church. Certainly no such idea was ever in Gillespie's mind, nor is it my opinion that his reasoning, rightly understood, gives it the least shadow of support. Besides, if there be any danger arising from the extreme fineness with which his distinctions are drawn in that branch of his argument, it is

completely removed by the succeeding chapter, in which he treats "of the power and privilege of the magistrate in things and causes ecclesiastical, what it is, and what it is not.' It would be well if magistrates would study carefully the passage alluded to, that they might acquire some information respecting the proper nature and boundaries of their duties and responsibilities, cicra sacra, about religious matters, as distinguished from what they have always been so eager to usurp, power in sacris, in religious matters, which forms no part of their peculiar duty, and is not within their province.

The third book, "Of Excommunication from the Church, and of Suspension from the Lord's Table," has the appearance of being an answer to Prynne, who had written largely against the exercise of such power by Church-officers. But it is evident that Gillespie had more in view than merely to answer Prynne. He makes no express reference to the Parliament's jus divinum queries, but he meets them nevertheless, and gives to them very conclusive answers, while appearing to be merely replying to a less formidable antagonist. The very tenor of Prynne's writings gave him this opportunity, for Prynne kept as closely to the line of the Parliamentary queries as he with propriety could, so that Gillespie was both enabled and fairly entitled to answer both at once, so far as they were identical or similar. The work, in short, is a very complete refutation of the whole Erastian theory, taking up its leading points systematically, clearing away all obscurities of language, reducing every argument to its elementary principles, stating these in the form of simple propositions, and in terms strictly defined, so as to preclude sophistry or mere verbal subtleties, and proceeding to refute error and demonstrate truth, in a manner singularly clear and forcible, displaying, each in a very high degree, extensive learning, sound judgment, intellectual acuteness and strength, and the pure and lofty spirit of genuine Christianity.

Another very able and elaborate work on the Erastian controversy was written and published also in the year 1646, by Samuel Rutherford, entitled, "The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication." Although Rutherford manifests a thorough understanding of the subject, and treats very fully of all its main elements, exhibit

ing great learning and extreme minuteness in thought, argument, and illustration, his work is not, upon the whole, so successful as that of Gillespie. It is defective in point of arrangement, and especially for want of a statement of the systematic order which the author meant to follow, though it is perfectly plain that in his own mind there was a system by which he regulated his course of argument. But the very minuteness of his learning and his reasonings is felt to obscure, or rather to overlay the subject; and while tracing out every point of detail, the general impression is either weakened, or fails to be forcibly conveyed. This, however, is criticism according to modern taste; for the style of the times when Rutherford wrote, was to exhaust every subject under discussion, and to leave nothing unsaid upon it that could be said. In this respect, therefore, Rutherford merely followed the spirit of the age in which he lived; and whosoever will carefully peruse his very elaborate work, will obtain ample materials for the refutation of Erastianism.

were

There appeared another work at that time, not indeed written by one of the Assembly of Divines, but so intimately connected with the controversies which agitated among them, that it deserves to be mentioned here. This was a treatise written by the celebrated Apollonius of Middleburg, entitled "Consideratio Quarundam Controversiarum ad Regimen Ecclesiæ Dei Spectantium, quæ in Angliæ Regno hodie Agitantur." When this treatise was published, a copy of it was sent to each member of the Westminster Assembly. "It was," says Baillie, "not only very well taken, but also, which is singular, and so far as I remember, absque exemplo, it was ordered, nemine contradicente, to write a letter of thanks to Apollonius." The spirit of this work is thoroughly Presbyterian, encountering alike the theories of the Independents and the Erastians. It consists of seven chapters, each treating of a separate topic briefly, but with great clearness and force of reasoning. They are as follows :—“ 1. Concerning the qualification of Church members. 2. Concerning a Church covenant. 3. Concerning the Church visible and instituted. 4. Concerning power ecclesiastical. 5. Concerning ecclesiastical ministry and its exercise. 6. Concerning Classes (Presbyteries) and Synods, and their • Baillie, vol. ii. p. 246.

authority. 7. Concerning forms or directories of faith and worship." It will at once be seen, that in the discussion of these topics the learned author must come into direct collision with both the Independents and the Erastians; yet his work has very little of a merely controversial character, being a calm and dispassionate, but very clear and able disquisition concerning these important theological questions. There is another very valuable work by the same author, written a short time before the meeting of the Westminster Assembly, but treating very fully of the Erastian theory. Its title is, "Jus Majestatis Circa Sacra; sive Tractatus Theologicus de jure Magistratus circa res ecclesiasticas.". A translation of this work, for the purpose of general circulation, would be a very valuable contribution to the cause of religious liberty, which is at present beset by so many and such formidable enemies.

But we must quit this digression, however alluring the subject, and return to what remains to be stated respecting the concluding labors of the Westminster Assembly. Enough, if the attention of the reader has been directed to some of the most important works relating to the great Erastian controversy, which he may peruse for himself. And we do not hesitate to say, that it is scarcely possible for any man, especially for any Christian, to engage in a study of deeper and more universal importance. For it directly involves the glory of the Mediator, as sole head of his body the Church, and sole King in Zion, his spiritual kingdom, the purity, peace, and freedom of the Church, in its administration, and in the rights and privileges of its members, the moral and religious welfare of the community, as involved in, and flowing from, the efficiency and the extension of true and living Christianity, the divinely appointed remedy for the miseries of fallen mankind,-and even the progress of civilisation, the maintenance of peace, and the stability of kingdoms, as all depending upon the blessing and the favor and the protection of Him who is "Prince of the kings of the earth." And it is so eminently the great controversy of the present day, that upon its right or wrong determination depends the continuance of peace throughout Christendom, or the speedy commencement of commotions and conflicts of the most portentous nature, shaking the foundations of society, and ending in wide-spread anarchy and desolation.