--who, being out of their own element, must needs stir and make trouble to themselves and the whole State, as woful experience hath taught. The work shall be better done, and the means which did uphold their unprofitable pomp and greatness may supply the wants of many preaching ministers to be provided to places; and, without the smallest loss or damage to the subjects, may be a great increase of his majesty's revenues. His royal authority shall be more deeply rooted in the united hearts, and more strongly guarded by the joint forces, of his subjects, as if they were all of one kingdom; and his greatness shall be enlarged abroad by becoming the head of all the Protestants in Europe, to the greater horror of his enemies, and to the sowing of greatness to his posterity and royal succession. All which we entreat may be represented unto his majesty and the Houses of Parliament, as the expression of our desires and fears, and as a testimony of our faithfulness in acquitting ourselves in the trust committed unto us; but no ways forgetting our distance, or intending to pass our bounds, in prescribing or setting down rules to their wisdom and authority, which we do highly reverence and honor, and from which only, as the proper fountain, the laws and order of reformation in this Church and Policy must proceed, for the nearer union and greater happiness of his majesty's dominions,"

Let the thoughtful reader ponder well the deep meaning of this remarkable document; and while he will perceive in it a complete vindication of the Church of Scotland, he will also be constrained, when he contemplates the present sufferings of that Church, to admire the almost prophetic foresight of that great man by whom it was written, who saw clearly that the Prelatic spirit would never cease to strive for the overthrow of the Presbyterian Church.

II.

(See pages 174, 207.)

So much reference has been made by a certain class of writers to the name and reputation of the learned Selden, and the influence which he is said to have exercised in the Westminster Assembly, that I have thought it expedient to state his arguments more fully in the body of the Work than their own merit seems to me to deserve. I have given them also as reported by Lightfoot, who being likewise an Erastian, cannot be suspected of doing them in injustice. But as the same discussion is reported in Gillespie's own notes of the Assembly's proceedings, I am persuaded that the general reader will peruse the following extract with considerable curiosity and interest :

"DEBATE RESPECTING MATTHEW XVIII.

"Mr. Selden said, There is nothing in Matthew xviii. of excommunication or jurisdiction, which could not be exercised by the ancient

Church, till the Church of Rome got their power from the emperor.. That some late men-as Dominicus Solo, and Sayrus, and Henriquez— say that there is some power given to the Church, which the Church afterwards did specificate to be a power of excommunication. He said, Matthew's Gospel was the first that was written, about eight years after Christ's ascension, the first year of Claudius; that it was written in Hebrew, and translated into Greek by John; that though the Hebrew that Matthew wrote be not extant, yet two editions of the Gospel (are) in Hebrew, one by Munster, another by Tilius; that we find in Tilius' edition Kahal, Matt. xviii., and Guedah, Matt. xviii., though in Munster's Kahal be in both places. Now, there being no place of the New Testament written when this was written, we must expound it by the custom of the Jews, which, according to the law (Lev. xix. 17), was, that when one offended his brother, the offended brother required satisfaction; and if he get it not, speak to him before two or three witnesses; and if he hear them not, to tell it to a greater number (for which he offered to show many Hebrew authors and Talmudists). That they had in Jerusalem, beside the great sanhedrim, two courts of 23, and in every city one court of 23. That the casting out of the synagogue was only the putting of a man in that condition that he might not come within four cubits of another; that any man being twelve years of age might excommunicate another; not that he was altogether cast off from having anything to do with the synagogue. He said the convocation was called Clerus Anglicanus, and the parliament Populus Anglicanus. So here Guedah and Kλnota signifies only a select number; that the word is used in one place for woman; Deut. xxiii., shall not enter into the congregation. That Christ, when he said 'Dic Ecclesiæ,' was in Capernaum, where there was a court of 23; that the meaning is, tell the sanhedrim, which can redress the wrong. That if the Jewish State had been Christian, their civil government might have continued, though the ceremonies were gone; so that ecclesia here would have been a civil court."

