The Covenant of Grace, Treatise 3
The Reſult of the Diſputations of the Synod, or Aſſembly, at Cambridge in New-England, Begun upon the firſt day of the 7th Month, An. Dom. 1646.
About the power of the Civill Magiſtrate in matters of the firſt Table; and alſo about the grounds of Synods, with their power, and the power of calling of them. Being drawn up by ſome of the Members of the Aſſembly, deputed thereunto, and being diſtinctly read in the Aſſembly, it was agreed thus farre onelyonly, That they ſhould be commended unto more ſerious conſideration againſt the next Meeting.
TOuching the Queſtion of the Civill Magiſtrate in matters of Religion, we ſhall crave leave to narrow and limit the ſtate of it in the manner of the Propoſall of it, and ſhall therefore propound it thus.
Queſt. Whether the Civil Magiſtrate in matters of Religion, or of the firſt Table, hath power civilly to command or forbid things reſpecting the outward man, which are clearly commanded and forbidden in the word, and to inflict ſutable puniſhments, according to the nature of the tranſgreſſions againſt the ſame, and all this with reference to godly peace?
Anſw. The want of a right ſtating of this Queſtion, touching the Civil Magiſtrates power in matters of Religion, hath occaſioned a world of Errours, tending to infringe the juſt power of the Magiſtrate, we ſhall therefore explaine the termes of the Queſtion, and then confirme it in the Affirmative.
By [Commanding, Forbidding, and Puniſhing] we meant the coercive power of the Magiſtrate, which is ſeen in ſuch acts. By [Matters of Religion commanded or forbidden in the word, reſpecting the outward man] we underſtand indefinitely, whether thoſe of Doctrine or Diſcipline, of faith or practice; his power is not limited to ſuch matters of Religion onelyonly, which are againſt the light of Nature, or againſt the Law of Nations, or againſt the fundamentalls of Religion; all theſe are matters of Religion, which may be expreſſed by the outward man, but not onelyonly theſe; therefore we ſay not barely thus [In matters of the firſt Table] but joyn therewith [In matters of Religion] that all ambiguity may be avoided, and that it may be underſtood as well of matters which are purely Evangelicall, ſo far as expreſſed by the outward man, at well as of other things. And we ſay, [Commanded or forbidden in the word] meaning of the whole word, both of the Old and New Teſtament; exception being onelyonly made of ſuch things which were meerly Ceremoniall, or otherwiſe peculiar to the Jewiſh polity, and cleered to be aboliſhed in the New Teſtament: By which limitation of the Magiſtrates power to things commanded or forbidden in the word, we exclude any power of the Magiſtrate, either in commanding any new thing, whether in doctrine or diſcipline, or any thing in matters of Religion, which is beſide or againſt the word, or in forbidding any thing which is according to the word.
1 Hence he is not to mould up and impoſe what Eraſtian forme of Church polity he pleaſeth; becauſe if there be but one form commanded now of God, he cannot therefore command what forme he will.
2 Hence he is not to force all perſons into the Church, or to the participation of the ſeals; becauſe he is not thus commanded.
3 Hence he is not to limit to things indifferent, which are neither commanded, nor forbidden in the word, without apparent expediency or inexpediency of attending the ſame. By that expreſſion [cleerly] commanded or forbidden in the word, we underſtand that which is cleer, either by expreſs words, or neceſſary Conſequence from the Scripture; and we ſay cleerly commanded or forbidden in the word. Not ſimply that which the Magiſtrate or others think to be cleerly commanded or forbidden; for they may thinke things commanded, to be forbidden, and things forbidden, to be commanded; but that which is in it ſelfe in ſuch ſort cleer in the word, de jure, the Civil Magiſtrate in theſe days ſince Chriſts aſcenſion, may and ought to command and forbid ſuch things ſo cleared in the word, albeit de facto, oft-times he doe not. [Sutably inflicting puniſhments according to the nature of the tranſgreſſions] This clauſe needeth not much explication, being ſo plaine of it ſelfe; ſome things commanded and forbidden in the Law of God, are of a ſmaller nature in reſpect of the Law of man, and in this reſpect 'tis true which is often ſaid, that De minimis non curat lex, i. e. Mans Law looks not after ſmall matters, but other things commanded or forbidden in Gods Law, are momentous, and of a higher nature, and though ſmall in themſelves, yet weighty in the conſequence or circumſtance. And in this caſe if he inflict a ſlight paper puniſhment when the offence is of an high nature; or contrariwiſe, when he inflicts that which is equivalent to a capitall puniſhment, when the offence is of an inferiour nature, he doth not puniſh ſutably. There are ſundry rules in the word in matters of this ſort, as touching the puniſhment of Blaſphemy, Idolatry, Hereſie, prophanation of the Lords day, and ſundry other like matters of Religion, according to wch Magiſtrates of old have held, and others now may obſerve proportions, in making other particular Laws in matters of Religion, with ſanctions of puniſhments, and inflicting the ſame, they inflict ſutable puniſhments: OnelyOnly let it be here remembred, that though we grant the Civill Magiſtrate his power thus to command, forbid and puniſh in matters of Religion, cleerly re…ealed in the word, ye… it is one thing what he may and muſt doe, and another thing when and how he muſt exerciſe his power to all perſons under his Juriſdiction; for ſome ſuch perſons may not be at all acquainted with the true God, or have any knowledge of Chriſt, or of the word, but as yet are Pagans: Now touching ſuch, the Magiſtrate ſhould take care, that the beſt means be ſeaſonably and wiſely uſed with them, according to their capacities, to bring them firſt to the knowledge of the true God, and of his word, and to convince them of the falſhood & vanity of their gods, whom they worſhip, &c. and afterwards, as there is cauſe, to put forth acts of his coercive power towards them, as Scripture-rules and examples will allow others, though they are Chriſtians, yet ſuch as are not clearly inſtructed or inlightned in matters clearly ſet down in the Word; in this caſe the civill Magiſtrate is to informe and convince, and not to proceed ſuddenly till all juſt means are uſed to leave him convinced, of which it is more meet for the Magiſtrate than for the offending perſon to judge, who it may be will never ſay he is convinced. We live in times wherein many men are perverſly carried, and will regard no reaſon, but goe full againſt the light of it, and of common ſenſe too, ſometimes rather than confeſſe the truth when convinced of it; ſuch an obſtinate foole is not to be anſwered according to his folly by any further reaſonings, Pro. 26.4. A whip is fitter (ſayth Solomon) for ſuch a backe. By this, which hath been already ſpoken touching the acts and rule of the Magiſtrates coercive power in matters of Religion, the impertinency and invalidity of many objections againſt this his power will appear, as,
1. That thereby the civill Magiſtrate is made the Churches King, and Lawgiver; which would be true if he might command or forbid any thing, which was not firſt commanded or forbidden of the Lord, who is the Churches Lawgiver, which we ſay he may not.
2. That thereby he is made to have dominion over mens faith; when he doth no more by our poſition but preſſe them to that faith, which he, that hath indeed dominion over the ſame, hath preſcribed.
3. That thereby tyranny is exerciſed over mens tender conſciences, and true liberty of conſcience is infringed; when as he de jure commands nothing but that which, if men have any tenderneſſe of conſcience, they are bound in conſcience to ſubmit thereto, and in faithfull ſubmitting to which is trueſt liberty of conſcience, conſcience being never in a …er or better eſtate of liberty here on earth, than when moſt ingaged to walke according to Gods Commandements.
4. That thereby Chriſtians become ſervants of men; when the Magiſtrate only is to enjoyne what his Maſter and theirs hath commanded, or to forbid the contrary, and conſequently in ſubmitting thereto are but ſervants to Chriſt in man.
5. That thereby men are made hypocrites and time-ſervers; as if to command men to walke according to the Word, and to forbid the contrary, were to make men ſo contrary to the Word as are time-ſervers and hypocrites.
6. That thereby a ſluce is opened to let in all manner of falſe religions, and corrupt opinions into the Church: ſuppoſing the Magiſtrate be of any falſe religion, or corrupt in his judgement; yea, that were the way to ſet up a Pope in a Chriſtian Common-wealth, for Religion muſt turne as he turns. When as the queſtion is touching the Magiſtrates power of commanding or forbidding not what he in a Popelike way ſhall pleaſe, or what his own ſpirit ſhall like beſt, but what God hath commanded or forbidden in the Word; and the poſition ſubjecteth him to the Word as to the ſupream Law, and doth not ſet him up Popelike above the Scriptures, or allow him to make his ſenſe of ſcripture, to be Scripture, or to make humane traditionall Cannons to be as much of force as Scripture to bind mens conſciences &c. but the poſition rather condemneth any ſuch power as gular, uſurped & not approved of God, which ſwerveth from that rule of the exerciſe of his power in matters of religion; namely, the Scriptures; and the contrary to that objected would rather follow, that if there muſt be no King or civill power among Gods profeſſed Iſrael, coercively to reſtraine forbidden evills in Religion, then every man would hold and doe as he liſt, as if every one were a Pope; and then Micah's Idolatry and any other abominations may be ſet up.
