The RESULT OF A SYNOD AT CAMBRIDGE IN New-England, Anno. 1646. CONCERNING The Power of Magistrates in matters of the First Table. Nature& Power of Synods; and other matters thereunto belonging. LONDON Printed by M. S. for John Allen and Francis Eglesfield in Pauls Church-yard. 1654. The Result of the Disputations of the Synod, or Assembly, at Cambridge in New-England, Begun upon the first day of the 7th Month, An. Dom. 1646. About the power of the Civill Magistrate in matters of the first Table; and also about the grounds of Synods, with their power, and the power of calling of them. Being drawn up by some of the Members of the Assembly, deputed thereunto, and being distinctly red in the Assembly, it was agreed thus far onely, That they should be commended unto more serious consideration against the next Meeting. TOuching the Question of the Civill Magistrate in matters of Religion, we shall crave leave to narrow and limit the state of it in the manner of the proposal of it, and shall therefore propound it thus. Quest. Whether the Civil Magistrate in matters of Religion, or of the first Table, hath power civilly to command or forbid things respecting the outward man, which are clearly commanded and forbidden in the word, and to inflict suitable punishments, according to the nature of the transgressions against the same, and all this with reference to godly peace? Answ. The want of a right stating of this Question, touching the Civil Magistrates power in matters of Religion, hath occasioned a world of errors, tending to infringe the just power of the Magistrate, we shall therefore explain the terms of the Question, and then confirm it in the Affirmative. By [ Commanding, Forbidding, and Punishing] we mean the coercive power of the Magistrate, which is seen in such acts. By [ Matters of Religion commanded or forbidden in the word, respecting the outward man] we understand indefinitely, whether those of Doctrine or Discipline, of faith or practise; his power is not limited to such matters of Religion onely, which are against the light of Nature, or against the Law of Nation, or against the fundamentals of Religion; all these are matters of Religion, which may be expressed by the outward man, but not onely these; therefore we say not barely thus [ In matters of the first Table] but join therewith [ In matters of Religion] that all ambiguity may be avoided, and that it may be understood as well of matters which are purely Evangelicall, so far as expressed by the outward man, as well as of other things. And we say, [ Commanded or forbidden in the word] meaning of the whole word, both of the Old and New Testament; exception being onely made of such things which were merely ceremonial, or otherwise peculiar to the Jewish polity, and cleared to be abolished in the New Testament: By which limitation of the Magistrates power to things commanded or forbidden in the word, we exclude any power of the Magistrate, either in commanding any new thing, whether in doctrine or discipline, or any thing in matters of Religion, which is beside or against the word, or in forbidding any thing which is according to the word. 1 Hence he is not to mould up and impose what Erastian for me of Church polity he pleaseth because if there be but one form commanded now of God, he cannot therefore command what form he will. 2 Hence he is not to force all persons into the Church, or to the participation of the seals; because he is not thus commanded. 3 Hence he is not to limit to things indifferent, which are neither commanded, nor forbidden in the word, without apparent expediency or inexpediency of attending the same. By that expression [ clearly] commanded or forbidden in the word, we understand that which is clear, either by express words, or necessary Consequence from the Scripture; and we say clearly commanded or forbidden in the word. Not simply that which the Magistrate or others think to be clearly commanded or forbidden; for they may think things commanded, to be forbidden, and things forbidden, to be commanded; but that which is in itself in such sort clear in the word, de jure, the Civil Magistrate in these days since Christs ascension, may and ought to command and forbid such things so cleared in the word, albeit de facto, oft-times he do not. [ suitably inflicting punishments according to the nature of the transgressions] This clause needeth not much explication, being so plain of itself; some things commanded and forbidden in the Law of God, are of a smaller nature in respect of the Law of man, and in this respect 'tis true which is often said, that De minimis non curat lex, i.e. Mans Law looks not after small matters, but other things commanded or forbidden in Gods Law, are momentous, and of a higher nature, and though small in themselves, yet weighty in the consequence or circumstance. And in this case if he inflict a slight paper punishment when the offence is of an high nature; or contrariwise, when he inflicts that which is equivalent to a capital punishment, when the offence is of an inferior nature, he doth not punish suitably. There are sundry rules in the word in matters of this sort, as touching the punishment of Blasphemy, Idolatry, heresy, profanation of the Lords day, and sundry other like matters of Religion, according to which Magistrates of old have held, and others now may observe proportions, in making other particular Laws