if they stand in need thereof more then other As Peter gave an account Act. 11. to the Church of Jerusalem of his going in to the uncircumoised Answ. 1. If a warrant or example from the word that one single company of sole beleevers wanting Elders did in a Church way censure any one Pastor or a whole Eldership and that the Church of Jerusalem consisting onely of beleevers without Elders called Peter before them judicially to give an account of going in to the uncircumcised is a dreame and though Peter should have given satisfaction to a number of sole beleevers to remove the scandall it proveth not that they had authoritie over Peter for one private offender is obliged to give an account and a satisfaction to another private brother whom he hath offended Matth. 18. 15. yet hath not a brother Church authoritie over one another to excommunicate him as our brethren say that a company of onely private beleevers may excommunicate all the Elders of the Congregation 2. It followeth not that Elders should want the medicine of excommunication when they stand in need thereof because the people may not excommunicate them for there be others who of office should excommunicate and also the want of a meane of salvation as the want of baptisme where such are wanting as have the onely Church power to administer such means doth not condemn men On the other side saith the Author the Elders have rule over the Church and that in sundry Acts as 1. in calling together the Church upon any weighty occasion Act. 6. 2. Answ. 1. This power of conveening the multitude cannot bee the power of governing Gods house spoken of 2 Tim. 3 4 5. Tit. 1. 5. to obey those who watch for our soules Heb. 13. 17. cannot bee to conveene to a Church meeting at their commandement 2. To conveen the Church meeting or Synods is an action of the whole Church for Christ hath given power to his owne Church an ecclesiastick power to conveen her owne Courts and this can no more be a peculiar act of authoritie agreeing onely to the Elders or to a Pastor then the act of excommunication for it is given to all the faithfull by your owne grounds 1 Cor. 5. 4. 1 Cor. 11. 18 1 Cor. 14. 23. how then is it a peculiar act of auhoritie in the Elders 1. The Elders if they bee to bee accused and censured are they to conveen the Judicatory as the Consull did conveen the Senate and to summon themselves also if they have any power to conveen the Church it is but delegated for orders sake to them by the Church Ergo this authoritie is principally and first in the Church and so it is no authoritie peculiar to the Elders also if it be but a thing of meere order it is not an act of jurisdiction over the Church a Moderator who conveeneth the Synod or a Consul who conveenth the Senat have not in that jurisdiction or authoritie over the Synod or Senat and may the Elders hinder I pray you the conveening of the Church I thinke not 3. This is but a Popish argument Pope Julius the third in his Bull taketh this upon him to conveene Councells The Cardinall de Monte President for the Pope gave leave by a speciall Bull from the Pope to the Councell of Trent to advise about the translating of the Councell from Trent to Bonony And Good Bellarmine and Harding as Jewell teacheth us make this a part of the transcendent power and authoritie of the Pope over the Church to conveen the Church Catholick and if it bee an act of authoritie over the Church to conveene the Church farre more must it bee in the Pope to conveene the Catholick Church Lastly this power in Elders should bee made good by the Word of God Secondly saith hee their authority over the Church is in opening the doores of speech and silence to any of the Assembly Act. 13. 13. unlesse it be where the Elders themselves lie under offence or suspition then the offended party may begin with them Act. 11. 2. Yet with due reverence observed as to their yeares so to their place 1 Tim. 5. 3. Answ. If to speake first in a Church meeting prove that the Elders have authority over the Church then one Elder hath authority over all the rest of the Elders and must be a little Pope or a great Prelate for two or foure Elders cannot all speake first We seeke now an act of authority due to Elders or Pastors as they are such and above the people if you make this an act of authority you then give us in every Church-meeting and Synod a Pastor of Pastors and an Elder of Elders and a Pope 2. If this be an act of authority over the Church then have Papists well proven that Peter hath an authority and power over all the Church for Suarez and Bellarmine and Harding prove Peter to be a Pope because he speaketh first in the councell Act. 13. 13. and the text that you cite they cite also But Whittakerus and Gerson saith as also Lyran and Carthusian It is like that James spake first as President of the Councell 3. The Author leaveth this act of authority as weake and saith that the offended party may speake first Ergo say I to speake first is not an authoritative act of Pastors as Pastors agreeing to them by vertue of their office seeing this act is communicated to those who are out of office Ergo they have not shewen as yet any Pastorall act of office due to the Elders as Elders and if it were most convenient that Elders should first speake our brethren will not say that it is due to them by their office but for their age and gifts and so they say nothing Thirdly saith the Author Elders have rule over the Church in preaching the word and they have power to teach and exhort to charge and command to reprove and rebuke with all authoritie 1 Tim. 5. 7. and 6. 17. 2 Thes. 3. 6. Answ. It can not be denied but Elders that is preaching Elders or Pastors have authoritie over the people in preaching and rebuking with all authoritie but 1. I aske at our brethren by what authoritie of the Scripture is pastorall binding and loosing an authoritative act of the preaching Elder onely for the concionall or preaching power of remitting and retaining sinnes Joh. 20. 21. is all one with the power of the keyes Matth. 16. and that is given saith our brethren to the whole Church and by these texts are not restricted to Pastors as they expone them 2. Our brethren alledge there is a two-fold power of preaching in Pastors one by vertue of their gift another by vertue of their office By the first Pastors doe preach to Infidels Turkes and unconverted ones now this preaching is not proper to Pastors as Pastors nor is it any authority peculiar to Pastors over all the flocke for
bee sometimes physice impossible because of the corruption of mans nature there being bloody warres in Christendome yet it is morally lawfull for many things may bee inconvenient through mans wickednesse and so hic nunc not expedient which are morally lawfull 2. Conclusion Every particular Pastor hath a power though unproper of dominion and authoritie even out of a Synod about the Acts of preaching and determining truth according to the word of God as Jer. 1. 10. See I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdomes c. 1 Tim. 6. 17. Charge them that are rich that they bee not high minded c. 2 Tim. 4. 1. I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the dead c. So any Pastor hath power of dominion and authoritie over a Synod and Paul as a Pastor might preach even before the councell at Jerusalem passed their Synodicall determination Act. 15. that circumcision was not necessary and that to obstaine from things strangled from blood and fornication was necessary and lawfull yea and in preaching truth the Pastor is subject to no Synod But the Pastor hath not full power of jurisdiction about his acts of preaching necessary truth 1. Because the Church may for just causes deprive him from preaching 2. Because hee cannot use the censure of excommunication against those who refuse to receive his true and necessary doctrine without the Church joyne her power of jurisdiction with him 3. He his alone cannot in a Synod determine ecclesiastically and in an authoritative Church power that same truth which as a Pastor hee determined and with the power of pastorall dominion hee pressed upon the consciences of the Church yea of the whole Synod because one man is not the Church or Synod and James his alone Act. 15. v. 15. could but say Wherefore my sentence is that yee trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned unto God though this was the very word of God which James as a Pastor even as an ordinary Pastor might have preached in the name of God yet is it not the decree of the Church which the Churches is to keep Act. 16. 4. while it bee determined by the Church An example wee may have possible not unlike to this A man hath a power of dominion over his owne proper lands and goods to use them in God for his owne use but the supreme magistrate and Parliament hath a dominion of jurisdiction in a judiciall sentence over those same lands to forfeit them for crimes committed against King and State or this may cleare it Samuel hath a power immediately from God to annoint David King and in this hee is not subject to the suffrages of the tribes of Israel hee hath a power of dominion here but suppose wee that Samuel live till Gods time when all Israel shall crowne David King at Hebron Samuel as a part of the Assembly of Israel his alone without the suffrages of Israel could not make him King at Hebron Hence wee may see how weake the assertion of our brethren is who say That Synods should have power to bind the Churches say they wee see not Bellarmine indeed holdeth so But orthodox writers hold that the sentence of councels is but a certaine inquisition of the truth and a ministeriall and limited sentence so that the decree of a councell is of as great force as the reason thereof so saith Amesius and Junius But certainly this is a meer mistake of our brethren as if they were not orthodox writers but conspirers against the truth with Bellarmine who hold the authoritie of Synods The essentiall end to speak so of Synods is unitie and the eschewing of schisme and wee doubt not but Peter Paul James had in their Sermons and doctrine determined that same veritie to wit that the Law of Moses and ceremonies was a yoak not to bee laid upon the Christian Churches yet it was not a decree for unities sake and fuller authoritie binding the Churches to observe these as Act. 16. 4. while it was determined in a Synod Act. 5. 24. 25. But truely wee hold nothing in this common with Jesuites and Papists for wee condemne not that in Bellarmine that hee holdeth that lawfull Synods for of such wee dispute with him do bind the Churches to obedience in God to their decrees not because they say it but because they say it authoritatively from Gods Word authoritie of Synods no orthodox writers deny authoritie officiall as the representative Church of Christ they have He that heareth you heareth mee hee that despiseth you despiseth me Where two or three are gathered together in a Synod say our Divines I will bee amongst them But authoritie objective they have not so as what they say because they say it therefore the very matter object and thing said by them is no lesse the Word of God then if the Prophets and Apostles by divine inspiration had said it at least it is not infallibly true because they say it for that wee disclaime and it is that authoritie of Synods which Bellarmine and Papists hold Councells saith Bellarmine and Scripture are both infallible and the Jesuits of Rhemes and Lorinus the Jesuite said councells are infallible the holy Spirit is there present Gratian said all the decretall Epistles of Popes and the Canons of the Councells are of equall authoritie with the Scriptures and their Gregorius said hee received with the same reverence and authoritie the foure generall Councells the foure Evangelistâ— it is certaine saith Suarez that a Councell is an infallible rule of faith and Turrecremata saith the same It is certaine saith Bailius Councells are â—â— the Oracles of God to us in difficulties so saith Cajetanus Canus and Gregorius de Valentia wee hold the authoritie of Councels but ascribe to them as much power over the conscience as there is reason in them from Gods Word and no more But 2. This is a weake reason councels have no power to command obedience because their Canons and Decrees are of no more force then they have reason from Gods Word For 1. Friends brethren equals by that have no warrant to rebuke because their rebukes have but as much force as they have reason from the word of God for the reason is alike in both lawfull Pastors cannot command obedience in the Lord your independent Congregations cannot command that which bindeth the Church to obedience because the word or a commandement of a Pastor or your independent Church is onely a commandement ministeriall and limited and hath as much force as there is reason in it from the Word of God yea the Church of Corinâ—h hath not then the power of the Lord Jesus to excommunicate the incestuous person nor the Church of Thyatira to cast out and condemne Jezabell the false prophetesse nor do these commandements of the Synod
matters darke and doubtsome Answ. We seeke a warrant from the word for this for Elders are present at the admission and choosing of officers as prime agents by authority not by way of naked counsell and advise Act. 1. 13. c. 6. 26. c. 14. 23. Act. 13. 3. 1 Tim. 1. 13. Manuscr The fourth way saith he is by gathering many Churches or their messengers in a Synod to examine and discusse either corrupt opinions or suspicious practises Here 1. the Magistrate is acquaint with our Assembly he being a nourishing Father of the Church 2. They meete in Christs name 3. The Elders declare their judgement in order and the reasons thereof 4. All may speake till the truth either be cleared and all either convinced or satisfied as Act. 15. 7. 5. If things be not fully cleared and if it seeme that the nature of them admit farther disquisition yea and difference of judgements without disunion of affections or prejudice of salvation each man is left to his Christian liberty and if any be otherwayes minded God shall reveale the same thing to him Answ. This Section being closed I have here two considerable points to be discussed the one anent the power of Synods the other anent the power of the civill Magistrates Quest. I. Whether or not Synods have authority by divine right to obleige the Churches to obedience in things lawfull and expedient For the fuller clearing of this grave question I would have these considerations weighed by the godly reader Consider 1. Canons of Councells may be thought to â—ye as authoritative Commandements or as advises and friendly counsells 2. An advise or counsell doth obleige and tye both for the intrinsecall lawfulnesse of the counsell it being for matter Gods word and also for the authority of the friends counselling because the first Commandement enjoyneth obedience to all our betters not onely inplace and officiall relation as to Kings Fathers Pastors c. but also to all above us in age gifts knowledge experience 3. Hence there is a superiority of dominion or jurisdiction and a superiority of reverence and endowments the former is the narrower inadequate and straiter subject of the fifth Commandement and both are considerable objects in this Commandement 4. All who as friends equalls brethren and indued with more grace experience and light doe advise and counsell good are superiors in so farre but it is a superiority of reverence not of jurisdiction for by this they who are aged and may counsell what is lawfull have not power to censure or excommunicate those who follow not their counsell Yet if David had rejected the counsell of Abigail disswading him from passionate revenge he had in that despised God unlessethe Prince or the High-Priest had given that counsell by way of command though there be degrees of Latitude in despising the one rather then the other 5. There is a difference betwixt hability to judge and right or power to judge a Presbyteriall Church may have right jus and ecclesiasticall Law to judge of a point to the judging whereof they want hability and therefore de facto it belongeth to a higher Synod where more learned men are though de jure the Presbytery may judge it 6. Though government of the Church by Synods be Gods positive Law yet upon the laid downe ground Christ hath given the keyes and power of Government to every visible Church the Government of united Churches by Synods is a branch of the Law of nature 7. Synods are necessary for the well-being of the Church and still are in the visible Church in more or lesse degrees for the authority of Synods consisting of fix onely differeth not in nature and essence from a generall councell of the whole Catholike visible Church Magis et minus non variant speciem And therefore if Synods be warranted by the word of God as no question they are there is no neede to prove by particular places of the word the lawfulnesse of every one of these a sessionall meeting of the Eldership of a single Congregation 2. A Presbytery or meeting of the Elders or Pastors Doctors of more Congregations 3. A Provinciall Synod of the Presbyteries of a whole province 4. The Nationall Assembly or meeting of the Elders of the whole Nation 5. The generall and Occumenick Councell of Pastors Doctors and Elders of the whole Catholick Church visible for all these differ not in essence but degrees and what word of God as Matth. 18. 16 17. proveth the lawfulnesse of one is for the lawfulnesse of all the five sorts of Synods 8. Grant the consociation of authorities in sundry Churches and you cannot deny the authority of Synods above particular Churches 9. Consociation of Churches to give advise and counsell is not Consociation of Churches as Churches but onely consociation of Christian professors who are obleiged to teach admonish and rebuke one another 10. There is a right of dominion and a right of jurisdiction as we shall heare anon Hence our first conclusion a generall councell is a Congregation of Pastors Doctors and Elders or others met in the name and authority of Jesus Christ out of all Churches to determine according to the word of God all controversies in faith Church-government or manners no faithfull person who desireth beeing excluded from reasoning and speaking Neither is the definition of Aâ—mâ—in and Gerson much different from this save that they thinke that councells are lawfully conveened if such and such onely as are of the Hierarchike order be members thereof which we thinke Antichristian 2. As also the Pope president here we disclaime Yet doth Almain confesse that a generall councell may be conveened without the Pope in three cases 1. when the Pope is dead either departing this life or civilly dead being excommunicated for any crime of heresie for the Apostolike Sea hath vaiked often two yeares together 2. When the Pope is averse and opposeth reformation 3. When time and place hath beene assigned for the next generall councell as was done in the councell of Basil and the Papists grant that Matth. 18. Tell the Church is a warrant for a generall councell 1. Because it is a meane for the saving of the spirits of all men even Pastors and Apostles in the day of the Lord. 2. Because Apostles though in prophecying and writing canonick Scripture when they were inspired could not erre yet otherwise they might erre and if Peter should have remained obstinate in his Judaizing Gal. 2. and resused to heare Paul or the Church hee was to bee excommunicated 3. By the Church Matth. 18. saith the Schoole of Paris cannot bee understood the Prelats of the Church onely because Christ did speake to Peter and saith Almain and Gerson Peter cannot bee both an acâ—user a witnesse and a Judge 4. There is a power of the keyes to bind and loose given immediatly by Christ to all the rulers of the Catholick or universall Church visible Ergo the exercise of this power though it
