The Arraignment of Error, Text (8 of 9)

The Arraignment of Error · Text (8 of 9)

p. 2832. Becauſe theſe precepts did expire, when the reaſon of them was expired; when the ſcandall was removed, the precepts were expired; which ſhews the cauſe of theſe decrees, not to be any neceſſity in the things themſelves, but the avoidance of ſcandall.

3. Becauſe Paul, who was at this Councell, and underſtood theſe laws, doth ſo expound them, 1 Cor. 8.7, 8.1 Cor. 8.7.8. & 10.25 28, 29.1 Cor 8:71 Cor 8:81 Cor 10:25 &c. & 1 Cor. 10.25. The Apoſtle there bids you, What ever is ſet before you, to eat, and ask no question for conſcience ſake: Yet, ſaith he, If any ſay that this which is ſet before you is offered in ſacrifice to Idols, eat not for conſcience ſake, conſcience, I ſay, not thine own, but of others &c. By which the Apoſtle ſhews it was not abſolutely, and in it ſelf unlawfull to eat, but unlawfull in a caſe, becauſe for the preſent it was offenſive and ſcandalous to the conſcience of the weak brethren. And this ſhall ſuffice for the fifth agreement. I will name but one more.

6. We agree in this, That a Synod hath no power to deprive a particular Church of its rights, power, priviledges, but to direct, maintain and ſtrengthen them in them. So that what ever is the proper and inherent right of a particular Congregation, no Synod or Claſſes can weaken them in it, much leſſe invade them, and deprive them of it; it being their work to cheriſh and ſtrengthen them in the execution of them.

The power of a Synod, as I told you, is not privative, but cumulative. It is not for leſſening and weakening, but for the ſtrengthening and confirming the proper rights of particular p. 284Congregations. It doth not take away due power, but hinders or remedies the undue exerciſe of that power, and directs and ſtrengthens them in caſes of difficulty, in the right exerciſe of it.

And thus you ſee we doe agree in the negative, What their power is not. We will now come to the ſecond, What their power is: What is the power wherewith God hath inabled a Synod as ſerviceable to this end, the ſuppreſſing of errour, and r…ducing of erroneous perſons?

You ſee here I am not to deal with the power of Synods in the ſeverall branches laid down by holy and learned men, viz.

Dogmaticall. Diatacticall. And Criticall.

The firſt hath relation to Doctrine; the ſecond to Order; the third to Cenſure; which three-fold power they hold forth from Act. 15. In which ſeems to be diſcovered three great evils, which were the occaſion of that meeting of the Apostles and Elders.

1. There was hereſie taught, ſome that had preached the neceſſity of obſerving the Ceremoniall law, yea and telling them, Except they kept the law of Moſes they could not be ſaved, v. 1.

2. There was the ſcandall and offence of the weak Jews, with the alienation of their mindes from the Gentiles, who did neglect to practiſe thoſe Ceremonies.

3. There was the ſchiſme and ſtaſis raiſed by thoſe who troubled the Diſciples, verſ. 2. And according to this three-fold evil, is diſcovered the footſteps of a three-fold power, exerciſed and put forth in this meeting.

1. The dogmaticall power, confuting the hereſie, and vindicating of the truth, verſ. 7, 8, 9, &c.

2. The Diatactick power, making a practicall Canon for avoiding the ſcandall and abſtaining from ſuch things as gave the occaſion of it, verſ. 20, 29.

3. The Critick power, verſ. 24. branding thoſe teachers with the black mark of lyars, ſubverters of ſouls, troublers of the Church, ver. 24. A three-fold remedy, anſwerable to the thr…e fold evil.

I am not here to enquire or deal with the power of Synods in this latitude laid down, being onelyonly to conſider of their p. 285power, as relating to this Question, which is a power proper to the ſuppreſſing of errour, and reducing of erroneous perſons. Nor ſhall I be able to enumerate all the particulars of their power; as relating to this Queſtion; but I ſhall ſpeak unto the chiefeſt, under theſe three generall heads.

1. They have a power relating to erroneous doctrines and opinions.

2. They have a power relating to erroneous perſons.

3. They have a power in reference to erring Churches. And of theſe in their order.

1. They are indued and inabled with a power in relation to erroneous doctrines and opinions. And we will lay it down in theſe three branches.

1. A Synod hath power to examine, enquire, debate of any erroneous opinion or doctrine that is on foot, and this I think is granted on all hands. And Act. 15. is plain for this: there was errour taught, and the Apoſtles and Elders are ſaid to meet together about this matter, verſ. 6. they met to examine, to conſult and debate about it. There is a two-fold examination, the one private and perſonall, the other miniſteriall and authoritative; every man hath power, and is bound to exerciſe perſonall and conſcientious examination, but every one is not to exerciſe a miniſteriall and authoritative, only ſuch as are choſen and called to it: we ſpeak here of miniſteriall examination, in which we ſhall finde few diſſenters. And ſay a Synod hath power to examine, enquire, debate of erroneous doctrins and opinions.

2. A Synod hath power to determine and**Patres in concilio … ſol…mmod… inquiſiteres ſed jud…ces. Deus judical, foreign & foreign: Synodus, foreign & foreign, u…uſquiſ que foreign, & foreign Da…. de jud. & norm fid. judge of errours. A Synod hath not only power to examine, but it hath power to judge. There is a three-fold judgement.

1. Abſolute and ſupreme.

2. Miniſteriall and Synodicall.

3. Private and perſonall: the firſt is onelyonly proper to God: the last belongs to all: the ſecond to them only who are choſen and called to this work. Though nothing is to be allowed contrary to the Word: yet Synods have miniſteriall judgement, according to that Word; They have power, ſaith Junius, to make inquiſition, and conſult, determine, both of p. 286controverſies of faith and manners. And this alſo you ſee, Act. 15. The Apoſtles and Elders in that conſociation did not only enquire and conſult, but they alſo judged and determined thoſe opinions, which had been taught to be disturbing, deſtructive and ſubverting errours, v. 24.

3. They have not only power to enquire and judge, but they have power to cenſure and condemn errours. All which is but yet a d…gmati…all or doct…inall power of declaring and determining of truth or of errour, which I conceive will be granted on all hands, even by thoſe who are moſt ſhie and tender in weighing forth …ny power unto them. And indeed, Act. 15. doth make all this evident; there they examined, they judged, they cenſured the errour which was broached among them. And after ages they followed the ſame patern. The firſt great Councel of Nice, as I ſhewed you, did cenſure and condemn the hereſie of Arius. The Councel of Epheſus did condemn the hereſie of Neſtorius, the Councel of Conſtantinople did cenſure and condemn the hereſie of Macedonius. Euſeb eccl. hiſt l. 6. c. 42.The errour of Montanus was judged and condemned by many Synods in Aſia. So that this is cleer, a Synod hath power to examine, to judge, to cenſure and condemn errours.

Obj. But it will be ſaid, Councels may erre. That famous Councel of Nice it ſelf had yet it's errours, one of which was, That heretikes ſhould be rebaptized, &c. And if Counc…ls may erre,Concilium Nic enum primu…, quod ſuit omnium nobiliſſi …um & …eleber …mum, tamen erravit. Whit. …o…t. 2 c 2. q 6 p 6, 8, 620. then may they cenſure and condemn truth as well as errour, and that is fearfull.

Anſw. This is one of the Scepticall Objections of this age: we have too many, who, themſ…lves being ſure in nothing, ſeek to weaken all determinations what ever; as if they, becauſe they are ſubject to errour, might not be certain in truth: but for anſwer.

1. It's granted, Councels may erre, and the beſt of Councels may erre. That famous Counc…l of Nice had it's errours, which Whitaker, in reſpect it was ſo famous, is tender of uncovering. But though they may erre, doth it follow that they do alwaies erre. This is a non ſequitur?

2. Again, though they may erre, doth this take away their right of judgement of errour and truth? weakneſſe and ſubjection p. 287to errour in judgement doth not take away right of judgement. God hath allowed this way of judgement, to determine of doubtfull doctrines, and decide controverſies, and he hath ſaid, Let the ſpirit of the Prophets be ſubject to the Prophets, 1 Cor. 14.32. A place which Junius applies to this, and the errour of ſome muſt not nullifie the ordinance of God.

3. Though they may erre, yet they are not ſo likely to erre, as others: an Aſſembly of godly and learned men met together in Gods way, they are under a promiſe to be led into the way of all truth.

4. Though they may erre in ſome particulars of leſſer moment, yet points of greater moment are clear and evident.

5. In what they erre we are not to follow them. Miniſteriall judgement is theirs, private and practicall judgement is yours, and you are not to receive and embrace their determinations further, then they ſhall appear to you to be conſonant and agreeable to the Word of truth; you are not to obey, becauſe they ſay it, but becauſe they ſay it authoritatively from Gods word. Officiall authority they have, as a Church of Chriſt, but objective authority they have not; ſo that what they ſay, becauſe they ſay it, is therefore to be cloſed with: Thus the Papiſts ſay, not we: We ſay, that Synods have no perempto…y, abſolute, illimited authority to determine as they pleaſe, but their power is Miniſteriall, and limited to the Word of God; and we may ſay for our own practice,Tantum valet …ecretum Con…tl…j, quantum va…et ejus ratio. Am…ſ. The decrees of Councels are no farther binding, then the reaſons of them are evident to be of God.

And ſo much ſhall ſerve for the firſt generall branch of the power of Synods. We come to the ſecond.

2. As they have power relating to erroneous doctrines, ſo they h…ve power as relating to erroneous perſons. And this we will lay forth in theſe branches.

1. They have power to conve…n them, and call them before them, if by their writings, or otherwiſe their perſons are known. Indeed in Act. 15. we doe not reade of any ſummons of thoſe falſe teachers, nor was there any need, for they may be conceived to be perſonally preſent, and rebuked in the face of the Synod, as ſubverters of ſouls. And if they were not p. 288preſent to whom doth Peter ſpeak, verſ. 10. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the diſciples? Certainly it was not to the Apoſtles and Elders, they were not guilty of that fact, but thoſe who ſought to obtrude the obſervation of the Moſaick Law upon the Brethren. Again, who were they that made much disputing in the Synod? ver. 7. ſure it was not the Apoſtles, nor any others beſides themſelves: but had they not been there, I thinke there is no queſtion among rationall men, but the Apoſtles and Elders conveened, had a power to call them, and that it was their duty to come. Certainly, if we be bound to be ever ready to give to any that asketh us a reaſon of the hope which is in us, much more to ſuch an Aſſembly as this, authorized of God for ſuch ends as theſe were. So that I take the firſt for granted, they have power to call erroneous perſons.

2. They have power to admoniſh and rebuke them, this is evident alſo from Act. 15. thoſe diſturbers were rebuked in the face of the whole Aſſembly. There is a three-fold rebuke, Fraternall, Concionall, Judiciall; the one is done by a brother: the ſecond may be done by one ſingle Paſtour, as is commanded, 1 Tim. 4.2, 3, 4, 5. Preach the Word, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long ſuffering: the laſt is done by a conſociation of Paſtours and Elders. If one ſingle Paſtour hath power to rebuke authoritatively an erring brother, how much more a conſociation, a Synod of Paſtours and Elders.