in matters of Religion, with sanctions of punishments, and inflicting the same, they inflict suitable punishments: Onely let it be here remembered, that though we grant the Civill Magistrate his power thus to command, forbid and punish in matters of religion, clearly revealed in the word, yet it is one thing what he may and must do, and another thing when and how he must exercise his power to all persons under his Jurisdiction; for some such persons may not be at all acquainted with the true God, or have any knowledge of Christ, or of the word, but as yet are Pagans: N●w touching such, the Magistrate should take care, that the b●st means be seasonably and wisely used with them, according to their capacities, to bring them first to the knowledge of the true God, and of his word, and to convince them of the falsehood& vanity of their gods, whom they worship, &c. and afterwards, as there is cause, to put forth acts of his coercive power towards them, as Scripture-rules and examples will allow others, though the●… are Christians, yet such as are not clearly instructed or enlightened in matters clearly set down in the Word; in this case the civill Magistrate is to inform and convince, and not to proceed suddenly till all just means are used to leave him convinced, of which it is more meet for the Magistrate than for the offending person to judge, who it may be will never say he is convinced. We live in times wherein many men are perversely carried, and will regard no reason, but go full against the light of it, and of common sense too, sometimes rather than confess the truth when convinced of it; such an obstinate fool is not to be answered according to his folly by any further reasonings, Pro. 26.4. A whip is fitter( saith Solomon) for such a back. By this, which hath been already spoken touching the acts and rule of the Magistrates coercive power in matters of Religion, the impertinency and invalidity of many objections against this his power will appear, at, 1. That thereby the civill Magistrate is made the Churches King, and Lawgiver; which would be true if he might command or forbid any thing, which was not first commanded or forbidden of the Lord, who is the Churches Lawgiver, which we say be may not. 2. That thereby he is made to have dominion over mens faith; when he doth no more by our position but press them to that faith, which he, that hath indeed dominion over the same, hath prescribed. 3. That thereby tyranny is exercised over mens tender consciences, and true liberty of conscience is infringed; when as he de jure commands nothing but that which, if men have any tenderness of conscience, they are bound in conscience to submit thereto, and in faithful submitting to which is truest liberty of conscience, conscience being never in a truer or better estate of liberty here on earth, than when most engaged to walk according to Gods Commandements. 4. That thereby Christians become servants of men; when the Magistrate only is to enjoin what his Master and theirs hath commanded, or to forbid the contrary, and consequently in submitting thereto are but servants to Christ in man. 5. That thereby men are made hypocrites and time-servers; as if to command men to walk according to the Word, and to forbid the contrary, were to make men so contrary to the Word as are time-servers and hypocrites. 6. That thereby a sluice is opened to let in all manner of false religions, and corrupt opinions into the Church: supposing the Magistrate be of any false religion, or corrupt in his judgement; yea, that were the way to set up a Pope in a Christian Common-wealth, for Religion must turn as he turns. When as the question is touching the Magistrates power of commanding or forbidding not what he in a Popelike way shall please, or what his own spirit shall like best, but what God hath commanded or forbidden in the Word; and the position subjecteth him to the Word as to the supreme Law, and doth not set him up Popelike above the Scriptures, or allow him to make his sense of scripture, to be Scripture, or to make human traditional Cannons to be as much of force as Scripture to bind mens consciences &c. but the position rather condemneth any such power as irregular, usurped& not approved of God, which swerveth from that rule of the exercise of his power in matters of religion; namely, the Scriptures; and the contrary to that objected would rather follow, that if there must be no King or civill power among Gods professed Israel, coercively to restrain forbidden evils in Religion, then every man would hold and do as he list, as if every one were a Pope; and then Micah's! Idolatry and any other abominations may be set up. 7. That thereby the civill Magistrate is put upon many intricate perplexities& hazards of conscience, how to judge in and of matters of Religion. But this doth not hinder the Magistrate from that use of his coercive power, in matters commanded or forbidden in the first Table, no more then it doth hinder him from the like power in matters of the second Table; none being ignorant what perplexing intricacies there are in these as well as in the former; as conscientious Magistrates find by daily experience; yet such as object this will not deny this power in the latter, and why then in the former; the objection proveth the difficulty of his knowing of Gods mind in his place, and if it had been objected against Church-Officers power in Churches, or the power of Parents and Masters in their families, it would have proved the same; but it follows not, its difficult for a man in authority to know the utmost of his duty in his place, therefore its not necessary for him to do his duty in his place. They which inaugurated Joash to be King, 2 Chron. 