weake p. 297 298 299 seq Mr. Coachmans arguments dissolved p. 305 306 307. seq The way of Church judging in independent congregations examined p. 308 309. That there be no peculiar authority in the Eldership for which they can be said to be over the people in the Lord according to the doctrin of independency of Churches and their six ways of the Elders authority confuted p. 311 312 313 314 315. seq That independency doth evert communion of sister-Churches and their seven wayes of Churches-communion refuted from their own grounds p. 324 325 326. seq The divine right of Synods Ten distructions thereanent p. 331 332. seq The desinition of a generall or Oecumenick Synod p. 332. 333 The place Acts 15 farther considered p. 334 335. Synods necessary by natures Law p. 336. Papists no friends to councells p. 336 337 338. seq 340 341. Three ways of communion of sister-Churches according to the doctrin of independent Churches confuted p. 346 347. seq How the magistrate hath power to compell persons to the profession of the truth p. 352 373. seq Six distinctions thereanent 2 part p. 352 353. The Magistrates power over a people Baptized and over Pagans who never heard of Christ in this poynt of Coaction to profession not alike p. 353 354 355. The magistrates compelling power terminated upon the externall act not upon the manner of doing sincerely or hypocritically p. 355 356. The magistrates power over hereticks with sundry distinctions thereanent p. 356 357 358. seq Socinians judgement and Arminians hereanent p. 359 360 A farther consideration of compelling or tolerating diverse Religions p. 361 362. Some indirect forcing lawfull p 362. Erroneous opinions concerning God and his worship though not in Fundamentalls censurable p 363 364. Diverse non Fundamentalls are to be believed with certainty of Faith and the non-believing of them are siâ—nes punishable p. 365. 366 367 seq Arguments on the contrary dissolved and the place Philip. 3. 15. cleared p 316. seq How an erring conscience obligeth p. 378 379 380 381 seq Arguments on the contrary answered p. 383 384. seq The Princes power in Church affairs Ten distinctions thereanent p. 391 392. 393. How the Magistrate is a member of the Church p. 392 393. The Prince by his Royall Office hath a speciall hand in Church-affaires p 393 394. The intrinsecall end of the Prince is a supernaturall good to be procured by the Sword and a coactive power and not only the externall peace of the State Spalato resuted p 396 397 398. seq How the Magistrate is subordinate to Christs mediatory Kingdome p 402 403 404 seq The ordinary power of the Prince is not Synodicall teaching or making Church-Lawes p. 403 404 405 406. seq The influence of the Princes civill power in Church-Canons p. 409. 410 411 seq The government of the visible Church spirituall and not a formall part of the Magistrates Office p. 417 418. seq The power of Ordination and Deprivation not a part of the Magistrates Office p. 427 428. seq Instances from David Salomon Ezechiah c. answered and our Doctrine and Iesuites differenced p. 438 439. seq Difference betwixt the Princes commanding Church-duties and the Churches commanding these same p. 417 418 seq The Kings ordinary power to make Church-Lawes examined p. 438 439 440. seq The intrinsecall end of the Magistrate a supernaturall good p. 442 443 446 447 448. The Popes pretended power over Kings protestants contrary to to Papists herein what ever the author or Popish libeller of the survey and the night-Author of Treason Lysimachus Nicanor say on the contrary p. 449 450 451 452. seq The way of Reformation of Congregations in England according to the independent way examined p. 457 458. The originall of Church-Patronages p. 459. And how unwarrantable by Gods Word p. 462 463. Other wayes of Reformation of England according to the way of independent Churches modestly considered as about maintenance of Ministers and replanting of visible Churches there p. 464 465 466. seq Errata THe Author could not attend the Presse therefore pardon errors of the Printing Observe that the Author was necessitated to make some occasionall addition to the mids of this Treatise which occasioned-variation of the Figures of the Pages and therefore stumble not that when the Booke commeth to page 484 the next page not observing due order is page 185. 186 and so forth to the end of the Treatise page 60. title of the page 60 c. page 61 62. 64. dele not and for not of the same essentiall frame c. read of the same essentiall frame c. page 484 line 22 Churches their persecution read Churches through their persecution for page 229 read 209. for page 259. read 269. for p. 484. r. p. 498. יהוה THE Way of the Church of Christ In NEW ENGLAND Measured by the Golden Reed of the SANCTUARY Or The way of Churches walking in brotherly equality and independence or coordination without subjection of one Church to another examined and measured by the Golden Reed of the Sanctuary Propositions concerning the supposed visibility and Constitution of independent Churches examined CHAP. 1. SECT 1. PROP. 1. THe Church which Christ in his Gospell hath instituted and to which he hath committed the keys of his Kingdome the power of binding and loosing the Tables and Scales of the Covenant the Officers and Consures of his Church the Administration of all his publick worship and Ordinances is coetus fidelium a company of Believers meeting in one place every Lords day for the administration of the holy ordinances of God to publick edification 1 Cor. 14. 23. 1 Because it was a company whereof Peter confessing and believing was one and built on a rock Mat. 16. 18. a Such as unto whom any offended brother might complaine Mat. 18. 17. 3 Such as is to cast out the incestuous Corinthian 1 Cor. 5. Which cannot agree to any diocesian provinciall or Nationall assemblie Ans. From these we question Quest. 1. If a company of believers and saints builded by faith upon the rock Christ and united in a Church-Covenant be the only instituted visible Church of the New Testament to the which Christ hath given the keys Let these considerations be weighed 1. Dist. The matter of an instituted visible Church is one thing and the instituted visible Church is another as there be ods betwixt stones and timber and an house made of stones and timber 2 Dist. It is one thing to govern the actions of the Church and another thing to governe the Church the Moderator of any Synod doth govern the actions of the Synod but he is not for that a Governour Ruler and Pastor of the Synod Or ordering actions and governing men are diverse things 3. Dist. A thing hath first its constituted and accomplished being in matter forme efficient and finall causes before it can performe these operations and actions that flow from that being so constituted a Church must be a Church before any
not fall The sentence is either given out a jure vel ab homine by the Law or the persons Secondly it is either just or unjust Thirdly and that three wayes Exanimo good or ill zeal secondly Ex causa a just or unjust cause thirdly Ex ordine when order of Law is kept An unjust sentence is either valid or null That which is invalid is either invalid through defect of the good minde of the excommunicators and this is not essentiall to the excommuncations validitie That which is invalid this way onely ligat it bindeth in foâ—o exteriore But that which is uâ—just through want of a just cause it onely bindeth from externall communion but because Gods Ordinances are to be measured from their own nature and the generall intention of the Catholike Church and not from abuses and particular intentions of such excommunicators therefore they doe not exclude from the generall Church-desires The fourth Councell of Carthage as also Gerson saith an unjust sentence neminem gravare debet should affright no man I see not a warrant for division of excommunication into penall and not penall excommunication The ancients made some excommunication not penall as the fifth Councell of Carthage and Concilium Arelatense Turraconense Concilium Agathense As if one should culpably absent himselfe from a Synod erat privatus Episcoporum communione He was for a space excommunicated from the communion of other Bishops The Canonists infer that this excommunication was no Church-censure and M. Antonius of Spalato defendeth them in this But since Christ for scandals appointed onely publike rebuking or secondly confessing or thirdly excommunication from the Church not onely of Church guides but of professing beleevers we see not how any are to be excommunicated from the fellowship of the Clergy or Church-guides onely For Christ ordained no such excommunication and therefore wee are to repute this a popish device Zosimus saith Zancbius Celestinus Hormisda and Pelagius 2. did threaten to excommunicate Iohn of Constantinople from the communion of the Apostolike seat and of all Bishops Spalato his argument for this sort of excommunication is 2 Thessalonians 3. 15. which commandeth all Thessalonians to forbeare any fellowship with such as obeyeth not the Apostles doctrine and doth not infinuate any excommunication from the society of Church-guides onely Nay such an excommunication is not in Gods Word Cajetan calleth it excommunicatio claustralis whereby some were interdicted the company of some other Church-orders It is true that in the ancient Church the excommunicated person was debarred from comming to the Church to heare divine Service And Sylvester appointeth three degrees of excommunication first Debarring of the contumacious from entring into the Church secondly A suspending of them from communion with the Church thirdly An anathema or imprecation by cursing them So the fifth Synod under Symmachus appointed first that the contumacious should be deprived of the Communion and if he should not repent it was ordained â—â— anathemate feriatur that he should be cursed So say diverse of the Schoolmen and Casuists as Soto Paludanus Cajetanus Sylvester Navarrus that it is not lawfull to heart service or to be present at a Masse with an excommunicated person But in the fourth Councell of Carthage as Papists acknowledge no excommunicated person is debarred from hearing the Word But it is to bee observed carefully that for the same reasons Papists think the excommunicated persons should heare Sermons and the Word preached that our brethren say Because preaching is an act of jurisdiction and authority but not an act of order and therefore preaching is not an act of Church-communion but common to any who have not received orders and may be performed as the reading of the VVord by Deacons and those who have Priest-hood or power to administrate the Sacraments And Innocentius the third saith Preaching is proper to Priests who have received orders by no divine Law Indeed Leo the first made a Law of it for which cause Suarez saith That Christ in these words Iohn 21. Feed mâ—sheep and Matth. 28. Preach the Gospel gave power of jurisdiction but not of order onely It is given commonly saith he to the Clergy to preach and to Deacons because decentius it is more fiâ—ly and decently performed by them then by Laicks Though it be true that two Cardinals Toletus and Cajetanus be against Suarez in this and say that Iohn 21. Peter is made the head and universall Pastor over sheep and lambs to feed and governe them And Navarrus saith Preaching soli sacerdotio institutione divina adjuncta est is by divine institution proper to the Priesthood Yet this excluding of them from comming into the Church was from comming in to the holy place only where the Lords Supper was celebrated and they stood at the Church doore where they might heare the VVord and therefore were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hearers and murmurers as Basâ—lius saith and Field Excommunication doth not wholly saith he cut off men from the visible Church and his reason is good because they may and often doeretaine first The profession of pure truth secondly The character of Baptisme thirdly They professe obedience to their Pastors fourthly They will not joyne to any other communion And therefore to say with our Author we dare not to wit That though the seed of faith may remaine in the excommunicated person yet to the society of the faithfull joyned in a particular visible Church they are not knit but wholly cut off from their communion Also he is delivered unto Satan and therefore wholly cut off from the communion of the Church and so from the seals he and his seed as heathen and heathens seed are We condemne Novatians because as Cyprian saith they denied mercy to the repenting excommunicated person and because as Socrates said of them God onely can forgive sins And we condemne the Donatists who would not as Augustine saith receive into the Churches commmunion againe such as had delivered to persecuters the Bible and other holy things So we are to condemne these who are more rigorous toward such as are excommunicated then Christ is for Christ keepeth them as sick children within his visible Church and useth Satan as the Physitians servant who boyleth Herbs and dresseth Drugs for them while he by Gods permission tormenteâ—hthes spirit with the conscience of sinne As when a child is sick saith worthy Cartwright the Father calleth a Colledge of physicians to consult about medicine to be given to the child So iâ— the contumacious person under the medicine of excommunication administred by the Church-presbytery Now this wee cannot say of heathen and publicans And therefore Augustine sayth excellently excommunicated persons non esse Ethnicos sed tanquam ethnicos are not heathen but estemed as
classicall under one externall and visible government even as the Elders of an independent Church are not Elders of their single Congregation being separated from their Court and extra collâ—gium Presbyteriale in the notion of the relation of a Church-Jurisdiction for they are Elders by reason of Church Jurisdiction only in their Court 3. Classicall Elders in the Court have power of Jurisdiction in relation to this presbyteriall or classiciall Church but they have not properly an ordinary power of order to preach to them all and every one and to administrate the Sacraments to them The Elders of a particular Congregation have power of order and power of Jurisdiction without the Court but they have not power of Church jurisdiction but in the Court for there is a difference betwixt a power of jurisdiction which Elders have as Watchmen and a power of Church-Jurisdiction which Elders have not but in foro Ecclesiae in the Court of Church-Jurisdiction So the great Sanedrim beare rule over all the Tribes of Israel But this Judge of the Tribe of Dan a member of the Sanedrim is not a Judge of the Tribe of Benjamin or a Judge to a thousand of that Tribe as the Captaine of that thousand 2. I distinguish the proposition if the Elders of the Presbytery be Elders of the Presbyteriall Church then are they Elders in relation to the many Congregations in that Church if they bee Elders in these common affaires which concerne government in generall then are they Elders in feeding by the word of knowledge and in governing in all the particulars which concerne the government of each Congregation That I deny for their oversight in governing in things belonging to all the consociated Churches doth not make them Elders of all those particular Congregations 3. Deacons in some cases are also Deacons in relation to all the particular Churches in some reserved cases if all the Deacons of Macedonia Corinth and other Churches should meete in one and take course for supplying the distressed Saines at Jerusalem what inconvenient were in this Ob. 2. If Presbyteriall Elders be Elders to mary Congregations in a generall Relation what sort of Elders are they are they Elders ruling or are they Elders teaching it is unpossible that they can be Elders teaching to so many Congregations for teaching is a personall and incommunicable act that mâ—n cannot commit to any others they must performe it in their owne persons aâ—â— cannot commit it to others if they be Ruling Elders onely and not teaching Elders this is against the Scripture for the exten of teaching and the extent of ruling are commexsurable in the Word and of alike extersion Acts 20. 28. These same whoe are to feede the flâ—ck at Ephâ—sue are to governe and rulâ— and they are to feede the whole flâ—ckâ— not a part of it so the Text sayth Take heede to the whole flâ—cke then they are not to governe all in a presbytery and to feede with teaching the Word one particular Congregation onely so 1 Peâ— 5. 2. feed the flock of God which is amongst you not with knowledge onely but be addeth their duty of governing Taking the oversight thereof not by constraint but willingly c. So Hâ—b 13. 7. Remember them that have the rule over you who have spoken unto you the Word of God Ergo these same who have the rule over the flock and governe du also speake the Word of the Lord and teach v. 17. obey them that have the rule over you and submit to them for they watch for your soules as these who must give accompt Ergo these same who governe doe also as Pastors watch for the flock as those that are to give an accompt but the governing classicall Presbytery doe rule but it is unpossible that they can give an accompt for all the Congregations of a classicall Presbytery for they cannot watch over them all except every one of these must have many Eyes Nor can they be both ruling and teaching Officers for then they should have two Offices if one man be both a Physitian and a Chyrurgion to two severall companies he must have two Offices in relation to two charges which he hath to those two companies if he practise physick to the one company and chyrurgery to the other this is against the order that Paul Col. 2. rejoyced to behold Therefore the classicall Elders cannot be Rulers having the oversight of the whole câ—â—ssicall Church and yet every one of them must be a 〈◊〉 and teaching pastor only to the single Congregation over which 〈◊〉 Answ. As grand-Fathers and fathers doe beare a relation to these same Children divers wayes both are fathers and may tutor and provide for the children but both are not begetting â—athers so also doe the classicall Elders and the Elders of particular Congregations beare divers relations to the flocks the question then is what sort of Elders are the Presbyteriall Elders to the Presbyteriall Church I distinguish Church I distinguish Elders They are Elders classicall only to the classicall Church collectively taken and they have an authoritative care over this Church But they are proper Elders to the classicall Church taken distributively that is this man is an Elder to this part or member of the Presbytery to wit to this Congregation And another man to this Congregation as the Elders in the Court and Aslembly at Jerusalem Acts 15. they are Elders in relation to the whole Churches of Antioch Syria and Silicia and the Gentiles collectively taken in those dogmaticall poynts with the confession of our Brethren and these same Elders were in speciall manner Elders to the Congregations of Antioch Syria and Silicia and other Churches taken distributively so also the Elders of many consociated and Neighbouring Churches are speciall watchmen over their own flâ—cks by teaching and ruling according to our Brethrens grounds and also they have a Brotherly care over all the consociated Church to Councell â—dmonrth Comfort seeing every man is his Brothers keeper by a Divine Law and the care is like as is it were authoritative onely by our Brethrens way it wanteth the relation of authority vet doth it not follow that Elders this way have two Offices but onely that they performe two acts of one and the same Office also a Pastor of an independent flocke who writcth â— Bâ—â—ke for the instruction of Sister-Churches as hee preacheâ—â— those same Sermons that are in the printed Bâ—oke to his owne people and flocke hath two Relations one to his owne flocke whom hee preacheth unto as a Pastor another as an instructer of other Churches by his writings yet for that hee hath not two Offices as one who is a ' Physitian and a Chyrurgion to two sundry companies if any say hee writteth not Bookes as a Pastor by vertue of his Office but as a gifted man by power of fraternity let mee deny the truth of the distinction for this is to begge what is in question For to teach the Churches by writing should
