A Survey of the Sum of Church Discipline, Part 4

A Survey of the Sum of Church Discipline · Part 4

p. 1PART. IV. Concerning Synods.

CHAP. I. Wherein M^r. Rutherfords sixth Argument is debated, taken out of Acts 15. and the nature of that Synod discussed, and how farre that or any other Synod can be said to bind by any warrant from the Word.

THE sixth Argument of Master Rutherford is taken from that samplar of a Synod propounded in the fifteenth of the Acts.

Before we can come to give a direct and cleare Answer thereunto, we shall be forced to speak some things to prepare way to that purpose, that it may appeare how farre the power of a Synod is confessed or denied, and wherein the stresse of the Controversy doth especially consist: and that will be dispatcht in the conclusions following.

1. Conclus.

The consociation of Churches is not onelyonly lawfull, but very usefull also, serving not alone to search out the truth, but to p. 2settle the hearts of all sincerely minded in the right apprehension and profession of the same.

When many, and those select and eminent, lay the best of their abilities together, improve their parts and prayers, disquisitions, consultations, determinations, to promote the knowledge and practise of the things of Christ, the establishment of the Churches, in the unity of the faith, and their eternall peace.

The light of na…ure and right reason forcing men out of their owne necessities and experience to confesse, That, In the multitude of Councellors there is safety. Plus vident oculi, quàm oculus, &c. The issue of that counsell evidenceth as much, Acts 16.4, 5. They deliverd their Decrees, &c. and the Churches were establ shed in the faith, &c.

2. Conclus.

This Consociation is of severall sorts and degrees, some lesser some greater, as Classes, Synods; and these Provinciall, Nationall, Oecumenicall.

3. Conclus.

The power which any or all have, is not boundlesse, or unlimited. They are all but men, and may erre: their judgements are not the rule, but must be regulated. Their power is under Christ, onelyonly from him, and for him, wholly to be acted and ordered by his authority in his Word.

Thus farre we agree. But

4.

This authority is by severall men severally considered; namely, it is either anthority of

Church counsell.

Church jurisdicton.

Mr. Ruther. 271. neere the end.

1. When the case is controversall, many doubts and difficulties arise, which cannot easily and readily be discerned or decided, The greived parties crave the advice and seek the counsell of many Churches, and willingly submit to the truth of God appearing by their means.

p. 32. Authority of Church jurisdiction, is, when the Churches meeting have not onelyonly authority to counsell, but power to censure Ecclesi…s…ic…lly in case the Parties whose cause comes to be scanned and considered, shall be found guilty and worthy such a censure.

5.

Hence the Churches thus meeting, may be said to impose their determination and such decrees; which result and arise out of their disquisitions and disputes either by authority of the Word only, from whence their determinations are fetched and confirmed apparantly.

And then they are said to bind materialiter, in regard of the thing which is determined, being no more, nor other then that which is evidently expressed, or infallibly collected out of the Word, and so their counsels are no other then Gods Commands, containe a Divine Authority which is now by them discovered, and in his Name applied to the particulars under hand, as the Counsell Act. 15 20. injoynes them to abstaine from fornication, which are the expresse Words of Scripture, from the Law in the Gospell.

But besides this they are said to bind formaliter, when it is supposed and taken for granted, that the Decrees are not onelyonly required in the W…rd, but injoyned by such, who have Church-jurisdiction, and in vertue of that Authority can impose, and in case of Refnsall have Power to censure Ecclesiastically.

We conceive the former, id est, the Authority of Brotherly Counsell, is attended by Christ; Mr Rutherford expresseth much learning and labour to maintaine and prove the latter, and to that purpose alledgeth this Patterne of Act. 15. Which whether it be fit and full to this purpose, we shall make some serious inquiry according to our measure, after we have debated the nature and quality of this Assembly and the proceedings therein; which we shall do in these Conclusions.

OF ACTS 15.

1. Conclus.

THis Synode was not extraordinary, either in regard of the infallible assistance of the persons in it, or the immediate revelation of the truths therein discussed and decreed

p. 4Its true, the Apostles were extraordinary men in regard of their Places and Office, but that was not here attended, nor in vertue of that they did act; There is jus singulare, and jus commune sayes Junius. The second is here attended. They were Pastors which had ordinary abilities, as well as Apostles, which had extraordinary assistances, and they acted in the former relation.

For in extraordinary revelations and infallible assistances, men do not joyne Ordinary Churches in their consultations and inquiries; but so the whole Work was carried here: The men disputed, inquired; each man had allowed liberty to propound his thoughts, had recourse to the Scriptures, and reasoned out of them, Act. 15.7, 8, to 18.

And ergo the Lord here leaves a Copy and Samplar to all succeeding Generations, how to seek the truth by way of triall in the use of such meanes which he hath appointed.

2. Conclus.

Hence their sentence was not therefore Scripture or Canonicall because they decreed it, as when they were infallibly assisted and acted by the H. Ghost. 2 Pet. 1.

But the thing or matter which was decreed, it was either expressed pregnantly, or infallibly collected out of the Word, and so being Scripture, it was therefore decreed by them, as the instances of the Decrees give in evidence.

To abstaine from Fornication, which is one of the Decrees; it is the very letter of the Text; The other Particulars issue out of one ground, and thence have the strength of divine prohibition; for in things of indifferent use, (as those which were strangled and blood,) the rule of the Apostle admits no gainsaying 1 Cor. 1, and last Rom. 14.

They were not therefore Canonicall Scripture because decreed, but è contra, because they were Scripture, ergo they were decreed.

And it is one thing to make Mandatum, quà tale, Divine Scripture; another thing, when the matter is by force of undeniable consequence, gathered out of Scripture to give it out as a Mandate;

And thus I suppose that Phrase is to be understood.

IT SEEMS GOOD UNTO THE HOLY GHOST AND UNTO US. Vers 28.

p. 5By the Holy Ghost there must either be understood, the immediate revelation of the Spirit, paralell to that of Peter, foreign 2 Pet. 1.21. and this sense the Text admits not; for there was no extraordinary Revelation, that can in reason be attributed, or conceived to belong to the ordinary Multitude; beside, the Argument formerly alledged, hath confuted this sense.

Or else it must be the H. Ghost as speaking in the word, which is open and easy to conceive; and we have the like Phrase in Scripture carrying the like sense, in that the severals of the sentence follow by infallible inference from Scripture grounds, as the Will of the Lord, unto which the Spirit by dispute, collation and comparison of places, did lead them.

3. Conclus.

Hence the Synode may be said to charge the truth of God upon the Churches, and to load their Consciences with the Decrees they published by way of authoritative Councell, because they have the Divine Authority of the Scripture commanding all that they decreed, long before their Decrees came out, the evidence whereof they now discovered, and the power whereof they by way of Application pressed upon their consciences in the particulars mentioned.

Taking this sense and interpretation along with us, that Mr Rutherford here and there opposeth as in the Answer to the 11. and 15. Object. pag. 210, 212. will easily be removed; for when he thus reasons.

OBJ. If this Assemblies Decrees did lay a tye and bond upon the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, Then it did either tye them as a Councell, or as a part of Scripture, or thirdly, as a Decree of an Ecclesiasticall Synode, pag. 212.

If the first be said, this Canon doth not lay a Command upon them; the contrary thereof we find vers. 28. It layeth a burden upon them, Chap. 16. 4. Decrees they must keep.

2. It cannot tye as a part of Scripture; for that which is proper to the Church, to Christ his second comming againe, doth not oblige as Canonick Scripture; For Canonick Scripture shall not be still writen till Christ come again, because the Canon is already closed with a Curse upon all adders; but what is p. 6decreed according to God by Church-guides is proper to the Church &c. pag. 210.

"Ergo, They must tye as a Decree of an Ecclesiastick Synode.

ANSW. The ambiguity and doubtfulnesse of the Phrase darkens all the dispute; the Explication of that will expedite an answer to all that hath been said with great evidence: To bind as a part of Scripture, admits a double sense.

1. Either that which is dec…eed is clearly contained in, and so infallibly collected out of Scripture, and so is Scripture, and hath …he binding Power of Scripture with it.

2. Or that this act of Decreeing issuing from the immediate Revelation and assistance of the Spiri…, doth make that which is decreed to be Scripture.

We take it in the former sense, and affirme according to what we have formerly proved, that the Decrees are expresse Scripture, or necessarily to be inferred from the Scripture, and ergo tye as a part of Scripture, which is there alleadged; though the Allegation it selfe, in it selfe barely considered, hath no such Power, nor can lay any such bond at all.

As when the Nicene Councell decreed that the Sonne was foreign with the Father, as the Words of text evidence, Philip. 2.6. he counted it no robbery to be equall with the Father: This Decree containes Scripture, and ergo hath a Divine Power going with it to bind, not because decreed, but because it is Scripture which they have decreed.

And in this sense they did, and any Councell may lay a Burden upon any mans Conscience; so any Christian that shall publish and preach that of 1 Cor. 6.18. Flee Fornication; and every man that committes that sin, He sinnes against his own Body; He may presse this Prohibition as binding the Conscience, and lay it as a burden of the Lord upon every soule, not from the Authority of him that speakes, but because it is Scripture that is spoken; and may lawfully lay an absolute necessity upon all his hearers, that they must keep that Charge, since its Gods Charge now published and appli d by his Means.

And in this sense it is true, That which is proper to the Church untill the comming of Christ againe, that may oblige as Canonicall Scripture; not because the formall publishing doth make it Scripture, but because the thing is assuredly Scripture which is published.

p. 7Nay in the 209. p. immediately going before, Mr Rutherford affirmes that which amounts to thus much, In his first Answer to the ninth Objection where he conjoynes these two together; That the excommunication of the Incestuous Corinthian, The App…inting Elders at Lystra was Seripture; and yet the Deeree of Excommunication and appointing Elders did bind with an Ecclesiasticall tye only.

By the same proportion; the things that are counselled may be Scripture, and bind by a Divine Power, and yet the publication of these may tye by way of Councell only in regulating of those that do publish them.

Before we passe from hence it will not be amisse to take into consideration, how Mr Rutherford cleares the ground, how it comes about that a Presbytery can bind a Congregation by an Ecclesiasticall tye of Obedience, how a Synode can tye a Presbytery. &c.

He answers they have warrant by

A Positive Law by God,

The Law of Nature.

Concerning which I shall take leaue to offer some few things to consideration, because I cannot so well reach his meaning, that so I may give him occasion more fully to explicate himselfe at his return.

Jus Naturale, and Positivum, when their speciall and specificall Nature comes to be attended, I have looked at them, as carrying a kind of Opposition, as Membra dividentia use to do; and as its ordinary to observe amongst all Interpreters in the Exposition of the Commands.

Jus Naturale is, That which issues out of the reference and dependence, which the Nature of men hath unto God as a Creator, so that if God be God, and man a Creature, made for him and his Glory, he must bestow himself and heart upon him in the first Command, This is a Naturall Law.

But that he should worship him by such meanes by the Word, such Sacraments and Censures so dispensed, this is a positive Law of Gods appointment, which had he not expressed, or should be after, that which was positive Law before is no Law now; As in the Sacraments of the Jews, which are now out of date, may be easily discerned; those which were meanes of Worship then appointed, are no means now, because abrogated.

p. 8And how the Authority of Synods should bind by a Positive Law, and yet also bind hy Nature, deserves some further Explication.

Nor doth the Explication and Distinction added, pag. 208.

"A thing is naturall two wayes,

simply and

by consequent,

take away all the scruple, or cleare all the doubt.