23.11. they put upon him the testimony( as the Hebrew words used to be expounded) to show that it was his duty as a King not onely to know the testimony or book of Gods Law, but authoritatively to establish what was written in it. 8. That thereby persons are put upon acting with doubting consciences; the Magistrates Injunctions being oft-times not clear to such as are to obey them, and so they are thereby compelled to sin. When the position affirmeth this power in matters cleared in the Word, which if not cleared to this or that subject in a Christian Common-wealth, that is his own fault, by his own ignorance of matters which he is bound to know, to bring any such snare upon his conscience, and in such a case he may desire the Magistrate to use the best means to clear up the matters enjoined or forbidden, to be commanded or forbidden in the Word; but neither of these hinder but that the Magistrate is to command or forbid that which God hath commanded or forbidden; even that which Christ hath commanded or forbidden, should not then be urged upon mens consciences by Church-Officers, or Church-censures be executed against obstinate gainsayers, because through error in judgement, and corruption in conscience, men will say then and after all means used for corviction, they may still affirm that they think otherwise, or at best that they still doubt of the matters in question, yea albeit the matters be fundamental. 9. That hereby Christians are discouraged from seeking more light or hindered from embracing or following such new light as the Saints expect in these latter dayes. When as its evident that the commanding and forbidding things cleared in the Word, to be good or evil, doth neither express what light men have from the Word, nor discourage from more light in& from the same, as not in matters of the second Table, so ne●ther of the first. 10. That thereby conscientious men especially, will come to suffer, because Magistrates may think things commanded or forbidden of God, and accordingly ratify them by their authority, which God did never command or forbid, when as the question is not concerning Magistrates enjoining what they think, but what is the mind of God; nor can the pressing of the mind of God commanding what he requieth, and forbidding the contrary, be any just or proper cause of suffering to men truly conscientious. The Magistrate may indeed through mistake command or forbid things, respecting not onely the first but the second Table. But this doth not deprive civill Magistracy therefore of coercive power, as not in matters of the second, so neither of the first Table; but in this ease Christians must be content to suffer in either, albeit withall the Magistrate do break his rule. 11. That thereby we shall encourage and harden Papists and Turks in their cruel persecutions of the Saints; whereas for the Magistrate to command or forbid according to God, as it is not persecution, so neither doth it of itself, tend to persecution. Power to press the Word of God and his truth, doth not give warrant to suppress or oppress the same: the times are evil indeed when the pressing of obedience to the rule shall be counted persecution. 12. That thence are caused all the warres in christendom at this day; when it is evident that the pressing men to obey the will and word of God in matters either of the second or first Table, is not of itself any cause of wars, but the lusts rather of such as abuse their power contrary to the Word. By this already spoken we have seen the ruin of twelve of our opposites Castles in the air, imaginarily framed to withstand the civil Magistrates coercive power in matters of Religion. Let us now in the next place consider at the object of this coercive power of the Magistrate, which in the state of the question we call the ( outward man) the things which the civill Magistrate, as such, doth command or forbid, he commandeth or forbiddeth with immediate respect to the outward man. The Magistrate as a Magistrate looketh immediately at the external acts of the body, and not at the internal acts of the soul, its his property as a civill Ruler to attend onely the duties and sins which appear in the walk of the outward man. Thus Calvin, Beza, Chemnitius, Gerard, and other Protestant Divines generally. Hereby also other objections receive answer; as first, Must Magistrates punish any man for being of a corrupt judgement, or barely for an error in his judgement, or for having a corrupt heart, and sundry lusts in it? We say no: because whilst he keepeth his opinion to himself, and whilst his lusts are confined within his breast, he is to be left to the sword of the Spirit, and to the Word of God, thereby onely to be convinced; the Magistrates power onely extending to the outward man, but if either his mental errors, or hearts lust break out into open expression and view, and become scandalous and spreading, then they become breaches of rules by the outward man, yea, tend to infringe that outward godly peace, of which he is to be a preserver, and so in both respects he is to deal with the