7. That thereby the civill Magiſtrate is put upon many intricate perplexities & hazards of conſcience, how to judge in and of matters of Religion.
But this doth not hinder the Magiſtrate from that uſe of his coercive power, in matters commanded or forbidden in the firſt Table, no more then it doth hinder him from the like power in matters of the ſecond Table; none being ignorant what perplexing intricacies there are in theſe as well as in the former; as conſcientious Magiſtrates finde by dayly experience; yet ſuch as object this will not deny this power in the latter, and why then in the former; the objection proveth the difficulty of his knowing of Gods minde in his place, and if it had been objected againſt Church-Officers power in Churches, or the power of Parents and Maſters in their families, it would have proved the ſame; but it followes not, its difficult for a man in authority to know the utmoſt of his duty in his place, therefore its not neceſſary for him to doe his duty in his place.
They which inaugurated Joaſh to be King, 2 Chron. 23.11. they put upon him the teſtimony (as the Hebrew words uſed to be expounded) to ſhew that it was his duty as a King not onelyonly to know the teſtimonie or booke of Gods Law, but authoritatively to eſtabliſh what was written in it.
8. That thereby perſons are put upon acting with doubting conſciences; the Magiſtrates Injunctions being ofttimes not cleare to ſuch as are to obey them, and ſo they are thereby compelled to ſin. When the poſition affirmeth this power in matters cleared in the Word, which if not cleared to this or that ſubject in a Chriſtian Common-wealth, that is his owne fault, by his owne ignorance of matters which he is bound to know, to bring any ſuch ſnare upon his conſcience, and in ſuch a caſe he may deſire the Magiſtrate to uſe the beſt meanes to cleare up the matters enjoyned or forbidden, to be commanded or forbidden in the Word; but neither of theſe hinder but that the Magiſtrate is to command or forbid that which God hath commanded or forbidden; even that which Chriſt hath commanded or forbidden, ſhould not then be urged upon mens conſciences by Church-Officers, or Church-cenſures be executed againſt obſtinate gaine-ſayers, becauſe through error in judgement, and corruption in conſcience, men will ſay th…nd after all meanes uſed for convict…, they may ſtill affirme that they thinke otherwiſe, or at beſt that they ſtill doubt of the matters in queſtion, yea albeit the matters be fundamentall.
9. That hereby Chriſtians are diſcouraged from ſeeking more light or hindred from embracing or following ſuch new light as the Saints expect in theſe latter dayes. When as its evident that the commanding and forbidding things cleared in the Word, to be good or evill, doth neither expreſſe what light men have from the Word, nor diſcourage from more light in & from the ſame, as not in matters of the ſecond Table, ſo neither of the firſt.
10. That thereby conſcientious men eſpecially, will come to ſuffer, becauſe Magiſtrates may think things commanded or forbidden of God, and accordingly ratifie them by their authority, which God did never command or forbid, when as the queſtion is not concerning Magiſtrates enjoyning what they thinke, but what is the minde of God; nor can the preſſing of the minde of God commanding what he requieth, and forbidding the contrary, be any juſt or proper cauſe of ſuffering to men truly conſcientious.
The Magiſtrate may indeed through miſtake command or forbid things, reſpecting not onelyonly the firſt but the ſecond Table. But this doth not deprive civill Magiſtracy therefore of coercive power, as not in matters of the ſecond, ſo neither of the firſt Table; but in this caſe Chriſtians muſt be content to ſuffer in either, albeit withall the Magiſtrate doe breake his rule.
11. That thereby we ſhall incourage and harden Papiſts and Turks in their cruell perſecutions of the Saints; whereas for the Magiſtrate to command or forbid according to God, as it is not perſecution, ſo neither doth it of it ſelfe, tend to perſecution. Power to preſſe the Word of God and his truth, doth not give warrant to ſuppreſſe or oppreſſe the ſame: the times are evill indeed when the preſſing of obedience to the rule ſhall be counted perſecution.
12. That thence are cauſed all the warres in Chriſtendome at this day; when it is evident that the preſſing men to obey the will and word of God in matters either of the ſecond or fi…ſt Table, is not of it ſelfe any cauſe of warre, but the luſts rather of ſuch as abuſe their power contrary to the Word.
By this already ſpoken we have ſeen the ruine of twelve of our oppoſites Caſtles in the ayre, imaginarily framed to withſtand the civil Magiſtrates coercive power in matters of Religion.
Let us now in the next place conſider at the object of this coercive power of the Magiſtrate, which in the ſtate of the queſtion we call the (outward man) the things wh ch the civill Magiſtrate, as ſuch, doth command or forbid, he commandeth or forbiddeth with immediate reſpect to the outward man. The Magiſtrate as a Magiſtrate looketh immediately at the externall acts of the body, and not at the internall acts of the ſoule, its his property as a civill Ruler to attend onelyonly the duties and ſinnes which appeare in the walke of the outward man. Thus Calvin, Beza, Chemnitius, Gerard, and other Proteſtant Divines generally.
Queſt. Hereby alſo other objections receive anſwer; as firſt, Muſt Magiſtrates puniſh any man for being of a corrupt judgement, or barely for an errour in his judgement, or for having a corrupt heare, and ſundry luſts in it?
Anſw. We ſay no: becauſe whilſt he keepeth his opinion to himſelfe, and whileſt his luſts are confined within his breaſt, he is to be left to the ſword of the Spirit, and to the Word of God, thereby onelyonly to be convinced; the Magiſtrates power onelyonly extending to the outward man, but if either his mentall errours, or hearts luſt breake out into open expreſſion and view, and become ſcandalous and ſpreading, then they become breaches of rules by the outward man, yea, tend to infringe that outward godly peace, of which he is to be a preſerver, and ſo in both reſpects he is to deale with the ſame.
Object. 2. Muſt a Magiſtrate command men to believe with all their heart, to repent and mortifie their ſins and luſts?
Anſw. We ſay no: becauſe theſe appertaine to the inward man and ſoule of man, to attend ſo farre as they are inward, but if we ſpeake of any outward profeſſion of theſe, ſo farre he may command as to profeſſe the faith by comming to heare the Word, and to repent by publick faſting and prayer. And if Princes have no power in ſuch externall things, then have they no power inſtrumentally to remove the wrath of God from their Kingdomes by generall humiliations.
Briefly now of the manner and means of the exerciſe of this power, included in that phraſe [civilly] we ſay not eccleſiaſtically, as if he might put forth his power in a Church way, & by Church-weapons or cenſures, but civilly or in a civill way or by civill cenſures or puniſhments.
Whence alſo other objections are anſwered, as that the weapons of our warfare are not carnall but ſpirituall; and that Paul ſheweth a way of redreſſing all offences, 1 Cor. 5.5. 2 Tim. 2.25. and Faith comes by hearing, and not by whipping: when theſe places rather intend and ſhew a Church way of healing Church offences: and doe no more exclude a Politicall way of healing offences in a Chriſtian Common-wealth, than an Economicall way of redreſſing diſorders in the Family; ſo the other place ſheweth a ſpirituall means of drawing men to the Faith; ſo that neither are pertinent to the caſe of the Civill power, acting civilly; nor doth this Aſſertion, That the Magiſtrate is to be a terrour to all evill works, (applying the ſame to evill works forbidden in the firſt Table) any more exclude the uſe of Church-diſcipline therein: then it doth in matters of the ſecond Table, if applyed thereunto; for the Church may proceed in her way to cenſure Eccleſiaſtically one and the ſame thing, whether it be againſt the firſt or ſecond Table, which the Magiſtrate doth puniſh civilly.
The laſt thing to be explained in the ſtate of the Queſtion is, touching the coercive power of the Magiſtrate, namely, Godly peace. Now by Godly peace (to which the Magiſtrate immediately looketh) we mean a peaceable living, as in all honeſty, ſo in godlines, as the Apoſtle hath it, 1 Tim. 2.1,2. So far as any matters of Religion, coming under the Magiſtrates cognizance as a publick Officer in the Commonwealth, doe either further or hinder ſuch a peace of a Chriſtian Commonwealth, ſo far is he to put forth his coercive power accordingly.