3. They have power doctrinally to cenſure ſuch perſons, and to condemn them. Thus you ſee in Act. 15. They cenſured thoſe for lyars, troublers, ſubverters of ſouls. And thus may a Synod cenſure and condemn an erroneous perſon. Thus did the Councel of Nice cenſure and condemn Arius, not only his errour, but the perſon alſo.**Tom. 1. epi…t. ad ub…j, orthodoxos. Act. 1. ult.Acts 1 Athanaſius deſired and vehemently ſupplicated his fellow-paſtours of other Churches to meet together in a Synod, to vindicate and redeem the Church from errour, and that they would foreign, by th…ir ſuffrages condemn and reject the authours of ſuch miſchiefs. There are uſually laid down three wayes of cenſuring and condemning erroneous perſons.

1. The firſt is foreign, politically, when an erroneous perſon p. 289is cenſured by civil cenſures, viz. to be impriſoned, or to ſuffer in his body, or in his eſtate, &c. **Ch…mier. tom. 1. l. 15 c. 10 §. 35.which cenſures are among the Papiſts, not with us.

The ſecond is, foreign, divinely, when a man is judged to eternall torments; which judgement belongs alone to Chriſt, Joh. 5.22. Church-judgement is medicinall for ſalvation, not for deſtruction.

3. The third is, foreign, eccleſiaſtically, Dog nata imp…a & ab haeretici… pr… ecta argu…re & a…hematizare op…r…et …ominib…s autem parcendum, & …ro ſalute ip…orum orandum. Serm. de anathē. tō. 5. p …90 Rutherf. Due r…ght of Presb. p. 36…. & 370.which is no more but to determine and judge ſuch a d…ctrine, to be an errour, and ſuch perſons, who doe maintain ſuch doctrine, to be erroneous perſons. I like well of that ſpeech of Chryſoſtome, It is the duty (let me ſay) of the Church to cenſure and Anathematize wicked doctrines, proceeding from heretikes, but the Church is to ſpare their perſons, and pray for their ſouls.

4. They have power to ſend to the Churches, whereof they are members, to excommunicate and caſt them out. So that though it ſhould be granted that a Synod hath not corrective power, the power of cenſures formally, yet vertually it doth reſide in them, having power to ſend to other Churches to doe it, to which I ſhould moſt fully agree.

It is a paſſage of the learned Profeſſour of Scotland, We doe not ſay that power of jurisdiction is in a Provinciall or Nationall Synod, as in the Churches, who have power to excommunicate; and he gives two reaſons.

1. Becauſe this power of jurisdiction in Synods is cumulative, not privative. The ſecond is yet fuller.

2. Becauſe it is in a Synod, rather according to commanded, Qu…a… actus imperatos potiu… qu…m actu… …licito…then elicite acts, For, ſaith he, the Synod by an eccleſiaſticall power, added to that intrinſecall power of jurisdiction in Churches, doth command the Churches to uſe the power of juriſdiction, rather then to uſe it actually her ſelf.

And in another place,Rut…rf. Due ri…ht of P…esb. p. 41…. the ſame reverend and learned Authour hath this paſſage, I could eaſily yeeld that there is no neceſſity of the elicite acts of many parts of government, ſuch as Excommunication, Ordination, &c. in Synods Provinciall or Nationall; but that Synods, in the caſe of neglect of Presbyteriall Churches, command theſe particular Churches, whom it concerneth to doe their duty. And in this ſenſe the Synod in p. 290Act. 15. is to remit the cenſure of Excommunication, to the Presbyterie of Antioch and Jeruſalem, in the caſe of the obſtinacy of theſe obtruders of circumciſion.

But you will ſay, though he doe not allow it to be the act of a Synod, yet he affirmes it to be the act of a Claſſis; but, with ſubmiſſion to better judgements, I conceive upon the ſame ground it is denied to a Synod, upon the ſame ground it may be denied to a Claſſis, nor doe I know the difference between them. The conſociation of Churches makes a Synod; and what is a Claſſis, but ſuch a conſociation? If it be ſaid, that one is a conſociation of more Churches then the other, I ſee not, with reverence to them of the contrary thoughts, how this ſhould put the difference, unleſſe upon this hand, that if theſe acts of juriſdiction, or at leaſt ſome of them be denied to a Synod, which is the conſociation of many Churches, they cannot be allowed to a Claſſis, which is a combination of a few. And let me adde thus much more, if the convention at Jeruſalem, Act. 15. evidently no greater, probably not ſo great as an ordinary Claſſis, eſpecially if it were, as our Brethren affirme, only a conſociation of two ſingle Churches, viz. Jeruſalem and Antioch. I ſay, if this Convention was yet called a Synod; And that this Synod, as the learned Profeſſour grants, was to remit the cenſure of Excommunication, to the respective Presbyteries whereof the offender was a member. I ſee not but a Claſſis alſo may have the ſame name, yea, and is to doe the ſame thing, viz. having judged of the fact, to remit the cenſure of the offenders to thoſe Congregations whereof the parties offending are members.

And thus much ſhall ſuffice to have ſpoken of the ſecond branch of the power of Synods, viz. as relating unto erroneous perſons. Poſſibly I have not gone ſo farre as others, and I muſt ſay, neither could I, unleſſe J went upon other mens leggs, not my own: thus farre J could walk, though J did walk more alone.

The third branch of power in a Synod.We now come to the third and laſt branch of power in a Synod, as relating to erring Churches. And J conceive that a Synod may put forth theſe acts of power towards erring Churches.

1. They may declare their opinions to be erroneous. And p. 291this is plain from Act. 15.24. where you ſee there was a Dogmaticall or doctrinall declaration of the falſhood and errour of their opinions, who ſought to obtrude Circumciſion, and the obſervation of the Moſaicall Law upon the Churches: this was judged by the Apoſtles and Elders in this Convention an heterodox opinion, a dangerous errour, not only troubling, but tending to the ſubverting of their ſouls. And in this we ſhall finde a good agreement, the key of knowledge; and a power doctrinally to determine and declare the errour of opinions, being granted on thoſe hands, who otherwiſe deny the power of jurisdiction to Synods; all grant a Synod to be a teaching, though all will not allow it to be a governing Church; and that it hath the power of doctrine, though not the power of juriſdiction.

2. A Synod hath power to counſell an erring Church, that they lay down their errours, that they perſiſt no further in thoſe erroneous opinions. And in this we ſhall alſo agree; they who deny the determinations and acts of Synods to binde, as authoritative Commandments, doe yet acknowledge them to oblige, not only as friendly advices, but as authoritative counſels; and this upon two grounds.

1. Becauſe they are a company of Elders, to whom,See Cotton Keyes. as to the Prieſts of the Lord, Whoſe lips are to preſerve knowledge, the keys of knowledge, and conſequently a Synodicall authority is g…ven.

2. Becauſe as a private mans power is inferiour to a Paſtor: ſo is the power of a Synodicall convention of Elders above a ſingle Congregation. And a Synod in dogmatical power ariſeth ſo higher then theſe, as a divine inſtitution doth fall upon it.

Every brother indeed hath a power to counſell and adviſe a brother, and this warranted,

1. By the Law of Nature.

2. By the Law of God, Levit. 19.18.Lev 19.18Lev 19:18

3. By the Law of brotherly charity, Coloſ. 3.15. 1 Theſſ. 5.14. Heb. 3.13. Heb. 10.24.Col. 3.15. 1 Theſſ. 5.14. Heb. 3.13. Heb. 10 24.Col 3:151 Thess 5:14Heb 3:13Heb 10:24 But this is only as a gifted and enlightned brother: every Paſtour hath power alſo to counſell, and it is his duty to doe it, but he doth this by the key of knowledge, the power of order, not the power of juriſdiction. And p. 292though our Brethren doe not allow the power of juriſdiction in a Synod, yet ſome of them grant an authoritative power, not only differing from the former gradually, as a greater power to adviſe differs from a leſſer, but specifically, and in nature different from the other; indeed their brethren grant not ſo much in this kinde; they ſay, the power of a Synod differs from the power of Congregations only gradually and extenſively, not eſſentially and ſpecifically. And could that ſpecificall difference of power be fully made out; certainly it would be a good medium to our reconciliation in this point of difference.

3. A Synod hath power not only to declare and counſel, but to admoniſh and rebuke an erring Church: if one brother may admoniſh another, and if he will not hear him, he may tell it to two or three; and if he will not hear two or three, he may tell it to the Church; then by the ſame proportion, if one ſiſter Church will not hear another admoniſhing her from her errour or ſcandall, ſhe may tell it to more; if yet they will not hear, they may go and complain of it to a Synod or Church of Churches. That Scripture which bids me to admoniſh and rebuke an erring brother, doth warrant by way of proportion one Church, much more a Church of Churches, to admoniſh and rebuke one erring Church. And in this alſo wee agree.

4. A Synod hath power to promulge and publiſh their errours to other Churches. I ſay, a Synod having firſt examined and debated any opinion or doctrine by the Word, and found it to be erroneous, they may promulge and publiſh thoſe doctrines, as they have found them: thus you ſee they did in that great convention in Act. 15. having examined and debated that opinion of theirs,Act. 15.…4Acts 15:4 and upon debate had concluded it to be eroneous, they ſent their letters to the Churches of Antioch, Syria, Cilicia, wherein they publiſhed the errour and danger of thoſe doctrines to them, as you ſee, verſ. 24. charging them to be deſtructive and ſubverſive to their ſouls, where by the way let me tell you, though the reſolution of this Queſtion was the end of this Convention; For Paul and Barnabas was ſent from the Church of Antioch unto Jeruſalem, p. 293foreign, concerning this Question, verſ. 2.ver. 2. And the Apoſtles and Elders came together to conſider, foreign, verſ. 6.ver. 6. of this matter, yet I conceive it was not the adequate end: if it had been the totall and adequate end of this meeting in a meer doctrinall way to reſolve the Queſtion, then had Peter, verſ. 10, 11. made a clear iſſue of the Queſtion, when he ſaid, we are ſaved by the grace of God, both Jews and Gentiles: And it was to tempt God to lay the yoke of the Law of Moſes upon the brethren; here was a full determination of the Queſtion. And if the reſolving of this Queſtion had been the adequate end of this Synod; why is there more done? why doe they cenſure and brand the falſe teachers for ſubverters and liars? Why doe they publiſh and promulge this to other Churches? ſend binding decrees to be obſerved by all the Churches of the Gentiles? All this ſhews, that though the reſolving of the Queſtion was the end of their meeting, yet was it not the full and adequate end of it: nor did the Church of Antioch ſend to them, meerly for the help of their Councel in the dogmaticall determining of the Queſtion in doubt, but for the aſſistance of their authority in ſtrengthning thoſe determinations, and healing thoſe preſent ruptures and diviſions among them: The determinations of Paul for the dogmaticall part might have been as valid as the ſentence of them all, he was an Apoſtle as well as they; or if his Apoſtleſhip were more questionable among the Gentiles, by reaſon he had not gone in and out with Chriſt in his life, as the other did, yet the ſentence of the other Apoſtles at Jeruſalem might have been valid enough to have ſetled the controverſie for the doctrinall part; and if no more had been required, why are Elders joyned with them in the determination? they could contribute nothing to ſtrengthen the doctrinall part, the ſentence of the Apoſtles was ſtrong enough without them; and therefore there was ſome further end of this Convention, then meerly Counſel, the ſetling and determination of the Queſtion, which might be the joynt authority of a Synod, not only to make decrees, but to binde thoſe decrees upon the Churches. And ſo not only to diſcover, & doctrinally to declare thoſe opinions obtruded to be errours, but alſo to publiſh and p. 294promulge them as errours to the Churches, that they might avoid them. And thus it was the practice of the Primitive times in their Conventions, after they had cenſured and condemned errours, they writ letters to the Churches, which were called literae communicatoriae, or Communicatory letters, wherein they let them know that ſuch opinions were cenſured and condemned for falſe and erroneous opinions: and that's another branch of the power of a Synod toward erring Churches.