Elders of Jerusalem for 〈◊〉 can Elders of one sister Church impose Lawes burdens â—28 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decrees Ch. 16. 4. upon sister Churches or hâ—w can they pen canonicall Scripture joyntly with the Apostles Some of our brethren say so much of those degrees that they obliged formally the Churches as Scriptures doe oblige the learned Junius saith well that the Apostles did nothing as Apostles where there was an ordinarie and established Elderyâ—â— in the Church therefore those Elders behoved to bee the 〈◊〉 of Antioch for Act. 17. v. 2. 〈…〉 Commissioners were 〈◊〉 from Antioch then Paul and 〈…〉 I thinke also the Churches of Cyria and 〈◊〉 〈…〉 there as well as Antioch and de jure 〈…〉 should have beene there The case was theirs every way the same with the Church of Antioch and their soules subverted v. 24. 6. Those who are named v. 22. Apostles Elders and the whole Church are called v. 25. Apostles and Elders and Brethren and elsewhere alwayes Apostles and Elders Elders including brethren or the whole Church v. 22. of some chosen men and brethren as Act. 13. 2. v. 6. Ch. 16. 4. Act. 21. 18. 25. 2. I desire to try what truth is here that this Synod but power and authoritie in points dogmaticall but no Church-power saith the seventh proposition of the reverend and godly Brethren of New England and no power of jurisdiction but the Church of Antioch had Church-power and power of jurisdiction to determine this cause and censure the contraveeners as our Brethren say But I assume this Synod tooke this Church-power off their hand and with the joynt power of their owne Commissioners sent from Antioch v. 2. v. 22. 23. determined both cause and controversie and it never returned to any Church-Court at Antioch as is cleare v. 25 26 27 28. Ergo this Synod had a Church-power 2. A power and authoritie dogmaticall to determine in matters of doctrine is a Church-power proper to a Church as is granted by our brethren and as wee prove from Act. 20. 29. This is a part of the over-sight committed to the Eldership of Ephesus to take heed to men rising amongst themselves speaking perverse things that is teaching false doctrine and if they watch over them as members of their Church for they were v. 30. men of their owne they were to censure them 2. If Pergamus bee rebuked Reâ—el 2. 14. 15. and threatned with the removing of their Candlesticke because they had amongst them those who held the doctrine of Balaam and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans hated by Christ himselfe and did not use the power of jurisdiction against them then that Church which hath power dogmaticall to judge of doctrine hath power also of jurisdiction to censure those who hold the false doctrine of Balaam and v. 20. Christ saith to Thyatira Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because thou suffâ—â—â— that woman Jesabel which calleth herselfe a Prophetesse to teach and to seduâ—e my servants to commit fornication and to eate things sacrifâ—â—d to Idols Hence I argue what Church hath power to try the false doctrin of Jesabel and is blamed for not censuring her but permitteth her to teach and to seduce the servants of God hath also power of jurisdiction against her false doctrine this poposition I take to bee evident in those two Churches of Pergamus and Thyatira I assume but this Synod Act. 15. hath authoritie and power to condemne the false doctrine taught by subverters of soules teaching a necessitie of circumcision in the Churches of Syria Cilicia Antioch c. Act. 15. vers 23 24. Therefore this Synod hath power of jurisdiction 3. Every societie which hath power to lay on burdens as here this Synod hath v. 28. and to send decrees to be observed by the Churches as Act. 16. 4. and to send and conclude that they observe no such thing and that they observe such and such things Act. 21. 25. by the power of the holy Ghost conveened in an Assembly 25. and judging according to Gods Word as â— 7 8 9 10 11 12 c. these have power of juridiction to censure the contraveners but this Synod is such a societie Ergo it hath this power The Proposition is Matth. 18. 18. If hee refuse to heare the Church let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican nothing can bee answered here but because this Synod commandeth onely in a brotherly way but by no Church-power therefore they have no power of jurisdiction But with reverence of these learned men this is petitio principii to begge what is in question for the words are cleare a brotherly counsell and advise is no command no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no decree which wee must observe and by the observing whereof the Churches are established in the faith as is said of these decrees Act. 16. 4 5. To give a brotherly counsell such as Abigail gave to David and a little maide gave to Namaan is not a burden laid on by the commander but it is said of this decree v. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seemed good to the holy Ghost to lay no other burden on you Also we do not say that power of jurisdiction is in provinciall or nationall Synods as in the Churches who have power to excommunicate for 1. this power of jurisdiction in Synods is cumulative not privative 2. It is in the Synod quoad actus imperatos potius quam act us elicitos according to commanded rather then to elicit acts for the Synod by an ecclesiasticall power added to that intrinsecall power of jurisdiction in Churches doth command the Churches to use their power of jurisdiction rather then use it actually her selfe Let me also make use of two propositions agreed upon in a Synod at New England Their 3. proposition The fraternitie have an authoritative concurrence with the Preshyteny in judiciall Acts. 4. Proposition The fraternitie in an Organicall body actu subordinate id est per modum obedientiae in subordination by way of obedience to the Presbytery in such judiciall Acts 2 Cor. 10. 6. Now if here the whole Church of Jerusalem as they say from v. 22. was present and joyned their authoritative concurrence to these decrees there was here in this Synod an Organicall body of eyes eares and other members that is of Apostles Teachers Elders and people and so a formed Church by our brethrens doctrine â—â—gs Paul and Barnabas v. 2. being sent to this Synod by the Church of Antioch to complaine were sent to tell the formed and organicall Churches as it is Matth. 18 19 which is a good argument if not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristotle saith yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. If the Brethren here concurre as giving obedience to the Elders and the Apostles doe here determine as Apostles and Elders then the brothren in this Organicall body doe concurre to the forming of these decrees by way of obedience to the
Elders â— Presbyters and by the same reason the Elders concurre by way of obedience to the Apostles for as the Elders as Elders and above the fraternitie so the Apostles as Apostles are above the Elders but then I much wonder how the acts are called the decrees of the Apostles and Elders joyntly Act. 16. 4. and how the Elders of Ierusalem doe ascribe those decrees to themselves Act. 21. 25. and how all the assembly speake as assisted by the holy Ghost Act. 15. 28. Shall wee distinguish where the Scripture doth not onely not distinguish but doth clearly hold forth qualitie and an identitie But some object that the holy Ghost v. 28. is the immediatly instiring Apostolick Spiritâ— and so the Apostles must here concurre in giving out those decrees as Apostles not as ordinary Elders 1. Is Peter and Paul alledge Scripture and testimonies of Gods Spirit in this Syned as Elders not as Apostles then they reason in the Synod as falliâ—â— men and men who may erre but that is impossible for if they 〈◊〉 Scripture as men who may erre the Scripture which they alâ—â—dge 〈◊〉 be fallible Answ. Though the Apostles here reason as Elders not as Apâ—stâ—â—s I see no inconvenience to say they were men who might â—re though as led with the holy Ghost they could not erre in this Syned following the conduct of the holy Ghost as is said â— 28. though the holy Ghost there bee onely the ordinary holy Ghost given to all the Pastors of Christ assembled in Gods name and the authoritie of Iesus Christ yet in this Act and as led by this Spirit they were not fallible neither men who could erre for I see not how ordinary beleevers as led in such and such Acts by the holy Ghost and under that reduplication can erre for they erre as men in whom there is flesh and a body of corruption and therefore though both Apostles and Elders modaliter might erre as Logick saith Apostaâ—â—s err are est possible yet de facto in this they could not erre being led by the holy Ghost v. 28. and the necessitie of their not erring is not absolute but necessary by consequent because the Spirit of God led them as v. 28. But the reason is must weake if they might erre Ergo the Scripture they alledge might bee fallible for though hereticks alledge Scripture and abuse it and make it to bee no Scripture but their owne fancie while as they alledge it to establish blasphemous conclusions yet doth it no way follow that Scripture can bee fallible or obnoxious to error but onely that abused and aâ—â— applved Scripture is not Scripture Object 2. If ever the Apostles were led by an infallible spirit 〈◊〉 to bee in a matter like this which so much concerned the 〈◊〉 and consciences of all the Christian Churches amongst the Gen 〈◊〉 Eâ—go in this Synod they could not bee led by a fallible spirit but â—â— an infallible and so by an Apostolick Spirit Answ. I conceive the spirit which led both Apostles and Elders in this Synod was an infallible Spirit but Ergo an immediatly inspiring and Apostolick Spirit it followeth not yea the holy Ghost of which Luke doth speake v. 28. as the president and leader of this first mould of all Synods and so the most perfect Synod is never fallible no not in the meanest beleever and it were blasphemy to say the holy Ghost in any can bee obnoxious to errour and I thinke de facto neither Apostles nor Elders could erre in this Synod because de factâ— they followed the conduct of the holy Ghost without any byas in judgement but it followeth not 1. that the men could not erre because the holy Ghost leading the men could not erre as wee answer Papists who produce this same argument to prove that generall councells and so the Church must be infallible 2. It followeth not Ergo this holy Ghost was that immediatly inspiring and Apostolick Spirit leading both Apostles and Elders which is the question now in hand Object 3. This is a patterne of all lawfull Synods then may all lawfull Synods say It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us if therefore the men might erre the leader to wit the holy Ghost might erre which is absurd Answ. It followeth onely that all lawfull Synods should so proceed as they may say It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us and there is a wide difference betwixt Law and Fact all are lawfull Synods conveened in the name and authoritie of Christ and so by warrant of the holy Ghost speaking in his Word but it followeth not as Papists inferre and this argument proveth that therefore all which de facto those lawfully assembled Synods doe and conclude that they are the doings and conclusions of the holy Ghost and that in them all they may say It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us 2. The consequence is false and blasphemous that if all lawfully conveened Synods may not say It seemed good to the holy Ghost and us that therefore the holy Ghost is fallible and may erre but onely that men in the Synod following their owne Ghost and spirit can say no more but it seemed good to our Ghost and spirit and cannot say it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us for an ordinary Pastor lawfully called and preaching sound doctrine in the power and assistance of Gods spirit doth speake in that act from the holy Ghost and yet because in other acts wherein with Nathan and Samuel hee may speake with his owne spirit see with his owne eyes and light it followeth not that he is infallible or that the holy Ghost is infallible Object 4 Is the Apostles did not conclude in this Synod what they 〈…〉 an Ap sâ—a â—â—k spirit it shall follow that the holy Ghost 〈…〉 15. 28. is not that same holy Ghost of which Peter 〈◊〉 2 Pet. 1. 21. But holy men of God spake as they were moved 〈◊〉 Ghost and if so that holy Ghost which spake in the Pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not also speake in the Apostles Answ. I see no necessitie of two holy Ghosts 1 Cor. 12. 4. Now 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—ersities of gifts but the same Spirit there be divers acts of the same holy Ghost and I willingly contend that the Synodicall acts of Apostles and Elders in this Synod though comming from the holy Ghost assisting them as Elders in an ordinary Synod v. 28. are different from the acts of that same holy Ghost as immediatly inspiring the Prophets and Apostles in prophecying and penning canonick Scripture and yet there bee not two holy Ghosts for Paul did not beleeve in Christ by that same spirit which immediatly inspired him and the rest of the Apostles and Prophets to write canonick Scripture â— meane it is not the same operation of the Spirit because Paul by the holy Ghost given to all the faithfull as Christians and not given to them as canonicall writers or as Apostles or immediatly inspired
Prophets doth beleeve in Christ love Christ contend for the prise of the high calling of God as is cleare Rom. â— 37 38 39. 1 Cor. 2. 12. 16. Phil. 3. 13. 14. 1 Cor. 9. 25. Yea Paul beleeveth not in Christ as an Apostle but as a Christian and yet hee beleeveth by the grace of the holy Ghost but â—â— followeth not that the same spirit which immediatly inspired the Prophets doth not immediatly inspire Paul as an Apostle and all the rest of the Apostles Object 5. These decrees Act. 16. 4. are called the decrees of the Apostles and Elders but if the Apostles in giving out these decrees gave 〈◊〉 as ordinary Elders not as Apostles then the sense of the words Act. 16. 4. should bee that they were the decrees of the Elders and of the Elders which is absued Answ. It followeth onely that they are the decrees of the Apostles who in that give them out as Elders and as a part of the ordinary established Elders of Jerusalem Whence if Christ promise the holy Spirit to lead his Apostles in all truth hee promiseth also the holy Spirit to all their successors Pastors Teachers and Elders not onely conveened in a Congregationall-Church but also in a Synod as hee maketh good his promise here Act. 15. 28. and whereas the holy Ghost commandeth in a Synod of Apostles and Elders who are lawfully conveened by our brethrens confession and speaketh authoritatively Gods Word by the holy Ghost Act. 15. 28. they cannot speake it as a counsell and brotherly advise onely for that a brother may doe to another a woman to a woman Abigail to David a maide to Naaman wee desire a warrant from Gods Word where an instituted societie of Pastors and Elders conveened from sundry Churches and in that Court formally consociated and decreeing by the holy Ghost as Act. 15. 28. against such and such heresies shall bee no other then a counsell and advise and no Church-commandement nor binding decree backed with this power Hee that despiseth you speaking by the holy Ghost the Word of God despiseth mee and whether doctrines or canons concerning doctrine comming from a lawfull Court conveened in Christs name have no ecclesiasticall power of spirituall jurisdiction to get obedience to their lawfull decrees for if every one of the suffrages of Elders bee but a private counsell having onely authoritie objective from the intrinsecall lawfulnesse of the thing and no authoritie officiall from the Pastors because Pastors then the whole conclusion of the Synod shall amount to no higher rate and summe then to a meere advise and counsell If it bee said that when they are all united in a Synod and speaking as assembled Act. 15. 25. and speaking thus Assembled by the holy Ghost v. 28. the authoritie is more then a counsell yet not a power of Church-jurisdiction Then 1. give us a warrant in Gods Word for this distinction 2. Wee aske whether this authoritie being contemned the persons or Churches contemnibg it bee under any Church-censure or not if they bee under a Church-censure what is this but that the Synod hath power of censure and so power of jurisdiction if you say non-communion is a sufficient censure But I pray you spare mee to examine this 1. If the sentence of non-Communion bee a sentence of 〈◊〉 it must proceed from a judicature that hath a 〈◊〉 of jurisdiction but give mee leave to say as all Church 〈◊〉 have and must have warrant in Gods Word so must 〈◊〉 such as non-communion for the ordinary Church punishments such as publike rebuâ—ing have warrant in the Word as in 1 Tim. 5. 20. and excommunication 1 Cor. 5. 4. 〈◊〉 1â— and the great Anathema Maranatha 1 Cor. 16. 22. and forbearing to eate and drinke with scandalous persons 1 Cor. 5. 10 11. withdrawing from his company 2 Thâ—s 3. 14. and I pray you where hath the Word taught us of such a bastard 〈◊〉 ensure or if you will not allow it that name a censure indicted by the Church or Churches as is non-communion May our brethren without Christs warrant shape any punishment equivalent to excommunication without Gods Word 〈◊〉 they may as well without the Word mould us such a censure as excommunication if they say separation warrenth this censure of non-communion But 2. By what Law of God can an equall give out a sentence of non-communion a 〈◊〉 an equall an equall cannot as an equall punish when a Christian denieth followship to another because hee is excommunicated hee doth not punish as an equall for the punisher in this case denying fellowship to the excommunicated doth 〈◊〉 an equall but as having authoritie from the Church who hath given this commandement in the very sentence of communication 1 Cor. 5. 4. compared with v. 10 11. Separation under a great controversie and denyed in many cases â—â— the way of those who are more rigid therein even by our 〈◊〉 2. Christ Matth. 18. 15 16. will not have any brother who 〈◊〉 but private authoritie and no Church-authoritie over a broâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 non habet potestatem to presently renounce 〈◊〉 give up all communion with his brother though hee bee 〈◊〉 before two or three witnesses and inflict on him the sentence of non-communion while hee first tell the Church and non-communion is inflicted on no man as if hee were a heathen 〈◊〉 to speak no thing of delivering to Satan while hee â—â— conveened and judicially sentenced before the Church 〈◊〉 our brethrens sentence of non-communion is in inflicted by an equall Church upon a â—â—ster Church in a meere pâ—â—â—â— way and by no Church-proces 4. Non-communion if it bee warranted by the law of â—â—ture as communion of equalls is yet should wee not bee refused of the like favour when wee plead that the Law of nature pleadeth for combination and communion of joynt authorities of sâ—sâ—er-Churches in one presbytery for if non-communion of Churches bee of the law of nature so must communion of Churches and authoritative communion and authoritative and judiciall non-communion by natures law must be as warrantable upon the same grounds They 6. Object â— the Apostles were in this Synod as ordinary Elders thâ—n The Synod might have censured and in case of obsâ—inacie excommunicated the Apostles which were admirable Answ. For reâ—ukeing of Apostles wee have against Papists a memorable warrant in Paul Gal. 2. withstanding Peter to â—ce face and Peter his giving an account Act. 11 1 2 3. to the Church of Jerusalem of his going in to the Gentiles which Parker acknowledgeth against Papists and Prelats to bee a note of Peters subjection to the Church Papists say it was Peters humilitie other Papists say Peter gave but such a brotherly account to the Church such as one brother is oblieged to give to another also all our Divines and those Papists who contend that the Pope is inferiour to universall councels doc with good warrant alledge that by Matth. 18. Peter is subjected to the Church-censures if hee sinn against