Hereby alſo, with reference to things before explained, other Objections may receive anſwer, as
1 Will you have Magiſtrates put forth their coercive power to the full, in Lawes, with Sanctions of puniſhments; as that men ſhall pray in their Families, ſo long, or ſo oft, or elſe ſuffer? That a Miniſter in preaching, if he exceed a juſt houre, he muſt ſuffer, and the like? we ſay, if either the matters be meerly circumſtantiall, or if they be matters of leſſe moment, and ſuch as doe not of themſelves any way infringe publick peace, or that they are not pertinatiouſly & tumultuouſly maintained to the diſturbance of publick peace, in all ſuch like caſes, wherein the Civill Magiſtrate's end is not intrenched upon, he may not exerciſe the coercive power of his Authority, with ſanction, or execution of puniſhments.
2 Will not this Theſis arme and ſtir up the Civill power in Old England, againſt godly Orthodox ones of the Congregationall way: or exaſperate Civill power in New England, againſt godly, moderate, and Orthodox Preſbyterians, if any ſuch ſhould deſire their liberty here? we conceive no, except the civill diſturbance of the more rigidly, unpeaceably, and corruptly minded, be very great; yet betwixt men godly and moderately minded on both ſides, the difference upon true and due ſearch is found ſo ſmall, by judicious, Orthodox, godly, and moderate Divines, as that they may both ſtand together in peace and love; if liberty ſhould be deſired by either ſort here or there ſo exerciſing their liberty, as the publick peace be not infringed: The ſtate of the Queſtion in the explication thereof, will rather quench then kindle any ſuch coales againſt either: If indeed perſons profeſſing either the Congregationall or Presbyteriall way, will ſhelter or cloſe, either with other Blaſphemous, Hereticall, or Schiſmaticall Tenents, which tend to break the peace of the Congregationall way there where a Presbyteriall way is authorized to be the generall way of the Churches, or the Presbyteriall way here, where the Congregationall way is authorized to be the generall way of the Churches, there they may be ſtrained by the power of the Civil Magiſtrate, as diſturbers and breakers of godly peace, the conſervation whereof is the Civil Magiſtrates end and work, unto which he is to attend.
Having thus cleared the ſtate of the Queſtion, we ſhall now come to ſome Arguments from Scripture, which confirme the Affirmative part of the queſtion ſo ſtated; and the Arguments are taken ſome from the old, ſome from the New Teſtament. Of the former ſort there are three.
From the Old Teſtament.
Argum: 1
1 In that it is evident that Rulers of old, and thoſe Rulers in the Commonwealth of Iſrael, they are commended in Scripture for the exerciſe of ſuch power in the matters of the firſt Table; and therefore it is according to the mind of God that now civil Rulers do the like. Abraham, who was not an ordinary maſter of a family, but a Prince among them, Gen. 23.6. He is commended for laying the force of his command upon thoſe under his power, in matters of Religion, Gen. 18 19. And if he had been conſidered as a Maſter, yet leſs would not be granted that way to a Ruler of a Common-wealth, than of a Family, but rather more. Job as a civil Ruler, as a King in an Army of perſons under his command, did not leave each of them to choſe out their own way of Religion or juſtice, but he choſe it, he determinatively ſet it down for them. I ſate as King in an Army, I choſe out their way, &c. Job 29.25. The King of Ninivey, with his Princes, did not barely commend that duty of faſting and prayer, to his people, as very convenient to be attended, yet leaving them to their liberty to omit the ſame: but he poſitively commands the ſame, that the wrath of God might be prevented, foreignJonah 3.7. The word is uſed for a coercive command or decree, Ezra 4.21. & 6.11. Dan. 3.10,11. & 29. & 6.7,8,9. & 13. and the act of the civil Authority of Ninivey, having ſo much influence into the people act, Jonah 3.5,6, & 7. verſes compared, is implicitely commended by Chriſt, in his commendation of the repentance of the men of Ninevey; and ſo of the King and Princes of Ninevey, whoſe hearts were ſo thorowly touched, as to improve their authority to further that civil work of Ninevy's repentance. The examples of Moſes Joſhua, David, Solomon, Aſa, Jehoſaphat, Hezekiah, Joſiah Nehemiah, &c. are obvious to every ordinary eye, which looks into the Scripture.
Object. They of old were Types, therefore their examples are not now of force for our imitation.
Anſw. We ſuppoſe the Objection intends not by Type, and exemplar for imitation, as Type in a generall ſenſe is uſed, 1 Cor. 10.6. compared with 11. for this were to overthrow the ſcope of the Objectors, but rather it meaneth a Type ſtrictly taken, namely that they in that exerciſe of their power, did but ſhaddow out Chriſts Kingly power; but of this the oppoſites give onelyonly a barren aſſertion, without proof, and that will not carry it. But we ſhall anſwer it more particularly.
1 Then ſuch may as well ſay, thoſe Rulers did ſhaddow out Chriſt in the exerciſe of their power in matters of the ſecond Table, and therefore are not therein imitable, which none will affirme. Solomon typed out Chriſt in ſubduing of enemies, relieving the opreſſed, procuring the peace of the ſtate, Pſal. 72. Muſt not Princes therefore doe the like?
2 Thoſe that make that Objection, they uſe to put it thus, The Kings of Iſrael were ſuch Types; but ſuch an one was not Abraham, nor Job, nor Nehemiah, who by a Coercive Law injoined the ſanctifying of the Sabbath, Neh. 13. nor the King of Ninevey, nor was that wicked King of Iſrael, Ahab, a type of Chriſt, which ſhould have put that blaſpheming Benhadad to death [whence that ſharpe reproof of him for not doing it, 1 Kings 20. To ſay nothing of Darius & Nebuchadnezzars Decrees this way, which are recorded in way of commendation thereof, Ezra 6. and Dan. 3.29.
3 Solomon himſelfe (who if any were types of Chriſt therein, he was) ſetteth it downe by direction of the Spirit as a morall duty of each King indefinitely, that (howſoever de facto, many doe otherwiſe, yet de jure) he ſcattereth away all evill with his eye, Prov. 20.8. meaning all publick evil which cometh within his ken; as a King or publick perſon, whether the evill be againſt the firſt or ſecond Table; unleſſe any make exception, and ſay, that either there are no ſins againſt the firſt Table coming under the Magiſtrates view, or though they doe, yet they are not evil.
4 It was a ſtated doctrine in the time of Job (who by the moſt judicious is thought to live before Moſes) and it is atteſted and approved by the Holy Ghoſt, that ſins againſt the firſt Table, as Idolatry, was iniquity to be puniſhed by the Judges, Job 31.26,27,28. as well as ſins againſt the ſecond Table, as Adultery, ibid. verſ. 9. and 11.
Object. Thoſe Rulers of old did thus as Members of the Nationall Church of the Jewes, the ſame perſons being Members of Church and Common-wealth; but it is not alwayes ſo now.
Anſw. 1 Then at leaſt where Magiſtrates are Members of Churches, they may in theſe dayes exerciſe ſuch power.
2 Though they were Members both of Church and State, yet they were to put forth their Coercive power civilly, not as Members of the Church, but of the State, elſe it had been to confound Church and State, yea, to make God (which directed to it) to be the author of that confuſion.
3 They were to puniſh ſuch to whom they ſtood in no Church relation at all, but meerly Civil, for ſins againſt the firſt Table. Hence Ahab was blamed for not puniſhing Benhadad blaſpheming God, as if a God of the Hils, but not of the valleys: Hence Nehemiah's reſolution to puniſh even any of thoſe ſtrangers which ſhould prophane the Sabbath, chap. 13.
4 Job, and thoſe Judges mentioned in his time, as bound to puniſh Idolatry, were no Members of the Jewiſh Church.
Object. If you make the example of the Princes of Iſrael, acting Coercively in matters of Religion for Magiſtrates imitation, why doe not you make the Levites a pattern alſo to Miniſters now, to act as they did civilly, in civil cenſures?
Anſw.1 It's not clear that the Levites d d act any further than by counſel, or at moſt by ſome generall conſent to that which the Princes were formally to Act.
2 If the Levites did act in matters of the State by a peculiar liberty, it doth not follow, that this can invalidate the Rulers power, then acting in matters of Religion; as if by a peculiar liberty alſo, unleſſe the Objection could be bottomed on the proportion betwixt the Levites then, and the Rulers then: Thus, that as the Levites which by ſpeciall liberty (proper to thoſe times, and ſo not imitable now) did intermeddle in matters peculiar to Magiſtrates, ſo the Magiſtrates then did intermeddle in matters peculiar to the Prieſts, by a liberty proper to thoſe times; and this would be croſſe to expreſſe Text, 2 Chron. 26.16. where Ʋzzias medling with Prieſtly matters of offering Incenſe, is made a tranſgreſſion againſt the Lord, for which he was afterward ruined.