For if that may be counted a Law of Nature, which upon some supposition or condition stands by a rule of reason, I cannot see how naturall and positive Lawes will be distinguished.

Take we Mr R. Examples propounded into consideration.

That Thomas and John should dwell in such a Congregation, God in his providence might have otherwise disposed; and that is ergo Jus Positivum that they come there to be Members.

But being Members, then its connaturall, they should be subjected to the Eldership of this Congregation; and the ground of the bound is, the part must be in subjection to those who command the whole: John and Thomas are parts of this Congregagation; such an Eldership commands the whole, ergo they must be subject to such an Eldership. pag. 201.

I do not see how this distinction can clear the cause in hand; for by the same ground I see not why any man may not say that all positive Lawes are naturall, nay cannot be but naturall Lawes; look we at the consequent and condition which may, nay certainly will attend all of them in their very constitution.

Take some instance for evidence; when any of the Heathen came to imbrace the Jewes Religion and ceremoniall Law, they did that by a positive Law, because they might have remained as Job, and never become Proselytes.

But when they are once turned Proselytes and become Members of the Jewish Congregation, then it is connaturall that they should submit to all their Ceremonies; every Member of the Corporation must be under the Lawes of the whole; so that by this ground they must be said to obey the Ceremonies by Natures Law; but how harsh doth that sound?

Besides, when a man is a Member of such a Congregation, where its ordinary and usuall for such a man to depart at his … p. 9and become an Inhabitant in another Province, as it suits with his own will, or emergent occasions; and yet being there, he as a Member must submit to the rule of the whole; and upon that ground is bound to obey by Natures Law; when there be no Lawes that can be more meerly positive, then these be; and their obedience comes from free choice, because it is in their choice to depart if they will.

To end this case, let this reason be attended.

That ground which is common to Natures Laws and Positive Lawes, that cannot make a distinction betwixt either of them. Communia non distinguunt.

But this rule of reason that the part should be ordered by the whole, is common to all the Lawes, naturall and positive. Ergo, by this the one cannot be distinguished from the other.

That which followes, needes a grain of salt to be added, otherwise it exceeds my apprehension to make work of it. pag. 202.

The division of a Nation into Provinces, and of Provinces into so many Territories called Presbyterias, and the division of so many Presbyteries into so many Congregations, cannot be called a devise of mans, because it is not in the Word of God; for by the same reason that John and Thomas, and so many threes and foures of Beleevers should be Members of Independent Congregations, seeing it is not in the Word, it shall be a device of men.

Against which Assertion I should reason.

The division of a Nation into Provinces &c. is either a device of men, or a Divine Institution, for non datur tertium.

But a Divine Institution it cannot be.

1. That which stands by the rule of arbitrary Policy, that is a device of man, and not a divine Institution.

But this stands by a rule of arbitrary Policy, as practice and experience evidence.

2. That is a device of man, which proceeds from the free choice of rectified reason suiting his civill ends, according to the severall occasions and meanes he shall devise to that purpose.

But the division of a Nation into Presbyteries, &c. is of this nature; It issues from the free choice of rectified reason, suiting civill ends, according to the severall meanes and occasions devised to that purpose.

p. 103. That device which is acted by one man, and may lawfully be altered by another, keeping the end of foreign, that is the devise of man.

But this is so.

One King and Governor orders the combination of people and places one way, into so many hundreds, so many shires; some so large, other so much lesse: The successor alters all another way, and both of them without just blame.

4. Lastly I shall reason from his owne grant; That which is not in the Word, is a device of man: For all lawfull devices must either be from the wisedome of the Word, discovering, directing and approving such, when ever they shall be observed and followed.

Or else they must issue from the wisedome of man, following that light of reason, the reliques whereof are yet left in lost nature, or renewed by education, and the use of such meanes as may be helpfull thereunto.

And that which I desire may be especially observed in this place… is, That from this grant, I cannot see how (I do not say the authority of a Classis or Synode can be proved, but how) either of them can be maintained to be an Ordinance.

If Classes and Synods be Ordinances of Christ, and so parts of his Worship, then they are if not expressed, yet necessarily may they, nay they be collected out of the Scripture: For that only is a part of Gods Worship, which God himself appoints.

But its here granted, that all these divisions of Nations into Provinces, of Provinces into Territories and Classes, are not to be found in the Word.

Therefore, They are no Ordinances of Christ, nor parts of his Worship.

When it is added, that John and Thomas should be Members of a Congregation, is not found in the Word.

I answer, It is found, though not particularly expressed, as many other things are not, yet so, as may necessarily be collected therefrom.

All who are beleevers in Christ, should by duty attend upon Christ in all his Ordinances, and therefore in Church-fellowship, as the Apostle disputes and concludes; Eph. 4.14, 16.

But John and Thomas are such. Ergo.

That which follows pag. 202. That all our singular actions p. 11are mixed; there is something morall in them, and that must be squared and ruled by the Word; and something is in them not morall but positive, and this not to be squared by the Word, but by natures light.

In these expressions there be many doubtfull things, which deserve to be discussed and cleared, but that they fall not in so pat with the purpose in hand.

1. It would be proved, that all our singular actions are mixed, and have something to be squared by the Word, something not; Ex. gr. Preaching, praying, receiving Sacraments, professing Faith at this time and season, and upon this expresse Command of God, how are these singular actions mixed, what in these is to be squared by the Word, and what is not?

2. How that which is positive in an act (I suppose the meaning is, that its done by a positive Law) is not yet morall, when these are for the most part subordinate, and not contradistinct.

3. How some actions must be squared by Natures light, and not by the Word, when the Apostles injunction goes so farre; Whether we eate or drinke, or whatever we do, let all be done to the glory of God; and the received tenet of the Schoole maintaines, tha… Omnis actio in individuo est moraliter bona vel mala; and if such, its certain, they then come within the verge of the Word.

I propound these quaeres to occasion Mr Rutherford his further explications: But I conceived it necessary to take notice of that division of a Nation into Provinces, and those into severall Territories; because we have herein the foundation laid, and a way made for Synods, which must have their garbe and garment cut after this compasse; but it shall anon appeare this Apostolicall pattern will quit us of any such constraining inference.

We have now done with the explication and preface to the dispute: We now come to Mr Rutherford his argument, which he thus propounds out of the place.

If the Churches of Antioch being troubled with a question which they could not determine, they had recourse to an Assembly of Churches, who gave a Decree, which the Churches p. 12were bound to keepe; then, upon like occasion we must have recourse to like remedy.

But the first part is plain; being in this trouble &c. they did resort to an Assembly, which gave out a Decree, which they were bound to keep.

Therefore we also upon the like occasion, must seek for the like remedy, and stoop to the Authority thereof.

ANSWER.

The whole conclusion may be granted as true in a true sense, according as we have formerly opened it in the foregoing conclusions; for its granted, we lawfully may, nay its necessary we should repaire in cases of difficulty and doubt to a Classis or Synode: Its certain they should shew their councell and set down their sentence out of the Word, and lay it by vertue of the Word as a burden upon mens Consciences; and being so published, so confirmed out of the Scriptures, we ought to receive it as the Word, so much as is gathered out of the Word, and attend to it, as an authoritative advice, as Mr Rutherford speaks, and we have formerly declared in the foregoing Conclusions.

This is all the place inforceth, and all this we grant.

But that they did tye Ecclesiastically, by vertue of any Church-jurisdiction, which they had over other Churches, nondum constat, as yet appeareth not.

Act. 15.28. We lay no greater burden. Act. 16.4. And as they went through the Cities, they delivered them the Decrees to keepe. Act. 21.25. We have written and concluded, that they observe no such things, but that they keep themselves, &c.

All this I say, may well agree to a way of councell.

For suppose a Christian man out of office (an exspectant as Mr Rutherford speakes) preach and publish the Commands of God, he may be said to presse them as a burden upon mens Consciences and charge them as necessary duties, which they are bound upon the hazard of their soules carefully and conscienciously to discharge, and not dare to neglect in the least measure.

p. 13The whole frame of the proceeding, and all the casting circumstances of the context shew that Assembly acted by way of councell.

1. These Decrees are said to bind those to whom they are sent.

But they were sent to all the Churches of the Gentiles. Act. 21.25.

As touching the Gentils which beleeve, we have written and concluded &c. who had no Commissioners nor Messengers delegated to the Synods; and therefore could not bind them by way of any authoritative jurisdiction; For it is a ruled case in all such proceedings synodicall. Those who have warning and liberty to send to the Synode, those are subject to the Authority of the Synode; what Mr Parker expresseth as effectuall to the constitution of a Synode, that is approved by all, and by Mr Rutherferd; That which materially furnisheth Commissioners at on Assembly in their gifts and holinesse, that which formally fits them to that work is their calling and sending. Park. l. 3. cap. 18. Rut. pag. 213. Where there is no delegation of Messengers by mutuall consent, there is no right of jurisdiction.

2. All these fundamentall grounds which are laid for the orderly acting of any of their occasions, take this as confessed; for were it enough for severall Churches to assemble and to set out Decrees which might bind all indifferently, whether they had Commissioners or no Commissioners in their meeting; then the Decrees of one Province or Nation might impose upon another Province or Nation, which is by all conceived and concluded to be unequall; nay it may fall out, that they may impose contrary things, and so of necessity breed and bring confusion and vexation in stead of reformation.

The Decrees of a Synode bind onelyonly such by an Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction, who delegate Messengers to the Synode.

But the Decrees of this Synode bind more then those who delegated Messengers to it; to wit, all the Churches of the Gentiles.

Therefore, They did not intend to bind by Ecclesiastcall Jurisdiction, but by way of Christian Councell: Or more plainly thus,

They who send the Decrees of the Synodo to such Churches, p. 14who never sent their Messengers or Commissioners thither, they send onelyonly by way of Councell.

But this Synode at Jerusalem sent their Decrees to all the Churches of the Gentiles, who never sent their Commissioners thither, ergò.

Ergò, They sent onelyonly by way of Councell.

3. That Pattern which sends a Church 200. miles for a Synode and consociation, that doth not tye a Church either to a Provinciall or Nationall Synode.

But this doth so.

If it be replied; If I may go so far, therefore I may gather one nearer.

I answer; True, you may do so; but its as true by this pattern any delinquent may refuse to do so; but when his cause comes to be scanned, and he to be convented before Provinciall or Nationall Synode, he may plead that liberty, which the practise of the Apostels propounded here as presidentiall will allow unto them: And so by this Samplar, Nationall and Provinciall Synods are wholly made frustrate, and may as well be rejected as received, notwithstanding any force of argument from the place or practise that might constraine to the contrary.

4. Its said Act. 15.2. When they appointed Paul and Barnabas to go to Jerusalem to inquire touching the opinion of the necessity of Circumcision, that created them no small businesse, that the Church of Antioch sent other Messengers with them, foreign with the same commission, and they concurred with the Apostles in the sentence determined: For the Church of Antioch which was a party, and contested with those of the Pharisees against their false conceit and opinion, to be judge in their own cause, is against rule; but that they may crave councell and concurrence with others, and so be a meanes to settle themselves and others in the Faith of the Gospell, and to walk with a strait foot in the profession thereof, this suits well with rule and reason.

p. 15CHAP. II. Where Mr Rutherford his Arguments touching the Superiority of Classes and Synods above particular Congregations, are considered and answered; And they are in number 6. more, set down in the 15. ch. of his book.

THe 7. and 9. Arguments propounded in this 15. ch. seeme to be of greatest weight, and therefore require more serious and studious search, and to that purpose we shall make way for our selves by some previous Explications in the Conclusions which follow.