from any who walketh inordinately 2. Thes. 3. 14. 15. 3 It is not well said that Christ giveth no Lawes for sinnes that seldome fall out What say you of Anathema Maranatha 1 Cor. 16. 22. to bee used against an Apostate from the faith and against such as fall into the sinne against the holy Ghost I thinke visible professors capable both of the â—nne and the censure yet I thinke it falleth seldome out it fell seldome but that an Apostle was to bee rebuked haâ— Paul then no law to rebuke Peter Gal. 2. Object 2. A Synod or presbytery may prâ—nounce the dâ—â—dfull sentence of non-communion against persons and Churches 〈…〉 Answ. But I aske where is the power and institution from Christ that one private man as hee may counsell his brother so hee may by our brethrens grounds pronounce this sentence Object 3. One private man may not doe it to a whole Church â—â— a classicall Presbytery and a Synod hath more authoritie over him then hee hath over them Answ. One private man may rebuke another yea bee may plead with his mother the whole Church that hee liveth in for her whoredomes Hos. 2. 2. But if hee justly plead and his mother will not heare may hee not separate Our brethren of New England I thinke shall bee his warrant to separate for their sixth Synodicall proposition saith the fraternitie and people are to separate from the Eldership after they refuse wholesome counsell Now what Scripture warranteth twenty to withdraw and separate shall also warrant ten and five and one for no reason that if twentie bee carelesse of their salvation in the dutie of separation and shall not separate that one man shall not separate because a multitude doth evill I am not to doe evill with them Object 4. But a Synod or a classicall presbytery hath more 〈◊〉 and authoritie then one private man or one single Congregation 1. Because they are a company of Elders to whom as to the Priests of the Lord whose lips should preserve knowledge the â—â—yes of knowledge and consequently a power and Synodicall authoritie is given though they have no power of jurisdiction 2. Because as a private mans power is inferiour to a Pastors so is the power of classicall and Synodioall meeting of Elders above a man or a single congregation and a Synod in dogmaticall power ariseth so higher then these â—â— divine institution doth fall upon it Answ. The power of order and the key of knowledge doth elevate a Pastor whose lippes doth preserve knowledge above a private Christian yea as I conceive above a multitude of beleevers but I would know if a Synods dogmaticall power bee above the power of single congregations I thinke it is not by our brethrens â—enents for they say expresly that every particular 〈…〉 jus to decide dogmaticall points and this â—ight the Church of Antioch had Act. 15. and laboured to end that 〈…〉 in her selfe which sheweth that they had right and â— we but they had not habilitie and therefore in that case they 〈…〉 light and advise from other Churches and they say The câ—niociation of Churches into classes and Synods wee 〈◊〉 to bee lawfull and in some cases necessary as namely in things 〈…〉 not peculiar to one Church but common to all And likewise when a Church is not able to end any matter that concernes onely themselves theâ— they are to seek advise counsell from neighbour Churches hence the power of Synods is only by way of counsel and advise a Pastors advise is but an advise he giveth not his advise virtute 〈◊〉 as he is a Pastor for then his advise should bee pastorall and authâ—â—itative and proceeding from the power of order though not from the power of jurisdiction hee onely giveth his advise as a gifted and inlightned man and so to my poore knowledge two hundreth five hundreth holy and learned Pastors determining in a Synod any dogmaticall point they sit all there not as in a court not as Pastors for then their Decrees should have pastorall authoritie and some power formally ministeriall to determine yea and to sway in a ministeriall way by power of the keyes of knowledge all the inferiour Churches whom the decree concerneth even as the Eldership of Pergâ—mus which to our brethren is a congregationall Church doth decree by the dogmaticall power of the keyes of knowledge that the doctrine of Balaam is a false doctrine therefore they sit there as gifted Christians and so have no Church-power more then a private brother or sister of the Congregation hath toward or over another for though a multitude of counselling and advising friends be safer and more effectuall to give light then a counselling friend yet are they but a multitude of counselling friends and the result of all counselling and advising men doth never rise higher then a counsell and advise and can never amount to the nature of a command as twenty schâ—â—â—-fellowes suppose as â—udent and wise as the twentie masters of an Universitie if these twentie schoole-fellowes give their advise and counsell 〈◊〉 a weightie businesse that concerneth the practise and obedience of all the students the result of their counsell and advise can never bee more then an advise and cannot amount to the same determination of the twentie masters of the Universitie the result of whose determination is a soveraigne commandement and an authoritative and judiciall decree and statute to all the whole Universitie 2. Whereas these Godly brethren say the power of Synods in things which belong to particular Churches is but a counsell and advise they should have told their mind whether or no the Synod hath more then advise and counsell in things that are not peculiar to one Church but common to all the Churches in that bounds for it would seeme that a Synod is a colledge of commanders in dogmaticall points that doe equally concerne all Churches this should have beenespoken to though in those things which are peculiar to each particular Church they bee but a colledge of friendly advisers and counsellers 2. If a Synod bee but a societie of counsellers they have no more any authoritative power to pronounce the sentence of non-communion against any single Congregation or private man then a private man or a single Congregation hath authoritative power to pronounce that sentence against them but 3. You make the Synodicall power so above the power of private Christians in counselling as that this Synodicall power is of divine institution as you say but let me aske what to doe to counsell and advise onely then that power of counselling in Abigail to David in one brother or sister to another brother and sister is of divine institution warranted by the Law of nature Levit. 19. 18. by the Law of charitie by the communion of Saints Col. 3. 15. 1 Thes. 5. 14. Heb. 3. 13. Heb. 10. 24. Mal. 3. 16. Zach. 8. 21 22 23. for there is a divine institution for one brother to counsell
principally seated in the Presbytery in regard of the latter Synods are the first subject of the occasionall Church-power in things which â—e in common belong to many Presbyteries or to a nationall Church But to returne if the Synodicall power bee different in essence and nature and not gradually onely from the counsell and advise of Christians then first it is not a determination that bindeth by way of counsell and brotherly advise onely but under some higher consideration which is as like a Church-relation of Church-power as any thing can bee seeing here bee Pastors acting as Pastors 2. formally gathered in a councell 3. speaking Gods Word 4. by the holy Ghost But this shall bee against the Church-government of New England 2. If it bee essentially different from an advise and councell and warranted by divine institution why doe not our brethen give us Scripture for it for if they give us Act. 15. then can they not say that the Apostles in this Synod did determine and voyce as Apostles by an Apostolick and immediatly inspiring Spirit for the spirit Synodicall is a spirit imitable and a rule of pertually induring moralitie in all Synods and must leade us for an Apostolick spirit is not now in the world 3. As they require a positive divine institution for the frame of a Presbyteriall Church in power above a Congregation and will not bee satisfied with the light of nature which upon the supposall of a spirituall government instituted by Christ in a Congregation which is a part may clearely by the hand lead us to the inlarging of that same spirituall government in the whole that is to a number of consociated Churches which are all interessed as one common societie in a common government so they must make out for their Synod endued with dogmaticall power a positive divine institution 4. We desire a warrant from the Word why a colledge of Pastors determining by the Word of God as Pastors having power of order and acting in a colledge according to that power should not bee a formall and ordinary great Presbytery 5. How can they by our brethrens determination exercise such pastorall acts out of their owne Congregations towards those Churches to which they have no pastorall relation virtute potestatis ordinis 6. How can the wisedome of Christ who provideth that his servants bee not despised but that despisers in a Church way should bee censured 1 Tim. 1. 19 20. cloth his messengers in a Synod with a power dogmaticall and deny all power of iâ—â—â—diction to them upon the supposall that their determinations be rejected I feare there bee something under this that none are to bee censured or delivered to Satan for heterodox opinions except they erre in points fundamentall But farther it may bee made good that a power dogmaticall is not different in nature from a power of jurisdiction for we read not of any societie that hath power to meet to make Lawes and decrees which have not power also to backe their decrees with punishments if the Jewish Synedry might meet to declare judicially what was Gods Law in point of conscience and what not and to tie men to it they had power to conveene and make Lawes farre more may they punish contraveners of the Law for a nomothetick power in a societie which is the greater power and is in the fountaine must presuppose in the societie the lesse power which is to punish and the power of punishing is in the inferior judicature so a nomothetick power ministeriall cannot want a power of censuring It is true a single Pastor may ministerially give out commandements in the authoritie of Christ but hee cannot his alone censure or excommunicate the contraveners of those commandements but it followeth well in an assembly hee hath power to censure and excommunicate now here Pastors and Elders are in an assembly It is objected Pastors in a Synod have no jurisdiction as Pasters for what they doe as Pastors that they may doe there alone and on of a Synod but they doe not nor cannot determine and give out Canons there alone and they cannot there alone determine juridically therefore they doe not wholly and poorely as Pastors in relation to those Churches give out these decrees yet doe they not give out the decrees as privite men wholly but in some pastor all relation for Pastors as Pastors have something peculiar to them in all Churches whither they come to preach so as a speciall blessing followeth on their labours though they be not Pastors in relation to all the Churches they come to even as a Sermon on the Lords day is instamped with a more speciall blessing bâ—â—â—use of Gods institution imprinted on the day then a Sermon preached in another day Answ. This argument is much for us it is proper to acts of jurisdiction ecclesiasticall that they cannot bee exercised by one onely but must bee exercised by a societie now a Pastor as a Pastor his alone without any collaterally joyned with him exerciseth his pastorall acts of preaching and of administrating the Sacraments but those who give out those decrees cannot give them out Synodically but in a Synod and Court-wayes as forensicall decrees and so in a juridicall way and because Pastors whither so ever they come doe remaine Pastors 1. The Apostles are not in this Synod as Apostles Secondly nor yet as gifted Christians to give their counsell and advise nor thirdly as this answerer granteth meerely as Pastors then it must follow that fourthly they are here as such pastors conveened Synodically by divine institution and that this is the patterne of a Synod Object 2. But there is no censuring of persons for scandalls in this meeting because there is nothing here but a doctrinall declaration of the falsehood of their opinion who taught a necessitie of circumcision and that all is done by way of doctrine and by power of the Keyes of knowledge not of jurisdiction is cleare from the end of this meeting Act. 5. 2. Paul and Barnabas were sent from the Church of Antiocâ— unto Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning this question and v. 6. the Apostles and Elders came together to consider 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this matter consideration of questions being the end of the Synod is a thing belonging to doctrinal power meerely so Mr. Mather Answ. 1. It is false that there is no censuring of persons here for to say nothing that Peter accuseth those of the wrong side as personally present at the Synod either being summoned or comming thither by appeale v. 10. Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoake upon the necke of the Discip'es c. which reproofe comming from one man onely cannot be called a Synodicall reproofe It is more then evident that the publick Synodicall censure of rebuke is put upon those who held and urged the necessitie of circumcision and why not excommunication also in case of obstinacy for the Synodicall censure
of a publick Synodicall rebuke is onely gradually different not specifically from excommunication and both must proceed from one and the same power Now the Synodicall censure is evident in the Text v. 24. certaine went out from us so it is cleare they pretended they were in this point followers of the Apostles and Lorinus thinketh that some deemed them schismaticks 2. They have troubled you with words Lorinus citeth the Sy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vedalacachum they have terrified you as if your salvation were not sure except you keepe Moses his Law of ceremonies and the morall Law 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 destraying by false arguments your soules it is a word contrary to building up in sound knowledge as Aristotle taketh the word saying that you must bee circumcised and keepe the Law 4. They abused the name of the Apostles as having an Apostolick commandement and so a divine warrant for their false doctrine and therefore are they refuted as liars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence it is cleare they did labour to prove a necessitie of circumcision not onely from the old Testament and an expresse divine Law but also from the authoritie of the Apostles which was manifestly false out of which I argue thus If the Apostles doe not onely in a doctrinall way refute a false doctrine in this Synod but also in a Church-way and by a juridicall power rebuke and Synodically charge the authors as subâ—erters of soules and liars then they doe not onely use a meere doctrinall power in this Synod but also a juridicall power but the former is true Ergo so is the latter 2. Observe two things in these obtruders of circumcision First the error of their judgement It is more then apparent that they had a heterodox and erroneous opinion of God and his worship and the way of salvation as is cleare Act. 15. 