same. Must a Magistrate command men to believe with all their heart, to repent and mortify their sins and lusts? We say no: because these appertain to the inward man and soul of man, to attend so far as they are inward, but if we speak of any outward profession of these, so far he may command as to profess the faith by coming to hear the Word, and to repent by public fasting and prayer. And if Princes have no power in such external things, then have they no power instrumentally to remove the wrath of God from their kingdoms by general humiliations. Briefly now of the manner and means of the exercise of this power, included in that phrase [ civilly] we say not ecclesiastically, as if he might put forth his power in a Church way,& by Church-weapons or censures, but civilly or in a civill way or by civill censures or punishments. Whence also other objections are answered, as that the weapons of our warfare are nor carnal but spiritual; and that Paul sheweth a way of redressing all offences, 1 Cor. 5.5. 2 Tim. 2. 25. and Faith comes by hearing, and not by whipping: when these places rather intend and show a Church way of healing Church offences: and do no more exclude a political way of healing offences in a Christian Common-wealth, than an Economicall way of redressing disorders in the Family; so the other place sheweth a spiritual means of drawing men to the Faith; so that neither are pertinent to the case of the Civill power, acting civilly; nor doth this Assertion, That the Magistrate is to be a terror to all evil works,( applying the same to evil works forbidden in the first Table) any more exclude the use of Church-discipline therein: then it doth in matters of the second Table, if applied thereunto; for the Church may proceed in her way to censure Ecclesiastically one and the same thing, whether it be against the first or second Table, which the Magistrate doth punish civilly. The last thing to be explained in the state of the Question is, touching the coercive power of the M●gistrate, namely, Godly peace. Now by Godly peace( to which the Magistrate immediately looketh) we mean a peaceable living, as in all honesty, so in godliness, as the Apostle hath it, 1 Tim. 2.1, 2. So far as any matters of Religion, coming under the Magistrates cognizance as a public Officer in the Common-wealth, do either further or hinder such a peace of a Christian Common-wealth, so far is he to put forth his coercive power accordingly. Hereby also, with reference to things before explained, other Objections may receive answer, as 1 Will you have Magistrates put forth their coercive power to the full, in laws, with Sanctions of punishments; as that men shall pray in their Families, so long, or so oft, or else suffer? That a Minister in preaching, if he exceed a just hour, he must suffer, and the like? we say, if either the matters be merely circumstantial, or if they be matters of less moment, and such as do not of themselves any way infringe public peace, or that they are not pertinatiously& tumultuously maintained to the disturbance of public peace, in all such like cases, wherein the Civill Magistrate's end is not entrenched upon, he may not exercise the coercive power of his Authority, with sanction, or execution of punishments. 2 Will not this Thesis arm and stir up the Civill power in Old England, against godly Orthodox ones of the congregational way: or exasperate Civill power in New England, against godly, moderate, and Orthodox Presbyterians, if any such should desire their liberty here? we conceive no, except the civill disturbance of the more rigidly, unpeaceably, and corruptly minded, be very great; yet betwixt men godly and moderately minded on both sides, the difference upon true and due search is found so small, by judicious, Orthodox, godly, and moderate Divines, as that they may both stand together in peace and love; if liberty should be desired by either sort here or there so exercising their liberty, as the public peace be not infringed: The state of the Question in the explication thereof, will rather quench then kindle any such coals against either: If indeed persons professing either the congregational or presbyterial way, will shelter or close, either with other Blasphemous, heretical, or schismatical tenants, which tend to break the peace of the congregational way there where a presbyterial way is authorised to be the general way of the Churches, or the presbyterial way here, where the congregational way is authorised to be the general way of the Churches, there they may be strained by the power of the Civil Magistrate, as disturbers and breakers of godly peace, the conservation whereof is the Civil Magistrates end and work, unto which he is to attend. Having thus cleared the state of the Question, we shall now come to some Arguments from Scripture, which confirm the Affirmative part of the question so stated; and the Arguments are taken some from the old, some from the New Testament. Of the former sort there are three. 