Gillespie's answer, as given by himself, is as follows:

"It is a spiritual, not a civil, court which is meant by the Church,' Matt. xviii.; for, 1. Subjecta materia is spiritual. If thy brother trespass against thee, is not meant of personal or civil injuries, but of any scandal given to our brother, whereby we trespass against him, inasmuch as we trespass against the law of charity. Augustine and Testatus expound it of any scandal, and the coherence confirmeth it; for seandals were spoken of before in that chapter. 2. The end is spiritual-the gaining of the offender's soul, which is not the end of a civil court. 3. The persons are spiritual, for Christ speaks to his apostles. 4. The manner of proceeding is spiritual (verses 19, 20)-prayer, and doing all in the name of Christ; which places, not only our Divines, but Testatus and Hugo Cardinalis, expound of meetings for Church censures, not of meetings for worship. 5. The censure is spiritual-binding of the soul, or retaining of sins. (Verse 18, compared with Matt. xvi. 19; John xx. 23.) 6. Christ would not have sent his disciples for private injuries to a civil court, especially those who were living among heathens. (1 Cor. vi. 1). 7. If we look even to the Jewish customs, they had spiritual censures. To be held as a heathen man and a publican, imports

`a restraint a sacris; for heathens were not admitted into the temple. (Ezek. xliv. 7, 9; Acts xxi. 28). So the profane were debarred from the temple. Josephus (Antiq., lib. xix. chap. 17) tells us that one Simon, a doctor of the law of Moses, in Jerusalem, did accuse King Agrippa as a wicked man, that should not be admitted into the temple. Philo (Lib. De Sacrificantibus) writeth, it was the custom in his own time that a manslayer was not admitted into the temple. The Scripture also giveth light in this; for if they that were ceremonially unclean might not enter into the temple, how shall we think that they which were morally unclean might enter ?"

The close coincidence of the debate, as here given, with the account of it in Lightfoot's journal, will at once be perceived, confirming the authenticity of both; the chief difference between them being, that Gillespie's is the more clear and succinct of the two, as might have been expected from his intellectual pre-eminence.

While giving some fragmentary records of the opinions of the leading men among the Westminster Divines on peculiar points, it may not be inexpedient to show what were the sentiments of Gillespie on the subject of the election of ministers, and how far these were entertained by the Church of Scotland at that period, and are identical with those held by the Evangelical majority of the present time. The arguments of Henderson, Gillespie, and Rutherford have been already stated, as used by them in the debate on the subject, an account of which will be found in page 151 of this work. On a subsequent occasion, when Gillespie, in his Male Audis, was answering the Erastian arguments of Coleman and Hussey, the subject came again under discussion, and drew forth from Gillespie a re-statement of his opinion. Hussey had boldly affirmed, that the Parliament may require such as they receive for preachers of truth," to send out able men to supply the places, and that without any regard to the allowance or disallowance of the people." This truly tyrannical theory Gillespie strongly condemns; reminds his opponent that one, and not the least, of the controversies between the Papists and the Protestants is, what right the Church hath in the vocation of ministers; refers to the Helvetic Confession, which says, that the right choosing of ministers is by the consent of the Church, and to the Belgic Confession, which says, "We believe that the ministers, seniors, and deacons, ought to be called to these their functions, and by the lawful election of the Church to be advanced into these rooms;" adding, " might here, if it were requisite, bring a heap of testimonies from the Protestant writers, the least thing which they can admit of is, that a minister be not obtruded renitente ecclesia. It may be helped when it is done, without making null or void the ministry; but in a well-constituted Church there ought to be no intrusion into the ministry." (Male Audis, p. 27.)