1. And certaine men which came downe from Judea taught the brethren and said except yee bee circumcised after the manner of Moses yee cannot bee saved This doctrine is clearely refuted both by Peter v. 10. That yoake of the Law wee disclaime there is a way of salvation without that yoake v. 11. But wee beleeve that through the grace of the Lord Jesus wee shall bee saved as they and it is synodically refuted v. 24. wee gave no such commandement it is not the mind of us the Apostles of the Lord that you keepe Moses Law as you hope to bee saved there was for this error in their judgement required a doctrinall or dogmaticall power and this the Synod used 2. Besides this erroneous opinion in their judgement there was another fault and scandall that the Synod was to censure to wit their obtruding of their false way upon the soules and consciences of the Churches as vers 1 They taught the brethren this false doctrine 2. That they wilfully and obstinately did hold this opinion and raised a Schisme in the Courch v. 2. wherefore Paul and Barnabas had no small 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissention the word signifieth sedition which was raised by those who held that erroneous opinion and great disputation with them 3. They laid a yoake upon the brethren v. 10. and v. 7. They made great disputation against the Apostles and v. 24. They troubled the brethren and perverted their soules This was not simply an heterodox opinion which is the materiall part of a heresie but had something of the formall part of an heresie to wit some degrees of pertinacie of brutish and blind zeale even to the troubling and perverting of the soules of the Churches while as they would make disciples to themselves and lead away soules from the simplicitie of the Gospell now the Synod doth not helpe this latter simply in a Synodicall way by a dogmaticall and doctrinall power but by an authoritie Synodicall and therefore they authoritatively rebuke them as subverters of soules and whereas these teachers laid on an unjust yoake to keepe Moses his Law upon the Churches v. 10. the Synod by their ecclesiasticall and juridicall authoritie doth free the Churches of that yoake and they say in their decree v. 28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us not to lay the yoake of Moses his Law on you as those who trouble you have done to lay upon you no greater burden then these necessary things c. now if there had beene nothing to doe but to resolve the question if this had beene the totall and adequat end of the Synod in a meere doctrinall way to resolve the question Whether must wee bee circumcised and keepe the Law morall and ceremoniall of Moses upon necessitie of salvation as the argument of our brethren contendeth Peter v. 10. 11. made a cleare issue of the question We are saved by the grace of God both â—â—nes and Gentiles and it is to tempt God to lay the yoake of the Law of Moses upon the brethren the resolving of that question is the end of the Synod but not the adequat end for here that not onely the doctrinall power was to bee used but beside that 1. the schisme was to bee removed and the authoritie of the Synod to bee used against the wilfulnesse and obstinacie of those obtruders of circumcision in rebuking them as perverters of soules 2. For the scandall which might have been taken if the Gentiles should have eaten blood and things strangled and meats offered to idols and therefore the Apostles and Elders behoved as a conveened Synod to forbid a grievous scandall and a spirituall homicide against the Law of nature to wit that the Gentiles for feare of scandalizing weake beleevers amongst the Jewes should abstaine from the practise of some things at this time meerely indifferent in their nature though not indifferent in their use such as were to eate things offered to idols things strangled and blood and whereas our brethren 3. Object If the Apostles did any thing more then might have been done by private Pastors out of a Synod it was meerely Apostolicall and the Elders did but assent to the Apostles Apostolicall determination and every one did here Apostles Elders and Brethren more suo Apostles as Apostles Elders and Brethren as Elders and Brethren after their manner as consenters to the Apostles but other wayes it is a begging of the question for to say the Apostles and Elders rebuked Synodically the obtruders of circumcision it s but said because one Pastor might have rebuked those obtruders for the specification of actions must not bee taken from their efficient causes but from their formall objects therefore this is no good consequence the Synod rebuked those obtruders Ergo the Synod rebuked them as a Synod and by a power of jurisdiction it followeth not for Paul Gal. 2. rebuked Peter Ergo Paul had a power of jurisdiction over Peter I thinke your selves will deny this consequence I Answer 1. These two answers are contradictory and sheweth that our brethren are not true to their owne
colledge of Apostles and Elders conveened and yet materially it is the same prohibition Object 4. The Acts of this Synod are finaliter acts of government because they are rules conducing for the governing of the Church but formaliter they are acts of dogmaticall power and not formally acts of jurisdiction for there is no rebuking of subverters of soules inordine to excommunication no penall power is exercised here sub poona under the paine of excommunication and therefore there an here no formall acts of government Answ. 1. The acts of Church-government finaliter that is government because to prescribe rules and directive Lawes for they are not properly Lawes which the Church prescribeth Christ is the onely Law-giver are formall acts of governing and one power doth not make Lawes for governing the Church and another power different in nature punish the contraveners And what power disposeth and ordereth the meanes doe also dispose and order the end Canons of the Church tending to the edification of the Church are meanes tending to the government of the Church and I appeale to the judgement of our reverend brethren if wee suppose that one single Congregation should doe all that this Synod doth if they would not call it a formall governing of that particular Congregation for example in the Church of Pergamus one ariseth and teacheth the doctrine of the Nicolaitans suppose that fornication is indifferent is the eating of blood and is no sinne the Angels of the Church of Pergamus preach against this doctrine in private they deale by force of arguments from Scripture that it is a wicked doctrine and destructive to holinesse as Paul and Barnab as disputeth Act. 15. 1. 2. with the obtruders of a necessitie of Circumcision yet they prevaile not now suppose this independent Church following the Apostle Pauls way thinke good to convene a Synod or a parishionall assembly to determine Synodically that this is a wicked doctrine and shall in their decree call the holders of this doctrine subverters of soules and forbid fornication in their Synod now supposing Pergamus to be a single Church in a remote Iland consociated with no neighbouring Churches who could in reason deny that this Synodicall power so inacting were a power formally governing the Church of Pergamus it is true some of our brethren say that it is even to us a received tenent that the power that disposeth of the meanes of governing doth not for that governe in respect that we teach that the classicall presbytery doth decree and in act and the Congregation doth execute these Decreed but I pray you doth this prove that the power ordering the meanes of governing is no formall act of governing yea the contrary is true because the Congregation executing the acts of the classicall presbytery as subordinat in that act to the classicall presbytery by their authority therfore while they give out these acts or Canons doe formally governe that Congregation executing their acts in this particular Mr. Mather and Mr. Thomson against Mr. Herle c. 1. p. 9. teach that there is a power of clearing truth dogmatically and that 〈◊〉 ‑ 〈◊〉 ultimately where the controversie is ended but they will have this ultimate power not in a Synod onely but also in a Congregation But 1. they seeme to make this dogmaticall power a Church-power and the exercise thereof formally an act of Church-government and so it must bee Church-power and Church-government in the Synod as well as in the Congregation 2. The last period and conclusion of the controversie cannot bee both in the Congregation de jure by right onely and in the Synod by right onely for two last powers cannot bee properly in two subordinate judicatures for if Antioch appeale to a Synod as they doc Act. 15. 2. then Antioch is not the sole last and ultimate and finall judge and 3. If the controversie concerne many Churches as this doth Act. 15. 2. 23. 24. I see not how a Congregation except they transgresse their line can finally determine it And here while as our brethren doe all edge that a Synod hath a power to decree and make lawes but hath no power at all to execute these Lawes or to punish the contraveners but power of punishing is all in the single Congregation â— They tie all governing power to a punishing power as if there were no other wayes to governe but upon supposall of scandalls whereas all Scripture and polliticians make a power of giving Lawes formally a governing power 2. When one societie and Synod maketh the Lawes and another must execute them and punish the contraveners the single Congregation that punisheth is more subjected by a truely prelaticall bondage then if the Law-makers had onely the power of punishing the contraveners at they onely have the power of making the Lawes I take not here Lawes for Lawes properly so called but for ministeriall directories having ecclesiasticall authoritie and here in effect our brethren lay truely a prelaticall bondage on the Churches of Christ for they teach that a Synod may make a Law by a pastorall power and that this Synod is an ordinance of Christ by Act. 15. and that as Prelates did they send those Synodicâ—ll decrees to bee obeyed and put in execution by the Churches and ordaine the contraveners to bee punished by the Churches and here is a power above a power and mandates for government sent by the Synod to the Churches to bee obeyed and a Synod governing by Churches this they call prelaticall in us But 3. there is no penall power here say they and nothing decerved to bee obeyed sub paena under the paine of excommunication therefore no power of jurisdiction But this consequence is justly denyed for no politician no reason in the world can say that all power of jurisdiction is included in the power of excommunication What hath the Church a Church-power to threaten and no Church-power to pardon the penltent I think if the Church as the Church Matth. 18. receive a power from Christ to bind in heaven and earth doth not Christ in that same patent give to her also a power to loose in earth and heaven and when hee saith if bee refuse to beare the Church let him be to thee â— aubeâ—hen and publican doth hee not give to the Church a power to command if hee command to heare and obey the Church hee must give a power of jurisdiction to the Church to command and a power to command not penall onely but promissorie also to loose and absolve upon condition of prosessed repentance Now suppose the Church make a Law that theresurrection of the dead is a truth of God to bee beleeved and professed upon occasion that in the Congregation Hymeneus Alexander den yeth that Article in that very Commandement doctrinall the Church doth governe the whole Congregation and exerciseth a power of formall governing though in their act they say nothing of the censure of excommunication to those who shall deny that Article
nor being a witnesse of the life death and resurrection of Christ then the authoritie of James and Peter who werâ— eye-witnesses of Christs life doctrine and sufferings and saw him visibly ascend to heaven and the believers doubted if hee was an Apostle and the Synod was convened to have theresolution of the Apostles and so it was meerely Apostolicall Ans. Though I grant there beesome truth in this that Pauls Apostolick calling was now more question 〈◊〉 then the rest of the Apostles and I easily yeeld that these who disputed with him could not rest upon his authority yet I deny that hence wee can inferre no Synod for if the Apostles had convened in Synod to satisfie those who doubted of Pauls authoritie as an Apostle then they would have reterred the matter to James and Peter who to these beleevers were undoubtedly the Apostles of the Lord but if the Apostles had had no intent but to end the controversie in a mere Apostolick way and not intended a Synodicall and an â—clesiasticall and perpetuall remedy in such cases of controversies in particular Churches I shall not beleeve that the Apostles when they were to determine by a superior an Apostolick and infallible light they would have joyned with them the Elders as Act. 15. 16. to consider of the question and that the Church of Auâ—ioch doubting if Paul was an Apostle would have decreed to seeke a resolution from Elders and that in an Apostolick way for they sent to the Elders at Jerusalem for a resolution as well as to the Apostles Act. 15. 2. and judge yee if the Apostles being to determine infallibly as Apostles would joyne the falliblo and inferiour light of Elders v. 6. and Brethren v. 22. if tlloy had not had a mind to determine the question in a Synodicall way Object 9. But it is not cleare that in this act they either censure persons or doe any thing in order to Church-censure but onely exercise a naked doctrinall power Answ. A doctrinall power was in a higher measure in the Apostles then in all the Elders of the world who were all but fallible men and James and Peter to these beleevers who moved the question were undenyably Apostles and what doctrinall power could they seeke in the Elders to whose determination by intention both of Antioch ch 15. 2. and by the Apostles intention v. 6. the question is referred as well as to the Apostles if the matter was not to bee ended by a formall Synod 2. Nor can they deny a power of jurisdiction though there were no persons rebuked and censured in this Synod for the object of a juridicall power is not onely persons but things of order decencie circumstances questions of doctrine as is cleare Reâ—el 1. 14. 15. officers to be ordained Act. 6. 3 4 5 6. 1 Tim. 5. 22. 2 Tim. 2. 2 3. 3. Our brethren cannot deny but the sentence of non-Communion is a censure and a great one yea and of kindred and blood most neare to excommunication and that if any Churches should have refâ—â—sed those Canons by this Canon the Churches might have pronounced the sentence of non-communion against them and to pronounce this sentence is an act of government as properly so called as to pronounce the sentence of excommunication for it is the formall halfe of the sentence of excommunication Object 10. It seemeth that Apostles here determine as Apostles for they condenme the obtruders of circumcision because they taught these things without any Apostolick Commandement v. 24. They teach that you must bee circumcised and keepe the Law to whom wee the Apostles gave no such commandement Answ. This is no more a good argument to prove that the obtruders of circumcision did teach false doctrine and were not condemned by the Apostles and Elders Synodically then if one should say this is not a Synodicall decree of the Church because it is proven and made good by the Word of God for Synodicall decrees exclude not Gods word though they bee not formally Scripture for in some part of the Epistle the Apostles may well speak of themselves as distinguished from Elders and as Apostles and yet the assembly is an ordinary Synod and not an Apostolick meeting for if wee should argue thus the whole Church men and women v. 22. sent messengers to Antioch as the Church and not as Apostles our brethren would thinke it a weake consequence to inferre Ergo this was nothing but a Congregational not an Apostolical meeting Yet our brethren contend that the whole Church and single Congregation of Ierusalem did concurre in this meeting as consenters and having power also though not of jurisdiction but I wonder why our brethren should so contend that there was no power of censuring put forth in this Assembly seeing one of their speciall answers whereby they would prove that this it not a patterne of an ordinary Synod and such a Synod as wee contend for having power of jurisdiction is that this was an ordinary meeting of the Elders and Church of Ierusalem giving counsell and advise with the Apostles to the Church of Antioch but I am sure the businesse of not scandalizing did as much concerne the Church of Ierusalem and therefore in the Synod they ought to put forth power of jurisdiction if any of their members hearing that the Apostles contended that the ceremoniall Law did not lay a tie on the conscience of either Jew or Gentile in foro dei before Gods court as the places cited by Iames prove v. 15 16 17. Peter saith expresly that God now putteth no difference betwixt Iewes and Gentiles v. 9. but 〈◊〉 are saved through the grace of our Lord Iesus v. 11. should ab â—aine from blood to the offence of the weaker should not this Congregation all Church condemne such in ordine ad censuram in order to excommunication yea the Eldership and Congregation of Jerusalem here convened as our brethren say should have failed in this first Synod and also the Apostles with them if they neglected to exercise juridicall power over their owne Congregation in the case of scandall and a scandall as possible to them to fall in as the Gentiles and therefore either this assembly consisting of Apostles and of the particular Church of Ierusalem erred which wee cannot say or then they did exercise power in order to excommunication towards their owne Church and so there is some juridicall power put forth in this meeting Object 11. Though the Apostles in this Synod proceed by way of disputing and borrow light one from another it followeth not thâ—â— they goe not on here as Apostles yea though Peter and Paul dâ—e not say all the truth nor fall upon that which is the conclusion of the Assembly as I ames doth it doth not hinder but they are led in all these Synodicull debaâ—eâ— by the infallible and Apostolick spirit because some things are revealed to one Evangelist and to one Prophet which is not revealed to another Iohn the