1 In that it is evident that Rulers of old, From the Old Testament. and those Rulers in the Common-wealth of Israel, they are commended in Scripture for the exercise of such power in the matters of the first Table; and therefore it is according to the mind of God that now civil Rulers do the like. Abraham, who was not an ordinary master of a family, but a Prince among them, Gen. 23.6. He is commended for laying the force of his command upon those under his power, in matters of Religion, Gen. 18 19. And if he had been considered as a Master, yet less would not be granted that way to a Ruler of a Common-wealth, than of a Family, but rather more. Job as a civil Ruler, as a King in an Army of persons under his command, did not leave each of them to choose out their own way of Religion or justice, but he choose it, he determinatively set it down for them. I sate as King in an Army, I choose out their way, &c. Job 29.25. The King of Ninivey, with his Princes, did not barely commend that duty of fasting and prayer, to his people, as very convenient to be attended, yet leaving them to their liberty to omit the same: but he positively commands the same, that the wrath of God might be prevented, {αβγδ} Jonah 3.7. The word is used for a coercive command or decree, Ezra 4.21.& 6.11. Dan. 3.10, 11.& 29.& 6.7, 8, 9.& 13. and the act of the civil Authority of Ninivey, having so much influence into the peoples act, Jonah 3.5, 6,& 7. verses compared, is implicitly commended by Christ, in his commendation of the repentance of the men of Ninevey; and so of the King and Princes of Ninevey, whose hearts were so thoroughly touched, as to improve their authority to further that civil work of Ninevy's repentance. The examples of Moses. Joshua, David, Solomon, Asa, Jehosaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, Nehemiah, &c. are obvious to every ordinary eye, which looks into the Scripture. They of old were Types, therefore their examples are not now of force for our imitation. We suppose the Objection intends not by Type, and exemplar for imitation, as Type in a general sense is used, 1 Cor. 10.6. compared with 11. for this were to overthrow the scope of the Objectors, but rather it meaneth a Type strictly taken, namely that they in that exercise of their power, did but shadow out Christs Kingly power; but of this the opposites give onely a barren assertion, without proof, and that will not carry it. But we shall answer it more particularly. 1 Then such may as well say, those Rulers did shadow out Christ in the exercise of their power in matters of the second Table, and therefore are not therein imitable, which none will affirm. Solomon typed out Christ in subduing of enemies, relieving the oppressed, procuring the peace of the state, Psal. 72. Must not Princes therefore do the like? 2 Those that make that Objection, they use to put it thus, The Kings of Israel were such Types; but such an one was not Abraham, nor Job, nor Nehemiah, who by a Coercive Law enjoined the sanctifying of the Sabbath, Neh. 13. nor the King of Ninevey, nor was that wicked King of Israel, Ahab, a type of Christ, which should have put that blaspheming Benhadad to death[ whence that sharp reproof of him for not doing it, 1 Kings 20. To say nothing of Darius& Nebuchadnezzars Decrees this way, which are recorded in way of commendation thereof, Ezra 6. and Dan. 3.29. 3 Solomon himself( who if any were types of Christ therein, he was) setteth it down by direction of the Spirit as a moral duty of each King indefinitely, that( howsoever de facto, many do otherwise, yet de jure) he scattereth away all evil with his eye, Prov. 20.8. meaning all public evil which cometh within his ken; as a King or public person, whether the evil be against the first or second Table; unless any make exception, and say, that either there are no sins against the first Table coming under the Magistrates view, or though they do, yet they are not evil. 4 It was a stated doctrine in the time of Job( who by the most judicious is thought to live before Moses) and it is attested and approved by the Holy Ghost, that sins against the first Table, as Idolatry, was iniquity to be punished by the Judges, Job 31.26, 27, 28. as well as sins against the second Table, as Adultery, ibid. vers. 9. and 11. Those Rulers of old did thus as Members of the national Church of the Jews, the same persons being Members of Church and Common-wealth; but it is not always so now. 1 Then at least where Magistrates are Members of Churches, they may in these dayes exercise such power. 2 Though they were Members both of Church and State, yet they were to put forth their Coercive power civilly, not as Members of the Church, but of the State, else it had been to confounded Church and State, yea, to make God( which directed to it) to be the author of that confusion. 3 They were to punish such to whom they stood in no Church relation at all, but merely Civil, for sins against the first Table. Hence Ahab was blamed for not punishing Benhadad blaspheming God, as if a God of the hills, but not of the valleys: Hence Nehemiah's resolution to punish even any of those strangers which should profane the Sabbath, chap. 13. 4 Job, and those Judges mentioned in his time, as bound to punish Idolatry, were no Members of the Jewish Church. If you make the example of the Princes of Israel, acting Coercively in matters of Religion for Magistrates imitation, why do not you make the Levites a pattern also to Ministers now, to act as they did civilly, in civil censures? 