5. A Synod hath power to ſend to other Churches to beware of ſuch a ſociety. I ſay, upon the publiſhing and declaring of the danger of their erroneous opinions to other Churches, they may caution other Churches to take heed and beware of them: if the Paſtour of one particular Church may Caution his people to beware of ſuch and ſuch errours, as doe ariſe among them, much more may many Paſtours and Elders in conſociation doe the ſame to many Congregations. And this was another ground of theſe Communicatory Letters in the Primitive times; after they had publiſhed their errours to other Churches, they did alſo by theſe Letters caution them, and warn them to take heed of them. Thus Alexand…r Biſhop of Alexandria, Theod. l. 1. c 3. Chamier. l 14 c …. ſect. 8, 9.after Arius his hereſie had been ſentenced in a Synod, he ſent to all the Churches of Chriſt to beware of that dangerous h…reſie.

6. They may declare ſuch Churches unworthy communion with the Churches of Chriſt. I ſay, they may in an authoritative judiciall way, in the name and authority of Chriſt, declare theſe erring Churches are not worthy communion, nor to be received into fellowſhip with any of the Churches of Chriſt; nor to have communion one with another in the Ordinances of Chriſt: nay, and yet more, they may ſend to other Churches, and charge them as they are the Churches of Chriſt to withdraw all fellowſhip and communion from them: which certainly, if it be not all, yet it ſeems to be proportionable to what is contended for.Par in parem non habet poteſtatem. It is a cenſure, and this ſhews there is authority in Synods, for no equall can cenſure or give out the ſentence of non-communion againſt another equall. Nor would Chriſt have one Church to forego communion with another Church, p. 295but upon preſuppoſed cenſure, ſome foregoing act of authority: if he would not have a brother to renounce communion with a brother, but upon ſome fore-going Church-authority, Mat. 18.15, 16. much leſſe would he have a Church. And as it is a cenſure, and ſo declares authority in Synods, ſo it is to me a cenſure proportionate to excommunication, and ſo certainly the brethren would have the Churches to receive it, otherwiſe I conceive they were not to withdraw communion from them.

Ames ſaith,Ameſ. caſ. conſc. l. 4, c 29 q. 11. th 26. Rutherf. though whole Churches and members of another Church cannot properly be excommunicated by a Synod, yet for manifeſt hereſie a Synod may, 1. Condemn. 2. Forſake. 3. Reject ſuch a Church, which, ſaith he, is proportionable to Excommunication. And is Excommunication in the eſſence and ſubſtance of the act, as the other brethren ſay. Of which I ſhall ſpeak more by and by.

Now in the cloſe of all this Diſcourſe of the power of Synods, we have two main Objections, which we ſhall endeavour to anſwer, and ſo conclude this Diſcourſe.

Ob. 1. But it will be ſaid, Are the Churches to obey ſuch a ſentence, meerly becauſe the Synod commands it? If indeed a Synod were guid…d by ſuch an extraordinary and infallible ſpirit, as that in Act. 15. and could ſay with them, It ſeemeth good to the holy Ghost and us, then were the Churches bound to obey: but our Synods now are not aſſiſted with any ſuch inf…llible ſpirit; nor have they that extraordinary concurrence of the spirit, therefore we are not bound to obey.

Anſw. For the first part of this Objection, viz. Whether the Churches are to obey, becauſe a Synod commands and enjoyns ſuch things? I anſwer, No, and demand what Protestant Authour ever ſaid ſo? Certainly the power of a Synod is not abſolute, but limited; not magisteriall, but miniſteriall, a power only in the Lord: nor are we to be meer instruments moved by the will of thoſe in authority, as the Papiſts ſay: but are morall Agents, and ought no l…ſſe to obey in faith, then they command in faith, and are to give c…re and diligence, we be not acceſſary to unjuſt ſentences, leſt we alſo partake in other mens ſinnes. But though we are not to obey meerly, becauſe p. 296they command, yet are we to obey, becauſe we are commanded in the Lord; A Synod is to be looked upon as a ſolemn ordinance of Chriſt. And the Elders are to be looked upon as the Officers of Chriſt, and they decreeing and commanding in the Lord,Manuſcr. quoted by Rutherf. Due right of Pre…b. p. 365. we are to obey. Our brethren ſay thus much, Though every particular Church of Chriſt hath right and power to exerciſe its own Ordinances Chriſt hath left them, yet in difficult caſes we are bound to ſeek advice of other Churches, and to give ſo much authority to the concurrence of judgements in a Synod, as ſhall and ought to be an obligation to us, not to depart from any ſuch reſolutions, as they ſhall make upon any conſideration what ever, but where our conſcience and our peace with God is apparently concerned.

2. For the ſecond branch of the Objection, which is taken from the different concurrence with, and the aſſiſtance of the Spirit to our Synods, and to that in Act. 15. they were guided by an extraordinary and infallible Spirit, and could ſay, It ſeems good to the holy Ghost and us; our Synods have only, at the beſt, the ordinary aſſiſtance of the Spirit, nay, and may erre, and therefore there is a vaſt difference.

An. I anſwer to this. 1. This Argument ſtrikes againſt all jurisdiction in a particular Congregation, as wel as againſt all power in a Synod: for a particular Congregation is not infallible neither, they may erre in their adminiſtrations, and therefore ſhall they not adminiſter cenſures at all: who will ſay this? Nay

2. This ſtrikes againſt all authoritative delivering of doctrine, in ſingle Paſtours, …s well as the Dogmaticall and doctrinall power of delivering doctrine in Synods: ordinary Paſtours, they have not that extraordinary concurrence of the ſpirit, they are not infallible, they may erre, therefore are they not to preach?

3. A man, and ſo a Synod may be guided by an infallible ſpirit, although his, or their ſpirit be not infallibl…. And the reſults of a Synod may be infallible, and founded upon a certain word, though a Synod it ſelf be not infallible.

4. I conceive theſe two are not convertible, an infallible, and an extraordinary ſpirit. A man may be guided by an infallible, yet not by an extraordinary ſpirit, the ordinary preſence p. 297and guidance of the spirit of truth, in the word may be infallible, yet but ordinary. It is not an extraordinary aſſiſtance and guidance.

5. But fifthly you ſuppoſe that here, which cannot be made evident and clear, that the Apoſtles were guided in this Synod by an extraordinary ſpirit, or by the extraordinary aſſiſtance of the ſpirit. The Papiſts indeed do affirm it, and hence take, a ground to inferre the infallibility of their Councels and Synods.Non ſequit… ſpiritus ſanctus huic Concilio adſuit, ergo & a…iis adeſt. VVhitak. And many famous Proteſtant Authours in their Tracts againſt the Papiſts affirm the ſame, and make uſe of this as a medium to prove the fallibility of Councels, that Councels may erre, becauſe they are but men, and ſubject to errour, and not guided with ſuch an extraordinary aſſiſtance of the ſpirit as the Apoſtles were in th…s great Councell.

aaChamier Tom. 3. l, 15. c. 10. ſect: 3. Illis aderat extraordinem spiritus ſanctus, adeo ut quae illi propo…erent ad… ſimplicitèr manarent, at reliquis paſtoribus adſiſtentia ſpiritus nulla extra ordinem.One ſpeaking of this Convention ſaith, The holy Spirit was extraordinarily preſent with them, in ſo much that whatever they propounded was ſimply Gods communications, but God affords no ſuch extraordinary aſſiſtance to ordinary Paſtours. The like Whitaker alſo,bbVVhitak. de authoritate, Sac. Scrip. l. 1. p. 78 etiam controv. 3. q. 6 c. 2. p 610. Certum est hoc fuiſſe ſingulare concilium & ſingularibus privilegiis donatum, &c. It is certain this Councel was a ſingular Councel, and was endued with ſingular priviledges in regard of the preſence of the Apoſtles. Shall we compare (ſaith he) the Councel of Trent, yea that famous Councel of Nice to this, in which there were ſo many Worthies, endued with the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost? farre be it from us to make ſuch a compariſon. And a little after, he ſaith,ccOmnes defin…tiones ecr… foreign. & Scripturis pares fuere. Ibid p. 115. All their determinations were inspirations of God, and equall to the Scriptures. And in this opinion runs the ſtream of our famous Writers againſt the Papiſts. With reverence to the vaſt abilities of theſe famous Worthies, Champions for God in their generations, Shall I take the boldneſſe to ſay, That I conceive how ever the Apoſtles in the penning of Scriptures were aſſiſted and directed with an immediate inſpired ſpirit; Yet in this Synodicall Convention they did not proceed by their Apoſtolicall authority; nor had they an extraordinary concurrence, or immediate inſpiration of the Spirit of God. I ſhall give you theſe reaſons, and ſhall then leave it to your thoughts to judge.

1. We read, verſ 2. That Paul and Barnabas were ſent from the Church of Antioch to the Apoſtles and Elders at Jeruſalem p. 298about this Queſtion: now Paul as an Apoſtle, and a man immediately inſpired, did need not to goe to Jeruſalem for the aſſiſtance of the other Apoſtles, for he was able as an Apoſtle to have determined the Queſtion himſelf, he knew the whole myſterie of the Gospel. Gal. 1.16, 17.Gal. 1.16, 17. Gal. 2.6.Gal 1:16Gal 1:17Gal 2:6 and was inferiour to none; therefore he went not as an Apoſtle, but as an ordinary Elder. One Apoſtle as an Apoſtle might have determined the Queſtion without the help of a Synod.