3 We make the Levites intermedling juditially in Civil matters, therefore not imitable, becauſe what they are ſuppoſed to doe that way, was by a liberty peculiar to that time; but we make the example of the civil Rulers acting their Coercive power in matters of Religion, imitable, becauſe not peculiar to the Jewiſh Church, as appears, in that what power they that way exerciſed, the ſame in ſubſtance did Job, and other Judges in his time, by Divine direction and approbation, put forth; yea the judiciall act of Nebuchadnezzar in puniſhing Ahab and Zedekiah with death, not for their Adultery onelyonly (a ſin againſt the ſecond Table) but for their falſe doctrine (a matter of Religion) was of Gods appointment, Jer. 29.21. with 23. and hence by Gods appointment was this execution of Gods vengeance on them, made a proverbial Curſe, verſ. 22.
Argum: 2
A ſecond Argument is, in that it's recorded as a moſt deſperate and accurſed eſtate of old, that they had no King or chief Ruler in Iſrael, to reſtrain, as Adultery, and Murther (ſins againſt the ſecond Table, Judges 19.1. with chap. 20.) ſo Idolatry (a ſin againſt the firſt Table, chap. 17.1. & 18.1. compared) but every man had his liberty, to doe what was right in his owne eyes.
Argum: 3
The third Argument is, in that it is recorded as a matter of ſpeciall guidance and direction of God, and acknowledged by Ezra, inſpired by the Spirit, as a ſpecial mercy of God to his people, that Artaxerxes an Heathen King, had an heart to put forth his coercive power injoyning things commanded of God, and forbidding, with ſanction of ſutable puniſhments, the evils, whether againſt the Lawes of the King, or againſt the Lawes of God, whether concerning Religion, or righteouſneſſe: whence we argue, that this uſe of the civil power was of God of old, and therefore the ſame is as well of God now. Artaxerxes was indeed an inſtrument in the hand of Chriſt, but not therefore a Type of Chriſt: Nor was this of the nature of a meer Jewiſh judiciall Law, becauſe injoining puniſhments, moral offences being puniſhable; and yet not therefore of a meer judicial nature, or meerly againſt a judicial Law; beſides this act of Artaxerxes reſpected civil matters, and matters of the ſecond Table (which none will challenge as not imitable) as well as matters of Religion. And that which ſome object, that he did this for fear of wrath, rather confirmeth the morality of the uſe of ſuch power, then otherwiſe. For what ground of fear in not putting forth ſuch coercive power, if the omiſſion of it were not ſinfull? Yea, if the uſe of ſuch a coercive power in matters of Religion, were not according to Gods mind (as our oppoſites ſay) he might rather more groundedly have feared Gods wrath for ſuch an high offence, as uſurpation of a power which the Lord diſliked, and forbade.
Thus much of the firſt head of Arguments from the Old Teſtament; thoſe from the New follow, and they are foure.
From the New Teſtament.
Argum: 1
The firſt is taken from Rom. 13. If God will have every ſoul in and of the Churches, and that of Rome, as well as others, to be ſubject to civill Magiſtrates, as being powers ordained of God, v. 1. an Ordinance of God, v. 2. a terrour not to good works, but to evill, v. 3. the miniſtry of God for their good, v. 4. and that for conſcience ſake, v. 5. Then Magiſtrates are to put forth coercive power in ſuch matters of Religion, reſpecting the outward man. But the former is true, ergo, the latter.
Object. All this may be true, and yet verified onelyonly in matters of the ſecond Table, and is extended to matters of the firſt, yet onelyonly to ſuch things as are againſt the Law of Nations, or the light of Nature, and ſo no proof of that for which it is urged. He is a terrour to evil works, but it is not ſaid he is ſo to all evill works.
Anſw. 1 If all this be reſtrained according to the intent of the Objection, then is none to have praiſe, approbation, incouragement from Civil Authority, by reaſon of matters of Faith, or of Religion, but for matters of righteouſneſſe onelyonly: or if for any matters of Religion, yet onelyonly for ſuch as ſtand with the light of nature, and Law of Nations, as the third Verſe muſt be Expounded. For if it be ſuppoſed, that it is an act of Juſtice (whereof the Magiſtrate is Miniſter) to diſtribute rewards in any matters of Religion, that appeares in the walk of the outward man, and reſpect godly peace in way of encouragement, it muſt needs be an act of like juſtice, to diſtribute puniſhments to the contrary. The Magiſtrate being, according to the Apoſtles diſtribution, a Miniſter of God, as well when he encourageth good, as when he repreſſeth and puniſheth evil.
2 The Objection would make onelyonly offences againſt the rules of the ſecond Table, or at moſt, thoſe that are againſt the Law of nature and Nations (which come under the view of the Magiſtrate, as a publick Miniſter of God) to be evill works, and not other ſins of like publick cognizance & concernment, reſpecting other matters of Religion. For if both ſorts of offences are evil, he being a terrour to evil works indefinitely, which come to his publick cognizance, he is a terrour ex officio, to both; and it is vaine to ſay, he ſaith evill works, not all evil works; for ſo he ſaith, he is not a terrour to good works, but ſaith not, to all good works, and therefore if that indefinite (good works) be not equivalent to that general (all good works) he may then it ſeems be a terrour to ſome good works which come under his publick cognizance.
3 We are yet to ſpeak of that limitation, where the New Teſtament alloweth the civil Magiſtrate power, as in matters of righteouſneſſe, ſo in matters of Religion; ſo far namely as the light of nature, and Law of Nations extendeth in matters of the outward man, which come to his publick view: but reſtraineth him from medling further in any matters of Religion, of like publick cognizance and concernment. That Scripture ground of this diſtinction and reſtriction, would be produced.
Object. I, when Paul wrote this Epiſtle to the Romans, their Rulers were Pagans, and what coercive power was it likely they would put forth in any matters of Religion, unleſſe againſt the true Religion, as undermining their Paganiſme; Crying downe the ſame as worſhip of Devils, and teaching them to caſt off their Heathen Gods as no Gods? They did not look at Jeſus Chriſt as their Supream Lord, but as a new upſtart God in compariſon of their Roman Gods; and to make penall Laws againſt falſe doctrine or Religion, had been to make Lawes againſt themſelves as well as others, and to make Lawes againſt the preſent light of their owne conſciences.
Anſw. This no way weakneth, but ſtrengthneth what we have ſaid: For if even thoſe Pagan Rulers in Pauls time, were (by their Office Miniſters of God) then bound to improve their Authority for the ratifying and eſtabliſhing of his Lawes, and for thoſe of the firſt, as well as ſecond Table, and then bound by their Office (as Miniſters of God) to rule for him, and the exacting of his rule in and over their ſubjects. And that they did not know, and doe thus, it was their ſin. Many of them thought plurality of wives, fornication, raſh divorces, inceſtuous marriages, uſury, &c. no ſin, and it may be ſaid, if they had made Lawes againſt theſe, they had made Lawes againſt themſelves, and the light of their owne conſciences, as thinking in their ſeduced, blinded conſciences, that theſe were lawfull; yet all will ſay, they were all Miniſters of God, and bound to know and doe otherwiſe. Nero is branded for a beaſtly perſon, a Lyon, in that he abuſed that Authority of his, which of right ſhould have beene improved for encouragement of Paul in his Miniſtry and doctrine, to be a means to endeavoure to deſtroy and devoure him, 2 Tim. 4.17.
2 A ſecond Argument is taken from 1 Tim. 2.1,2. We are to pray that we may have ſuch Magiſtrates as may act Authoritatively in matters of Religion and piety, as well as of righteouſneſſe and honeſty; therefore it is the mind of God, that civil Magiſtrates ſhould put forth their power in the one as well as in the other.
Object. Yea but ſome have ſaid, If you now allow civil Rulers power in matters of Religion, they will perſecute us.
Anſw. The Apoſtle doth not anſwer; pray therefore in theſe perſecuting times of Romiſh Emperours, that they may not meddle at all coercively in matters of Religion, as being to uſurpe power not belonging to them; but rather pray that they may uſe this power which they have aright, or as we may peaceably exerciſe acts of Religion, as well as honeſty; nor doth he ſay, pray that they may deale in matters of Religion negatively, that is, ſo as authoritatively to hinder any from diſturbing any Chriſtian in that which he taketh up for truth or piety; or in any opinion which he may hold, and yet be a godly man; no more then he ſaith, pray that they may deale ſo in matters of honeſty, as to hinder any from diſturbance in any ſuppoſed courſe of honeſty, yea in any acts of diſhoneſty, which may be incident to one, that yet in the main is godly, for that were to pray to be let alone in all ungodlineſſe or diſhoneſty: Nor doth he ſay, pray that every one may live according to his Conſcience, or hold out any opinion, Tenent, or practice, ſuiting with his conſcience, ſo it race not the foundation of godlineſſe; but pray for them, that we may live in all godlines peaceably, or that we may with quietneſſe and encouragement ſo carry it, as will ſtand with godlineſſe it ſelfe, yea with godlineſſe in the higheſt degree of it, or any part of it, in all godlineſſe.