is essentially an act of preaching the Word Object 14. This Synod declares only in a doctrinall way what is necessary what is scandalous the same way that Paul doth Rom. 14. 14 15. i Cor. 8. 1 Cor. 10. Answ. This Synod and Paul declare one and the same thing Ergo with one and the same authoritie it followeth not Paul writeth 1 Cor. 5. that the incestuous man should bee excommunicated and this hee wrote as canonicall Scripture by the immediat inspiration of the holy Spirit if then the Church of Corinth should have excommunicated him shall it follow that they gave out the sentence of excomunication by the immediate inspiration of the holy Spirit I thinke not their Churches sentence had been given out by a meere ecclesiasticall authoritie according to the wch Churches of Christ to the worlds end doth excommunicate following the Church of Corinth as a patterne Obj. 15. Though these obtruders of ceremonies did pervent soâ—ks v. 24. yet the Synod doth not summond them before them nor excommuncite them but remit them to the particular Churches to whom it properly belonged to censure and not to any Synod or superiour Judicature Answ. There was no need to summon them for these subverters of soules were personally present at the Synod and rebuked in the face of the Synod as perverters of soules v. 24. for if they were not present 1. to whom doth Peter speake v. 10. Now therefore why tempt yee God to put a yoake on the necke of the disciples c. the Apostles and Elders did not impose the yoake of Moses Law upon the beleeving disciples nor any other save onely the obtruders of circumcision 2. Who were they in the Synod who made much disputing v. 7. note the Apostles not any save these obtruders Ergo they were personally present at the Synod nor needed they to excommunicate them for I judge that they acquiesced to the determination of James which was the sentence of the Synod and the great dispute spoken of v. 7. ceased v. 13. and the conclusion is agreed upon 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then it seemed good to the Apostles Elders and whole Church and there was reason why these obtruders should acquiesce so that there was no need of further censure for there was satisfactiou in part given to both siddes The question was whether or no are beleevers now to keepe the Law and the ceremonies of Moses his Law It was answered by the Synod by a distinction which favoured in part both sides 1. There is no necessitie that the beleeving Gentiles who are saved by grace as well as the Jewes bee troubled to keepe all the ceremonies and this satisfied the Apostles who taught that the Gentiles were now made one people with the Jewes and both are freed in conscience from Moses his yoake the other part of the distinction it was this yet there bee some ceremoniall commandements as not to eate things offered to Idols blood and things strangled for fornication is of another nature and abstinence therefrom is of perpetuall necessitie 1 Cor. 6. 13 14 15 16. 1 Thess. 4. 3. Col. 3. 5. these must bee avoided for scandals sake by all the Jewes but especially by the Gentiles lest the weake Jewes who take these to be divine commandements yet in force take offence and this was satisfactorie to the obtruders and wee heare no more of their disputing and there is an end of the controversie by the blessed labours of a lawfull Synod 3. I could easily yeeld that there is no necessitie of the elicit acts of many parts of government such as excommunication ordination admitting of heathens professing the faith to Church-membership in Synods provinciall nationall or oecumenicall but that Synods in the case of neglect of presbyteriall-Churches command these particular Churches whom it concerneth to doe their dutie and in this sense the Synod Act. 15. is to remit the censure of excommunication to the presbytery of Antioch and Jerusalem in the case of the obstinacie of these obtruders of circumcision but so some power of government is due to the Synod as prescribing of Lawes and Canons for presbyteries and Congregations Object 16. Therefore was the Synagogue of the Jewes no compleat Church because all the ordinances of God cannot bee performed in the Synagogue and therefore were the Jewes commanded onely at Jerus salem and in no other place to keepe the passeover and to offer offerings and sacrifices which were òrdinary worship Deut. 12. but there is not any worship or sacred ordinance saith that worthy Divine Dr. Ames of preaching praying Sacraments c. prescribed which is not to bee observed in every Congregation of the New Testament Nor is there any ordinary minister appointed who is not given to some one Assembly of this kind So also Mr. Mather and Mr. Thomson teachers in New England Others say because there was a representative worship of sacrificing of all the 12. Tribes at Jerusalem therefore all the Synagogues were dependent Churches and Jerusalem was the supreme and bighest Church but there is no representative worship in the New Testament and therefore no need of Synods as higher Churches Answ. Surely the aforesaid reverend Brethren of New England have these words But it seemeth to us that the power of a Synod is not proporly a power and exercise of government and jurisdiction but a power of doctrine and so a Synod is rather a â—aching then a governing Church from which I inferre 1. That out Brethren cannot deny a power of governing to a Synod but it is not so proper governing as excommunication and ordination performed in their Congregations but say I it is more properly governing as to make Lawes and rules of governing is a more noble eminent and higher act of governing as is evident in the King and his Parliament then the execution of these Lawes and rules 2. Our brethren incline to make a Synod a teaching Church but I inferre that Synodicall teaching by giving out decrees tying many Churches as our Brethren of New England and the forenamed authors teach is an ordinance of Christ that can bee performed in no single Congregation on earth for a doctrinall Canon of one Congregation can lay no ecclesiasticall tie upon many Churches Ergo by this reason our Congregations shall bee dependent as were the Jewish Synagogues 3. With favour of these learned men it is a begging of the question to make Jerusalem the supreme Church and the Synagogues dependent Churches because it was lawfull onely at Jerusalem to sacrifice for I hold that Jerusalem was a dependent Church no lesse then the smallest Synagogue in all the tribes for in a Catholick meeting of all Judah for renewing a Covenant with God Ierusalem was but a sister Church with all of Iudah Benjamin Ephraim Manasseh who 2 Chron. 15. 9. 10. 11 12. made up one great Church which did sweare that Covenant Ordinances doe not formally make Churches visible nor divers ordinances divers
Minister cannot administer the Lords Supper to any but his owne flocke see you to this 6. If the sister Church lie under any offence you will not admit any of their members to the Lords Supper though these members be of approven piety and why What a separation is this What if these members do not consent to that offence as some of the godly in Corinth might be humbled and mourne that the Church did not cast out the incestuous person shal they be debarred by you from the seales because they separate not from that infected lump the Apostle alloweth communicating so that every one examine himselfe 1 Cor. 11. 21. 30. with drunken persons and where many were stricken of God with death and diverse diseases as eating and drinking their owne damnation 7. You looke at the Lords Supper as a seale of communion with all the Churches of the Saints What communion meane you invisible no. You deny that the seales are given to the invisible Church and the members thereof but to the visible Church as you say If you meane a visible communion of all the visible Churches of the Saints why then brother doe you call the universall visible Church a Chimera or a dreame as you say and if all the visible Churches have a visible communion it is to deny Christs wisdome and care of his Church to deny the lawfulnesse of a Oecumenick and generall councell of all the Churches of the Saints We recommend saith the Author Brethren for a time to other Churches as Paul recommended Phoebe to the Church of Rome Rom. 16. 1. 2. or we give letters dismissorie to such as are for ever to reside in another congregation but members are not to remove from their congregation but upon just and weighty reasons made knowne and allowed by the whole Church for wee looke at our Church Covenant as an everlasting Covenant Jerem. 50. v. 5. And therefore though it may be resigned and translated from one Church to another as Gods hand shall direct yet it is not to be violated and rejected by us if members cut off themselves by excommunication it is their owne fault if any upon light reasons be importunately desirous to remove the Church is to use indulgence as not willing to make the Church of God a prison but often the hand of God in poverty and scandall followeth such and driveth them to returne when a person recommended by letters commeth to another congregation the Church by lifting up their hands or by silence receive him if he â—e altogether unknowne and doubted of because the Church may erre be is not received till due triall be taken of him Answ. We see not how letters of recommendation most lawfull as we judge and necessary can resigne ministeriall power a liberty bought with Christs bloud as you say to any other Church for we think all the visible Churches are one Catholike visible Church and should have a visible communion and so that there is no resignation of ministeriall power in these letters but they are declaratory of the Christian behaviour of the dismissed Christian. We aske if dimissory letters be authoritative and done by the Church as the Church and how can a Church usurp authority by your way over a sister Church to recommend a sojourner to a Church state and Church liberties and seales of the Covenant one Church hath no authority over another If these letters be meerely private and meerely declaratory to manifest and declare the sojourners Christian behaviour only then he had power and right without these letters or any act of resignation or giving away ministeriall power to be a Church-member of the visible Church to the which he goeth Ergo he was a member of the visible Church to which he goeth before the dimissory letters were written and the letters doe resigne no right but onely notifie and declare the sojourners preexistent right and so there is a visible Church and a visible communion of all congregations on earth and most be an externall power and authority in all for Synods Let our brethren see to this 3. The person to remove must be dismissed and loosed by the consent of the whole congregation it conveniency permit else he is not exonered of his Church-oath made to that congregation What if conveniency doe not permit then is he loosed from an oath without consent of the Church which did by oath receive him I thinke ejuâ—dem pâ—testatis est as the Law saith ligare solvere that Church power which bindeth must loose 4. If the Church-Covenant be an everlasting Covenant as Jer. 50. 5. tying the man to the membership of that particular congregation for ever I see not how the Church can use indulgenees and Pope-like dispensations against the oath of God to breake it upon light and frivolous reasons for if God punish Covenant breaking so also should the Church and can by no indulgence be accessory to the breach of Gods oath there is too great a smell of Popery Arminianisme and Socinianisine in this way in my weake judgement But if the man be not sworne a member of that particular Church by his oath he is sworne a member of the visible Church universall which our brethren cannot well say Neither is any Covenant called an everlasting Covenant in the Scripture but the Covenant of grace Jer. 31. 33. c. 32. 40. Isa. 54. 9 10. and that is made with the invisible Catholike Church of beleevers as is the Covenant Jer. 50. 5. and not a Covenant with one visible congregation and what warrant hath the Church to dispense with the breach of such an everlasting Covenant 5. The testimony of other Churches if it be a warrant to you in faith to receive into the Church such a one as a Saint and a Temple of the holy Spirit how should it not also be a warrant to you to cast out and excommunicate also 6. The person comming from another Church if of approven piety is received by lifting up of the hands or silence of the Church as you say 1. Have we a warrant from Gods word for such a new inchurching 2. Why is he not received by a Church oath as a Minister transplanted to another Church must have ordination and election of new for to you there is alike reason 3. If there be no need of a new Church oath to make him a member of that visible Congregation seeing now he is loosed from the former you inâ—inuate his former Church-oath did make him a member of a visible Church and so â—e that is a visible member in a Church is a visible member of all and so there must be a visible Church-Catholike if there be a Catholike visible membership in any one member and so you destroy what you build Manuscr 16. A third way of Communion with other Churches saith the Author is by seeking their helpe and presence 1. In admitting of members 2. In case of differences of judgments 3. In
or Church assembly have any power to bind the Churches to obedience because these commandements and decrees of censure are but ministeriall and limited and in so farre onely of force as they have reason from the Word of God as you say 3. Conclusion There is an authoritative power in Synods whereby they may and doe command in the Lord the visible Churches in their bounds the whole Churches are subject to the ordinance and decree of the Church Act. 1. where with common consent of a Synodicall meeting Matthias is ordained an Apostle Ergo all the Churches are to take him for an Apostle This argument cannot bee repelled because the Apostles by their extraordinary power did choose Matthias Because 1. they themselves cite this place to prove the peoples power ordinary which is to indure to Christs second comming in calling and electing their owne officers and Elders 2. Almain a Papist alleadgeth the place with good reason to prove that a generall councell is above Peter or the Pope because Peter would not choose Matthias without consent of the Apostles and Church 3. If this was extraordinary that Matthias was chosen why then is the vow and consent of the Church sought for there is nothing extraordinary and Apostolick flowing from an Apostolick spirit which is concluded or done by the spirit ordinary of the Church of beleevers So also Act. 6. If the Apostles did not by the ordinary and Synodicall power of ordinary Pastors choose seven Deacons how doe they first require that the Churches of Grecians and Hebrewes should seek out seven men v. 3. and did ordaine them with the common consent of the whole multitude v. 5. Act. 15. A Synod of moe Churches give decrees which obliege the Churches v. 28. ch 16. v. 4. Ergo Synods have authoritie over the Churches Those who say this Synod is not a patterne for after Synods say farre aside for their reason is this was 1. An Apostolick Synod 2. the holy Ghost was here 3. the thing determined was canonick Scripture But this is a way to clude all the promises made to Pastors in the word when as they are first made to Apostles this promise Behold I am with you to the â—nd of the world and this I will send you the other Comforter who 〈◊〉 lead you in all truth cannot bee made to faithfull Pastors and the Christian Church that now is for it is certaine Christ is otherwise present with his Apostles then with his Pastors after them And that he gave them a tongue a spirit when they were before the councels and rulers as to Apostolick men as Act. 4. 8. 9 10. Act. 5. 29. as Christ promised Matth. 10. 19. 20. Luk. 21. 13 14 15. for they were full of the holy Ghost before rulers but by our brethrens doctrine it shall follow none of these promises belong to Pastors now adayes in the like because no pastors now are Apostles Surely this were to fetter and imprison many glorious promises within the pale of the onely Apostolick Church and because Christ ascending to heaven sent downe the Apostolick spirit to his Apostles to write and preach canonick Scripture it shall follow he fulfilleth that promise John 16. 13. to none now adayes because none have the Apostolike spirit in the manner and measure that the Apostles had Yea further it is canonick Scripture that the Apostles at the last supper did shew forth the Lords death till be come againe therefore it shall follow that we have no warrant to shew forth the Lords death till he come againe 2. But that the Apostles in an ecclesiastick way did determine in the Synod for our imitation and not in an Apostolike way is cleare by many evidences in the text as Act. 15. 2. Paul and Barnabas were sent commissioners to the Apostles and Elders about this question Paul as an Apostle needed not be sent to know more of the matter then he knew as an Apostle for as an Apostle he knew the whole mystery of the Gospel Gal. 1. 16. 17. Ephes. 3. 4 5. Ergo he was sent to the Synod as a Pastor and that as an ordinary Pastor 2. They came together v. 6. to consider of this businesse but as Apostles they needed not the help of a Synod Ergo they came together as ordinary Pastors for the Churches after imitation 3. There was much debating and disputing v. 7. about the matter 4. They set down their minds and sentences in order one after another as Peter first v. 7. 8. then Barnabas and Paul v. 12. then James v. 13. and to James his sentence the whole Councell agreeth v. 22. Now what the Apostles as Apostles and from an infallible Spirit do they doe it not by seeking light and help one from another 5. The Decree of the Councell is a thing that Apostles Elders and Brethren and the whole Church resolveth after much dispute v. 22. But all these especially brethren and the whole beleevers as our Brethren say doe not joyne themselves with the Apostles either to write canonick Scripture or to give their consent to the writing of it therefore they doe consent by a synodall authority for the after imitation of the Churches Also there bee reasons of moment for Synods and 1. if according to the Law of nature and nations no man can bee a Judge in his owne cause then are appeales from the Eldership of one congregation when they are a party to the accused person naturall and from a Session to the Presbyteries and Synods of many moe Elders But the former is reason nature Law of Nations Ergo so is the latter 1. It is best reason which hath most of Scripture Paul and Barnabas Act. 15. 1. 2. had no small disputation with those who said circumcision was necessary finding their parties could not be Judges They appeale to a generall councell at Jerusalem where were the Apostles and Elders The Church of the Grecians and the Church of the Hebrewes strive neither of them can judge other and both appeale to a higher judicatory to the twelve Apostles and their owne Churches meeting with them and there is the matter determined aâ—ent helping the poore by Deacons if the Judge doe wrong and one particular congregation shall oppresse one sincere and sound beleever what remedy hath the care of Christ provided for this that the oppressours may be edisied by Church censures and the oppressed freed and delivered by remedy of discipline of Christ whose it is to judge the poore of the people and to save the children of the needy Ps. 72. 4. Now it is knowne that Diotrephes doth sometime excommunicate and the evill seâ—vant ruleth all Hieronymus saith Arrians ruled all in the dayes of Constantius and Valens Basil saith we may say in our time that there is neither Prince nor Prophet nor Ruâ—â—â— nor oblation nor incense Athanasius and Vincentius Lirinent complain'd that it was in the Arrians times as with the Church and Prophets in the