2. The perſons here aſſembled together do declare, That they were not directed by an immediate inſpired Spirit. It is ſaid, The Apoſtles and Elders came together to conſider of this Queſtion. Now, if the Apoſtles were to act as Apoſtles, what light and aſſiſtance could the Elders adde to the Apoſtles as Apoſtles? But you ſee the Elders, as well as the Apostles, met together to conſider of the matter, and in Act. 21.18, 25.Act. 21.18, 25.Acts 21:18Acts 21:25 All the Elders of Jeruſalem with James take upon themſelves theſe acts and decrees, as well as the Apoſtles, and in Act. 16.4. they are called the decrees of the Elders, as well as the Apoſtles; but now the Elders of ordinary Churches, ſuch as theſe were, here conveened in this Synod, could not be collaterall actors with the immediately inspired Apoſtles, as in this Synod they were, nay, the whole Church, ſay our brethren; therefore certainly they did not act as Apoſtles.

3. The manner of the Apoſtles proceeding in this Councel holds forth to us, that they did not act as Apoſtles, nor were immediately inſpired, becauſe they proceeded by way of communication of Counſels. It is ſaid, They met together to conſider, that's one phraſe of ſpeech ſhews it was not acted by an apoſtolicall ſpirit: where there are inſpirations there is no need of conſiderations. foreign. Act. 15.7.Acts 15:7And it is ſaid there was dispute, nay much diſpute, great and earneſt diſputation, verſ. 7. When there had been much diſputing Peter ſtood up. So that there was much debating to finde out the truth, a great diſpute. And every one delivers his thoughts in order, firſt Peter ſpeaks, verſ. 7, 8. then Barnabas and Paul, ver. 12. and after James, ver. 13. So that you ſee here was a great diſpute; now immediate inſpirations are not gathered up by diſputes: what the Apoſtles doe as Apoſtles, they doe not by conferring, and debating, and ſeeking p. 299light one of another, but they are directly and immediately inſpired of God.

Indeed the immediate inſpired ſpirit, it may diſcourſe and inferre a concluſion from ſuch and ſuch premiſſes, as Paul doth, Rom. 4.4, 5, 6. and Rom. 3.28. But the immediately inspired ſpirit of God in arguing doth not take the help of diſputing one with another; things immediately inſpired, are not gathered up by disputations, but by revelations. There is no concurrence of man to them, they are done without the help of our own reaſon, and without the help of others alſo.

4. If they had been guided by an immediate inſpired ſpirit, then ſhould every of them have reſted in the ſentence of another, for the immediate inſpired ſpirit, is a like perfect in all his determinations, and ſo Paul ſhould have ſubſcribed to Peters, or Peter to Pauls, and James to them all, and not all to James, eſpecially when he doth, for ought the phraſe imports, but ſet down his own judgement, foreign, verſ. 19. I judge, and the manner and phraſe of ſpeech implies as if it were his private opinion, with reverence to what Peter and Paul ſaid, to which yet all ſubmitted. Now, I ſay, if every one were guided by an immediate inspired ſpirit, why ſhould any recede from his own ſentence? And why ſhould they all ſubmit to the ſentence of another? ſeeing they were better able to clear the ſpirit, whereby themſelves spake, was infallible, then the ſpirit by which another ſpake.

5. If here the Apoſtles ſpeak by the immediate inspired ſpirit, the Churches had been here left in ſome doubt which to follow; for though one Apoſtle doth not ſpeak contrary, yet they ſpeak divers one to another. James ſpeaks of abſtaining from bloud, and things ſtrangled, and things offered to idols, which the other Apoſtles did not speak of; and therefore if the other did speak, as they were immediately inſpired, the Churches would have been left in doubt, whether to follow what James ſaid, or what Paul and Peter ſaid.

If it be ſaid, the occaſion of doubt which of them to follow was removed, becauſe all of them afterwards agreed to what James ſaid.

I ſay, 1. Though the occaſion of the doubt was thereby removed p. 300from them, who were willing to be ſatisfied, yet here was a great advantage given to them, who would except againſt theſe reſults, becauſe the other Apoſtles, who were yet directed (ſay you) by the immediate inspired ſpirit, laid no ſuch burthens, nor impoſed no ſuch commandments of abstinence, &c. upon the Churches in what they had ſaid, and therefore they might ſay, either this ultimate determination was not the minde of the ſpirit, or the ſpirit was divers from himſelf in the procedure of theſe determinations.

2. In that they all agree to James, it is a plain evidence that they had not ſpoken by the immediate inſtinct of the ſpirit, neither had been directed by any extraordinary dictate and aſſiſtance of him, becauſe they decline, if not recede from what themſelves had ſpoken, and now, as it were upon further and ſecond thoughts, do wholly concurre with James.

6. And indeed which may be a ſixth inſtance of the thing in proof; though that which Peter and Paul ſaid was a truth, that the Gentiles ſhould not be preſſed to the obſervation of Moſes Law upon neceſſity of ſalvation, yet they did not ſo fully ſpeak to the reſolution of the Queſtion; nor would that they ſaid have ſatisfied the conſciences of the Churches in their preſent practice, if James had ſeen no further, or ſpake no more in the reſolving of the Queſtion then they did. For, notwithſtanding what Peter and Paul ſaid, They might have eaten things offered to Idols, and blood, and things ſtrangled, which at that time had been a ſinne againſt the law of nature, and a great ſcandall and offence to the Jews, and ſo notwithſtanding this determination, the diviſions would have been greater, the rents wider, the ſcandall more dangerous then before; the Jews they ſhould have gone on in a totall abſtinence of all Ceremonies, which might have been ſcandalous to ſome Gentiles; and the Gentiles ſhould have gone on in eating blood, meats offered to Idols, and things ſtrangled, which had been highly ſcandalous to the Jews; which certainly had Paul or Peter acted here as Apoſtles, by vertue of the immediate inspired ſpirit, they could not have overſeen, nor had they let it paſſ…. By all which to me it ſeems clear that the Apoſtles and Elders in this Convention, did not act by vertue of an immediate inſpired ſpirit, nor had they any p. 301further extraordinary aſſiſtance of the ſpirit,Poſſunt alia legitima concilia ſimiliter aſſerere decreta ſua eſſe decre…a ſpiritus fancti, ſi huic concilio ſimilia fuerint, & ſi eandem regulam ſervaverint, quam in hoc concilio ſervaverint & ſecuti ſunt Apoſtoti. Wh…t cont. 3. q. …. c. 2. p. 610. a but as ordinary Paſtours and Elders in this act. That this Synod or Convention was led by the holy Ghoſt, is evident by verſ. 25, 28. where it is ſaid, It ſeemeth good to the holy Ghost and us,—But that this was the holy Ghoſt immediately inspiring the Apoſtles and Elders upon theſe grounds alledged, I deny. But that it was the ordinary concurrence of the ſpirit, ſuch as ordinary Paſtours and Elders may have in the truth; And thus Whitaker himſelf (notwithſtanding all thoſe former paſſages) affirmes, ſaying, That other lawfull Councels may in like manner aſſert their decrees to be the decrees of the holy Ghoſt, if they were like to this Councel, and if they did obſerve the ſame rule which the Apoſtles did obſerve and follow in this Councel, meaning the word of truth.

And indeed if otherwiſe, then either we have no patern for Synods, or elſe all Synods doe act with the ſame ſpirit. I ſay, either we muſt with the Papiſts ſay, That all Synods are infallble; or we muſt ſay with the Socinians and Arminians, we have no patern for Synods at all. And thus I have ſhew'd you, that the Apoſtles and Elders in this Synodicall Convention were not immediately inſpired, nor had they an extraordinary concurrence of the ſpirit; nor did they act by their Apoſtolicall ſpirit, but as ordinary Paſtours. And in this we have the concurrence of ſome of the Brethren, who have written on this ſubject, The Apoſtles did not in this great Convention determine the matter by Apoſtolicall authority, Cotton. Keyes, p. 48, 49.from immediate revelation, but they aſſembled together with the Elders to conſider of the matter, ver 6. and a multitude of brethren together with them, verſ. 12, 22, 23. And after ſearching out the cauſe by an ordinary means of disputation, verſ. 7. Peter cleared it by the witneſſe of the ſpirit to his Miniſtery in Cornelius family; Paul and Barnabas, by the like effect of their Miniſtery among the Gentiles; James confirmed the ſame by the testimony of the Prophets; wherewith the whole Synod being ſatisfied, they determine of a judiciall ſentence, in which they cenſure the falſe teachers, as troublers of the Church, ſubverters of ſouls: They reject the impoſition of Circumciſion, as an inſupportable yoke: They impoſe on p. 302the Churches none but ſome neceſſary obſervations, and them by way of that authority, which the Lord had given them, verſ. 28. By all which you ſee, it is fully granted by ſome of the Brethren themſelves, That the Apoſtles in this Convention did not act as Apoſtles, or as men immediately inſpired. And ſo much for the firſt great Objection: we come to the ſecond.

Object. 2. But it will be ſaid, Though it be granted that a Synod hath power to counſell, admoniſh, rebuke an erring Church; nay, and to publiſh their errours to other Churches, to caution other Churches to beware of them; yea, and to declare thoſe erring Churches unworthy communion, and to charge other Churches to withdraw from them; yet notwithſtanding all this, ſuppoſe that an erring Church will yet perſist in it's errour, and will not be healed and reclaimed, hath a Synod no further power to put forth to the gaining of them? May not a Synod proceed to further cenſure, viz. the Excommunication of ſuch an erring obſtinate Church?

Anſw. And here indeed is the great knot of the controverſie; this is the great dividing point between ſome of the Brethren on both parts at this time. In the peruſall of Diſcourſes, I finde men various in their thoughts concerning this. I will lay down five ſeverall opinions about this Queſtion.

1. Some ſay that no Church, or member of any Church, is under the jurisdiction of any Church, or Church of Churches whatever, but that every ſingle Congregation is a Church of Chriſt, and hath full and entire power within it ſelf to adminiſter ordinances, dispence cenſures, and independent upon any other, or others, either for the enjoyment or imployment of this power; and when they ſeek to other Churches, it is for aſſiſtance and direction, not for precepts and injunctions: It is not to adde to their authority, but to ſtrengthen their ability in the managing of it.Park polit. eccl l. 3. p. 335.

2. Others ſay, That not only perſon's, but Churches alſo are ſubordinate unto the power and jurisdiction of a Synod, or Church of Churches; and that a Synod hath not only power to excommunicate erroneous perſons, but erring Churches alſo, p. 303if they will not be reclaimed. And this they eſtabliſh by way of proportion upon Matth. 18. Goe tell the Church; of which before: and ſay there is the ſame reaſon for the Excommunication of whole Churches, as of ſome perſons in them, viz. the taking away the ſcandall, the converſion of the ſinners, and the preſerving of other Churches from ſeduction. As two or three perſons may ſcandall and give offence to one Church; ſo may two or three Churches give offence and ſcandall to many Siſter Churches. The Apoſtle implies ſo much, 1 Cor. 10.32.1 Cor. 10.32.1 Cor 10:32 where he ſaith, Give no offence, neither to the Jew, nor to the Gentile, nor to the Church of God. And if Churches may be offended, certainly Churches may offend. And therefore without doubt Chriſt, who hath provided remedies for the ſcandall and offences that may ariſe among a few, in a particular Congregation, hath not l…ft many Churches and Congregations without ſome remedy againſt the ſcandals and offences of a few. Certainly remedies there are. And ſome thinke th s, viz. Excommunication: and ſay, a Church fals under a two-fold conſideration.