A third Argument is taken from Iſa. 49.23. which though a Scripture of the Old, yet reſpecting the dayes of the New Teſtament, and the ſubſtance of the Argument ſtands thus. It is the mind of God that civil Rulers in the dayes of the New Teſtament ſhould Authoritatively act in ſpirituall things, which are to the Church as milke; therefore it's his mind that in theſe dayes they ſhould act Authoritatively in matters of Religion, we ſay to act Authoritatively, becauſe to act as Fathers and Mothers, and therefore not to act meerly alluringly (as ſome ſay) or in a generall way of countenance, but coercively: Fathers act fatherly in commanding, in forbidding, and in puniſhing, as well as in kiſſing, and giving good words; in taking the rod, as giving an Apple; nor doth he ſay, they ſhould be Nurſes, as if they were to take upon them to act officially in Preaching or in adminiſtration, whether of Church ſeales, or of Church cenſures. The nature of the ſimilitude forbids it. Nurſe-fathers cannot give milk to the Child, but Nurſe-fathers, and Nurſe-mothers, to take Authoritative care, what milk either Church-Officers, or any others yield forth to the Church, to ſee that it be good, and accordingly to reward and encourage it, to look that it be not bad, but coercively to reſtrain it, at leaſt from being milked forth to the Churches hurt: Albeit if kept within the breaſt that bred it, it is out of their cognizance; nor is this ſpoken of Heathen Rulers, as Pagans, not Chriſtians, but of ſuch which though as civil Rulers they command in matters of Religion, or righteouſneſſe, yea as Members of the Church they obey the Church, ſtooping to its doctrine and diſcipline ſo, they lick up the duſt of the Churches feet.
4 A fourth Argument is taken from Zech. 13.2,3,4,5,6. it is Prophecyed of as an approved act, of the zealous Members of the pureſt Churches to be in the dayes of the Goſpel, to make uſe of the coercive power of the civil Magiſtrate in matters of doctrine (a matter of Religion:) therefore it's the mind of God that in theſe dayes ſuch coercive power in matters of Religion ſhould be exerciſed; nor may any here reſtrain theſe words to Church-cenſures, it being not the uſe of the Holy Ghoſt to expreſſe Church-cenſures greater and leſſer, by taking away the life, wounds, and works in the hands, but rather proveth that power of civil Authority to inflict death in ſome caſes of falſe doctrine, and ſome other reproachfull corporal puniſhments, in ſome caſes of errors which are not of moment as the other.
Thus much for the Arguments proving the Poſition; we ſhall briefly now take off two or three generall Objections, and then come to a cloſe of this Queſtion.
The weapons of our warfare are not carnall, but ſpirituall: Therefore no ſuch uſe now to the people of God of ſuch carnall weapons as the penall Lawes or cenſures of Civil Magiſtrates in matters of Religion.
It's the unhappineſſe of the moſt of the Arguments in the late Pamphlets and Pleas for Liberty, uſed againſt this Coercive power of the Magiſtrate in ſome caſes which we plead for, that if they be forcible, they conclude univerſally, even againſt that coercive power which our oppoſites allow to him in matters of the ſecond Table, and ſo far alſo of the firſt, as in things againſt the light of nature, and Law of Nations: And of this we have a taſt in this Argument; for beſides the miſtake of applying this, as if meant of other perſons, then of Church Officers (contrary to the very ſcope of the Text) the Argument concludeth againſt the uſe of Civil Magiſtrates power by Civil Rulers in matters of the ſecond Table, as well as of the firſt, becauſe ſpirituall weapons are as weighty to pull down ſtrong holds againſt the ſecond Table, as well as againſt the firſt: Of like nature is that Objection, Chriſts Kingdome is not of this world, this (if of any force) excluding wholly, takes away the Magiſtrates power in both Tables.
Object. 2. The Church hath ſufficient power to reach her ends, in curbing or curing offences in any matters of Religion; therefore what need is there of ſuch coercive power therein of the Civil Magiſtrate.
Anſw. 1. Suppoſe it were granted, that therefore the Church, as a Church, ſtood not in need thereof: yet the Church, conſidered as a Civil Society, ſtood in need thereof, and ſo far the ſtate of the queſtion were yielded. Or what if the Church had no need, yet in reſpect of other ſubjects enjoying the light of the Goſpel, though not actually of the Church, as perſons not yet joyned to any Church, or ſuch as are actually caſt out of the Church, that power might be moſt needfull; elſe they might vent things as well againſt the light of nature, as Law of Nations, or deny things obſtinately, which are fundamentall, albeit not againſt the light of nature, or Law of Nations; as for example, that Jeſus Chriſt is the Redeemer and onelyonly Mediatour; that the Scriptures are the word of God, &c. ſhould yet not be reſtrained: yea, that were to ſuppoſe ſome under the ſhining of the Goſpel, left of the Lord in a lawleſſe condition (in reſpect of any Authority to reſtrain them) in matters of Religion; the Civil power may not meddle with them, and Eccleſiaſticall cannot, as not being actually of the Church.
2 The Church hath ſufficient power to reach her ends, in curbing and curing offences of the ſecond Table; yet none will thence conclude, that therefore no need to the Church therein, of the Coercive power of the Magiſtrate.
3 The Church aimeth at reſtraint from infection of others, as well as amending the parties themſelves; now ſuppoſing the Church caſting out a perſon for obſtinate holding of Hereticall Tenents, yet the Church cannot now reſtraine him any further in any Eccleſiaſtical way, but that he may now doe more miſchiefe in ſpreading his Tenent then ever, unleſſe the Magiſtrate alſo exerciſe his Coercive power.
4 The Church may in caſe by clamorous noiſe, made in the Aſſembly, or otherwiſe by faction, be hindred from the exerciſe of its power to cencure, and ſo although it have power enough to act, yet it will need the Magiſtrates help to exerciſe that power, unleſſe we durſt plead as ſome (it ſeems doe) that in this caſe the Elders may act by corporall force to redreſſe it, as Phineas the Prieſt did, in killing Zimri, and Cozbi, diſturbing the Congregation, on then humbling themſelves before God; but we ſay, that was extraordinary, as was the act of Samuel in cutting Agag in pieces; of Elijah in putting Baals Prieſts to death; and Peters act againſt the life of Ananias and Saphira; nor would we plead the Prieſts example, 2 Chron. 26. in thruſting out Ʋzziah out of the Temple, or ſuch like Arguments; ſuppoſing that the Prieſts of old, and the Levites might, by a diſpenſation peculiar to thoſe times, be allowed more liberty of acting in matters of a Civil nature, both in the great Synedrian, and other where, then any of us dare ſay is imitable by, or allowable to Churches, or Church Officers now.
Object. Thirdly and laſtly, the tares are commanded to be let alone, Mat. 13.29,30. Therefore what Authority hath the Magiſtrate to reſtraine or puniſh men now under the Goſpel, but rather to leave Chriſtians to the liberty of their owne Conſciences?
Anſw. This is a Parable, and therefore to be taken in the ſcope and ſubſtance, and not according to the circumſtances thereof, as Peter Martyr noteth in this caſe. Now the ſcope of part of the Parable, is not to be a direction unto us, what we ſhall doe in point of exerciſe of any power with us, but conteins ſimply a doctrine of providence; what God will order to be the condition of his viſible Church in this world, and therefore to ſhew, that Chriſt intended not any rule of precept of our duty in this ſentence of the Parable, verſ. 29, 30. (Nay let both grow together) he doth not in his after expoſition of the ſeverall branches of the Parable, inſiſt at all on the branch mentioned, to give any explication thereof; and if it were any direction, it muſt either look to Civil or Church power; if to Civil power, then ſince the tares are expreſly interpreted to be the Children of the Devil, and ſuch as offend, and doe iniquity, and are as reprobates to be burned, or damned, verſ. 38. Then the worſt wretches that live, Murderers, Buggerers, Traytours, &c. muſt be all let alone in their ſins, and onelyonly left to Chriſts Judgement at the laſt day. And our oppoſites have leaſt reaſon to ſtretch this Parable, as reſpecting any reſtraint of the uſe of the Civil power, when the very ſcope of it, is not to tell us touching the ſtate of the Civil Kingdome in this world, but rather of the ſtate of the Kingdome of God, or the Eccleſiaſticall part of the world (the viſible Church) and if it look at any reſtraint of the uſe of power, it ſtriketh rather at the uſe of Church power; but if it look at Church power, then the Churches are not to cenſure Hereticks, no, not though obſtinate, contrary to Titus 3. No inceſtuous, adulterous, covetous Church-members; contrary to 1 Cor. 5. And that the Parable never intended any abridgement of either powers in the juſt exerciſe thereof, is evident in that it ſpeaketh
1 Of ſuch an extirpation of Offendours as is onelyonly poſſible to Angels armed with Chriſts power; and
2 Of an univerſal extirpation of all, and every reprobate, from among the company of the Elect; neither of wch hinders, but that
1 To ſuch particular offendours as may be rooted up by Civil and Church power, without danger and hurt to godly ones; as are obſtinate ſeducers, Hereticks, and they may and ought ſo to be.