1. Conclus.

There is some first and most supreme Tribunall in the exercise of Church-power, unto which appeales juridicè are last made; and from which no appeal can be granted or exspected.

Otherwise the wisedome of Christ would be blemished, if there should be an endlesse maze and circle in seeking reformation, which could never be found nor attained.

Beside, the peace of the wronged and complaining party would be exceedingly prejudiced, if he should never come to a periode in the pursuit of his case, and so never to a remedy of his wrong; and the seeking for a cure would prove far worse then the suffering of the trouble of the disease.

Standum in aliquo primo; God, and Reason, and Nature determine this: And this I suppose must be an OEcumenicall Councell in the apprehension and approbation of our most learned and reverend Brethren.

CONCLUSION. II

Hence this first and supreme Tribunall, which exerciseth power over all other, there can be none to exercise power over it. This followes ex terminis, and out of the Nature of the thing; That which is above all, can have none above it.

p. 16Higher there cannot be then the highest. I speak now only of a way of Ministeriall proceeding. And this not only equity but necessity forceth upon all courses of judicature, whether civill in the Common-wealth, or Ecclesiastick in the Churches.

3. Conclus.

Hence, the highest and supreme Tribunal cannot be censured by any power of the same kind: nor yet is there any prejudice to the care and wisdome of our Saviour, that the punishment of such is reserved onelyonly to the throne of his divine justice.

1. That such cannot be censured, common sense will teach one.

Over whom there is no power, upon them can be exercised no censure. But the highest Ministeriall power hath no power in that kind above it. (I meane Ecclesiasticall power) only the supreme Magistrate in the Common-wealth, hath a civill co-active power to constraine the Churches in case of their exhorbitations and Apostasies from the order of the Gospel to attend the rules of Christ, and to recover themselves by a just Reformation.

But if we look at the highest Tribunall of Church-power, in case they be faulty, whether can an appeale be made in an Ecclesiasticall proceeding? To go higher we cannot, because we are at the highest: and to appeale to the inferiour from whom the appeale hath been made, not onelyonly the rules of prudence, but common sense will condemn a man of folly, in such a practise.

2. Nor yet doth this (in the second place) derogate any thing from the depth of Christs wisdome and faithfulnesse in the government of his Church: for it is no other, then that which infinite providence doth yeild approbation unto. When all flesh hath corrupted his way, and erred in judgement, its but rationall, that then the execution of judgement should come into his hand, who is the righteous judge of all flesh.

These things being premised, which cannot be denyed, unlesse we will bid battell to common sense, we shall now addresse our selves to the examination of the seventh and ninth Arguments, because they arise out of one roote, and one bottom serves to beare them both.

7 Argument of Master Rutherford.

If when an obstinate Brother offends, we must tell the Church, p. 17then the same course is to be taken, when an obstinate Church offends, Pag. 217 For Christs remedy for removing of offences is hence argued to be imperfect, if excommunication doth not remove all offences, pag. 221. and prevent the Leavening of many lumps.

He that careth for the part, must much more care for the whole Church, and ordaine excommunication for the edifying of it.

And he that takes care of a nationall Church, who can doubt, but he hath care of edifying and saving in the day of Christ, Churches of Nations and Provinces, pag. 221.

This is the maine and onelyonly bottom that bears up both the Arguments, and if this prove brickle, the whole frame will imis sedibus ruere; and that this weakenesse may appeare, I desire no better Armory to fetch weapons from, to wound this cause withall. For from the ground of this Argument I would reason thus, not that I take the ground good, but its good against him and his cause, because it is his own.

If when an obstinate Brother offends I must tell the Church, then when an obstinate Church offends, I must take the same course: then when an Oecumenicall Synod or Councell offends, I must take the same course: but that is exceeding irrationall.

Christs remedy of excommunication must remove all offences, else its imperfect. But excommunication cannot remove the offences of an Oecumenicall Councell; therefore Christs remedy is imperfect.

And that it cannot remove the offence of a general Councell, reason and common sense doth evidence at the first sight, besides the conclusions formerly proved; for to whom can the appeale be made, or who can excommunicate?

When Master Rutherford hath answered these Arguments, he will answer himselfe.

1 Reason against it.

That course of proceeding which hinders the removing and healing of offences, that is not Christs course.

But this appeale from particular congregations to Classes and thence to Synods, hinders the cure of offences.

For suppose I am a Delinquent, the Classis will proceed against p. 18me; I appeale to a Synod. If the Synod favour me not, I will appeale from it to a National, and from that to an Oecumenicall councell; and since there hath not been a generall Synod neere upon this two hundred yeeres, nor when there will be any, who can tell, before that be gathered, censure cannot be executed upon these grounds.

2. Reason.

That which frustrates the power of Congregations, yea directly crosseth the rule which our Saviour hath given for the exercise of discipline, in each particular Church, that is not Christs way.

But this course of subordinating congregations to the jurisdiction of Classes, and then to Synods doth so.

The Assumption will appeare by practicall instance.

1. It frustrates the power of a Congregation; for if the Delinquent be complained of to the Congregation, and shall perceive an admonition ready to be dispensed, and the vote passed against him, he presently makes his appeale, and prevents the proceeding of the Church. For that is a received rule, pendente appellatione reus debet pro non judicato haberi.

2. Nay I cannot see, but that the rule of our Saviour is directly crossed. For when the admonition is given, and the judgement of the offender approves not of the Churches proceeding, he may then go further, and crave the judgement of the Classis and Synod, and so keep off the blow of excommunication: which is professedly to thwart the rule of our Saviour, and the words of the Text. Whoever heares not the voyce of the Church, is to be cast out and accounted as an Heathen. But he who appeales from the judgement of the Church after admonition, he heares not the judgement of the Church.

Therefore he deserves to be cut off.

And yet by this Law of Appeale, the Law of Christ for the cutting off of a pertinacious sinner is wholly crossed: or else the Church may proceed against him for taking a course which according to this opinion is lawfull and regular.

3.

Let it yet be further considered, whether this provision made by a Synodicall proceeding, keeping the patterne here propounded, will heale the wound and reforme the sinner, though there be not an appeale made to an Oecumenicall Councell. p. 19And that this provision according to the proposed grounds, may in a legall way be defeated, I thus shew,

The party that is to be censured in a Classis, he appeales to a Synode for his reliefe, as he hath an allowance by the judgement of our Brethren.

But the Synode of which he will make choice shall be so farre remote, that either it will not be easily gathered, or the Messengers of the Churches cannot readily be fitted to repaire thereunto, as instance thus.

The party that broacheth false Doctrine in Scotland, is not convinced, cannot be reclaimed from his errour by the Classis, but makes an appeale from them to an higher Court of jurisdiction, which may right his wrong; but that shall not be a Provinciall nor Nationall Synode in Scotland, but one in Germany or Holland, and from this pattern he pleads his lawfull liberty in such a proceeding.

If they went to have their cause scanned 200. miles from Antioch to Jerusalem, why may not I upon the like occasion challenge the like liberty? and who can oppose, unlesse he will oppose the precedentiall practice of the Gospel.

Now when this Errour will be suppressed, or this Heretick reformed by this way, let the Reader judge; For the Errour it may be is such, that it is not worth the labour, and travell, and trouble that must thus be undertaken; or the cure is like to prove so difficult, that its unlikely ever to be attained, or at leastwise never in season: and thus humane devices prejudice Gods Ordinances, and their own comforts.

The truth is, A particular Congregation is the highest Tribunall, unto which the greived party may appeal in the third place; if private Councell, or the witnesse of two have seemed to proceed too much sharpely and with too much rigour against him, before the Tribunal of the Church, the cause may easily be scanned and sentence executed according to Christ.

If difficulties arise in the proceeding, the Counsell of other Churches should be sought to clear the truth; but the Power of Censure rests still in the Congregation where Christ plcaed it.

Let us now heare what Mr Rutherford answers in this behalfe p. 20pag. 218. when it was said an offended Brother cannot have a Synode of Elders or a Nationall Assembly to complaine unto. 2. That Christ is setting down away, how an obstinate Brother may be cast out of the Church, where he was an offender.

Mr Rutherfords 1. Answer.

Excommunication must reach as far as offences; but offences are betwixt Church and Church &c.

Reply.

The contrary to this hath been proved, and I suppose upon cold blood and second thoughts it will be confessed, that a generall Councell cannot be excommunicated, though it do offend.

If the Councell of Nice had determined against Paphnutius in the marriage of Ministers, he must have sate down in silence, and swallowed his offence, but could not have gained satisfaction: Neither is Christs remedy upon this ground insufficient; for excommunication is sufficient to attain its end, which is to cut off particular persons, one, or many, but not whole Churches, as anon shall appear, Christ willing.

2. He would seeme to retort the Argument, and turn the edge of it against it self, thus;

Those who are consociated and neighboured together in the acts of visible Church-communion, by rebuking one the other, Levit. 19 17. comforting one another. 1 Thess. 5.11. pleading one with another, Hos. 2.2. and so occasionally communicating one with another: these make up one Visible Politick Church, that is under a common Government.

But so it is, that sundry particular Sister Churches are consociated in the foresaid acts. pag. 219.

Coloss. 4.16. Macedonia, Galatia, in the same acts of charity. 1 Cor. 16.2, 3, 4. 2 Cor. 8.1.

Also if any person be excommunicate in one Congregation, he is also in the neighbouring Congregations; and hence these visible acts of Church-communion require a common Law and Discipline.

But one common Law and Discipline they cannot have, unlesse p. 21they may by authority convene in one Synode in their principall Members.

ANSWER.

These acts are of a double Nature, as issuing from a double ground; to with,

They are either

Christian or

Ecclesiasticall and Authoritative.

Severall Churches communicate in the first, but not in the second; and I confesse, it seems somewhat strange to me, that a respect so obvious and ordinary should not be observed and acknowledged; but that which is most strange of all, that such actions, which reach not onelyonly to Chr…stians, but to Excommunicates, yea to Infidels, should be put as proofs of Church-communion.

A man may rebuke an Excommunicate, and in case, by way of parity, he may counsell and exhort him, as Mr Rutherford grants; doth it therefore follow that a man exerciseth acts of visible Church-communion?

One may, nay should distribute to the necessities of other, when extremities pinch and presse. He that sees a Brother want, and shuts up his bowels, how dwells the Love of God in him? Do good to all, but especially to the Houshold of Faith. If thine Enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; let him be an infidell, let him be Excommunicate of other Churches Will any man, can any man therefore rationally conclude, that these are visible acts of Church-communion, and so require a common Law of Discipline?

When Paul rebuked Elymas the sorcerer Act. 13. Checked the superstition of the Athenians Act 17. When he shooke his garment with indignation against such as opposed and blasphemed, threatned, and condemned them for their sinne, Act. 18.6, 7. and professed to renounce communion with them. And so Paul and Barnabas with the pertinatious Jewes, Act. 13.46. when they had sharply rebuked them for their base opposition against the evidence of the doctrine of the Gospel, and therefore openly professed they would turne to the Gentiles:

p. 22Are these acts of Church-communion and require a common Law of discipline?

To this head belongs that which he addes in the 221 pag. as arising from the like mistake.

For when it was said, that God hath provided other meanes for whole Churches, then to excommunicate them: we must plead with them, and rebuke them, but it wants precept, promise and practise to excommunicate a whole Church.