1 It's not clear that the Levites did act any further than by counsel, or at most by some general consent to that which the Princes were formally to Act. 2 If the Levites did act in matters of the State by a peculiar liberty, it doth not follow, that this can invalidate the Rulers power, then acting in matters of Religion; as if by a peculiar liberty also, unless the Objection could be bottomed on the proportion betwixt the Levites then, and the Rulers then: Thus, that as the Levites which by special liberty( proper to those times, and so not imitable now) did intermeddle in matters peculiar to Magistrates, so the Magistrates then did intermeddle in matters peculiar to the Priests, by a liberty proper to those times; and this would be cross to express Text, 2 Chron. 26.16. where Uzzias med●… g with Priestly matters of offering Incense, is made a transgression against the Lord, for which he was afterward ruined. 3 We make the Levites intermeddling judi●ially in Civil matters, therefore not imitable, because what they are supposed to do that way, was by a liberty peculiar to that time; but we make the example of the civil Rulers acting their Coercive power in matters of Religion, imitable, because not peculiar to the Jewish Church, as appears, in that what power they that way exercised, the same in substance did Job, and other Judges in his time, by Divine direction and approbation, put forth; yea the judicial act of nabuchadnezzar in punishing Ahab and Zedekiah with death, not for their Adultery onely( a sin against the second Table) but for their false doctrine( a matter of Religion) was of Gods appointment, Jer. 29.21. with 23. and hence by Gods appointment was this execution of Gods vengeance on them, made a proverbial Curse, vers. 22. A second Argument is, in that it's recorded as a most desperate and accursed estate of old, that they had no King or chief Ruler in Israel, to restrain, as Adultery, and murder( sins against the second Table, Judges 19.1. with chap. 20.) so Idolatry( a sin against the first Table, chap. 17.1.& 18.1. compared) but every man had his liberty, to do what was right in his own eyes. The third Argument is, in that it is recorded as a matter of special guidance and direction of God, and acknowledged by Ezra, inspired by the Spirit, as a special mercy of God to his people, that Artaxerxes an Heathen King, had an heart to put forth his coercive power enjoining things commanded of God, and forbidding, with sanction of suitable punishments, the evils, whether against the laws of the King, or against the laws of God, whether concerning Religion, or righteousness: whence we argue, that this use of the civil power was of God of old, and therefore the same is as well of God now. Artaxerxes was indeed an instrument in the hand of Christ, but not therefore a Type of Christ: Nor was this of the nature of a mere Jewish judicial Law, because enjoining punishments, moral offences being punishable; and yet not therefore of a mere judicial nature, or merely against a judicial Law; besides this act of Artaxerxes respected civil matters, and matters of the second Table( which none will challenge as not imitable) as well as matters of Religion. And that which some object, that he did this for fear of wrath, rather confirmeth the morality of the use of such power, then otherwise. For what ground of fear in not putting forth such coercive power, if the omission of it were not sinful? Yea, if the use of such a coercive power in matters of Religion, were not according to Gods mind( as our opposites say) he might rather more groundedly have feared Gods wrath for such an high offence, as usurpation of a power which the Lord disliked, and forbade. Thus much of the first head of Arguments from the Old Testament; those from the New follow, and they are four. From the New Testament. The first is taken from Rom. 13. If God will have every soul in and of the Churches, and that of Rome, as well as others, to be subject to civill Magistrates, as being powers ordained of God, v. 1. an Ordinance of God, v. 2. a terror not to good works, but to evil, v. 3. the ministry of God for their good, v. 4. and that for conscience sake, v. 5. Then Magistrates are to put forth coercive power in such matters of Religion, respecting the outward man. But the former is true, ergo, the latter. All this may be true, and yet verified onely in matters of the second Table, and is extended to matters of the first, yet onely to such things as are against the Law of Nations, or the light of Nature, and so no proof of that for which it is urged. He is a terror to evil works, but it is not said he is so to all evil works. 1 If all this be restrained according to the intent of the Objection, then is none to have praise, approbation, encouragement from Civil Authority, by reason of matters of Faith, or of Religion, but for matters of righteousness onely: or if for any matters of Religion, yet onely for such as stand with the light of nature, and Law of Nations, as the third Verse must be Expounded. For if it be supposed, that it is an act of Justice( whereof the Magistrate is Minister) to distribute rewards in any matters of Religion, that appears in the walk of the outward man, and respect godly peace in way of encouragement, it must needs be an act of like justice, to distribute punishments to the contrary. The Magistrate being, according to the Apostles distribution, a Minister of God, as well when he encourageth good, as when he represseth and punisheth evil. 2 The Objection would make onely offences against the rules of the second Table, or at most, those that are against the Law of nature and Nations( which come under the view of the Magistrate, as a public Minister of God) to be evil works, and not other sins of like public cognizance& concernment, respecting other matters of Religion. For if both sorts of offences are evil, he being a terror to evil works indefinitely, which come to his public cognizance, he is a terror ex officio, to both; and it is vain to say, he saith evil works, not all evil works; for so he saith, he is not a terror to good works, but saith not, to all good works, and therefore if that indefinite ( good works) be not equivalent to that general ( all good works) he may then it seems be a terror to some good works which come under his public cognizance. 