2 Such particular Offendours, which by their continuance amongſt Gods people, doe over-run, and over-top them, in ſuch ſort as they are hurt and endangered by them, and they cannot grow and thrive ſpiritually by reaſon of them, they may & ought to be rooted out by both powers; for if there be any force in the Parable in this way, it is to ſhew, that the tares are to be ſuffered, in reference, not to the hurt, but to the good of the wheat; ſo that which tends to the corrupting, blaſting, and deſtruction of the wheat, is therefore to be removed, becauſe hurtfull and pernicious to the wheat; ſo that our oppoſites would gain nothing to their cauſe, by preſſing this Parable, as directory that way to us; but wee rather (upon the reaſons before going) conceive it to be ſet down not as a direction, or any Command of Chriſt enjoyning us thus or thus to doe; but as a doctrinall inſtruction, that God may and will in his providence ſuffer for a time, mixtures of good and bad together, elect and reprobate, in his viſible Church; nor are we to fret, or be diſcontented at his providence in it, or to think that by any courſe wee can take, it will be otherwiſe, whilſt, and where ever we are in this world; like to that ſpeech of Paul, 1 Cor. 5 10. Now in the cloſe of all, let it be conſidered whoſe doctrine doth moſt infringe true liberty of conſcience; thoſe which would have every Chriſtian left to the liberty of his owne conſcience, in matters of Religion, which at leaſt are not againſt the light of nature, Law of Nations, or thoſe that maintaine the fore-named power of the Magiſtrate; for ſuppoſe the Magiſtrate be a Chriſtian, he muſt be left to the liberty of his Conſcience too, as well as others: Now if left to the Lesbian warping rule, what if he in his own Conſcience, through temptation and errour, be in moſt things a Papiſt, which may ſtand with the Law of Nature and Nations, or ſuppoſe he in Conſcience deny Jeſus Chriſt to be the Mediatour, or ſuch and ſuch Books in the Old and New Teſtament to be the word of God, yea, or that there is any uſe of the Scriptures, but we muſt onelyonly depend on Revelations; and herein the Law of nature and Nations leaves him: Now he in Conſcience thinks, he is bound to eſtabliſh this as a Rule to all others, which to him is the truth; and in conſcience to oppoſe all contrary doctrine, what then will become of ſubjects liberty? The word is not made the rule to regulate this Rulers Conſcience, according as we ſay it ſhould; for if that were ſo his Rule, there were a remedy and way to bring him to the Rule; but his conſcience, judgement, and phantaſie, touching the Rule that is by this Tenent made his Rule, according to which he muſt be left freely to act without reſtraint. The miſchiefs neceſſarily following this, if once cryed up, we leave to ſuch of our oppoſites ſadly and ſeriouſly to conſider of.
The Nature & Power OF SYNODS.
The Second Queſtion.
Queſt. 2. WHat be the grounds from Scripture to warrant Synods?
Anſw. In anſwer to this Queſtion, we ſhall propound to conſideration three Arguments from Scripture, and five Reaſons.
Arguments.
Argum: 1
Taken from Acts 15. An orderly Aſſembly of qualified Church-meſſengers (Elders and other Brethren) in times of controverſie and danger, concerning weighty matters of Religion, for the conſidering, diſputing, finding out and clearing of the truth, from the Scripture, and eſtabliſhing of Peace amongſt the Churches, is founded upon Acts 15.
But a Synod is an orderly Aſſembly of qualified Church-meſſengers (Elders and other Brethren) in times of controverſie and danger, concerning weighty matters of Religion, for the conſidering, diſputing, finding out, and clearing of the truth, from the Scriptures, and eſtabliſhing of peace amongſt the Churches. Ergo, A Synod is founded upon Acts 15.
Diſtin: 1 For the confirming of this Argument, three diſtinctions are to be premiſed, and ſome Objections to be ſatiſfied. The firſt diſtinction is for the clearing of the queſtion; the other with the ſatisfaction to the Objection, for the clearing of the Text.
The neceſſity of Synods is either
1 Abſolute.
2 Reſpective.
Synods are not neceſſary Abſolutely, i. e. unto the being, but reſpectively, i. e. unto the wel-being of Churches.
Diſtin: 2 In this Synod ſome things are firſt Extraordinary, and not Exemplary, ſome whereof were certainly ſo, and the reſt may ſeem to be ſo unto divers. As
1 The Quality of ſome of the Members, ſc. Apoſtles, v. 6.23.
2 The Stile, v. 28.
3 The manner of the Impoſition of their Sentence, as immediately and politically binding, at leaſt as ſome Expound the place.
4 The Object upon whom they impoſed the keeping of their Decrees, viz. abſent Churches, verſ. 23. chap. 16.4. ſome of which were neither called, nor had ordinary Members, or Meſſengers there.
Others were Ordinary, ergo Exemplary, as
1 The publick meeting of Churchmeſſengers, Elders, and other Brethren.
2 The propounding of matters to be conſidered.
3 The diſputing of them, v. 7.
4 The joynt reſolutions of the queſtions, out of, and according to the Scriptures, v. 15, 16.
5 The declaration and delivery thereof unto the Churches, to be accepted of, and kept by them, Acts 16. v. 4.
6 Order in all.
The Apoſtles were Elders and Members of every Church, ergo, here were aſſembled Elders and Meſſengers of all Churches, ergo, in ſome reſpect it may be called an univerſall Counſel.
Diſtin: 3 Hence look upon what was extraordinary, ſo it may warrant the greateſt Counſel; look upon what was ordinary therein, and ſo it warrants the ſmalleſt Counſel.
In this Synod are to be conſidered the
Subſtantials: Matter and Forme.
Circumſtantials: Conſtantly, ſuch as neceſſarily accompany every Synod. Occaſionally, which accompany the Synod pro hic & nunc (i e.) according to the circumſtances of this time and this place.
That which is commanded as continually binding, Acts 15. is the circumſtantials of a Synod, the conſtant circumſtantials, and ſuch occaſionally as are to edification, pro hic & nunc. Theſe two laſt diſtinctions rightly applied, may ſatisfie many lighter Objections, which we ſhall not therefore trouble the Reader with.
Argum: 2 Taken by proportion from Gal. 2.2.
If in times of Controverſie, about weighty matters of Religion, the Aſſembling together of Apoſtles (who knew the truth before they came on to the Synod, and one of them was greater than all particular Churches) was needfull for the teſtifying to the carrying on of the truth (which is leſſe than the finding out, teſtifying to, carrying on of the truth) if warranted out of the Scripture; then the Aſſembling together of Churches by themſelves, or by Church-meſſengers (either of wch is a Synod) to the finding our, teſtifying to, and better carrying on of the truth, is warrantable out of the Scriptures.
But in ſuch times of controverſie, the Aſſembling together of Apoſtles (one of whom was greater than all particular Churches) for the teſtifying to, and better carrying on of the truth, is warranted out of the Scripture, Gal. 2.2.
Ergo, In ſuch times of controverſie, the Aſſembling together of Churches by themſelves, or by the Church-meſſengers (either of which is a Synod) for the finding out, teſtifying to, and better carrying on of the truth, is warranted out of the Scripture.
The Argument proceeds from the greater to the leſſer, thus; If the truth in times of weighty controverſies had need of the help of the Aſſembling together of Apoſtles, then in like times it hath much more need of the Aſſembling together of Churches. If Apoſtles at ſuch times had need of the help of other Apoſtles, then Churches in like times had need of the help of other Churches.
Such Aſſemblies, the examples whereof are recorded and approved in the Scripture, are warranted out of the Scriptures.
Argum: 3
But the orderly Aſſembly of the qualified people of God, for the conſidering of matters of Religion, in times of weighty controverſies, are ſuch Aſſemblies, the examples whereof are recorded, & commended in the Scriptures, erg. The orderly Aſſembly of qualified perſons for the conſidering of matters of Religion, in times of weighty controverſies, is warranted out of the Script:
Minor proved.Ezra 7.14. Ezra inquires of the Lord (id eſt) conſults of the worſhip of God. 1 Chron. 13.2. David conſults with the Congregation concerning the carrying of the Ark to its place. 2 Chr. 30.2. Hezekiah had taken Counſel of all his Princes, and all the Congregation on in Jeruſalem, to keep the Paſſeover in the ſecond monethmonth. The approved examples of the godly, of imitable and uſefull nature in practicall caſes, is a rule unto us.