He Answers, It is a begging of the question; for we desire (saith he) a warrant from Gods word why Sister Churches may use some power of the Keyes against Sister Churches, such as to rebuke them, and plead with them, and yet we may not use all the power of the Keyes, even excommunication, pag. 222.

Reply.

To which I reply, 1. From that which hath been said it is apparant, that all rebuking is not an act of the power of the Keyes: and therefore that may be used, when excommunication cannot.

Beside, it hath not onelyonly been affirmed but proved, there can be no act of excommunication passe upon some Churches, as I suppose will be granted by them: and it shall Christ helping be made evident, that it can passe upon none in propriety of speech, or acording to the order of the Gospel.

Lastly, that rebuking out of Christian charity is diverse from an act of authority and excommunication: I suppose there need no better proofe then his own principles will yeild.

1. One Classis may admonish another.

2. One Provinciall Synod may counsell, may rebuke another, upon just occasion offered.

3. One or all of these may plead with a generall Councell: And yet he grants: One Church cannot excommunicate another: one Provinciall Synod hath no power over another, none of all these can excommunicate a generall Councell, nor have they any authority over it.

2. He addes, The Jewes did justly excommunicate the Church of the Samaritans, and Christ alloweth thereof, Joh. 4.22. Ye worship, p. 23ye know not what, but salvation is of the Jewes, in which words (saith he) Christ pronounce h the Jewes to be the true Church, and the Samaritans not to be true.

Reply.

1. I reply. From these words how to fetch or force an excommunication of a Church, I am yet to learne. For by his own confession, excommunication is to deny all Church communion with those who were of one Church and communion; but so the Samaritans were never of the Jewes

2. Besides, there is not any act of power expressed by the Church of the Jewes upon the Samaritans: nay not a word, syllable or sentence sounding that way, discovering any judiciall proceeding of the Jewes in that behalfe.

3. Its true, our Saviour doth plainely and peremptorily pronounce that their estate was Idolatrous, and corrupt and perfectly heathenish. But thence to inferre the power of the Church to excommunicate another, would be a far fetched and in truth a feeble inference. Should a man reason thus, If our Saviour condemn the Samaritans worship for heathenish and Idolatrous, in that they worship they know not what: then one Sister Church may excommunicate another: I suppose the repeating of such consequence were reply enough: as he, Recitare est confutare.

Lastly, when he desires know what excommunication is, if it be not to deny all Church communion with such who were once in one Church.

I reply: Something is here craved, which hath been proved to be farre from truth, to wit, that the consociating of Churches is to make a Presbyteriall or Synodicall Church: and to make the particular congregations members of the Church, as an integrum which is not so, but a meere concurrence and combining of their councels together, without any authoritative and Church jurisdiction over the particulars.

And this he perceived to follow by undenyable Argument, that the renouncing the right hand of fellowship, which other Churches may do, and should do as occasion requires, is another thing from excommunication.

p. 241. Because one congregation may do this to another.

One Provinciall Synod to another, which yet have no power given them by Christ over each other. The like may be said of the rejection of a particular Church by a Synod; and that is all that can be said.

2. That which every Christian man or woman may do to one, or many, that is not excommunication.

But any Christian man or woman may, upon just grounds, reject the right hand of fellowship wiih others, whom they cannot excommunicate.

In a word, there may be a totall separation, where there is no excommunication, Because excommunication is a sentence judiciall, presuppo…ng ever a solemn and superior power over the party sentenced; but no such thing in separation, or rejection. Separation is, and may be, from those that are without the Church: but excommunication is onelyonly of them, who are within.

A man never so meane, may separate from the Assemblies of Turkes, Pagans, and Papists: yet for the same person to excommunicate such an Assemblie, would be a sinfull profanation of Gods Ordinance.

8 Argument of Mr. Rutherford.

His eighth Argument is taken from the common concurrence of the Apostles in their counsels and carriages of businesses

If all weighty affaires, that concerne equally many particular congregations, were managed, not by one single congregation, but by the joynt voices and suffrages of Apostles, Pastors, and selected brethren of many congregations in the Apostolick Church: Then were Synods the practice of the Apostles, and not Independent congregations.

"But the first is true.

"The Assumption is proved by induction.

The select Pastors of the Christian world, and select brethren chose Matthias, Act. 1. The treasury of the Churches was committed to the Apostles, because that concerned all, Act. 4.33.34. The comon Synod of the 12 Apostles ordained Deacons, Act. 6.3, 4, 5

There is a Synod of Pastors at Ephesus, Act. 23.28. whom Paul warned to take heed to the flock.

Peter giveth an account of his going to the Gentiles, before a Synod of Apostles and brethren, Act 11.2.

An Assembly of Elders appoint Paul to purity himselfe, Act, 21.18.

p. 25A Synod of Elders ordained Timothy, 1 Tim. 4.14.

Reply.

I Reply. These severall places have commonly and frequently beeen propounded and alledged many times, in many passages of the book, they have met us, as it were, at every turne, and stopped us in our way: In all which we have referred the full debate and disquisition about them, unto this, as the proper place.

And therefore we shall take leave a little more seriously, to examine the particulars once for all: that so it may appeare, what vigor and validity is in all these instances to conclude the cause in hand, and whether there is a sufficient cause to place so great confidence in the severall practices here expressed.

OnelyOnly before we can apply our selves to the particulars, that must here be remembred and taken along with us, which will easily be yeilded and confessed on all hands.

1. The office of the Apostles, being extraordinary, as having the care of all the Churches under their care and watch, they did, as extraordinary persons, interpose their power in all the particular Churches, where ever they came: as also expresse their judgements by vote and counsell, as occasion did require.

And therefore what they did in this case, it must not, it should not be drawn into example: extraordinary practices, are no sutable ingredients to make up ordinary precedents, as certaine and standing copies to succeeding generations. But we must take onelyonly that which is ordinary, when we would make ordinary patterns to regulate our proceedings by.

This being once mentioned and remembred, it will ease us of needlesse repetitions in the succeeding discourse.

I reply then, First generally. Secondly we shall examine shortly the particulars.

1. Generally. That there can be no warrant or proofe of a Synod in these severall instances, It will appeare by apparant evidences from Master Rutherford his owne principles; who pag. 204. layes this down as a confessed truth, which admits no dispute.

1. That the members of a Synod, must be Elders and brethren, sent as Commissioners from severall Churches, which are not here to be found in any of these places.

p. 262. The ground of thus gathering members from many Churches, it must be matter of weight, and that which is attended with much difficulty and danger also.

3. The manner of their proceeding, is by way of disquisition and agitation of all or many of the members, who are willing to speake.

4. The decisions and determinations are by common consent, and joynt approbation of all, in whose name such sentences are decreed and published.

And none of all these are to be found in any of these instances: so that to my shallow conceiving, there is not the least semblance of a Synod.

But secondly, let us come some what neerer, and take the particulars into speciall consideration.

In Act. 1. There be these three things to be attended, which take up the substance of the whole proceeding.

1. Peter leades the action, layes forth the ground of their meeting, and the mind of God, how the action should be managed, ver. 15. to 23.

2. The whole Assembly, by mutuall consent, present two to choice.

3. And commend the determination of the businesse to God by prayer, and so cast lots.

What is here done, that carryes the face or appearance of a Synod?

True: the eleven Apostles were here together, because they were injoyned by our Saviour, to abide in Jerualem, untill they were indued with the spirit from above. But there is nothing here done, but any one might have done it; nor was there need to crave the concurrence of other Churches which they had not. The whole Church concurred, by mutuall consent to appoint two to lot: and accepted him, upon whom the lot fell. Here was no joynt voyces and suffrages of Pastors and select Brethren of many Congregations, which was the thing to be proved. Nor can I imagine where the force of the dispute lies, or whence it will be fetched.

If Peter directed the particular Assembly, how farre they should go, and after what manner they should proceed in making way for the choice of Matthias; then Synods have Ecclesiastick Authority over particular Congregations.

How crasy is such a consequence.

p. 27And yet the second instance carries a further distance from the cause in hand, and is marvellous wide from the marke: For all that is expressed, or can be gathered from Act. 4.35. That the Apostles had the disposing of the common treasury and provision, which men raised by the selling of their goods, and laid it at their feet, to dispense as seemed fittest to their wisedome: All which its certain they did as extraordinary persons, and that in an extraordinary manner; the Officers which were to take care of such occasions, not being yet appointed in the Church.

Where are the joynt voices and suffrages of Apostles, Pastors, and select Brethren of many Congregations, which were to be demonstrated by promise to be in this Example? Beside, how Deacons are to order the treasury of the Church, needs no Synod at all, if we would consider the matter without the extraordinary managing of it, to reason then from this place,

If the Apostles by the extraordinary power of their places did manage the treasury of the Church, because the Office of Deacons was not yet instituted; Then a Synod hath Authoritative Ecclesiastick Power over a Congregation.

Such an inference hath little cement of reason.

Neither doth the third instance comes near the Conclusion to be proved, Act. 6.3, 4, 5. touching the ordination of Deacons; For where are the joynt voices and suffrages of Apostles, Elders, and select Brethren of many Congregations, which was the proposition to be confirmed? Its true the people are directed to make choice of able men, and that any Congregation in particular may do, nay it hath right to do, without a Synod. The Apostles as extraordinary men, they laid on their hands for the establishment of them in their places, being extraordinary persons, and having a plenitude of power in them: But to inferre hence,

If the Apostles laid on their hands upon the Deacons elected by the people, therefore a Synod hath authoritative power over a Congregation; such an inference will appear feeble at the first sight.

The 11. of the Acts and 3. vers. comes next to consideration, p. 28and that hath as little, if not lesse evidence of proofe, then any of the former.

For there be no joynt voices and suffrages of Pastors and select Brethren of many Congregations, which was the thing to be proved, but it is not so much as remembred, but laid aside wholly.

2. There is no evidence given in, of many Churches here present, nay no certainty of any; but its most certain they met not (if they met at all) in way of a Synod, or for that end, nor acted, nor intended any thing that way: OnelyOnly some of the Jewes, who were not so throughly informed and convinced of the liberty and lawfulnesse to converse with the Gentiles in holy communion as Peter had done with Cornelius, they questioned his course, and demanded a reason and warrant of his practice: To whom he gave an account, that he might remove all doubts out of their minds and stumbling stones out of the way of the profession, as any Christian man would, and any Apostle ought to remove any appearance of offence that any might take in their way.

But hence to reason, If Peter gave an account and warrant of his communion with Cornelius to those Jewes that questioned it, and was not sufficiently informed therein, be it done before them, or never so many beside them:

Then a Synod hath an authoritative Power over a Congregation; there is no conclusive force, nay in truth, nor a colour, in such a consequence.

That of Act. 21. carries some small appearance at the first view: but when we shall come to nearer search, it will be found to have little pith in it.

Its true Paul went to visite James with whom all the Elders were as it might seeme by some intimation and appointment of Pauls coming, that they might entertain him; but the joynt suffrages of many Elders and select Brethren, of many Congregations, to determine any businesses, as being called thereunto; there is nor vola, ne vestigium quidem.

OnelyOnly the text sayes, Paul saluted them, as it may seeme, meeting on purpose to that end, and he reported to them the passages of Gods providence towards him, & the good hand of Gods blessing upon his labour: They also acquainted him, how p. 29occasions stood with them, what rumors were spread abroad of him, and what a jealous eye the Jews had touching his disregard of Moses Law, and suggested such advice as might seeme most advantageous to promote the work of the Lord.

There is nothing here done or recorded, but what the Elders of a Congregation might do to some faithfull Minister that was arrived at their coast.