1. As having communion with it ſelf.Pagets power of Claſſes & Synods, p. 109. in anſw… to D. Ames.

2. As having communion with other Churches. Though a Church cannot be caſt out of communion with it ſelf: Yet it may be caſt out of communion with other Churches of Chriſt. So Paget in anſwer to D. Ames.

3. Some again thinke that a whole Church is not to be excommunicated; and yet not upon D. Ames grounds, becauſe a Church cannot be caſt out of communion with it ſelf, &c. Ameſ. Caſ. conſc. l. 4. c. 29.Nor yet upon this ground, becauſe the other remedies alleadged are ſufficient remedies. But for this reaſon, becauſe probably the whole Church is not corrupted, and it were better to ſpare many offenders, then to cenſure one innocent. And therefore it is judged ſafer that this cenſure of Excommunication ſhould be diſpenced diſtributively, rather then collectively, by ſingling out the chief offenders in a Congregation, rather then by the cutting off the whole body and ſociety. And this is one thing objected againſt the ſentence of Non-communion, that it doth without any distinction or difference cut off a whole Church from communion and fellowſhip with other Churches of Chriſt, p. 304when it may be the whole Church is not corrupted and guilty.

4. Some thinke the way to deal with an hereticall Church, if I may ſo call it, is not by Excommunication, but by diſſolution of the ſociety. But this not being a Church-cenſure, I have nothing to doe with it here.

5. And laſtly, Some thinke, That though a Synod cannot excommunicate an erring Church, yet may they doe that which is proportionable to it, they may cenſure them, condemn them, forſake them, reject them, and render them odious to other Churches for their errours. And if this be not Excommunication, yet certainly it is analogicall and proportionable to Excommunication. Ameſ. caſ. conſc l 4. c. 29 q 11. theſ 26.So Ames. And is held by ſome to be it ſelf Excommunication. The learned Authour of the book entituled, Obſervations and annotations upon the Apolog. Narration, p. 43. hath this expreſſion to thoſe Brethren, It is a miſtake in you to thinke that in declaring of your non-communion with other Churches, you doe not excommunicate them; for what is Excommunication, but a privation of Cimmunion? &c.

And indeed Excommunication being an eccleſiaſticall word, and not found in Scripture, and the ſubſtance of that we finde in Scripture being done, why do we lengthen out the contention.

Object. 3. But it will perhaps be ſaid by ſome, That all this is not Excommunication, this is but the half of it, the negative part of it, and not the poſitive part of it, which indeed is that wherein the proper nature of Excommunication doth lie, viz. a d…livering up to Satan.

Anſw. And here we are now come up to the higheſt ſtep of the controverſie: This is the — the very point of the difference.

1. For the firſt part of the Objection, That this is not Excommunication, becauſe it wants the poſitive part. To me it ſeems evident, that which is granted by Ames in the fifth opinion, and which our Brethren grant in the ſentence of non-communion; hath ſomething poſitive, as well as negative in it: Yea, but you will ſay, here is not the delivering up to Satan, p. 305and in that conſiſts the formality of this ſentence of Excommunication.

Indeed this is a great Queſtion, and requires more pains and time, then I can spend about it.

1. Some there are indeed that thinke in this to lie the formality of the cenſure, viz. The delivering up to Satan.

2. Some again thinke it a higher and more dreadfull degree of the ſentence. The authour of the Obſervations, on the Ap…l. Nar p. 43.

3. Others thinke this, Delivering up to Satan, to be a fruit and conſequent of the ſentence, and not of the formality of it.

4. And there are ſome that thinke, that this delivering up to Satan, is neither of the formality of the ſentence, nor yet a fruit and conſequent of it, but an act of Apoſtolicall power, put forth by the Apoſtles towards eminent and great offenders: And ſuch an act as ordinary Paſtours and Elders, neither in the Apoſtles daies, nor ever ſince could put forth, bei…g a power proper to the Apoſtles onelyonly,Pet. Molin. vat. c. 11. p. 10…. De poteſtate Apoſtolorum in corpora. whereby they delivered up the bodies of great offenders to be tormented by Satan, That the ſoul might be ſaved in the day of Christ.

And this they call that virga Apoſtolica, which you read of, 1 Cor. 4.21. Shall I come to you with a rod? Such a rod as Peter came withall to Ananias and Sapphira: ſuch an one as Paul put forth to Elymas the Sorcerer, and ſuch an one as he put forth to Hymeneus and Alexander, 1 Tim. 1.20. and towards the incestuous perſon, 1 Cor. 5.3, 5. I have decreed that this man ſhall be delivered to Satan for the deſtruction of the fleſh. That is, ſay they (for I will give you their thoughts) for the puniſhing and tormenting of the body by weakneſſe, ſickneſſe, griefs, &c. for ſo by fleſh they underſtand the body. **Cum ſpirit… manifeſtè hic ſignificat animam, neceſſe e…t per …a…nem ſpiritui o… poſitam corpu… intell… g… Mol. p. 10….And ſay the oppoſition here between fleſh and spirit doth make much for it; for if by spirit be meant the ſoul, as in this place it muſt, then by fl…ſh to hold the oppoſition muſt needs be meant the body: and the ſenſe will then be, he hath delivered ſuch an one to Satan for the d ſtruction of the fleſh, that is, for the puniſhing and tormenting of the body; which they exemplifie p. 306in Job, that the ſpirit, that is the ſoul, may thereby be brought to repentance, and ſaved in the day of the Lord; and this extraordinary and miraculous power of inflicting torments on the bodies of eminent malefactours, in the Apoſtles daies, is conceived by ſome to be afforded to the Apoſtles for to ſupply and make up the defect of the Magiſtrates power, which they wanted in thoſe daies.

But yet they deny not but that Paul would have the inceſtuous perſon to be caſt out of Communion with the Church; but this he would have done by the Church of Corinth, and by the authority of the ordinary Elders, as appears, verſ. 7. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump: ſo in verſ. 13. Put away therefore from among your ſelves that wicked perſon. But when the Apoſtle ſpeaketh about delivering to Satan, he doth not expect the conſent of the Church of Corinth, but decrees this by his apoſtolicall power and authority: to which decree of his, he requires the Churches conſent to be joyn'd, as he ſaith, I, as abſent in body, but preſent in spirit, have decreed, that he that hath done this thing ſhould be delivered up to Satan. And that which he adds, When ye are gathered together, and my spirit; it is not to be underſtood (ſay they) as if the decree of the Apoſtle did depend upon the conſent of the Church, but having decreed, he requires their aſſent to it. And this they prove in the example of Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom he delivered up to Satan without the conſent of any Church what ever.

So that you ſee there is a great deal of difference in mens thoughts concerning this delivering up to Satan.

1. Some you ſee would have it an act of apoſtelicall power, and a puniſhment inflicted upon the body, and not Excommunication; they finde it not in the firſt inſtitution of this ordinance, Matth. 18.17. nor doe they think Satan a fi… inſtrument to bring about thoſe holy ends, for which this ordinance was inſtituted. And how ever Satan may doe much good to the ſouls of Gods people againſt his will occaſionally, and accidentally by his buffetings and temptations, yet it ſounds harſh to them that God ſhould ſet up ſo ſolemn and holy an ordinance as this is, to continue in the Church, while Chriſt hath a p. 307Church on earth, wherein Satan is ſo farre honoured, as to be ſerviceable and inſtrumentall in the ſaving of ſoules, &c.—

2. Some will have this delivering up to Satan, of the formality of the ſentence, urging the Apoſtles phraſe of ſpeech, in the 1 Cor. 5. to import ſo much to us.

3. Some again aſſert it to be a further and more dreadfull degree of this cenſure.

4. And others ſay, it is not of the formality of the cenſure, but a fruit and conſequent of it.

Now, if it be the firſt of theſe, viz. an act of apostolicall power, as many conceive, who yet hold up this ordinance of Excommunication, yea, and from that place alſo, 1 Cor. 5.2, 7, 13. then did it die with the Apoſtles, and we have nothing to doe with it: It is utterly inimitable and impracticable, by ordinary Elders and officers. And if it be the ſecond, viz. That this delivering up to Satan be the formality of Excommunication, then it will follow, when there is not ſuch a delivering up to Satan, there is no Excommunication: which I thinke few will ſay. And the condition of perſons, not only cenſured, but cenſuring, doth prevail much with me not to thinke: and if it be the third, viz. a further degree of the cenſure, then either a degree prudentially to be annexed according to the atrocity and heinouſneſſe of the fact; of which I ſee not any warrant: or it is a degree neceſſarily to be added: and if ſo, then is it inſeparable from the cenſure, nor can the cenſure be diſpenced without it, and ſo it is of the formality of it; which to me is not ſo evident. But if this delivering up to Satan be the conſequent and fruit of the cenſure, as the fourth opinion ſaith, and many upon good grounds doe chuſe rather to affirm; then the controverſie will be at an end in this particular. For thoſe brethren of the Congregationall way do affirm, That when a Synod met together in the Name of Chriſt, Burrough. Heart diviſion, p. 44.have in the authority of Chriſt ſolemnly judged, condemned, and cenſured ſuch an erring Church, to be ſuch an one as hath no right to any Church-ordinance, nor is to have any communion with the Churches of Chriſt: if this judgement be right, then ſuch a Congregation is thereby put out of the kingdome of p. 308Chriſt, and conſequently is put under the power, and kingdom of Satan.

And thus I have done with the anſwer to the Objections, and with that have at length finiſhed this diſcourſe of Church power, as relating to this Queſtion, The ſuppreſſing of errour, and reducing of erroneous perſons. Yet give me leave before I ſhut up this work (in regard it is a better work to unite, then to divide; to compound differences, then to heighten and increaſe them) to lay down the grants of our brethren of the Congregationall-way unto this Queſtion. In which we ſhall tell you what materials they will afford us to the making up of this Fabrick.

And firſt, though they expreſſely ſay, that every particular Congregation is a Church of Chriſt, and hath right to decide it's own controverſies, and to conclude it's own differences, (inſtancing in the Church of Antioch, whoſe endeavours among themſelves to end their difference, and conclude the controverſie which aroſe,…. H…rt diviſions, p. 43. before ever they purpoſed to goe to Jeruſalem, doth clearly demonstrate that they had right, though they wanted power) yet they affirm that ſuch a Church is to render an account to other Churches of Chriſt of their actions. And this is not arbitrary that they may, or may not doe it, but they are bound in conſcience to it, as a duty they ow to God, and to their ſiſter-Churches.