review of the councell of Trent saith gravely It is but a theating of Christâ—ndome above board to leave the judgement of the necessitie of generall councells to the Popes will and no marvell then Popes decline councells for the councell of Pisan as Bellarmine granteth was convocated against Julius the second that wicked man and therefore was rejected by Julian the second in the councell of Lateran yet this councell and all the decrees thereof was approven and confirmed by Alexander the first who was accounted lawfull Pope and b Platina faith this councell was approved and that in it Gregory 12. and Benet 13. were deprived of their papall dignitie all nations assenting except neither Spaine the King of Scotland and Earle of Arminac who followed Pope Benet and for approbation of the councells of Pise Constance and Basil which censured Popes and deprived them and subjected them to a generall councell let any man read the Review of the Councell of Trent and Bellarmine is therein fully consuted Also generall councells have condemned the doctrine of the Church of Rome for which they thinke them not necessary as the councell of Frankford saith Bellarmine and Basil and Constance are not approved in all because they favour not the Roman Churches doctrine and the Popes supremacy above Councells yea and generall councells cannot bee simply necessary saith hee because the Catholick Church remained safe the first three hundreth yeers after Christ without generall councells and might have remained safe other three hundreth yeers and so a thousand yeers and faults may bee amended by the Lawes of Popes and by provinciall councells saith hee and their Costerus saith the Pope him selfe without councells hath condemned many heresies and this is a shorter and more compendious way then by councells for it is hard and laborious to conveene councells therefore the Churches salvation doth not depend upon them saith Bellarmine yea it is in vaine saith the Jesuit Pererius to doe that by many which may as conveniently bee done by fewer he meaneth councels may be wanted Our brethren rejecting councells and their necessitie at all in this sideth with Papists Though Calvin saith Nullum esse nec melius nec certius remedium that there is no better nor surer remedy to find out the truth then a Synod of true Pastors And Arminians and Socinians thinke that Synods are neither necessary nor profitable for as our brethren here give no authoritie to Synods but to counsell and advise the very same is taught by a grand Arminian Episcopius who saith Synods are not profitable for the establishing the truth or rooting out of errors and heresies but onely to advise sist examine and by reasons and arguments to perswade and therefore are not profitable either for the being or for the well being of the Church Synodici conventus nec ad â—esse nec ad bene esse ecclesiae absolute necessarii sunt ad veritatis divinae stabilimentum hereseon errorumque averruns itionem vel exstirpationem eo tantum casu utiles esse statuimus si ad deliberandum ventilandum examinandum rationibus argumentisque persuadendum congregentur litium finem facere circa religionis capita aliter quam persuadendo est tyrannidem in ecclesiam invehere libertatem conscientiarum si non omnino tollere saltem vehementer astringere ligare To â—nd controversies in the Church any otherwise then by perswading is to bring in a tyranny in the Church of Christ and to hurt if not altogether to evert the libertie of consciences of men And the Arminians in their Apologie teach us that a decision or a determination of a Synod obligeth not those who were not present at the making of that decision And so have I shown from Answorth and our brethrens doctrine that they teach people cannot assent without tyranny of consciences to the decrees of the Elders at the making whereof they were not present and present consenters 2. A Synods decision doth incline the mind to consider of the decision but doth not compell authoritatively to consent and obey 3. This is violence to the conscience 4. To setch expositions of the word from confessions of faith or decrees of councells is dangerous and this is the doctrine of Socinians for Theophil Nicolaides saith the Church in a Synod cannot decide controversies because shee may erre neither can shee take them away for that were to doe violence to mens consciences and Smalcius saith this were tacite quietly to leave the writings of the Apostles and commend humane traditions So our brethren give nothing but a power of counselling and morall perswading to Synods and no authoritie to command because say they in their answers to the 32. questions Synods may erre and their decrees have no more force then they fetch reason from Gods Word and truely our brethren with Socinians and Arminians here do fall in many foule errors For 1. all preaching of the Word and all power of authoritie of Pastors commanding in the name of the Lord faith and obedience is onely morall and to perswade and not authoritative to command because Pastors may as well erre in preaching as the Church may erre in Synods 2. Because what Pastors preach hath no more force over the conscience then they have warrant to speake from the Word of God as is cleare Ezek. 3. 7. Gal. 1. 9. 1 Thess. 2. 13. 2. All confessions of faith that are set downe by lawfull Synods are null 3. Libertie of prophecying and a Cassandrian licence of beleeving in things controverted any thing in this or on that side is lawfull 4. A perpetuall doubting of conscience except in two or three points fundamentall that all Christians beleeve yea and all hereticks is brought in in the Church 5. The Lords working with the word preached is but by way of morall perswasion 6. But our Divines hold the authoritie of Synods and of Pastors preaching the Word from the Scriptures but I find both our brethren and Arminians do misken the authority of the Church and of Pastors in both Preaching and Synods for they thinke to set up the authoritie of Synods is to cast downe the authoritie of the Scriptures because things to bee distinguished are confounded for wee deny that Synods or Pastors have peremptory absolute and illimited authoritie and power to determine as they please in Sermons and Synods their Power is limited according to the Word of God and their word is onely to bee beleeved in so farre as it is agreeable to the Word of God but hence it followeth not that Pastors and Synods have no power and authoritie at all to determine but onely to counsell advise and perswade for private Christians our equalls and inferiours have power to counsell perswade and advise in a private way by teaching admonishing exhorting rebuking conference They build upon the reproving of events of councells by
Nazianzen which is not against their authoritie and true fulnesse and he speaketh of the councells of his time and it is not to bee denyed but Panormitan saith well dictum unius privati est praeferendum dicto papae si ille moveretur melioribus rationibus veteris novi Testamenti and Augustine saith latter councells may correct older councells and Petrus de Monte under Eugenius complained that there was no godly and learned Bishops in his time to determine truth in a Synod when Doctors Professors Bishops and all have sworne obedience to the Pope to their Occumenick councells and to the wicked decrees of the councell of Trent as the Bull of Pius the fourth requireth But before I say any thing of the second question anent the magistrates power I shall close the other wayes of communion of sister Churches CHAP. 6. SECT 5. Three other wayes of communion of sister Churches A Fift way of communion saith the author is by helping and contributing to sister Churches Prophets and Teachers when they are in scarstie as Act. 11. 29. Rom. 15. 25. 26. Ans. This way of communion we acknowledg but we see not how this communion can stand wiâ—hout the authoritie of Synods if Churches bee not united in one visible body they cannot authoritatively send helpe of teachers one to another and this is a direct acknowledgement of a visible union of more Churches in one visible body for the Church of Jerusalem authoritatively sent Pastors Paul and Barnabas as Pastors to the Gentiles you will have them sent as gifted men and that they are not Pastors while they bee ordained and chosen by these Churches to which they goe A sixt way of communion saith hee is by admonition if a sister Church or any member thereof bee scandalous wee are then to send Elders to warn them to call Archippus or any other Elder to take beed to do their dutie if the Elders or Church bee remisse in consuring wee are to take the helpe of two or three Churches moe if yet that Church â—eare not wee are to tell a Congregation of Churches together or if the offence bee weightie wee are to withdraw the right hand of fellowship from such a Church and to forbeare all such sort of exercise of mutuall brotherly communion with them which all the Churches of Christ are to walke in one towards another Answ. You acknowledge that same order which Christ commandeth Matth. 18. to gaine a brother is to bee kept in the gaining of scandalous Churches But 1. What warrant have you of the two first steps of Christs order against scandalous Churches and to omit the third judiciall and authoritative way when sister Churches turne obstinate Christs order for gaining the scandalous is as necessary in the third as in the former two 2. Why doe you allow the third in a sort for if the sister Church will not bee admonished you will have her rebuked before moe sister Churches that are conveened that is before a Synod is it because you thinke there is more authority in a Synod then in one sister Church then you thinke there is authoritie in a Synod for by good Logick wee may inferre the positive degree from the comparative and there is no other reason why the matter should come before a Synod for all in a Synod wanteth authority and power to censure as you thinke yet to complaine to a Synod is an acknowledgement of the authoritie of a Synod as Christs order saith Matth. 18. 17. If hee neglect to heare them tell it to the Church 3. What is the withdrawing of brotherly communion from obstinate sister Churches but as Amesius saith well excommunication by proportion and analogie Ergo say I in this a Synod hath a Synodicall authoritie over the Churches within the bounds of the Synod by proportion for who can inflict a punishment of a Church censure by proportion answerable to excommunication but a Church or a Synodicall meeting which hath the power of the Church by proportion Amesius would prove that a particular Church cannot bee excommunicated because a Church cannot bee cast out of communion with it selfe for then she should bee cast out of herselfe But this argument with reverence of so learned and godly a man proveth onely that a particular Church cannot excommunicate herselfe which I grant but it concludeth not but a particular obstinate Church may bee excommunicated out of the societie of all sister Churches who meeting in a Synod in the name of Jesus Christ have power to save the spirits of sister Churches in the day of the Lord and are to edifie them by counsell and rebuking as the Author granteth and why not by an authoritative declaring that they will have no communion with such an obstinate sister or rather daughter Church Wee have never saith the Author been put to the utmost extent of this dutie the Lord hitherto preventing by his grace yet it is our dutie The Church Cant. 8. tooke care not onely for her owne members but also for her little sister that had no brests and would have taken care if having breasts they had been distempered with corrupt milke if the Apostles had a care of all the Churches 1 Cor. 8. 11. is that spirit of grace and love dead with them ought not all the Churches to care for sister Churches if not virtute officii by vertue of an office yet intuitu charitatis for charities sake Answ. That you have never beene put to these duties to the utmost will never prove that the government is of God for Corinth Ephesus Pergamus Thyatira which were glorious Churches by your owne confession were put to a necessitie of the utmost extent of these duties yea it proveth your government to bee rather so much the worse because Christs government is opposed by secret enemies in the Church 2. You make the spirit of love in a pastorall care over other Churches to bee dead because none have any pastorall care over any other Churches but the particular Congregation over which they are Pastors and pastorall love to unconverted ones as pastorall you utterly deny The last way of communion saith the Author is by propagation or multiplication which is as the Apostles had immediat calling from God to travell through the world and to plant Churches so have particular Churches given to them immediatly from Christ the fulnesse of measure of grace which the inlargement and establishment of Christs kingdome doth require that is when the Bee-hive a parishionall congregation is surcharged they have power to send forth their members to enter by Covenant in Church-state amongst themselves and may commend to them such able gifted Ministers as they thinke may bee Ministers in that young Church Answ. 1. This way of inlarging Christs kingdome is defective 1. It sheweth the way of inlarging the number of invisible Churches and multitudes of converts into new incorporations but doth shew no way how to
bestoweth lawfull Kings and Magistrates upon many Nations who know nothing of a Saviour I answer When I consider the point more exactly I see not how Kings who reigne by the wisdome of God Jesus Christ Prov. 8. 14. 15. have not their kingly power from Christ who hath all power given to him in Heaven and in Earth Matth. 28. 18. for they are Nurse-fathers of the Church as Kings Esa. 49. 15. they are to kisse the Sonne and exalt his Throne as Kings Psal. 2. 11. they bring presents and kingly gifts to Christ as Kings Psal. 72. v. 10. 11. and they serve Christ not onely as men but also as Kings as Augustine saith therefore are they ordained as meanes by Christ the Mediator to promote his kingly Throne Some of our Divines will have the kingly power to come from God as Creator in respect God giveth Kings who are his Vicegerents to those who are not redeemed and to Nations who never heard of Christ and others hold that the kingly power floweth from Christ-Mediator in respect he accomplisheth his purposes of saving of his redeemed people by Kings authority and by the influence of their kingly government procureth a feeding ministery and by their princely tutory the edification of his body the Church which possibly both aime at truth See the groundlesse carping at Cartwright Calvin Beza and others by that sharp toothed envier of truth the Author of the Survey of holy discipline of this hereafter more 4. Conclusion The King as King hath not a nomothetick or legislative power to make Lawes in matters ecclesiastick in a constitute Church nor hath he a definitive sentence as a Judge 1. All power of teaching publikely the Church or the Churches of Christ is given to those who are sent and called of God for that effect but Magistrates as Magistrates are not sent nor called of God to the publike teaching of the Church Ergo. The proposition is cleare from the like Rom. 10. 14. How shall they preach except they be sent Ergo how shall they publikely and synodically teach except they be sent Heb. 5. 4. No man taketh this honour upon him but he that is called of God as was Aaron c. Ergo if none be a Priest to offer a Sacrifice without Gods calling neither can he exercise the other part of the Priesthood to teach synodically to give out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decrees Acts 16. 4. that obligeth the Churches ecclesiastically but he who is called 2. Who so hath nomothetick power to define and make Lawes in matters ecclesiastick have onely a ministeriall power to expone Christs will in his Testament under paine of Church-censures and hath no coactive power of the sword to command these Lawes enacted and to injoyne them on the Churches But onely Church-men who are formally members of the Church as Pastors Doctors Elders and others sent by the Church have this ministeriall power without the coactive power of the sword and what ever the Magistrate as the Magistrate commandeth he commandeth it in things ecclesiastick necessary and expedient under bodily punishment I adde this because threatning of bodily punishment is not essentiall to Lawes in generall because some Lawes are seconded onely with rewards as the Judge offereth by law a reward to any who shall bring unto him the head of a Boar or of some notorious robber Ergo c. The proposition is cleare the learned Junius giveth to the Magistrate with our Divines an interpretation of Scripture as a Judge which concerneth his owne practise they are interpreters pro communi vocationis modo in a Christian way as private men but they have no power of ecclesiastick interpretation 2. Gul. Apollonius saith the Prince as a Christian hath an office to exhort the Svnod by word or Epistle as Constantius did the Fathers of the Nicen Councell and his Legates exhorted the Councell of Chalcedon ut Deo rationem reddituri See Ruffinus and the acts of the Councell of Chalcedon 3. The Magistrate hath a power judiciall as a Magistrate in so farre as his owne practise is concerned to expone the things defined but this expotition he useth non instruendo synodice non docendo ecclesiastice sed docendo seu potius mandando cum certa relatione ad paenam à brachio seculari insligendam contemptoribus not in an ecclesiasticall way teaching and instructing synodically but teaching or rather commanding with a certaine relation to civill punishment to be inflicted upon the contemners as he teacheth what is just or unjust in his civill Lawes not directly to informe the mind but to correct bad manners and this maketh the object of kingly power about Churches matters and the object of ecclesiasticall power formall objects different 3. Those who have a nomothetick power to define in Synods are sent by the Church to Synods with authoritative commission and power for that effect representing the Church which sent them as all who are sent with any ambassage doe represent those who sent them But Magistrates as Magistrates are not sent to represent those who sent them with authoritation commission of the Church Ergo they have no such power â—â—dâ—ine in Synods I prove the proposition from the Apostles practise Paul and Barnabas were sent as chosen men by the Church 〈◊〉 Antioch Acts 15. 2. 3. Acts 15. 6. the Apostles and Elders came from the Church to consider of this matter Acts 21. 18. Acts 22. 17. 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 8 17 18. if the Apostle with the Church sent Titus 〈◊〉 Brother whose praise is in the Gospel as chosen of the Churches to travell with us v. 19 in gathering the charity of the Saints for the poore at Jerusalem then by the like those who are sent to declare the minds of the Churches are also clothed with the authority of the Churches who sent them but Magistrates aâ— such are not sent but are there with the sword of Common-wealth and not with the mind of the Church as Magistrates except they be also Christians 4. The Apostolike Synods is to us a perfect patterne of Synods but persons defining in them are Apostles and Elders Acts 16. 4. Acts 15. 6. the Church Matth. 18. 18. defineth and 1 Cor. 5. 4. those who are conveened in the name of the Lord â—esus and the Apostles pastorall spirit those who are over us in the Lord and watch for our soules 1 Thes. 5. 14. Heb. 13. 17. but in these Synods there are no Magistrates yea there was at Câ—rinth a Heathen Magistrate 1 Cor. 6. 1. and in the Apostolike Church a persecutor Acts 22. 1 2 3. c. And the Magistrate as the Magistrate is not a member of the Church and is neither Pastor Elder nor Doctor nor a professor of the Gospel except he be more then a Magistrate 5. No Ecclesiasticall power or acts formally Ecclesiasticall are competent to one who is not an Ecclesiasticall person or not a member of the Church but a civill person