"I

In his "Miscellany Questions," the last work that came from his pen, Gillespie discusses the question, " Of the Election of Pastors with the Congregation's consent," in a chapter of 24 pages, stating the various opinions held by Prelatists, Sectarians, and others, explaining what he regarded to be the system of the Church of Scotland, and answering objections. He cites with approbation the opinions of the Reformers Luther, Calvin, Zanchius, Beza, and many others, all of whom maintained, ut sine populi consensu et suffragio nemo legitime electus, that

without the consent and suffrage of the people no person was lawfully elected also the strong language of the First and Second Books of Discipline," This liberty with all care must be preserved to every several kirk, to have their votes and suffrages in election of their ministers," and it is to be eschewed that any person be intruded in any offices of the Kirk, contrary to the will of the congregation to which they are appointed," adding several acts of Assembly to the same effect. In answering objections, his own opinion comes very clearly into view. As, for instance, "Objection-This liberty granted to congregations, prejudgeth the right of patrons. Answer-If it were so, yet the argument is not pungent in divinity, for why should not human right give place to Divine right? The states of Zealand did abolish patronages, and give to each congregation the free election of their own minister, which I take to be one cause why religion flourisheth better there than in any other of the United Provinces." Again, it is objected, "That the Church's liberty of consenting or not consenting, must ever be understood to be rational, so that the Church may not disassent without objecting somewhat against the doctrine or life of the person presented." (There is nothing new, it seems, even in the objections of Law Lords and Moderates.) In answer to this, Gillespie first cites authorities to prove that this argument is the very one used by Popish and Prelatic writers, in defence of their systems, which allowed no shadow of liberty to the people, and then exclaims, "Now, then, if this be all that people may object, it is no more than Prelates, yea Papists, have yielded. This objection cannot strike against the election of a pastor by the judgment and votes of the particular eldership of that church where he is to serve. Men vote in elderships, as in all courts and consistories, freely according to the judgment of their conscience, and are not called to an account for a reason of their votes. As the vote of the eldership is a free vote, so is the congregation's consent a free consent. Any man, though not a member of the congregation, hath place to object against the admission of him that is presented, if he know such an impediment as may make him incapable, either at all of the ministry, or of the ministry of that church to which he is presented. So that unless the congregation have somewhat more than liberty of objecting, they shall have no privilege or liberty, but that which is common to strangers as well as to them. Though nothing be objected against the man's doctrine or life, yet if the people desire another better, or as well qualified, by whom they find themselves more edified than by the other, that is a reason sufficient, if a reason must be given at all."

But we cannot afford space for mere quotations, nor can it be necessary to do so, as those already produced must convince every unprejudiced person that the Church of Scotland held then, as in the days of Knox, and always down to the present, time, that congregations possess the inherent right of choosing their own pastors; and that when patronage interfered with this right, the very least privilege to which they were entitled, was the expression of their free consent, or equally free dissent, without being obliged to assign reasons for either, and that no man should be intruded contrary to that free expression of their mind and will. And these opinions of Gillespie, according to Baillie, were held by the majority of the Assembly of 1649, when preparing a new Directory for the election of ministers, after the abolition of patronage by the Parliament.

the past, to an impartial and unprejudiced posterity, to her o dards, to the Sacred Scriptures, and to her sole head and King, Jesus Christ, and calmly abides the judgment.

III.

(See page 219.)

"AN ORDINANCE OF THE LORDS AND COMMONS ASSEMBLED IN MENT, ABOUT SUSPENSION FROM THE LORD'S SUPPER." 20 ber, 1645.

It was my intention to have inserted the whole of this import nance in the Appendix, for the purpose of showing the exact which the Westminster Assembly and the Parliament disagreed as the extent to which they were of one mind. But as that h done with considerable distinctness in the body of the work, am desirous to avoid all unnecessary expansion, it seems to me e for the present to suppress that rather prolix document, reservin self the power of inserting it in a future edition, should it be then desirable, or should I prosecute the intention of enlarging the v

IV.

(See page 222.)

"AN ORDINANCE OF THE LORDS AND COMMONS ASSEMBLED IN MENT, CONCERNING THE CHOICE OF ELDERS." 14th March For the reasons above stated, and with still greater reluctan esolved to abstain from inserting this ordinance also. And I that had the plan of the present work, and the dimensions with it was judged necessary to confine it permitted, there are a n very important documents, little known or regarded, which m been inserted in the Appendix, and would have formed a very