Ibid.2. They grant that a conſociation of Churches in Synods, conſiſting of Miniſters and Elders, is a precious ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt for the preſerving of the Churches againſt errours, ſchiſms, and ſcandals.

3. They grant that in caſe a particular Church or Congregation, either want light or unity among themſelves, that they are not able to determine and conclude their own controverſies,Cotton Keys, p. 48 either they are too difficult, by reaſon of want of light, or too hard, for want of love, or by reaſon of diviſion among themſelves, that then it is their duty to repair unto a Synod, or conſociation of Churches, for their help and aſſiſtance to the determining of their doubts and controverſies. And this they conclude upon theſe two grounds or reaſons.

1. The want of power in ſuch a Church, to paſſe a binding p. 309ſentence. Where errour or ſcandall is maintained by a fa…tion, the promiſe of binding and looſing made to the Church,Eccleſia errans vel li…igans, nō ligat. is not given to the Church, when it is leavened with errour and variance. It is a maxime, The cenſure of an erring or diſagreeing Church doth not binde; it is required a Church ſhould agree, and agree in Chriſts name, that is, in the truth, Matth. 18.19, 20. otherwiſe their cenſure is of no power.

3. They conclude this from the patern, in Act. 15. which patern clearly ſhews to whom the power and authority is committed, when there groweth offence and difference in a Church, even to a conſociation of Churches, &c.

4. They grant theſe Synods thus conveened have power further then to counſell an erring Church, they have a power from Chriſt to admoniſh men or Churches in his name,Cotton. K ys. p. 53. when they ſee a Church to walk in any way of errour, and their admonitions are more then brotherly perſwaſions, for they carry with them the authority of Jeſus Chriſt; and that a Church fallen into errour and offence, is ſubject both to the admonitions of other Churches, and to the determinations, and judiciall ſentence of a Synod for direction, in a way of truth and peace. And this, ſay they, ariſeth from that was ſpok…n before; The ſentence of an erring nor of a diſagreeing Church doth binde: and therefore in caſe a Church fail in either, viz. truth or peace, a Synod is the firſt ſubject of power, and ſuch a Chu…ch doth fall under the cenſure of a Synod.

5. They grant that if there be cauſe given, either of errour, or of ſcandall, A Synod hath power in the name of Chriſt to declare ſuch Churches to be ſubverters of the faith,H…art diviſions. p. 43. or ſcandalous and offenſive, to ſhame them to all Siſter and neighbour Churches.

6. They grant that a Synod may by a ſolemn act, and in the name of Jeſus Chriſt, renounce any further communion with ſuch Churches, till they be reformed, Ibid.and may in the ſame name declare and publiſh thoſe erring Churches are not to be received into fellowſhip with any of the Churches of Chriſt;Cotton, Keys, p. 25 nor to have communion one with another in the ordinances of Chriſt. Here is now a great deal. And one of the brethren hints ſomething more in that expreſſion of his. We dare not p. 310ſay that the power of a Synod reacheth no further then to give counſell: For, ſaith he, ſuch as their ends be, for which according to God they doe aſſemble, ſuch is the power given them of God to attain thoſe ends: as they meet to miniſter light and peace to ſuch Churches as lie in errour or variance: ſo they have power by the grace of Chriſt, not only to give light and counſell in matter of truth and practice, but alſo to command and enjoyn things to be believed and done: the expreſſe words of the Synodicall letter imply ſo much, Act. 15.27. It ſeemeth good to the holy Ghost and us; to lay upon you no other burthen. This burthen therefore, to obſerve thoſe neceſſary things, which they ſpeak of, they had power to impoſe; it is an act of the binding power of the keys to binde burthens, and this binding power ariſeth not only materially from the weight of the matters impoſed,—but alſo formally from the authority of the Synod, which being an ordinance of Chriſt, bindeth the more for the Synods ſake.

So that here you ſee is a great agreement, all the difference is in point of Excommunication; they conceive a Synod hath not power to excommunicate either Churches or perſons.

1. And for Churches, in that many of the brethren agree with them, and ſay, as I told you, a whole Church is not to be excommunicated: and for thoſe that diſſent and ſay, whole Churches may be excommunicated, to them they grant not only the half of it, but the ſubſtance of the thing, for what is condemning, forſaking, rejecting of a Church, &c. but Excommunication in the ſubſtance of it? and ſo ſome of the Brethren take it: the leaſt that can be made of it, is Analogicall and proportionable to Excommunication.

2. And for the ſecond, viz. the Excommunication of perſons by a Synod, to me, they grant the thing, though not the name; and the Brethren of the other minde ſay, they thinke that Excommunication doth not belong to a Synod, Secundum actus elicitos, ſed imperatos; It is rather the work of a Synod to enjoyn it to be done, then to doe it themſelves: yet if delivering up to Satan be not of the formality of the ſentence of Excommunication, as many of our brethren thinke, but the conſequent p. 311and fruit of the cenſure,Bur. Heart diviſions, p. 4. then I ſee not that there is any difference, as I ſhewed you before.

And thus I have ſhewed you what materials our brethren will afford us to this building, which I could for my own part rather be content to ſit down withall, then by raiſing it higher, but heighten our confuſion, run the miſchief of diviſion among our ſelves, then which no penall evil can be ſadder and more uncomfortable. I wiſh we might all remember the Apoſtles rule, Phil. 3.15, 16. Let us therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded, and if in any thing you be otherwiſe minded, God ſhall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheleſſe, whereto we have already attain'd, let us walk by the ſame rule, minde the ſame things.

And thus we have done with the firſt great means for the ſuppreſſing of errour, and reducing of erroneous perſons, viz. Eccleſiaſticall. We come now to the ſecond means propounded, which we call civil and magiſteriall.**Nō tantū ſermo meus quantum mandatum tuum Naz.

And this is a point of no leſſe concernment, then it is of controverſie at this time.The ſecōd means to ſ…ppreſſe errour. It were a ſad thing if there were no bounds for errour; and as ſad it were to goe beyond Gods bounds for the ſuppreſſing of them. I told you in the entrance upon this laſt Queſtion, it was a tender point, an intricate, ſubtle controverſie, diverſly aſſerted, and as differently maintained. I ſhall not here deal with this controverſie in the latitude of it, only as relating to the Queſtion here propounded: And that I may not lengthen out this diſcourſe too farre, by multiplying needleſſe Queſtions, and entring upon collaterall diſputes, I will ſumme up all that I ſhall ſpeak to this Qu…ſtion under theſe five generall heads.

1. We will ſhew you what power the Magistrate may be ſaid not to have.

2. We will ſhew, what the power of the Magiſtrate is aſſerted to be, as relating to this Queſtion.

3. We will examine, whether ſuch a power be ordained and warranted of God.

4. Whether ſuch a power be needfull in the Church.

5. And laſtly how this power is to be dispenced.

1. We will begin with the firſt, viz. What power the Magiſtrate p. 312may be ſaid not to have. In the entrance upon which, let me tell you, by power I mean not foreign, but foreign, not the power of might, but the power of right, not a power taken, but a power given, and that not by men, but by God; an authoritative power wherewith he is inveſted of God; for, Id poſſumus, quod jure poſſumus. And in that ſenſe I ſpeak of the Magiſtrates power thorow this diſcourſe. And firſt then,

1. The Magiſtrate hath not an abſolute power to doe what he pleaſeth in the things of God. The object of religion is a ſupernaturall good, and for that we are not to depend upon the will of man, but the will of God, that which he hath commanded we muſt doe, Ezek. 20. When Magistrates goe beyond the bounds of the Word, they take upon them a greater power then God hath given them: they are Gods Miniſters, Rom. 13. and therefore their wils are to be ſubordinate to the will of their Maſter, and upon all their injunctions ſhould be engraven, what the Apoſtle ſaith to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 14 38. The things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. It is the Prerogative royall of God and Chriſt, to command things, becauſe they will, and cannot be uſurped by any mortall man, without high injury to Jeſus Chriſt. Tertullian hath a paſſage to this purpoſe,Iniquā exeractu do mi…ationē, ſi ideo r… g…vis licere qu a vultis. non quia …buit non licere. Tertul. A pol a…verſ. Gent. You exerciſe an unjuſt dominion over others; if you therefore deny a thing may be d ne, becauſe you will, not becauſe it ought not to be done. It was a h…gh preſumption of Conſtantius, who when he would compell the Orthodox Chriſtians to imbrace Arianiſme, uttered theſe words, Quod ego volo, pro canone ſit, That which I will, ſhall ſtand for a law. In this alſo Jeroboam and Nebuchadnezzar offended, when they would command things upon their own will, not only without, but contrary to the will of God. This proved a dangerous rock to them, and will be to any who ſhall follow their ſteps. God is a jealous God, and cannot brook with any rivall in matter of his worſhip. As they cannot command, ſo we cannot thus obey without ſinne and diſhonour to God. Chriſt bids us in this ſenſe, Call no man Rabbi. And the Apoſtle enjoyns us not to be the ſervants of men, which then we are in a high meaſure, when the warrant of our actions is only taken from the will and pleaſure p. 313of men,Vid. Pare… ̄. in Rom. 13 praecog. 3. & propoſ. 6. Juſtinianus im…erator agnovit Catholicam fidem nullam innovationem poſſe recipere ex authoritate principu…s, ſed ſolunmodò confirmatiorē & virdicationem. Po eſtates ſuo loco humanas ſuſcipin…us, donec contid Deum ſuas erigāt voluntates. Synac.Rom 13 when we ſhall ſubjugate and vaſſall our underſtandings and conſciences, to the meer commands and dictates of men. And ſo much for the firſt.

2. The Magiſtrate hath no power againſt God. God never ſet up a power againſt himſelf: he is the minister of God, and all his power is ſubordinate to the will and glory of God. All which being granted, I need not to ſay any more of it.

3. The Magiſtrate hath no power to enforce the conſcience of any. Conſcience rightly underſtood fals under no power, but the power of God alone. I have read it was the ſpeech of Stephen King of Poland, I am King of men, and not of conſciences, a Commander of bodies, and not of ſouls. All power is uſually expreſſed in Scripture by this Metaphor of Keyes: and though God hath committed many Keyes, much power to man, yet there are three Keys which God doth reſerve and keep in his own hands only.

1. The Key of the womb, he ſhuts it, Gen. 20.18. and he opens it at his pleaſure, Gen. 30.22.

2. The Key of the grave, 1 Sam. 2 6. The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up; he, and he alone doth this.