There is nothing like calling or carrying on of a Synodicall work; and without all question, Synod there was none, because it must be either Provinciall or Nationall; and touching either of these, there is not so much as any syllable that sounds this way, in the text: And to reason hence,

If James and the Elders met to entertaine Paul at his comming, and he saluted them, and they suggested to him, how he might so carry himselfe in wisedome and warinesse, that he might crush the false rumours that were spread of him; Then a Synod hath Ecclesiasticall Authority over a Congregation: There is no constraining force in such a kind of reasoning.

That of Acts 20.28. hath least of all, that lookes this way: For the scope of the place, and purpose of the Spirit, is only this; Paul now resolved for Rome, and by the Spirit of Prophecy knowing that he should never see those coasts, nor their faces, amongst whom he had preached the Gospell; knowing also, that false Teachers as ravening wolves would endeavor to make a prey of them: He therefore desires to take his leave, and solemn farewell of them, and to leave a savoury caution and heart-breaking exhortation, as his last farewell with them, and to that purpose sends for the Elders of Ephesus, and poures out his passionate and affectionate expressions into their bosome.

Where is there any the least shew of the joynt voices and suffrages of Apostles, Elders, and select Brethren, of many Congregations?

Here were none but the Elders of Ephesus, and all things in the text argue they were Rulers of one Congregation: They are onelyonly Elders of the Church, not Churches, vers. 17. He chargeth them to attend to the flock. foreign. v. 28.

But had they been the Elders of never so many Churches, p. 30sent for by the Holy Apostle, to take his farewell of them, and to leave some spirituall Councell with them: Alack a day, what is this to a Synod, or to the Ecclesiastick Authority of a Synod over particular Congregations? Here there is neither joynt voices, nor disputing, nor decreeing, but onelyonly hearing and attending the last words of a dying and departing Apostle.

To reason thus; If the Elders of Ephesus met at Miletum, were sent for by Paul, to come to visite him, as he passed by in his travell, and to take their farewell of him, and to receive some holy councell from him;

Then Synods have an Ecclesiasticall Power over Congregations.

How unreasonable would such a reason seeme?

The last place alledged of 1 Tim. 4.14. (The laying on of the hand of the Eldership upon Timothy) is I confesse accompanied with much difficulty and obscurity, and deserves through examination; but this place hath been opened and handled in the head of Ordination, whether we refer for the while: we shall only now attend so much as concerned the present Argument.

Whatever then is the meaning of the text, its certain, it fals short of that, for which it is alledged here by Master Rutherford, nor doth it prove the Proposition for which it is brought; nay if his allegation may be attended, it wholly crosseth a maine Conclusion, for the maintenance whereof he contends.

1. That it proves not that for which its brought is evident by the letter of the text; for the Proposition under hand to be made good, is this;

That the waighty affaires were managed by the voices and suffrages of Apostles, Pastors, and select Brethren of many Congregations.

But in the place of Timothy we have onelyonly the hand of the Eldership; but not a word of any select Brethren, that were interested in this work.

2. Nay it will appeare upon search, if this Argument be good to prove this cause, for which it is brought, its certain it will confute another cause strongly maintained by Master Rutherford; for I reason thus:

If the laying on the hands upon Timothy was, by the concurrence p. 31of the Elders and select Brethren of many Congregations; then Ordination is not an act proper to the Eldership, but issues from the power of the select Brethren also, and so the Church of Beleevers have a hand in it.

But the first is true by Master Rutherfords assertion; The laying the hand in Timothy his Ordination, was by concurrence of Elders and select Brethren of many Congregations.

Let Master Rutherford now take his choice; If he deny the Assumption, then he doth confesse by that deniall, that the place was wholly misalledged by him, and that he missed his purpose and the proofe of that it was brought for.

The consequence of the Proposition upon his own grounds cannot be gainesayed; if the select Brethren have a joynt hand and suffrage in the worke of Ordination with the Eldership, then is not the work proper to the Elders, for which he hath so frequently, so constantly contended through his whole booke. We have stayed the longer, because we desired to clear this coast, that when these places come in our way, we may look over them without any trouble, or once making a stand or stumble at them.

10 Argument of Master Rutherford.

That government is not from Christ, that is deficient in the meanes of the propagation of the Gospell, to Nations and Congregations that want the Gospell.

"But the government by Independent Congregations is such.

The Assumption he approves by the doctrine of Independency.

Pastors and Doctors may not preach the Gospell without the bounds of their own Congregation, nor can they exercise any Pastorall acts elsewhere.

And so Pastors and Doctors now, since the Apostles times, have no authority Pastorall to preach the Gospell to those who sit in darknesse.

And if they do preach, they do it as private men, not as Pastors, they have no pastorall authority from Jesus Christ and his Church pag. 224.

Reply.

For Reply, I shall by way of prevention, desire to settle that which is our tenet: That Doctors and Pastors may preach, to all p. 32sorts, upon all occasions, when opportunity and liberty is offered, nay they ought so to do. But this they do not as Pastors, but as gifted and inabled Christians, who use their talents given them by God and Christ, to the best advantage of Gods glory and the good of others, as any opportunity is presented and put into their hands.

But they neither do, nor in truth have right to exercise any authority and jurisdiction over them, and this I shall prove in severall cases from his own grant. For pag. 226. speaking against the opinion and expressions of Mr. Davenport & M. Beast, That will have Pastors so far strangers to all Congregations, save onelyonly their own, that they say, other Churches are without, and that they have nothing to do to judge them, and alledge for this, 1 Cor. 5.12. but by those who are without, Paul meaneth not those who were not of the congregation of Corinth but he meaneth Infidels and heathens, as in other Scriptures: for Paul judged and excommunicated Hymeneus and Alexander, 1 Tim. 1.20. Who were without the Church of Corinth.

It is granted then by Master Rutherford, that Pagans and Infidels are without, in the Apostles judgement, and that the Pastor of Corinth could not judge them.

Those whom Pastors of Churches cannot Ecclesiastically judge, over them they have no pastor-like power, nor can be said in propriety of speech to be Pastors to such.

But Pagans and Infidels, Pastors of Churches cannot judge, therefore over them they have no pastorlike power, nor can in truth be called their Pastors.

The Assumption is Master Rutherford his own grant and confession.

The proposition cannot be gainsaied: for the power of order and jurisdiction, ever go together. The being of a Pastor to a people, doth, in the very nature and constitution of the Call and Office give power of judgement, over that people to whom he stands in that relation, as being one speciall act of feeding.

And in truth, how comes any man to take a Pastorall power over any Pagans? By nature no man hath any: For it is not conveyed by way of Propagation. By institution he cannot challenge it; for an extraordinary Commission of that Latitude Christ never gave to any, but the Apostles, go preach and teach all Nations. If then any man receives it, it must be by their voluntary p. 33election and choice, which because they nor have, nor can shew, they have no right of Ecclesiastick and Office-rule over them; here that question is seasonable, and will not receive an answer, Who gave you this authority?

Nay its certain, a Pastor of one Congregation (elected and setled according to Christ) cannot receive a Pastorall power over Pagans, but he must relinquish the place and power in which he is: unlesse we shall bring in an allowance of pluralities and tot quots, a conceit so loathsome, that the most ingenious amongst the Papists have abhorred the Patronage of.

Lastly, let any man put his power to proof in the exercise of it, and his experience will make it more then plaine, its a thing meerly imagined and arrogated without rule, there is no reality in such presumed rights. For the Pagan offends, he rebukes him, he will not heare; he then takes one or two, he rejects them also: he reports it to the Church, he casts away the advise of any Church. What will the Pastor or his Church do? Excommunicate him, how will they? how can they? To cast a man out of Church communion, that never was in Church-communion, how irrationall? how impossible? The issue therefore evidenceth, it was a presumption, no power in truth; for when it comes to proofe its powerlesse.

Before we leave this place, let me leave two things upon record with the Reader, which may lead him to a right conceiving of what he hath met withall, or shall meet with touching the power of a Church-Ruler. For from the premises its plaine.

1. That bare preaching to a people, though it was ordinary and often, is not an act of pastorall power and so jurisdiction, but his Commission is mainly to be attended, which gives vigour and validity in that worke. And therefore,

2. A man may preach by Pastorall power, in some place, to some people, and the same person may preach without pastorall jurisdiction to others, but onelyonly as an able gifted Christian.

2. Againe out of Master Rutherford his grant in another place, I shall dispute against his opinion expressed in this. Its a conclusion which he sets down, pag. 72.

We deny that Christ hath given power, of jurisdiction to one p. 34particular congregation over another particular congregations, pag. 199. We grant that one Presbytery hath no jurisdiction over another Presbytery.

Suppose now that one, or many, or all, of one Presbytery, should be destitute of Elders: The Pastors of another Presbytery cannot exercise any pastorlike acts there: nor yet in another Province and Nation: by the same proportion over whom they have no jurisdiction, over them they can exercise no pastorlike power; but the first is granted, and therefore the second is yeilded.

Let us now listen to the reasons which Master Rutherford alledgeth, whereby he endeavours to prove; because the government by Independent Congregations doth not authorise persons to be Pastors and Teachers to Pagans, and by Pastorall authority, to make them the Churches of Christ, therefore that government is deficient in the meanes of the propagation of the Gospell.

Master Rutherfords first Reason.

1. Because it is unbeseeming the care of Christ, that pastorall authority should be so confined at home, and imprisoned within the lists of every particular Congregation, that the care spoken of 2 Cor. 11.28. should be now in no Pastors upon the earth, but be dead with the Apostles.

Reply.

Reply. That each Congregation should have their own Pastors and teachers, and that out of their calling and commission, as they have pastorall power, so they should have care of them, over whom they have taken charge, is granted.

That as Christians in love to Christ, his Gospel and the soules of fellow Christians, as far as liberty, opportunity, and ability will reach, they should occasionally put forth their care and paines to promote their spirituall good, is confessed.

But that one, or many, or all of them, should have Pastorall authority, and out of that ground exercise pastorall care over all Churches, as the place alledged would, 2 Cor. 11.28. or indeed over many: its crosse to the institution of our Saviour, and therefore p. 35it should not, nay in truth it cannot be exercised by any ordinary man.

The Apostles indeed, because their calling was extraordinary their gifts extraordinary, and assistance extraordinary, they had a larger taske, even the whole world, as Christ field to Till: All Nations. Every creature reasonable.

But Pastors and Teachers, who have but ordinary gifts, they have but, as it were, an Acre of ground, a particular Congregation to till and teach: and he that knowes his duty, and doth his duty, will find enough of that, foreign Act. 20.28.

So that we should be very carefull to cast any disparagement upon the wisdom and care of our Saviour, because he hath now put an end to the extraordinary callings of Apostles and Evangelists, when the end of them is attained: or weakly and sinfully make our selves more mercifull and mindfull of the good of the Church, then he, who is the God of mercy, is.

When he therefore cares most for his Church, because he doth confine the Pastorall power and paines of one man to one Congregation, as sense it selfe will teach. He that keepes the stream in one channell, he best provides for the strength of it.

2. Reason,

He addes; As if these places, 1 Cor. 10.32. 1 Cor. 9.19, 20, 21. Rom. 1.14, 15. Rom. 9.2, 3. did not presse upon all Ministers of Christ, the extending of their pastorall vigilancy to the feeding and governing of all the Churches in their bounds, that make up one visible body, pag. 225.

Reply.

Reply is. If all this were granted, yet that is not proved, which was propounded, and should be concluded: that because they had not pastorlike authority to make Pagans Churches, therefore they are deficient; all that is here said, falls short of that.