Reaſon 1 From the Cauſes.
When the cauſe of a Synod remains, there opportunity being had, the warrantable uſe of Synods remaines. But under the Goſpel the cauſes of Synods remaine, ergo.
Under the Goſpel the uſe of Synods is warrantable.
The Cauſes of Synods are either preventing, removing of, or recovering from errors and diviſions; or providing for, preſerving of, or reſtoring of truth and peace in matters of Religion.
Reaſon 2 From the End of Synods.
Where there is uſe of the Ends of Synods, namely to clear and declare the truth from ſcripture, in times of weighty controverſie, there the uſe of Synods is warrantable.
But under the Goſpel there is uſe of the end of Synods, namely to clear and declare the truth from Scripture, in times of weighty controverſie, ergo.
Under the Goſpel the uſe of Synods is warrantable.
Preheminency of knowledge, concerning Church matters, is in the Synod; hence the queſtion is aris'd to the Synod.
Church Authority is onelyonly placed in the Churches; hence the cauſe remaines with the particular Churches.
Reaſon 3 From the Communion of Churches.
That which is the greateſt externall means of the Union of Churches, in one judgement, and conſequently an eſpeciall help to preſerve communion of particular Churches, is of warrantable uſe.
But a Synod is the greateſt externall means to Unite Churches in one judgement, by conferring apprehenſions for the concurring in the ſame Sentence: ergo, a Synod is of warrantable uſe.
Reaſon 4 From the Efficacy of Church-Adminiſtrations.
That without which particular Churches in divers of their Adminiſtrations are in danger to run in vaine, is of warrantable uſe:
But without the approbation of other Churches for the end whereof Synods are an eſpeciall means, particular Churches are in divers of their Adminiſtrations in danger to run in vaine, from the example of the Apoſtles, Gal. 2.2.
Ergo, Synods are of warrantable uſe.
Reaſon 5 From the Nature of Church-matters.
If the weighty Tranſactions of each particular Church are ſuch (and ſo concerning particular Neighbouring Churches) as that it is meet that all Neighbouring Churches ſhould be acquainted and conſulted with thereabout, and Synods be the fitteſt means for that end; then Synods be of warrantable uſe:
But the weighty Tranſactions of all particular Churches are ſuch (and ſo concerning all particular Neighbouring Churches) as that it is meet that all neighbouring Churches be acquainted and conſulted with thereabout; and Synods be the fitteſt means to that end, ergo, Synods are of warrantable uſe.
Quod tangit omnes, ſpectat ad omnes. The Cognizance of that belongs to all, whoſe practice concerns all.
Objections againſt the urging of that Synod, Acts 15. as an example warranting our ordinary SYNODS.
Object. 1. Paul and Barnabas, and the other Brethren ſent by the Church of Antioch, were ſent unto the Elders and Apoſtles, verſ. 2. but we doe not read that the Churches were ſent unto, which in ordinary Synods order calls for.
Reſp. 1. Though it be not in ſo many words expreſſed that the Churches were ſent unto, yet it cannot be denyed but they might be ſent unto implicitely, though not explicitely.
2 'Tis not to be doubted, but that the Church of Antioch, and the Church of Jeruſalem, walked by the ſame rule: As therefore Paul and Barnabas went not to this Aſſembly without the cognizance of the Church of Antioch, ſo we may well think the Apoſtles and Elders at Jeruſalem came not to this Aſſembly without the cognizance of the Church of Jeruſalem.
3 Conſidering the extraordinary power of the Apoſtles: It is a ſufficient acknowledgment of the liberty of Churches, that they had orderly and ſeaſonable notice of the Aſſembly, were preſent at it, and were joyned together with the Apoſtles in the concluſions of it; all which are manifeſt from the Text, either in expreſſe words, or juſt Conſequence from thence, verſ. 4.22,23.
Object. 2. Our Synods conſiſting onelyonly of ſuch Members as are Meſſengers of Churches, ſeem not to be exemplified by that, Acts 15. becauſe that Aſſembly was conſtituted not of Meſſengers of the Church of Antioch, and the whole Fraternity of the Church of Jeruſalem.
Reſp. 1. It's not to be doubted but the Apoſtles and Elders were preſent, according to the deſire of the Church of Jeruſalem, and ſo were as Meſſengers.
2 'Tis all one upon this point, whether a Church be preſent by the Fraternity it ſelfe, or by their Meſſengers: If conveniency of the place, and tranſaction of affaires will permit, 'tis at the choyce of the Fraternity to be preſent immediately, or to ſend their Meſſengers.
3 What the Fraternity of Jeruſalem did here, the like may the Fraternity of any Church in like caſes doe with us; as the Church of Cambridge (for inſtance) now if they pleaſe.
4 Where the Fraternity is preſent formally, there the Meſſengers are preſent virtually.
5 In ſuch caſes where the preſence of the Fraternity immediately, or ſending of Meſſengers are occaſionall circumſtances (of which before) 'tis in the liberty of the Fraternity to doe as they judge moſt for their Edification.
Object. 3. The judgement of the queſtion in our Synods or Aſſemblies, ordinarily proceeds joyntly from the Meſſengers of all Churches; at leaſt the major part of them. But the judgement concerning matters agitated in that Synod, Acts 15. ſeems to proceed from one part thereof onelyonly, namely the Church of Jeruſalem, as appears by the Letters ſent from thence, not mentioning any part of that judgement, as proceeding from the Church Meſſengers of Antioch.
Reſp. 1. We may diſtinguiſh between the Synods paſſing for acts of judgement upon the Queſtion diſcuſſed, and the ſending of that judgement paſſed by the Synod. That the Meſſengers of the Church of Antioch did judge joyntly with the Church of Jeruſalem, concerning the matters agitated in that Synod, appears thus: In every regular diſcharge of the duty of the Church-meſſengers in a Synod where there is a concurrence of ability, right, and duty, to paſſe an actuall judgement, as declarative to the truth, there was an actuall judgement.
But ſuch was the caſe in this Synod, ergo.
The Reaſon why the judgement of the Church of Jeruſalem, and not of the Meſſengers of the Church of Antioch, is onelyonly made mention of in the letter, might be, becauſe the judgement of the Church-Meſſengers of Antioch was already known to the Church; nor had they any doubt of their Meſſengers concurrence with the Church of Jeruſalem in the preſent Concluſions; if there were any doubt in that reſpect, they were perſonally preſent to ſatisfie it.
2 Becauſe the contrary minded had already ſignified their non acquieſcence or not reſting, either in the judgement of the Church of Antioch, or their Meſſengers, in the delivery of the Decrees of the Synod unto Churches, there appears not any cauſe out of the Text, to doubt the delivery of the ſame, as the joynt judgement of them all, but the contrary.
Object. 4. A party may not be a Judge. Paul and Barnabas were parties in this buſineſſe, Acts 15. ergo.
Reſp. 1. Paul and Barnabas here are not properly parties, in that they act not their owne caſe, but the caſe of the truth, & that as ſent from the Church.
2 Though they be ſuppoſed to be parties, yet it's not univerſally true, that a party may not be a Judge.
As 1 In caſe the party offended be a ſociety: or ſome publick perſon equivalent.
2 In caſe the party in ſuch acts of judgement, be freed from error; which was the preſent condition of the Apoſtles, guided in their adminiſtrations by an infallible ſpirit.
Object. 5. This Synod, Acts 15. foreign Septuag. foreign ſome call it foreign, vid. Schindl. Lexi.ſo ſpeaketh, as having power to lay the truth of God (cleared and declared by it) as a burthen upon the Churches, v. 28. which our ordinary Synods ſeem not to have power to doe.
Reſp. The notion or tearm [burthen] may be taken politically (i. e.) for a truth impoſed by virtue of Church power and Authority: this though the Apoſtles as Apoſtles might doe, yet if they did ſo in this place (which we rather conceive not) it was extraordinary, and Conſequently not Exemplary.
Or the word Burthen, may be taken for the charging of the Church to receive and yield Obedience in the Lord unto the truth, diſcuſſed, cleared, and orderly commanded to them: In which ſenſe if we take it here according as it's taken in divers places elſwhere, Pro. 30.1. & 21.1. Rev. 2.24. then the ſtile or manner of ſpeaking is exemplary.
OF THE POWER OF Synods.
The Third Queſtion.
Queſt. 3. WHat is the Power of a Synod?
Reſp. The Power of a Synod Is
Deciſive
Directive, &
Declarative
of the truth, by clearing and evidencing the ſame out of the word of God; non coactive, yet more than diſcretive.