3. The Key of the conſcience, Act. 16.14. He opened the heart of Lydia, and he opens ſo as none can ſhut, and ſhuts ſo as none can open. This power over the heart and con…cience, God hath reſerved in his own hands. It was the ſpeech of one, God hath reſerved three things to himſelf, 1. To make ſome thing of nothing. 2. To know things future. 3. To rule over conſciences. A dominion that is proper to God alone: men may tyrannize, but they can never rule over the conſciences of men. Conſcience fals under no ſubjection, but Gods alone. The Turks and Perſians themſelves, though they have upheld and propagated their way by the ſword, yet they acknowledge that the conſcience neither can, nor ought to be compelled. Conſcience is like a Virgin which cannot be forced, [Lex noſtra non ſe vindicat ultore gladio, Tertul.] Men may perſwade, but they can never compell conſcience, according to that old maxime, Religio ſuaderi potest, cogi non poteſt, Men may be perſwaded into a religion, but they can never be compelled p. 314unto it.Nihil eſt tam vo…un tarium quā religio, in qua ſ… animu… ſacrifican…es everſus, jam ſublata, jā nulla eſt. Lactant. Inſtit. l. 5. c. 19. Procop in …eca hiſto. It lies as a blot upon Juſtinian, that he compelled the Samaritans to embrace the Chriſtian faith. And it is more condemnable in the Papiſts among the Indies, of which they finde no more fruit, then with the Moors of Granado, who were forced to Maſſe in the morning, and freely practiſed Mahome taniſme in the afternoon. Like thoſe we read of, 2 King. 17.33. who, becauſe of the Lions, feared the Lord, but ſerved their own gods. Thoſe acts of conſcience which are internall, are free and uncogible, they fall not under mans cognizance; nor, if they did, doe they fall under mans power. No power on earth, can either judge or puniſh the internall acts of the minde. The Question is not here about the elicite acts of conſcience, but the imperate, commanded and externall acts: It is eaſily granted, That no power on earth is able to compell the former, the internall acts of the minde and conſcience; but the diſpute will be about the later, the externall acts, either in the reſtraint or conſtraint of them. Of which more anon.

4. The Magiſtrate hath no power properly called Church-power; though he have a power about the buſineſſe of the Church, and the affairs of worſhip, yet he hath not any power properly called Church-power. He is helpfull to the government of the Church: but in this ſenſe, no Church-governour: The Church hath the exerciſe of her power from him, but not the power it ſelf: the Magiſtrate gives ability, but doth not give the authority: The Church, ſay Divines, hath protection and encouragement from him, but hath her authority and power from Chriſt. I finde divers opinions among men about this.

1. Some ſay that the Magiſtrate hath all power.

2. Some ſay he hath no power in matters of Religion.

1. Some ſay he hath all power, and that the government of the Church is by God devolved upon the civil Magiſtrate, whereby the Magiſtrate is the head of the Church, and hath a Nomothetick and legiſlative power in things eccleſiaſticall; which power, ſay they, is not only eccleſiaſtick in reſpect of the object, being exerciſed about Church matters, but in reſpect of the ſubject, or perſon exerciſing, whom they make to p. 315be a mixed perſon, and hath a mixed power,Salcobridgenſis, p. 121. and by vertue of his office can act and exerciſe it.

I ſhall not speak much to it, it is a diſcourſe by the by: only I ſhall tell you, that Pareus (who gives more to the Magiſtrate in this particular then others of his brethren; yet) ſaith, That the civil Magiſtrate is not to aſſume to himſelf any proper parts of Eccleſiaſticall miniſtery, as to preach, to adminiſter cenſures, Sacraments, &c. and he gives theſe two reaſons of it. 1. Becauſe he is not called to this office.Vedel. de Epiſcop. Conſtant. q. 2. Chriſt did not ſay to him, Go and preach the Goſpel and baptize: and therefore being not called to it, he ought not to aſſume it; No man (ſaith the Apoſtle) taketh this Miniſtery upon himſelf, but he that is called of God, Heb. 5.4.Pareus in Rom. 13. prop. 3.Rom 13 nor is he (ſaith he) foreign, to intermeddle in other matters not proper to his ſtation, 1 Pet. 4.15. but every one is to abide in the ſame calling, wherein he is called. And he gives a ſecond reaſon, leſt they incurre the ſin and puniſhment of Jeroboam and Ʋzziah; one of whom had his arm dried up; the other was ſtrucken with leproſie, 1 Kin. 13. 2 Chron. 26. And the ſame Authour a little after, anſwering this Queſtion,Par. in Ro. 13. dub. 5. in append. adſol. arg. resp. 1.Rom 13 Whether eccleſiaſticall power doth reſide in the Prince? He ſaith eccleſiaſticall power is two-fold, 1. Proper and internall. 2. Improper and externall. This diſtinction he foundeth upon that ſpeech of Constantine to the Biſhops, Vot quidem intra. &c. The firſt of theſe he affirms to be exerciſed by eccleſiaſticall perſons, eccleſiaſtically: The other, vix. Externall, and improperly called Church-power, he ſaith may be exerciſed by the Magiſtrate. Calvin ſpeaks more home,Calvin in Amoſ. c. 7. v. 13.Amos 7:13 They are (ſaith he) inconſiderate men, who make Magiſtrates too ſpirituall … this evil (ſaith he) prevails in Germany, and in the countreys round about us; we finde what fruit grows from this root; namely, that thoſe who are in power, thinke themſelves ſo spirituall, that there is no other eccleſiaſticall government; this ſacriledge comes in violently among us, becauſe they cannot meaſure their office within it's due bounds. Thus he.

Indeed it hath uſually been diſtinguiſhed, between Church-power, & civil power; & between officers in the Church, & officers of State; and that the one is Gods officer, or Chriſts, as p. 316God; The other is Chriſts officer, as Mediatour; the one belongs unto his generall kingdome, and rule over all; the other belongs to his Mediatory kingdome, or government over his Church. Chriſt is a head of ſupereminence to all, but a head of influence to his Church only. As he is God, ſo he is head of all principalities, and all powers govern by him; but as he is Mediatour, ſo he is head only of his body, and all officers therein,Eph. 1.21.Eph 1:21 have their authority from him, and are ſaid to manage their office under, and for Chriſt. In the name of Chriſt they doe aſſemble, Matth. 18.20. In his Name they preach, Luk. 24.27. Act. 4.17, 18. In his Name they baptize, Act. 2.38. Ast. 4.12, 16. Act. 19.2. In his Name do they adminiſter cenſures, 1 Cor. 5.5.

And if the Magiſtrate be inveſted with ſuch a power, then either as a Magiſtrate, or as a Chriſtian Magiſtrate. Not the firſt; for then every Magiſtrate hath it without exception, even Pagans and Heathens, and ſuch as know not God and Chriſt, not were ever yet baptized, not any member of the Church: if you ſay, as he is a Chriſtian Magiſtrate, it will be ſaid that his Chriſtianity doth adde no further authority to him, but further ability to execute his authority; this is but poteſtas executiva, the gracious ability to exerciſe that power which he had before, and ſinned in that was a talent buried up, and not imployed for Chriſt. And for that place which is uſually alledged, 1 Cor. 12.28 God hath placed, foreign, Governments in his Church: I ſay firſt that the Apoſtle doth there ſpeak of eccleſiaſticall and ſpirituall officers; and therefore it is ſtrange that civil government ſhould come in the enumeration of Church-officers.

2. I ſay the Apoſtle ſpake there of ſuch government as the Church had at that time; he ſaith, God hath placed in his Church: and thence Calvin takes up an argument to prove that the Apoſtle in that place ſpake of eccleſiaſtical, and not of civil government, becauſe at that time the Church enjoyed not ſuch a priviledge. But of this ſufficient. We come to the ſecond, which certainely is an extreme on the other hand, viz.

2. That the Magiſtrate hath no power in matters of religion. p. 317It was the ſpeech of Donatus, What hath the Emperour to doe with the Church?Quid eſt imperatori cum eccleſia? Imperator in div…nis nullū j… habet. Optat. l. 3, cont P…rmen. par. 1367. The Magiſtrate hath no right to meddle about things that are divine. We ſhall ſpeak fuller to this by and by; only here I ſhall clear ſome expreſſions, which we uſually read among learned men, from ſome miſtakes that may be faſtened on them, and give too much ſtrong…h to ſuch a poſition as this, viz. That the Magiſtrates power doth not reach to matters of Religion. We often read in the writings of learned men of a difference made between Church-power and civil power, chiefly in their objects, and in their ends. 1. That the object of the Magiſtrates power is, foreign, earthly things, or the things of this life: the object of Church-power is, foreign, spirituall things, and matters concern a better life. 2. They ſay, The end of Magistracy is the preſervation of peace, and the externall tranquillity of the Common-wealth: but the end of Church-power is the good and edifying of the body of Chriſt. We had need to ſpeak ſomething of this, it hath been too farre extended. And therefore.

1. To the firſt of theſe. I ſay. 1. That though the things of this life be the object of the Magiſtrates power, yet are they not the ſole and adequate object of it. Spirituall and heavenly things doe fall in under the object of his power alſo, as well as temporall: He is called a nurſing father to the Church: he is, Cuſtos & vindex utriuſ que inbulae, Sed ita diſtinguuntur, ut in modo procura…i, rex politicè ſua partes oget, & ſacerdos eccleſiaſticè ſuas Ame. de conſc. l. c. 25 theſ. S. Ameſ. Medul. Theol. l 2. c. 17. theſ. 48, 49.the keeper and revenger of both tables of the Law, Deu. 17.18 Joſh 1.8. Rom. 134. The affairs of Jehovah, and the matters of the King are not ſo different (ſaith Ames) as that the care and knowledge of the things of God, belongeth not to the King. But they are thus diſtinguiſhed, that in the execution of them, the King performs his part in a politicall way; the officers of the Church, in an eccleſiaſticall way.

2. I ſay yet further, That though the power of the Magiſtrate, and the power of the Church doe not differ in their materiall objects, yet they differ in their formal objects. The Magiſtrate, as a Magiſtrate, and the Church, as the Church, in the name of Chriſt, may command and forbid one and the ſame thing, viz. They may command the ſanctification of the p. 318Lords day, or they may forbid blaſphemy, idolatry. Here their objects are materially the ſame, But now they differ formally; the Magiſtrate he commands or forbids upon penalty of bodily puniſhment; but the Church upon pain of eccleſiaſtical cenſures;Leg Ameſ. Med. Theol. l 2. c. 17. theſ 48. the Magiſtrate upon civil mulcts, the Church upon ſpirituall penalties. And this may be thought one reaſon, why many holy and reverend Divines have aſſerted the object of the power of the Magiſtrate, qua talis, to be the externall man, and the things of this life, becauſe that he doth bring about higher ends by more external, and not ſuch ſpiritual waies as the Church doth.