But the reason is not onelyonly wide of the marke, but wide of the truth. For besides that of Rom 1.14. Which is peculiar to the calling of an Apostle, and therefore presseth no particuliar minister p. 36at this day, unlesse any man would vainly conceit he hath a commission to preach to all Nations and all conditions of men, the calling and the date of the Apostles commission being now, out this concernes n particular Officer.

The rest o the places respect onelyonly a double Christian duty, unto which all men are bound; namely, That we should walk inoffensive towards all. 1 Cor. 10.33. and secondly, we should use our liberty to comply with all mens occasions, that as much as in us lies, we may edify all, which each must do that is not a Pastor, and each Pastor should do as a Christian amongst them, over whom he can exercise no Pastorall Authority, as to those of another Presbytery, and of a generall Councell.

Thirdly, He would inferre some seeming absurdities, which would follow from this kind of Government. As first, Hence (he sayes) It must follow, that when the Grecian Church shall be wronged by the Hebrew, that the Pastors may not Synodically meet, and by joynt authority remove offences. pag. 225. Act. 6.

I reply, There is no colour for such an inference, nor doth it once touch the thing to be proved; For let it be granted, that the Pastors may meet Synodically, and by authority also remove offences; yet they shall not have power to give Pastorall Authority to men to make Churches of Pagans: Nay from his own grant, though they do thus meet, yet he denies they can give Power over the Churches under other Presbyteries.

The second inference is of the same stamp; comes not near the mark.

If followeth that all the meetings of the Apostles and Pastors to take care authoritatively for the Churches, as Act. 1. Act. 4.35. Act. 6.2, 3, 4. Act. 11.1. Act. 21.18. Act. 20.28. Act. 8.14. Act. 14.1, 2, 3. Act. 15.6. were all meetings extraordinary and temporary.

I reply; Let all be granted for the present, that he would desire; let these meetings be ordinary, and let them care authoritatively for the Churches in what they did; yet this gives in no evidence, that they can give Pastorall Power and Jurisdiction to men out of the Churches; for we have heard, that the Apostle affirmed it, and he granted it in this sense; that p. 37no ordinary Pastors can judge those who are without, and those are Infidels by his grant.

So that though they have Power to meet, and these meetings be ordinary, yet neither of these grounds will evince that they do, or can give Pastorall Jurisdiction to judge such as be without: therefore none of these inferences come near the thing to be proved; For if therefore Government by Independent Congregations be insufficient, because it authoriseth not persons to be Pastors over Pagans, and by pastorall Authority to make them the Churches of Christ; then this Government by Synodicall meeting, will be insufficient; for we see it labours of the same fault.

The third Inference failes in the same manner as the former.

Thus are these Inferences altogether impertinent; but the places themselves are misunderstood, as hath at large been disputed in the Reply to the former Answer.

Since it hath appeared in all the places formerly handled (for these witnesses have been brought to speake, but their evidence proves nothing in issue) there is no Synodicall meeting, nor any Ecclesiasticall Power authoritatively to impose upon particular Churches; onelyonly in Act. 15. there is a true Synod truely gathered, and they did that, which the Churches of Christ should do; consociate with one another, and by mutuall concurrence, lay all their cares and counsels together, to promote the good of Christs Kingdome.

Whether the Apostle had any thing or nothing extraordinary in their meeting, upon which Mr Rutherford layes so much waight and conceives so much mistake, let it be considered?

1. Whether the acting of the Deacons work, (Act. 4.35.) be ordinary for any?

2. That they had their votes, and ruled the action in every Assembly, whether that was ordinary?

3. Whether the care of all, and their Commission reaching all, be ordinary and perpetuall?

Master Rutherfords 11^th Argument is taken from the light of sanctified reason.

For sanctified reason teacheth, that the stronger Authority of the greater Politick Body of Christ should help the parts of p. 38the Body, that are weaker, as 1 Cor. 12.23, 26. The whole Body helpeth the weaker and lesse honourable Member.

Therefore the greater Body and Nationall Church is to communicate its Authority, for the good of a particular Church, which is a part thereof.

ANSWER.

The Proposition is true; but the Assumption takes that for granted, which is the very question to be proved, and hath been so often denied: For there be no Nationall Churches, which are the integrum to particular Congregations as the parts thereof: Nor doth the pattern Act. 15. give any evidence of Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction, as hath been declared before; and if it did, surely there would come very slow help, if we should send 200. miles to Synods alwayes, as that place sets a precedent before us.

As their Members are the greater, they may and should consociate, and lay their Counsels together, and in the multitude of Councellers there is safety.

OBj. But suppose the greater part of the Church of Corinth erre?

ANSW. Suppose the greater part of the Nationall and OEcumenicall Councell erre; the same difficulty urgeth upon the same supposition, and we profit not at all, when we seek authoritative reliefe beyond a particular Church.

OBj. "But the Lord sayes, Take us the little Foxes.

ANSW. True, therefore much more the greater Foxes.

OBj. But that is an act of Authority and disciplinary taking, injoyned to the Church.

ANSW. Be it therefore those that have the Authority in their hands, they should do it; and if they be followers of Christ, they will do it.

OBj. What if the Congregation be corrupt and will not?

I reply; What if the Synod Nationall, OEcumenicall, be corrupt and hereticall, and refuse to do it? There is no more help in the one, then in the other upon supposals.

When its lastly added, That the Argument is drawn from the greater Authority in the Politick Body, to the lesser, p. 39but Brotherly Councell is no Authority.

Its true, the Argument is taken from that Authority in the resemblan…e and similitude; but that similitude is not made good in the case in hand, and in the reddition, which was the thing to be proved: For it is the thing questioned, and by us denied; That a Classis hath any Power, according to Christ, over particular Congregations.

Master Rutherfords 12^•h and last Argument taken from the practice of the Jewes.

If Christ left the Churches of a whole Nation in no worse case then the Nationall Church of the Jewes was in, &c. for the turning away of wrath. Then hath Christ ordained to Churches in the New Testament, Nationall Assemblies, which authoritatively, &c. But Christ hath left the Churches of a whole Nation in no worse case then the Nationall Church of the Jewes was in, for the reaching of the foresaid ends.

Reply.

For reply. The proposition is denyed, because there is a marvelous difference betwixt the Nationall Church of the Jewes, and all other Churches, that ever were or shall be since that unto the end of the world. For that was a Nationall Church truely and properly so called and so appointed by God, had Nationall Ordinances, and Offices peculiar to it selfe, and so also authoritative power, which was appropriate to them in a speciall manner, none of which ever did, nor can belong to any other Nation in the world beside.

Nor yet doth it follow from hence, that the Churches of the Gentiles in times of the New Testament, be without these, that therefore they are left in a worse case, because they had the Types, we the truth; they the shadow, we the body. Every Congregation visible, rightly gathered, hath right unto, and use of all Ordinances, all the Officers, both the Seales of the Covenant: so that we need not go to Jerusalem, either to Passeover, or Sacrifice.

If any man reason thus. If Christ hath left the Church of a Nation in the New Testament in no worse case then the Church of the Jewes, then he hath left them an High Priest, then he p. 40hath appointed them to meet three times in the yeere, to the exercise and performance of solemn services and sacrifices. The feeblenesse of the dispute would discover it self at the first view. The same fault is in this reason.

But the Jewes had these solemne Assemblies for ends before mentioned.

Obj. 1. But these were morall and concern us. 2. Without them these publike ends cannot be attained.

We shall way the severals shortly in the ballance of the Sanctuary.

Its granted then. 1. That the whole Nation of the Jewes was an elected and adopted Nation by God, and the whole Land taken into Covenant with him.

And hence its granted also, that in cases of Apostasies and departures from God and his worship, the godly Kings might and did recall this backsliding people to recover and renew the Covenant formerly made by God with them: and therefore, Deut. 29.10, 11. Their Elders, Officers, all the men of Israel, their little ones, wives, and the stranger within their gates, they all stand before the Lord. (Here is more then Elders and select Brethren, sent as Commissioners to a Nationall Synod) Here's Captaines, Hewers of wood, all the men of Israel, women, children, which evidenceth it was a Nationall covenant, into which God entred with them. And therefore the godly Kings, they might recall them back to this, when just occasion did require.

But no King nor Emperour did the like to this, in calling their Synods: nor indeed have they, either morall Law, or ceremoniall Law, nor in truth any Law to deale with a Nation on this manner, to call them to renew a Nationall Church covenant, after the manner of the Jewes.

Gods people, who enter into Church covenant and fellowship of the faith, are and should be free in so doing. Church fellowship is to be ordered and acted by Ecclesiasticall policy, not civil. If a Prince on earth should by covenant and Oath; make his whole Kingdome a Nationall Church, he should doe more then he hath any word of Christ to warrant his worke.

So that it is one thing for Emperours or Kings to call councels of Elders and select Brethren: Another thing for the King of Israel to call all Israel together, men, women, and children to renew Church covenant which God had made with them, and with no other people on earth.

p. 41But let us attend Mr. Rutherfords proofe of this, that these Assemblies were morall.

1. An Oath to keep Gods Commandements, is a part of the third Commandement, Psal. 119.106. We are injoyned to contend for the Faith, Jude 3. and to professe God before men, and that which binds one man morally, binds a Nation.

I reply. The reason is weak, and the ground of it is worse.

1. That it is weak put it but into forme, and it will discover it's own feeblenesse at the first appearance.

If David swore that he would keep Gods righteous Statutes, then its lawfull to sweare to a Nationall Church, as that of the Jewes was.

Ans. The consequence is unsound, because Davids taking an Oath was upon lawfull grounds, to do a lawfull thing: but to do the second, is now unlawfull, because all such Nationall Churches, and such a manner of covenanting, as they did, is now abrogated and antiquated.

Beside were the thing lawfull, yet the taking of the Oath might be unwarrantable in the one, and not in the other, because in Oaths and promises, that is one speciall ingredient to make them warrantable, that they suit with our strength: and hence that which is usefull and helpfull to one, because strong and able to go through the performance of his Oath, to another it is hurtful because not sufficient to accomplish what he swears. The same answer will satisfie that of Jude, and the 10 of Math.

2. As the reason is weake, so the ground is worse; For its said, what binds one man morally, binds a Nation; which rule applied to the former practice of Davids Oath, failes many wayes.

For 1. Though when a man hath sworne, he is bound by a morall Command to keep his Oath, and so his promise; yet this manner of swearing, seeming to be private, its but a free-will offering, as the Nature of vowing or promising is, and therefore if I vow, I may; and if I will not, I may choose: And I do beleeve a man may live all his life, and never take a private Oath; I say private betwixt God and himselfe, to keep his Lawes, and yet not be guilty of sinne in so doing: so that a man is not morally and necessarily tied to swear or vow, though having vowed, he is necessarily bound to performe it: If thou dost not vow, thou dost not sinne.

p. 42But 2. Be it granted, that it is morall, yet the rule seemes exceeding uneven. That which bindes one man morally bindes a whole Nation, take it generally, as here propounded in the Argument, when as there be some speciall duties, that in a peculiar manner belong to his particular, which a Nation need not do, nay should not, nay cannot do.

A man finds by constant proof that drinking of wine is exceeding prejudiciall to his health, and hurtfull also to his soul, being given, as the Wise-man sayes, to his appetite, and so apt to sinne: He finds it possible for him to abstaine; He therefore sweares he will drink no wine in such Company for such a space.