For the better underſtanding hereof, conſider that Eccleſiaſticall Power is
1 Deciſive, in determining by way of diſcuſſion and diſputation, what is truth, and ſo conſequently reſolving the Queſtion in weighty matters of Religion, Acts 15.16,28. & 16.4. This belongs to the Synod.
2 Diſcretive, in diſcerning of the truth or falſhood that is determined; this belongs to every Believer.
3 Coactive or judicial (for we omit to ſpeak in this place of Official judgement) in judging of the truth determined Authoritatively, ſo as to impoſe it with Authority, and to cenſure the diſobedient with Eccleſiaſtical cenſure, 1 Cor. 5.12. Mat. 18.17. This belongeth to every particular Church.
The judgement of a Synod is in ſome reſpect ſuperiour, in ſome reſpect inferiour to the judgement of a particular Church; it is ſuperiour in reſpect of direction; inferiour in reſpect of juriſdiction, which it hath none.
Quere. How, and how far doth the ſentence of a Synod bind?
Anſw. We muſt diſtinguiſh between the Synods declaration of the truth, and the politicall impoſition of the truth declared by the Synod.
The Synods declaration of the truth binds not politically, but formally onelyonly, (i. e.) in foro interiori (i. e.) it binds the conſcience, and that by way of the higheſt inſtitution that is meerly doctrinall. The politicall Impoſition of the truth declared by the Synod, is Eccleſiaſticall, or Civil: Eccleſiaſticall, by particular Churches, and this binds not onelyonly formally, but politically, in foro exteriori, i. e. it binds the outward man, ſo as the diſobedient in matters of offence, is ſubject unto Church cenſure, affirmatively, towards their own Members; negatively, by non communion, as concerning others, whether Church or Members. Supremi Magiſtratu… approbatio eſt ſupremū (ut ſoquuntar) arreſtum. Fr. Hom. diſp. 18. Th. 4. & diſp. 17. Theſ. 3.Civil, by the Magiſtrate ſtrengthening the truth thus declared by the Synod, and approved by the Churches, either by his meer Authoritative ſuffrage, aſſent, and teſtimony, (if the matter need no more) or by his authoritative Sanction of it by Civill puniſhment, the nature of the offence ſo requiring.
In this orderly proceeding of the Churches, and Civil Magiſtrate together in their reſpective politicall impoſition of the truth cleared and declared by the Synod, we are to be underſtood to ſpeak of ſuch a place wherein the Chriſtian Magiſtrates walk together orderly, referving Eccleſiaſticall binding power to the particular Churches, where either there is no Magiſtrate, or the Magiſtrate is wanting in his duty; as alſo civil power to the Chriſtian Magiſtrate, where the Churches are wanting to their duty.
The Fourth Queſtion.
Queſt. 4. To whom belongeth the power of calling a Synod?
Anſw. For ſatisfaction to this Queſtion, we ſhall propound one diſtinction, and anſwer three Queries.
Diſtin: The power of calling Synods is either
Single
Authoritative, belonging to the Magiſtrates.
Miniſteriall, belonging to the particular Churches.
Mixt
When both proceed orderly and joyntly in the uſe of their ſeverall powers.
Arguments, proving the Authoritative Power of Calling SYNODS, to belong to the Magiſtrate.
1 Becauſe the Magiſtrate is Cuſtos utriuſ que Tabulae, i. e. Charged with the cuſtody of both Tables; That he is keeper of the ſecond Table is granted, that he is keeper of the former, is ſufficiently proved in the firſt Queſtion.
2 From the recorded and approved examples of godly Kings in the Scriptures: David, 1 Chron. 23.2. Hezekiah, 2 Chron. 29.4. Joſiah, 2 Kin. 23.1,2.
3 From the nature of ſuch great Aſſemblies: Though Synodicall Aſſembling be ſpirituall, yet meer aſſembling of a multitude together (which a Synodicall Aſſembly preſuppoſeth) is a Civil act, and therefore cannot in good policy be ſuffered without the conſent of the Magiſtrate.
4 From the neceſſary (though not eſſentiall) requiſites to the being of a Synod, as place, time, manner of meeting, peace, all which need the conſent of the Magiſtrate in caſe of violent diſturbance: the Churches as ſuch, having no civill power to defend them, cannot but want the aſſiſtance of the Magiſtrate, that they may meet and tranſact the matters of the Synod in ſafety and quietneſſe.
5 From the proportion that the Magiſtrates Con-coactive or calling power of a Synod, holds with his confirmation of the concluſions of the Synod; the ſame reaſon that warrants his confirming power for the better ſtrengthening the obſervation of the concluſions of the Synod, warrants his calling power for the better being of the Synod.
Arguments proving the Miniſteriall Power of Calling Synods (which may be fitly called a power of liberty, becauſe Churches therein have no Authority one over another) to belong unto the particular Churches.
1 From that famous example, Acts 15. where the Synod meets, and ſite, without the call of Civil Authority; there being then no Chriſtian Magiſtrate.
2 Becauſe the power of the conſtitution of Synods, as properly ſuch, firſtly reſideth with, ariſeth from, and laſtly returneth to particular Churches.
3 Becauſe the power of the Magiſtrate tends not to the being, but to the better being of Synods; and added thereunto is accumulative, not privative (i. e.) it adds ſtrength to it, but takes not any power from it: Hence a Synod may in eaſe be without any conſent of the Magiſtrate, but cannot be without ſome conſent, explicite or implicite, of the Churches.
4 Becauſe the Lord Jeſus hath inveſted the Churches with ſufficient Eccleſiaſticall power in the beſt Eccleſiaſticall manner, to attaine their Eccleſiaſticall end, which yet were not, if they had not power of themſelves by joynt conſent to call a Synod.
Queries.
Querie 1 In what caſe may the Magiſtrate proceed to call a Synod without the conſent of the Churches?
Anſw. The Magiſtrate in caſe the Churches be defective, and not to be prevailed with, for the performance of their duty, (juſt cauſe ſo requiring) may call a Synod, and the Churches ought to yield obedience thereunto.
But notwithſtanding the refuſall, he may proceed to call an Aſſembly, and that for the ſame end that a Synod meetes for, namely, to conſider of, and clear the truth from the Scriptures, in weighty matters of Religion: But ſuch an Aſſembly called and gathered without the conſent of the Churches, is not properly that which is uſually underſtood by a Synod, for though it be in the power of the Magiſtrate to Call, yet it is not in his power to Conſtitute a Synod, without at leaſt the implicite conſent of the Churches: Becauſe Church-Meſſengers, who neceſſarily preſuppoſe an explicite (which order calls for) or implicite conſent of the Churches, are eſſentiall to a Synod.
Querie 2 In what caſe may the Churches call a Synod without the conſent of the Magiſtrate?
Anſw. In caſe the Magiſtrate be defective, and not to be prevailed with for the performance of his duty; juſt cauſe, providence, and prudence concurring: The Churches may both Call and Conſtitute a Synod: The Reaſon why the Churches can Conſtitute a Synod without the conſent of the Magiſtrate, although the Magiſtrate cannot conſtitute a Synod without the conſent of the Churches, is becauſe the eſſentialls of a Synod, together with ſuch other cauſe, as is required to the being (though not ſo much to the better being) of a Synod, ariſeth out of particular Churches: as appears from the following Enumeration of the Cauſes thereof:
The Eſſentiall Cauſe:
Remote The Authoritative Call of the Magiſtrate.
Next The Miniſteriall Call of the Churches.
The Materiall Cauſe: The Members of the Synod (i. e.) qualified Church-Meſſengers.
The Formall Cauſe: The meeting together of ſuch Church-Meſſengers in the name of Chriſt.
The Finall Cauſe: To confider of, and clear the truth in queſtion from the word of God.
Querie 3 In caſe the Magiſtrate and Churches are both willing to proceed orderly in the joynt exerciſe of their ſeverall Powers, whether it is lawfull for either of them to call a Synod without the Conſent of the other?
Anſw. No; they are to proceed now by way of a mixt Call (i. e.) orderly and joyntly in the uſe of their ſeverall Powers. That which learned Parker ſpeakes of the Power of particular Churches, concerning Calling of SYNODS, holds alſo in this caſe concerning the Power of the Magiſtrate; Their Powers are divers, yet in reſpect of exerciſe they ought not to be divers, nor divided the one from the other, as before.
The Churches deſire, the Magiſtrate Commands; Churches act in a way of liberty, the Magiſtrate in a way of Authority. Moſes and Aaron ſhould goe together, and kiſs one another in the Mount of GOD.
FINIS.
Courteous Reader;
BY reaſon of the Death of the Reverend Author, and the far diſtance of his loving Friend (the Publiſher of this Booke) ſome faults may have eſcaped the Preſſe, for the which the Printer deſireth excuſe.
Vale.
End of the text · John Cotton, The Covenant of Grace (1655)