2. And what I ſay hereof the object of the power of the Magiſtrate, I may ſay alſo of his end. The end of the Magiſtrate is not ſo different from the Church, but they may meet together, and as they agree in their objects, ſo theſe powers may alſo agree in their ends. Though the preſervation of peace, and the quiet of the Common-wealth, be the end of Magiſtracy, yet I conceive it is not the only, not the adequate end; externall peace to me ſeems too narrow for to be the end of Magiſtracy, who is a nurſing father to the Church, and whoſe power reacheth as well to the ſetling and advancing the true worſhip of God, as to the externall peace, and ſafety of his kingdoms; and to the helping of men, as Chriſtians, as well as helping them, as men, though he doe endeavour to compaſſe and bring about theſe ends, in a different way to the Church, the one by carnal, the other by ſpiritual weapons; the one more externally, the other more internally and divinely. And this, I conceive, is plain from Rom. 13.4. He is the miniſter of God to thee for good, but if thou do that which is evil, he afraid, for he beareth not the ſword in vain; where by good and evil, which the Magiſtrate, as a Magiſtrate, doth procure, I conceive is not only meant the naturall happineſſe and quiet life of civil ſociety; but alſo the good and evil which concerns us as Chriſtians. And therefore his end is higher then meer civil peace and tranquillity, being he is a Magiſtrate, not only of our good and evil, as men, but our good and evil, as Chriſtians: but yet the way he procures this is different from the Church, the one, as I told you, being in a more ſpiritual and heavenly way; the p. 319other in a civil and external way. And thus much ſhall ſerve for the anſwer to the ſecond opinion, and alſo to the fourth particular branch laid down, What the Magistrates power was not. Beſides theſe there may be other branches laid down, but I ſhall deſire to wave them, and ſhall fall upon the ſecond Queſtion.

Qu. 2. What the power of the Magiſtrate is aſſerted to be, as relating to this Queſtion.

And here I finde three ſeverall opinions, two of them are extreams, the third is the middle between both, and conceived neareſt to the truth.

1. The firſt extreme is that of the Papiſts, who ſay, That the Magiſtrate is by fire and ſword to extirpate all errour and hereſie, that is, all religions which doe not agree with Rome; See Suarez de triplici virture. Tract. 1. diſput. 23. Sect. ….for they call all thoſe Heretikes that are not of the faith of Rome, that ſo having put us into a bears skin, they may with ſome colour woorty us.

2. The ſecond extreme is, That the Magiſtrate hath no power to deal with any opinion whatſoever by civil coercive means. Others more warily inf…rt, If it be not evidently and manifeſtly deſtructive, and diſturbing to the peace of the Common-wealth. But the meaning is this, that there ought to be a liberty for all opinions; and the Magiſtrate is only to be an indifferent ſpectatour, and not to take care what religion men are on, whether Papiſts, Jews, Pagans, Socinians, Macedonians, or what ever: If they be not inconſiſtent with the government of the Common-wealth, they are to look no farther, they are not to matter, how or whether they worſhip God at all, or what their opinions and practices are. And ſo in effect the Magiſtrate muſt ſay with Tiberius, Tacit in Tiberio.Deorum injurius Dijs curae, Let the Gods make care for wrongs done againſt themſelves. Or with the Emperour Alexander, Iuris jurandi contempta religio ſatis Deum ultorem habet.It is ſufficient that the breach of an oath hath God to be the avenger: with G…llio, they muſt care for none of theſe things. They may revenge injuries done againſt them, but may not meddle with thoſe done againſt God; they may ſuppreſſe their enemies, but muſt not meddle with Gods enemies; They may puniſh thoſe who ſeek to draw away a people from the obedience of the Magiſtrate, p. 318duplicate page p. 319duplicate page p. 320but not thoſe who labour to draw away a people from the truth of the Goſpel, and obedience to God. An opinion certainly as wide as the former. Without doubt the object of the Magiſtrates power, is not ſimply a peaceable life, and the external peace of humane ſocieties, as I ſhewed before: he is a nurſing father to the Church; he is the miniſter of God for good, and religion is the chief good, and therefore the object of his power is not ſimply external peace, but godlineſſe and honeſty, 1 Tim. 2.2. which he may endeavour to advance by his ſecular power, and in civil and politick waies. It was the speech of Auguſtine, Will any one that is in his right wits, ſay unto Kings, It doth not concern you in your kingdome, who wil be religious, or who will be ſacrilegious? Intimating it was a madneſſe for any, to thinke the King had nothing to doe in matter of religion.**Quis mente ſobrius dicat regibus, non ad vos pertinet, quis in regno veſtro velit eſſe rel…gioſus vel ſacrilegut… Au. de correct. donat. c. 13. Certainly, though it ſhould be granted that the Magiſtrate were Gods officer, not Chriſts, as Mediatour, yet it will not weaken this truth, which we aſſert; for it cannot be but that God who hath made it his deſign to preſerve and advance the kingdome of Chriſt, ſhould eſpecially aim at it in the conſtituting and ſetting up a government in the world. Julian ſaw this well enough; and therefore it was the counter deſign of that Apoſtate, to tolerate and grant liberty to Paga…s, and all ſorts of hereſies, that by ſuffering all theſe weeds to grow up, he might choke up the vitals of Chriſtianity, and weaken the kingdom of Chriſt, and overthrow the truth of the Goſp…l, which was the object of his envy and malice. This was alſo the practice and ſinne of other Emperours, Valens the Arian did the like: and indeed ſuch a courſe is the ſpeedieſt way, to deſtroy all godlineſſe, to ſuppreſſe the truth, and to bring in all miſchief to Church and State. It is the ſpeech of one, Liberty for all opinions, is the speedieſt way of embroyling States, of ruining Churches, of erecting a Pantheon in every City: That of omnium Deorum among the Romans, of omnium ſanctorum among the Papiſts, offends leſſe then this of omnium ſectarum here in England. Sure I am, one God, one faith, one Mediatour was Catholike doctrine in Pauls time; every variation from a unity, is a ſtep to a nullity: if ever England come from one …eligion to all, ſhe will quickly go from all to none.

p. 321Certainly the toleration of all Religions, as it is againſt nature, againſt Scripture, againſt reaſon, ſo it cannot chooſe but be deſtructive to peace and truth. But of this more afterwards. Theſe are the two extremes, which certainly are wide of the truth. We come to the third opinion, which lies between theſe two, and is conceived to be moſt agreeable to truth. It is this.

3. That the Magiſtrate hath power, and it is his duty to ſuppreſſe and puniſh hereſie and errour, leſſe or more, according to the nature and degree of the errour, and the evil or disturbance brought upon the Churches or State. And in this order he may proceed, when ſome dangerous opinions doe ariſe.

1. He may call a Synod, or an Aſſembly of godly, holy, learned men to examine thoſe opinions.

2. After examination, the opinions being evidenced to be dangerous and erroneous, he may prohibit them.

3. He may alſo make laws,Serviant Reges terrae Chriſt… etia… lege… ferendo pro Chriſto. Aug. Par. Rom. 13. prop 4. Cod. l. 1. Tit. ….7. Socrat l. 5. c. 7.Rom 13 and penall Statutes againſt ſuch opinioniſts.

4 He may alſo put thoſe laws in execution, when other means will not reclaim them. And thus the Princes and Emperours did in former times: if thoſe examples of Conſtantine, Theodoſius, Valentinian, Justinian, &c. be of any weight, which I confeſſe will be but of little, if the word will not allow it. And therefore we will come to the third Queſtion, which is,

Queſt. 3. Whether this power, which is aſſerted in the former Queſtion, be a power which is warranted and ordained of God?

And this is needfull to be cleared; it is the main of all; for, if it cannot be evidenced that the Magiſtrate is endued with ſuch a power, it will then follow, that he is an uſurper, and brings guilt upon his own ſoul in the exerciſe of it.

1. Firſt then it is clear (de facto) that Magiſtrates have exerciſed ſuch a power, as appears in the examples of Aſa, Joſiah, and others; as is evident from 1 King. 18 40. 2 Chron. 15.13. 1 King. 15.13. 2 King. 23, 20. 2 King. 10 11, 24. All which places doe evidence, that pious Kings and Magiſtrates p. 322have exerciſed ſuch a power. There is not any ſcruple of that. All the Queſtion will be, whether they did exerciſe this power de jure, by vertue of any divine precept, or upon Gods ordination: To which I ſay.

Secondly, That theſe Magistrates did exerciſe this power upon Gods warrant, and by vertue of his ordination, is evident by Deut. 13.5, 6, 7 8, 9, 10. where you read of a law enjoyned for the ſtoning and killing thoſe who ſecretly attempted to entice the people of God to go after other gods. You have another, Exod. 22.20. He that ſacrifieth to any god, ſave only the Lord only, he ſhall be utterly deſtroyed. You have another, in Levit. 24.16. He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he ſhall ſurely be put to death. Another, Deut. 17.2, 3, 4, 5.

Object. But it will be ſaid, We read this in the old Teſtament, but where have we any precept or preſident for it in the New?

Anſw. 1. We read that this was commanded and practiſed under the old Teſtament. And we doe not read that ever that command was repealed, or this practice prohibited, and forbidden in the New.

2. If thoſe precepts and preſidents in this point do not concern us, then it muſt be ſhewed, that thoſe rules and paterns, which we read under the old Teſtament, were not intended by the holy Ghoſt to binde us.

3. The very ſame thing was propheſied of the times of the Goſpel, now under the new T…ſtament, Zech. 13.3. It ſhall come to paſſe, that he that takes upon him to propheſie, that his father and mother that begat him, ſh…ll ſay unto him, Thou ſhalt not live, for thou speakeſt lies in the name of the Lord; and his father and his mother which begat him ſhall thruſt him thorow when he propheſieth: that is, they ſhall be the means to procure puniſhment to be inflicted on him: So ſhall their hearts be overcome with the love of God, and truth under the Goſpel, and ſet againſt lyes and falſhood, that they ſhall not indulge and ſpare it in their deareſt relations. So, Iſa. 49.23. Revel. 21.24.

4. This power was juris naturalis, it was of common and p. 323naturall equity: and ſuch things being conſtant and immutable, are to be exerciſed at all times, in all places. Beſides

5. This power was eſtabliſhed and exerciſed upon moral grounds, and for moral ends, as you may ſee in Deut. 13.5, 11. In the 5^th verſe you ſee the ground of the eſtabliſhing of this power, Becauſe they would turn the heart of the people from the Lord; and this was moral. And in the 11^th verſe you ſee the end, wherefore it was to be exerciſed, That all Iſrael might hear, and fear, and do no more ſuch wickedneſſe, which was moral alſo. Now I ſay, that power, the ground and end whereof is moral and perpetuall, even that power muſt needs be moral and perpetuall; but the ground and end of this civil coercive power is moral and perpetuall, as I have ſhewed you: therefore is the power perpetuall. This cannot be denied; certainly, if the reaſon, if the ground and end wherefore God ordained this power, be ſtill in force, then is the power alſo ſtill in force; but the reaſon, the ground and end wherefore God eſtabliſhed this power, and for which he would have it exerciſed, is ſtill in force, viz. To prevent ſeduction, and drawing the hearts of people from God, and to make men afraid of publiſhing, promoting and entertai…ing ſuch deſtructive opinions. And therefore the power is ſtill in force.