Another hath found himselfe somewhat too abstemious, and hath prejudiced his health out of neglect of the lawfull use of the Creature; He sweares he will use such meanes provided for his health: These men are morally bound, both to take the Oath and keepe their Oath: Do these Oathes bind the whole Nation?

The Schollar swears he will study conscionably: The Plowman that he will plow so painefully; These are morall bonds to those men, but is a whole Nation bound thus to swear?

The truth is, the contrary rule for the most part is most true; that which morally binds one man in things speciall appertaining to his morall course, doth not bind a whole Nation.

Lastly, The ends of generall Reformation may be attained by Power of the Civill Magistrate, who may authoritatively require all the Churches in all their severall Assemblies, to attend the mind of Christ, and solemnly humble themselves by fasting and prayer, and see Reformation wrought according to God, in their severall places; and if they see Churches be holy, they will willingly listen thereunto; and if corrupt, they may be compelled by the Civill Power to attend the rules of Christ, which through the corruption that is now crept in amongst them, they would be content to cast off.

p. 43AN APPENDIX To the former Treatise concerning SYNODS. An Epistle of them that sent the Booke over to be Printed.

COurteous Reader you may be pleased to take notice, that the Treatise concerning Synods is not so compleate, as was intended by this Reverend Author; but the Lord having taken him from us, before the Book was transcribed for the Presse, we cannot find amongst his writings any other Copy, but this: onelyonly these few questions here annexed came to our hands, being found in his study, which because they may be somewhat usefull to the further cleering of the same subject, we have thought good to communicate them together with the other: OnelyOnly this we should adde, that whereas there is a seeming denyall of a Synod, to have at all any footing in the Scriptures, and yet an allowance of it from Act. 15. This is known to be the Authors mind, which the whole discourse doth manifest, that he denies a Synod that hath juridicall power, which he takes for a Synod properly, as used in the present controversie, and he grants a Synod that hath power of counsell, which is a Synod more largely taken, and for such a Synod the 15 of the Acts is alledged as a patterne by way of proportion.

Farewel.

p. 45CHAP. III.

Qu. 1. What is a Synod?

A Synod is an Ecclesiasticall meeting, consisting of fit persons, called by the Churches, and sent as their messenges, to discover, and determine of doubtfull cases, either in Doctrine or practise, according to the truth.

Three things are maine.

1. Its a meeting Ecclesiasticall.

Meeting] When it is taken in a large sense, includes all that Ecclesiasticall entercourse, that is betwixt Church and Church, and this may be refered to two heads.

Its done by

Communication, or

Combination.

1. Communication, when, by letter or messengers, one Church seeks and craves for some common help by counsell and advise, what may be most suitable to the truth, and acting and ordering of their present difficulties, which concerne the peaceable managing of occasions presented.

Thus we find one Church sends to another; or to many, as the weight of the businesse may require, so in Coloss. Philippi, &c.

This sense is somewhat too large for our present consideration, as it appeares by stating of the question by all, who on purpose have set themselves to search into the nature of Synods.

2. There is a meeting by way of combination, when Churches, cousociating together by mutuall consent, enter upon a common ingagement to administer help each to other, as any apparant occasion p. 46shall appeare to call for consultation for a common good.

And in this sense it is here taken.

Ecclesiasticall,] its so termed, not only because of the persons who are there assembled, nor yet because of the occasion, there to be agitated, which may be meerly and only Ecclesiasticall, at least Ecclesiastically handled, but especially (for now we speak according to the opinions and apprehensions of those, with whom the question is controverted) because such meetings are peculiar to Churches, and the actings are appropriated thereunto, as any other Church administrations, and if we may conclude their opinion by their practise, it cannot be otherwise.

For they, who allow Synods to censure by way of excommunication (which is a judicature only appertaining to the Church) they must needs make the constitution properly Ecclesiasticall. For the Operation discovers, and certainly determines what the Constitution must be.

2. The parties who constitute this meeting must be,

1. Fitting men, able for the worke, and that gives the materiale to the messenger.

2. Chosen and sent by the Church, and that is the formalis ratio of a member of the Assembly.

This Parker expresseth, Polit. Eccles. lib. 3.

And all the Presbyterians, I meet withall, do constantly receive and approve.

Hence upon these grounds and the true stating of the question according to their intent;

1. A Magistrate qua talis, is no member, nor can act in this meeting, as such.

2. Here is no act of an Office or Officer, because the formalis ratio to make one a member, is the choosing and sending; and therefore, they who are no Officers, if so elected and appointed, they have jus suffragii. They who are Officers, if yet not called, nor sent, they have no jus suffragii.

3. Hence, all have equall power, because equally sent and chosen, which are the substantiall ingredients to make up Synodicall members.

4. Any member, though not an Officer, if he be elected as moderator of the Synod, may as legally and regularly and as p. 47sufficiently supply that place, as any who is an Officer.

As suppose some learned Reader in a Vniversity chosen to the Synod, though he be no Pastor, he may be elected to that place, and act in it regularly.

5. Hence, none have this power, unlesse they be sent, because that gives the formale to this action.

6. Hence, these cannot censure by way of excommuunication, according to Presbyterian principles; because none by their rules can censure so, but Officers; But here none act as Officers, id est, though they be Officers in their own Congregations, yet they act not so here, but as called.

7. Hence this Power is not intrinsecall to their Office, but wholly superadded; and if Authors, who call it Potestatem accumulativam, non privativam, intend this sense, they say true, namely, it is a speciall Power, beside an officiall Power.

But if that be their meaning, That it is an Office-power only with additament, its a totall mistake; For many Officers have not this Power, and many not Officers, being called, have it.

The third thing in the Description, is the end, which is to discover and determine of doubtfull questions, touching Opinion and Practice.

They are to debate and set downe their judgements clearly and definitively, not to leave the Churches, whence they are sent, in doubts and demurrs; For that was to misse the end of their sending and meeting: But they dogmatise their sentences, and set down their determinations, as sure truths to their judgements and apprehensions, and so returne them to the particular Churches whence they came; and their determinations take place, not because they concluded so, but because the Churches approved of what they have determined.

For the Churches sent them, and therefore are above them: And therefore may send other if they see fit, who may vary in their judgements, and alter their sentences if they see fit.

p. 48How farre this judgement goes, it comes after to be considered.

The Power of Synods ariseth from a double root, according to which the proofs will proceed.

Potestas est

Authoritativa,

Consultativa.

1. Potestas Authoritativa or Juridica, whereby they execute censures, and impose their sentences to be received and subjected unto under that penalty.

And this Power is not so seated in any Church, as that it can chaleng it of it selfe: For by all Presbyterian principles it is confessed, That one Congregation hath no Power over another, one Classis over another, &c.

Hence this Power issues from their Combination of one with another, and subjection of one to another.

But whether they should give this Power unto any, or thus be subject unto any, &c. when the Authority of Synods comes to be scanned, we shall speak to it.

2. Again, The Power of Synods is by others conceived to be onelyonly consultative, when Churches by way of Combination, for their mutuall support in truth and peace, do with mutuall consent appoint times of meeting for their mutuall help, that they may lend common relief by their Common Counsell, and have the benefit of each others gifts & abilities; or though they be not in any set consociation, if there be any emergent occasions of more danger or difficulty, they send for help of Counsell, to such as are most able to lend and administer it, though furthest removed from their society and fellowship: As the practice of the Church of Antioch is most pregnant to this purpose.

2. QUEST. How are Synods proved? or what Scriptures or reasons to prove the necessity of Synods?

ANSW. That there should be Synods, which have Potestatem p. 49juridicam, is no where proved in Scripture, because it is not a truth: such a Power will appear after to be unlawfull, and therefore never appointed by God, nor approved by his Word.

The Examples given out of Act. 15. and Gal. 2. carry no full and satisfying evidence with them.

That of Act. 15. is deficient many wayes.

1. If they had Power juridicall, it must arise by way of Combination; But that they were not in, being 200 miles distant at the least one from another.

2. If that was a Synod, it must be referred to some of the species of a Synod.

But it can be referred to none of the species; Its neither Classis, Provinciall, nor Nationall Synod, as the distance from Jerusalem gives in evidence.

And an OEcumenicall Councell it was not, because that is gathered out of all Nations; here were but two Churches.

OBj. If it be here said, because the Apostles were here present, who had Power over all Churches; therefore it may in that regard be called a Generall or OEcumenicall Councell.

ANSW. It is easy to reply, That there can be no just warrant taken from thence for such an Assertion: For if the Apostles did act here as particular persons, not by any Apostolicall Power, then their presence, look at them as private persons, cannot make a Generall Councell.

But their acting in this Synod was not as Apostles by way of revelation or peculiar assistance; Ergo.

That cannot make a Generall Councell.

They disputed as others, consented, concluded, subscribed, and sent as others.

3. One Church hath no power over another:

But here is but one Church advising with another, Antioch with Jerusalem.

The minor is in the text; the Proposition is a confessed principle, and reason gives force of confirmation; For it carries some appearance with it, that one should yie…d to many; but that one should submit to the Power of another, and haply the stronger, and more able and judicious to that which is more weak and ignorant, &c.

p. 504. All juridicall Power issues from Combination.

Therefore those onelyonly are bound, that are so combined and sent.

But this Synod sent their dogmata and sentences to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, who never sent any Messengers thither, and ergo.

All that they intended and acted was by a way of Councell.

5. The controversy arising from the Church of Antioch, they repairing for judgement, cannot be judges in their own cause, now controverted by an opposite party.

Hence there was but one Church that gave in the sentence, and that cannot make a Synod.

6. Each Practice or Example is so far warrantable and binding, as it hath either some particular precept to injoyne it, or some generall rule that may confirme it by way of collection.

But here is no particular precept to injoyn it; let them shew any generall rule appropriate to Church discipline or Church government to bottome it.

Dr Whitaker confesseth, there is no precept for Synods.

The reason alledged for proof, hath no convicting evidence in it.

For when it is said,

An ordinary Assembly of Church-members, Elders and Brethren of many Churches meeting by occasion of controversy, to dispute and cleare truth from Scripture, is founded on Act. 15.

But this is a Synod.

ANSW. To the major, Such an Assembly met of many Messengers of many Churches, is not found, nor can be proved out of the Act.

2. They met not to dispute and determine juridicè.

The same fault is in that proof of Gal. 2.

If Paul went up to the Apostles to gain mutuall consent and approbation, not to submit his office or doctrine juridicè to them at all, for this he professedly gainsayes, that he had not his office from man, or by man; and that his doctrine was from God by revelation, as well as theirs.

If he come to advantage his proceeding by mutuall consent and approbation, then other Churches may meet together by p. 51way of jurisdiction; there is no soundnesse in such a consequence.

The reasons also reach not this Power.

For errors may be prevented, truth cleared, union of Churches in judgment preserved, and they kept from running in vain, and all neighbouring Churches may be consulted with in more waighty transactions, without this meeting in this juridiciall manner.

But if Synods and such meetings be attended onelyonly in way of consultation, as having no other power, nor meeting for any other end:

Then as they are lawfull, so the root of them lyes in common principle which God in providence hath appointed for humane proceeding, and that is,

He that hearkens to counsell shall be safe.

In the multitude of Councellers there is safety.

Hence all conditions and callings, as they need, so they use a Combination of counsell, for the carrying on of their occasions under their hand.

Hence arise the Companies of Merchants, and all men of all Crafts.

Hence Common Councels in all Kingdomes and States.

And therefore in the Course of Christianity also the Churches of Christ should use the meanes which God hath appointed for their more comfortable and succesfull proceeding in a Church-way.