but wee uske who shall bee the visible ministeriall and vocall Judge under Christ speaking in his owne Testament for the King is a Politick and civill Judge and the Church an Ecclesiasticall Judge I answer this same is the question betwixt us and Papists anent the Judge of controversies whether the Judge bee a Synod or the Scriptures and wee answer by a distinction the Scripture is norm i judicandi 2. Christ the peremptory and infallible Judge speaking in his owne Word 3. A Synod lawfully conveened is a limited ministeriall and bounded visible Judge and to bee beleeved in so farre as they follow Christ the peremptory and supreme Judge speaking in his owne Word But wee deny that there is on earth any peremptory and in fallible visible Judge But to come yet nearer if the King have sworne to that same religion which the Church doth professe and so acknowledge and professe the reformed religion of that Church hee must then acknowledge the lawfull officers of that Church to bee his ordinary teachers and the lawfull ministers of the Church and that they are both in a Synod and out of the Synod to preach and to bee ministeriall definers of things contraverted and that they shall first determine in an ecclesiasticall way according to Gods Word and hee as King is to command them to determine according to Gods Word under the paine of civill punishment and the Kings civill and coactive way of judging is posterior and ratificatorâ—e of the right and oxthodox ecclesiasticall determination and Junius saith that the Magistrates judging politick presupposeth the Church judging ecclesiasticall going before and Calvin and Amesius are cleare that in this case the Church is to cognosce of hee owne ecclesiasticall affaires Ambrose writeth to the Emperor Valentinian that none should judge of this cause which is ecclesiasticall as one said but a Church-man qui nec munere sit impar neâ—jure dissimilis Gelasius the Pope inveigheth against Anastasius the Emperour because hee confounded these two civill and ecclesiasticall causes But if the Emperour or King professe not the religion of the land and repute it false and if the religion bee indeed hereticall then the Church is not constitute and the case extraordinary but the truth is neither the Kings judgement as a certaine rule to the representative Church nor the representative Churches judgement a rule to the King but the Word of God the infallible rule to both Judgement may crooke truth cannot bow it standeth still unmoveable like God the father of truth but in this case if both erre ex cellently saith Junius the Magistrate erring the Church may do something extraordinarily and tâ—e Church erring the Magistrate may do something also in an extraordinary way as coÌ„mon equitie and mutuall law requireth that friends with mutuall tongues bicke the wounds of friends Also fourthly some say they who make the King the head of the Church acknowledge that the King doth not judge except the matter be first defined in the Scriptures and in the generall councells yet they give a primacie spirituall in matters ecclesiasticall to the King and therefore if the King as King may forbid the inacting of wicked Canons hee determineth them to bee wicked before the Synod have passed their judgement of them I answer that learned Calderwood saith indeed the pretended Lords of high Commission have an act for them under Queene Elizabeth for this effect but it is made for the fashion for all errors and heresies are condemned in Scripture but not onely should there bee a virtuall and tacit determination of matters ecclesiastick which is undeniably in Scripture and may bee in generall councells also but also a formall Synodicall determination in particular must goe before the Princes determination in a constitute Church The Prince may before the Synods determination exhort to the determination of what hee conceiveth is Gods will in his Word but hee cannot judicially and by a Kingly power determine in an orderly way what is to bee defined in a Synod except hee infringe the Churches liberties and judicially prelimit under the paine of civill punishments the free voyces of the members of the Synod which is indeed an abuse of the authoritie of a nurs-father But fiftly it may bee objected that hee may in a thing that is manifestly evident by the Word of God to bee necessary truth command by the power of the sword that the Synod decree that or this particular so cleare in the Word the contrary whereof being Synodically determined hee may punish by the sword and so hee may judicially predetermine some things before the Sâ—nod passe their Synodicall act thereon and if hee may predetermine judicially one thing hee may predetermine all things I answer what the King may judicially determine and punâ—â—h with the sword that hee cannot judicially predetermine and command in any order that hee pleaseth but in a constitute Church whereof hee is a member and to bee taught hee is to determine judicially in an orderly way as a nurs-father But sixtly it may bee objected that if the King have a judiciall power by the sword to annull unjust acts then hath hee a power to 〈◊〉 them though hee abuse that power in making them as unjust and then hath hee a power to interpret Church acts and to defend them 〈…〉 Law saith it is not same power to make Lawes and to dâ—â—â—nd them and interpret them see Paraeus I answer the proposition is not universally necessary except onely in civill matters in the which as the Prince who is absolute hath supreme authority to defend and interpret civill lawes so hath hee power to make them for if the Magistrate hath a supreme judiciall power to interpret Church-Lawes hee is a minister of the Gospell in that case and may by that same reason administer the Sacraments so the argument is a just begging of the question 2. Though the King have power in case of the Church aberration which is somewhat extraordinary it followeth not therefore in ordinary hee hath a nomothetick power to make Church-Lawes Also seventhly it may bee objected if the King in case of the Churches aberration may by the sword rescind Church-Lawes then may hee make a Law to rescind them but those who aâ—firme that the King hath a sort of primacie and headship over the Church say not that the King hath any power formally ecclesiasticall to make Lawes as Ministers in a Synod do but onely that hee hath a power to command any forme of externall worship under the paine of bodily punishment they say not that the King may preach administrate the Sacraments or excommunicate or inflict any Church-censures I answer the transcendent power of Princesand their commissioners is not well knowne for the authors saith Calderwood agree not among themselves but it is true in words the author est Tortura torti the Bishop of Eli denyeth in words if you have strong faith to beleeve
him all spirituall headship over the Church to the King and Burbillus also But Henric. Salcobrigiensis calleth the King primatem ecclesiae Anglicanae the Primate of the Church of England and â—ges oleo sacro uncti capaces sunt jurisdictionis spiritualis because they are annointed with holy oyle therefore are they capable of spirituall jurisdiction also may saith hee creat propria autoritate by his owne authoritie create Bishops and dâ—prive them See what Calderwood hath said and excerped out of the writings of these men the King as King 1. convocateth Synods 2. defineth ecclesiasticall canons 3. giveth to them the power of an ecclesiasticall Law 4. executeth Church Canons 5. appointeth commissioners who in the Kings authoritie and name may try heresies and errors in doctrine punish non-conformitie to Popish ceremonies may confine imprison banish Ministers 6. descerne excommunication and all Church censures and use both the swords 7. relax from the power and censures of all ecclesiastick Lawes give dispensations annull the censures of the Church upon causes knowne to them give dispensations against Canons unite or separate Parish Churches or diocesan Churches and by a mixt power partly coactive and civill partly of jurisdiction and spirituall the King may doe in foro externo in the externall court of Church discipline all and every act of discipline except hee cannot preach baptize or excommunicate And whereas Cartwright saith when a lawfull Minister shall agree upon an unlawfull thing the Prince ought to stay it and if Church ministers shew themselves obstinate and will not bee advised by the Prince they prove themselves to be an unlawfull Ministery and such as the Prince is to punish with the sword O but saith hee the author of the Survey how shall the Prince helpe the matter shall be compell them to conveene in a Synod and retract their mind but they will not doe this 2. By what authoritie shall the Prince doe this even by extraordinary authority even by the same right that David did eate of the Shew-bread if by ordinary authority the Prince would doe it yet doe you resist that authority also Answ. Though the Prince had not externall force to compell Church-men to decree in their Synods things equall holy juâ— and necessary yet it followeth not that the King as King hath not Gods right and lawfull power to command and injoyne them to doe their dutie force and Law differ much as morall and physicall power differ much 2. If they decree things good lawfull and necessary the Prince hath a power given him of God to ratifie confirme and approve these by his civill sanction but hee hath no power ordinary to infringe or evert what they have decreed 3. And if the Church bee altogether uncorrigible and apostate then wee say as followeth 7. Conclution When the representative Church is universally apostaticall then may the Prince use the helpe of the Church essentiall of found beleevers for a reformation and if they also bee apostatick which cannot be except the Lord utterly have removed his candlestick wee see not what hee can doe but heare witnesse against them but if there bee any secret seeker of God in whose persons the essence of a true Church is conserved The King by a royall power and the Law of charitie is oblieged to reforme the land as the godly Kings with a blessed successe have hitherto done Asa Jâ—siah Jehoshaphat 〈◊〉 in which case the power of reformation and of performing many acts of due belonging to the Church officers are warrantably performed by the King as in a diseased body in an extraordinary manner power recurreth from the members to the â—â—â—â—tick head and Christian Prince who both as a King 〈◊〉 â—â— in an authoritative way is oblieged to do more then ordâ—â—â—y and as a Christian member of the Church in a charitative and common way is to care for the whole body 8. Conclusion The influence of the Princes regall power in making constitutions is neither solitary as if the Prince his 〈…〉 could doe it nor is it 2. collaterall as if the Prince and Church with joynt concurrence of divers powers did it nor is 3. as some flatterers have said so eminently spirituall as the consultation and counsell of Pastors for light onely hath influence in Churches Canons but the Princes power hath onely the power to designe so as the Canon hath from the Prince the power of a Law in respect of us The Kings influence in Church Canons as wee thinke is as a Christian antecedent to exhort that the Lord Jesus bee served 2. concomitant as a member of the Church to give a joynt suffrage with the Synod 3. consequent as a King to adde his regall sanction to that which is decreed by the Church according to Gods Word or otherwise to punish what is done amisse Now that the Prince as a solitary cause his alone defineth Church matters and without the Church and that by his ordinary Kingly power wanteth all warrant of the Word of God 2. The King might have given out that constitution Act. 15. It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to us which in reason is due to the ministeriall function for these are called Act. 16. 4. the decrees of the Apostles and Elders not the decrees of the King or Emperour either by Law or fact 3. Christ ascending to heaven gave officers requisite for the gathering of his Church and the edification of the body of Christ but amongst these in no place we finde the King 4. If this bee true heathen Kings have right to make Church-Canons though they bee not able and bee not members of the Christian Church and so without and not to bee judged by the Church nor in any case censured Matth. 18. 17. 1. Cor. 5. 11. and this directly is a King Pope who giveth Lawes by a Kingly power to the Church and yet cannot bee judged by the Church Burhillus and Thomson acknowledge that a Heathen King is primat and head of the Church and must hee not then have power aciu primo to make Lawes and to feede the flocke by externall government But Lancel Andreas Biship of Ely Tortura torti saith that a heathen King hath a temporall Kingly power without any relation to a Church power and when hee is made of a Heathen King a Christian King bee acquireth a new power But the question is if this new power be a new kingly power or if it be a power Christian to use rightly his former kingly power if the first bee true then 1. as learned Voetius and good reason saith hee was not a King before hee was a Christian for the essence of the Kingly power standeth in an indivisible point and the essence of things admit not of degrees 2. Then should hee bee crowned over againe and called of God to bee a Christian King and so hee was not a King before which is against Scripture for Nebucâ—adnezzar was to bee obeyed
wayes 1. Effectually and so we thinke that the Kingly power is an Ordinance of God lawfull jure divinâ— many Papists say the contrary but we thinke with Gods word it is of divine institution as is cleare Psal. 2. 11. Prov. 8. 14. 15. Rom. 13. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Matth. 22. 21. 1 Pâ—t 2. 17 18. Eccles. 9. 20. Prov. 25. 2. Prov. 20. 2. 2 The Kings power may be thought divine formally and so as divine is opposed to civill it is a humane ordinance and not formally divine or ecclesiasticall nor subjectively 3. It may be thought divine and ecclesiastick objectively and finaliter The end intrinsecall being a spirituall good and so the King hath power to conveene Synods not onely as they are men and his Subjects but also as they bee such subjects and Christian men and members of Synods as the King may command the minister of the Gospell both as a man yea and as a Preacher in the Pulpit to preach â—ound doctrine and to give wholesome and good milke to the Church and this is formally an act of a nurie-father such as the King is by his Kingly office and this way also doth the King send members to the Synod and moderate and preside in Synods actu impâ—rato nâ—n elicito actu objective ecclesiastico non intrinsece non formaliter non subjective ecclesâ—astico The King ruleth by the Sword and commandeth the Synods to meete ordereth politically and civilly the members and meeting and as King cooperateth but by a civill and regall influence with the Synod for the same very end that the Synod intendeth to wit the establishing of truth unity and the edification of Christs-body But this power of the Kings to conveene Synods is positive not negative auxiliary and by addition not by way of impedition or privation For the Church of her selfe hath from Christ her head and Lord power of conveening without the King beside his knowledge or against his will if he be averse as is cleare Matth. 18. 17 18. if they be conveened in his name he is with them not upon condition that the Prince give them power And Joh. 20. 19. there is a Church-meeting without the Rulers and a Church-meeting for praying preaching and discipline Act. 1. 13 14. c. without the Magistrate Act. 15. 1 2. and when the Magistrate is an enemy to the Church 2. Where Christ commandeth his disciples to preach and baptize Matth. 28. 19 20. and with all faith in the exercise of their ministry they shall be persecuted by rulers as Matth. 10. 17 18 19. Luk. 21. 12 13 14. He doth by necessary consequence command Church-meetings and Synods even when the Magistrate forbiddeth and this is practised 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4 5. where the Magistrate is an heathen chap. 6. 1 2 3. 3. It should follow that Christ cannot have a true visible Church and ministry on earth except the Magistrate countenance his Church which is both against experience and Christs Kingly power who reigneth in the midst of his enemies Psal. 110. 2. And what glorious Courâ—bes had Christ in Asia with power of doctrine and discipline and â—o with all Church-meetings Rev. 2. chap. 3. where Tyrants did slay the witnesses of Christ Rev. 2. 13. and certainely by what power Kings alleadâ—e that Synods may not meet for the exercise of discipline and good order in Gods house by that same power they may say there should be no Church meeting for the hearing of the word and receiving the Sacraments without their authority For Church Synods for doctrine differ not in spece and nature from Synods for discipline all be one and the same acts under Christ as King and head of his Church for which see Spalato Uâ—â—tius Amâ—sius Calderwood the Professors â—â— Lâ—yden Now what any say on the contrary for the power of Princes in matters ecclesiasticall is soone answered Gerardus saith that Moses gave Lawes both to the People and Priests Exod. 20. Lev. 8. Num. 3. I answer if this be a good argument the Magistrate his alone without advise of the Church may impose Lawes yea and institute new Laws and dite Canonicall Scripture also as did Moses Deut. 5. Exod. 20. but it is certaine that Moses gave these Laws not as a Magistrate but as a Prophet of God who spake with God face to face and it is more for us then for our adversaries David also brought the Ark to its place at Gods speciall direction the Levites carrying it by Gods Law though they failed in that sinfull omission 2 Sam. 6. but 1 David did convocate the chosen of Israel even thirty thousand to reduce the Ark to its place and so the Levites and Church-men and did it not as King his alone as 1 Chron. 13. hee did it And Junius saith and the text is cleare that he did it by the counsell of an Assembly and the whole Church and that a King may doe that in Gods worship in case of the negligence of the Church that is warranted by Gods word is but his duty Now Jesuites answer not to any purpose in this for Becanus and Suarez answer nothing to Davids placing of the Arke in its place onely they say all the people conveved the Arke and danced before it as well as David but it is not hence proved that all the people are heads of the Church as they say the King is and Lysimachus the Jesuite seeth in this that wee aâ—â—ee not with his friends the Jesuits Solomon builded the Temple and dedicated it to Gods service but this is no ground to make the King a Law-giver in the Church 1. Because none can deny but Solomon did all this as a Prophet by speciall revelation for 1. if Solomon might not build an house to the Lord but by speciall revelation that hee should bee the man and not David his father 2 Sam. 7. 6. 13. farre more could hee not as an ordinary King build that typicall house which had a resemblance of Christ and heaven it selfe especially seeing the signification of the Holy of holiest in the Sanctuary is expressely given to the holy Spirit Heb. 9. 7 8. and the Temple was a type of Christ Joh. 2. 20 21. and they may say Kings by an ordinary power as Kings might pen Canonick Scripture as well as they could build a typicall Temple like Solomons God filled that Temple with his glory and heard prayers made in that temple and toward that Temple I thinke Kings as Kings cannot now build such Temples therefore Solomon by a Propheticall instinct built that house Jesuites give no answer to this for Suarez saith Kings may build Churches to God because of it selfe it is an act of Religion which requireth riches for the building thereof and for the dedication it includeth two 1. By some religious action to consecrate a house to God and this way onely the Priests by sacrificing dedicated the Temple and God by filling