And hence one Church may send to another, or to many, and that severally or joyntly meeting.

Hence send to the most able: As Antioch sent to Jerusalem, because though it was farre remote, yet in reason they might expect more reliefe, because of the joynt being of the Apostles together.

Beside, they were concerned in some manner therein, as it appeares, some came as from them, and pretended the judgment of the Apostles touching the necessity of Circumcision, to whom say the Apostles, we gave no such allowance.

OBj. If it be said, this course of Councell is common to all sorts, and therefore they may as well consult with any, as with Churches.

ANSW. True, they may, and in some cases should consult with p. 52the Chief learned men and Readers of Divinity in severall Universities, or such who have the chiefest skill in the occasions which are in doubt.

But because the occasion of one Church may deeply concerne others. 2. Because Churches are in reason most fit and best able, and will be most affected with the conditions of other Churches, Therefore its most suitable to right reason, and the rules of consultation to advise with such.

3. QUEST. What is the Power of a Synod?

ANSW. Power, foreign is either

Juridica,

Praetoria, to bind consciences to Christ

Aequatoria

Consultativa.

Juridica Aequatoria

Either in inflicting censures,

Or

Imposing their conclusions and determinations upon others under paine of censure, & this is that they call legislative Power, Potestas conficiendi Canones.

Again this Power looks two wayes,

Either in respect of other Churches,

Or of the Magistrate.

Hence the answer will issu… in three heads.

I. They have not Power infligendi censuras, utpote excommunicationis: The reason is taken from Presbyterian principles,

All censures are administred by men in office.

But here the actions issue not from such.

Those acts which proceed in common from men without, as well as in office, those cannot be acts of men in office.

But all acts of the Synod are performed by all the Members of the Synod.

It seemes good to the Spirit and unto us, that was, all the p. 53Brethren, as well, as the Church.

2. They grant, that all the Power the Synod hath, is accumulative, not privative; it takes nothing from the Power of the Churches.

But thus to censure, would take Power from the Churches.

That which crosseth the Power given by Christ, that diminisheth their lawfull and rightfull Power.

But this doth so; For Christ saith, He that will not hear the Church, let him be as a heathen: But this Power gives them leave to refuse the admonition of the Church, and to appeal, and so nullifies the proceeding of the Church.

3. That which gives power over a Church without the attending the judgement of the Rulers, nay happely, against their judgement, that diminisheth the power of the Church.

But this doth so: As in case all the Elders of a particular Congregation shall gainsay the censure, and the rest of the Synod passe a censure against the Elders.

4. Excommunication is proper to the Congregation.

Therefore they take that which is their propriety.

That it is proper, it thus appears.

Its either proper to the Congregation, or else common to both.

Therefore it fals firstly and properly somewhere else, namely, it belongs to the Church in generall first, and then to both the species.

But this cannot be.

That which is firstly in the genus, doth belong indifferently to both species from thence.

But all the power the Classis hath, they have it from the Congregation.

Therefore it was firstly there, not in a Church in the generall, as belonging to Synods and to Congregations.

5. All jurisdiction belongs to, and issues from the power of order.

But this jurisdiction issues from no power of order; for here is new jurisdiction, but no new order or officer.

6. Where there is a superior power, thither belongs supreme honour.

But the greatest honour belongs to them, who preach, not who rule.

p. 542. They have no power to impose their Canons or Conclusions upon them.

1. Because the Churches power is above them, in that they sent them.

2. Because the Churches have power to call another Synod, and send other Messengers, and passe sentence against them.

3. Because in many cases it may injoyne a man to beleeve contradictions.

As suppose a man under one Province, which hath determined a case one way, and therefore he must beleeve that:

He removes himselfe the next month or week into another Province, and they have determined a contrary Conclusion, and he must beleeve that.

4. In all Synods, but an OEcumenicall, its lawful to make an appeal; and therefore to refuse.

3. In point of Councell,

They have dogmaticum decisivum judicium, i. e. they may dogmatise and set down their judgements definitively, and by way of determination.

Therefore Junius calls them

foreign

Non praecepta sed Ordinationes.

4. QUEST.

To whom the power of calling Synods doth appertaine.

1. The state of the question must be first inquired

2. The reasons brought for the truth, that it may be setled.

This controversie comes to be agitated betwixt us and the Papists: and also betwixt many of the Protestants, in some particular branches, or some peculiar explications of it.

We shall indeavour to lay out the full breadth, and then to point out the severals wherein the very nick and hinge of the question stands. Therefore inquire,

1. What Synod is here meant.

2. What it is to call.

3. To whom the power appertaines.

p. 551. A Synod, in this question, is usually restrained to a generall councell, or an Oecumenick Synod, as it may appeare in Doctor Whitaker. For as touching Provinciall or Nationall councels, he grants they were commonly convocated by the Bishops, Metropolitan, or Patriach, who had an inspection into such places, by humane appointment

Though I confesse, in a safe and faire sense, I would extend it further.

2. Convocare. The greatest waight lyes in the explication of this word, what it is to call, and if we may looke at it, in the full bounds and limits, as its often considered by such as inquire into all the ingredients of this action,

Then it implyes two things.

1. By way of appointment and injunction to require the solemn and publike concurrence and assembly of some persons of severall Churches, for such ends, as hath above been specified.

I say a publike and solemn Assembly and concurrence of Churches.

For, if it be but private and clandestine by some privy intimation one from another, to meet in a secret manner, as under the colour, and by the rule of Christian society, We look not at such meeting as Synodicall.

2. This publike concurrence, it must be appointed and injoyned, not attained by way of intreaty;

As persons dissenting, and being in difference one with another, are said, in one usuall phrase, to call in Arbitrators, or by intreaty to desire the help of such persons, to consider and end their controversie.

Such a kind of calling which is by occasionall intreaty, reacheth not the stresse and state of this question.

3. I find some also, who make this as one branch, which growes to the body of this question.

Whether they who call, may name and specify the particular persons who must be sent, or may refuse such as be sent, in case they seeme to their judgement, upon reasons which appeare just to them, that they are unfit.

And here mens apprehensions vary.

Some will allow the Magistrate to injoyne and require the Churches to send: But the Churches must make choice of those whom they will …end.

p. 56Others conceive it is in the Magistrates hand to appoint both.

Againe,

This power of appointing they look at it in a double consideration.

Either as a Commission, which they give, whereby they are inabled unto this action.

Or onelyonly a permission, that the Churches having power of themselves, the Magistrate suffers them, or will not hinder them from putting it forth.

And the issue then returns to this,

It belongs to the supreme Magistrate, and the power of his place, to injoyn the solemn and publike concurrence of the severall persons of the Churches, and to appoint and nominate whom of those he will have to consider of such weighty and doubtfull cases, which concerne the publike profession and practising of the worship of God, within his Dominions.

When I say, It belongs to his power and place, I meane to him it is peculiar, and doth not belong to the Church.

2. I say, The publike and solemn concurrence is appointed by him.

They may, as Christians, maintaine private communion, one with another, seeke, and by intreaty call for the councell and helpe one of another, and as they be Churches, use that Christian priviledge of auxilium & consilium, to further their own good, and promote the worke under their hand: And that act requires no allowance of Magistrate at all.

For what I do, quà Ethicus, quà Oeconomicus, and so quà Christianus in private, it appertaines not to him to inquire, provided It intrench not upon his foreign.

But when any proceed to publike and solemn Assemblings, this comes properly under the Cognizance of the Magistrate, as falling professedly in his way, and requires his allowance.

I say allowance; for in such acts, which issue from the common abilities or dexterities of men Commissio & justa permissio are all one, at least make no great difference.

The Magistrate allowes a scholler, a fencer, to set up Schools of their Art, there needs no more Commission, but such a permission to such actions in a state.

Before I descend to the Arguments, there be two postulata I shall premise.

p. 571. That a right opinion and worship of God should be openly professed within the territories and jurisdiction of a State, appertaines to them, as that which comes within the verg and object of the state and policy to attend.

For how could they provide for their subjects, to live in godlinesse and honesty without this?

How should they be nursing Fathers and Mothers to the Church and Religion, if they should suffer open Blasphemy and Idolatry to be maintained and professed?

Nay in that such crimes were punished with death in Israel, its plaine, the Kings did it, not as Types of Christ, but by a civil power.

For no spirituall power useth the weapons of this world.

2. Hence the supream Magistrate hath liberty and power both to inquire and judge of professions and Religions, which is true, and ought to be maintained, which is false, and ought to be rejected.

For were he bound to follow the judgement of the Churches, or Ministers, if they should judge a Toleration of all Religions lawfull, or judge the false to be true, he then were bound to nurse the false Religion, and false Churches.

Now we shall proceed to the Reasons for the setling of the truth, which was the second thing to be attended.

Argument 1.

If it be in the Magistrates power lawfully to forbid and hinder, then it is not in the power of the Churches lawfully to do.

For then the same thing should, in the same regard be lawfull and unlawfull: an the rules of providence should be opposite one to another.

But the supreme Magistrate may lawfully hinder any people of another Kingdome to come into his: or his own subjects to go out of his territories without his leave.

Otherwise, he should want lawfull power to oppose such, as would come in to undermine or lay wast the State, and to defend himselfe.

And should also not have authority to require homage of his own people.

Now without the comming in of many, from all Nations, or p. 58the going out of his own subjects to other Nations, there will be no generall concurrence, nor councel.

And the same power he hath to confine his own people from such generall Assemblings, within his own precincts. For there may be the like just reasons.

Argument 2.

That which is an act meerly civil, that belongs properly to the civil Magistrate.

But this is an act meerly civill to appoint such solemne and publike Assemblings.

The first Proposition is evident from the diversity of the Rules, by which actions are put forth.

A civill act belongs not to an Ecclesiastick power, because that which they do, is only done by the Ecclesiasticall policy.

Minor.

The foreign of a rule of policy is an act meerly civill.

But this is such, for it is contained under that rule of rectus de Deo sensus, de Deo cultus.

Argument. 3.

Its lawfull for a Prince to require the help of faculties and abilities of his subjects, to consider, to advise for the good of the publike.

This his Royall place, and their homage evidenceth.

But to call what persons of the Churches, he conceives most fit to meet and concurre for councell, is to improve the faculties and abilities of his subjects for the common good, ergo.

And if it was lawfull for them to refuse, there must needs follow, not onelyonly rebellion on their part, but certaine ruine to the whole.

Argument. 4.

If the Magistrate is bound to maintaine the peace of his subjects in godlinesse, and to know and judge of the wayes of godlinesse, then he must have power to use such means, that he may both know and maintaine it.

For providence doth not require the end, but alwayes allowes p. 59wayes withall, for the attainment of it, which are requisite and lawfull.

But unlesse he may require the concurrence of the Councels and considerations, and so the determinations of Churches touching what they hold and maintaine in their profession, to be according to the rule of godlinesse, there is not a meanes left, to know what profession they be of, and how far they either agree or disagree.

Argument. 5.

If the Churches need and desire the protection of the Magistrate in their way of worship; then they must be ready to give him an account of their way, when he requires it, and therefore to concurre and assemble upon his appointment, that so he may know, and lend his patronage and protection.

This Conclusion in all the particulars of it, is made good by all the Examples in the Old and New Testament.

As that of Asa, Hezekiah, Josiah.

Herod Math. 2. cals all the Scribes, Pharisees, and the Elders of the people.

FINIS.

End of the text · Thomas Hooker, A Survey of the Sum of Church Discipline (1648)