3 We are yet to speak of that limitation, where the New Testament alloweth the civil Magistrate power, as in matters of righteousness, so in matters of Religion; so far namely as the light of nature, and Law of Nations extendeth in matters of the outward man, which come to his public view: but restraineth him from meddling further in any matters of Religion, of like public cognizance and concernment. That Scripture ground of this distinction and restriction, would be produced. I, when Paul wrote this Epistle to the Romans, their Rulers were Pagans, and what coercive power was it likely they would put forth in any matters of Religion, unless against the true Religion, as undermining their paganism; Crying down the same as worship of Devils, and teaching them to cast off their Heathen Gods as no Gods? They did not look at Jesus Christ as their supreme Lord, but as a new upstart God in comparison of their Roman Gods; and to make penal Laws against false doctrine or Religion, had been to make laws against themselves as well as others, and to make laws against the present light of their own consciences. This no way weakeneth, but strengtheneth what we have said: For if even those Pagan Rulers in Pauls time, were( by their Office Ministers of God) then bound to improve their Authority for the ratifying and establishing of his laws, and for those of the first, as well as second Table, and then bound by their Office( as Ministers of God) to rule for him, and the exacting of his rule in and over their subjects. And that they did not know, and do thus, it was their sin. Many of them thought plurality of wives, fornication, rash divorces, incestuous marriages, usury, &c. no sin, and it may be said, if they had made laws against these, they had made laws against themselves, and the light of their own consciences, as thinking in their seduced, blinded consciences, that these were lawful; yet all will say, they were all Ministers of God, and bound to know and do otherwise. Nero is branded for a beastly person, a lion, in that he abused that Authority of his, which of right should have been improved for encouragement of Paul in his Ministry and doctrine, to be a means to endeavour to destroy and devour him, 2 Tim. 4.17. 2 A second Argument is taken from 1 Tim. 2.1, 2. We are to pray that we may have such Magistrates as may act Authoritatively in matters of Religion and piety, as well as of righteousness and honesty; therefore it is the mind of God, that civil Magistrates should put forth their power in the one as well as in the other. Yea but some have said, If you now allow civil Rulers power in matters of Religion, they will persecute us. The Apostle doth not answer; pray therefore in these persecuting times of Romish Emperours, that they may not meddle at all coercively in matters of Religion, as being to usurp power not belonging to them; but rather pray that they may use this power which they have aright, or as we may peaceably exercise acts of Religion, as well as honesty; nor doth he say, pray that they may deal in matters of Religion negatively, that is, so as authoritatively to hinder any from disturbing any Christian in that which he taketh up for truth or piety; or in any opinion which he may hold, and yet be a godly man; no more then he saith, pray that they may deal so in matters of honesty, as to hinder any from disturbance in any supposed course of honesty, yea in any acts of dishonesty, which may be incident to one, that yet in the main is godly, for that were to pray to be let alone in all ungodliness or dishonesty: Nor doth he say, pray that every one may live according to his Conscience, or hold out any opinion, tenant, or practise, suiting with his conscience, so it race not the foundation of godliness; but pray for them, that we may live in all godliness peaceably, or that we may with quietness and encouragement so carry it, as will stand with godliness itself, yea with godliness in the highest degree of it, or any part of it, in all godliness. A third Argument is taken from Isa. 49.23. which though a Scripture of the Old, yet respecting the dayes of the New Testament, and the substance of the Argument stands thus. It is the mind of God that civil Rulers in the dayes of the New Testament should Authoritatively act in spiritual things, which are to the Church as milk; therefore it's his mind that in these dayes they should act Authoritatively in matters of Religion, we say to act Authoritatively, because to act as Fathers and Mothers, and therefore not to act merely alluringly( as some say) or in a general way of countenance, but coercively: Fathers act fatherly in commanding, in forbidding, and in punishing, as well as in kissing, and giving good words; in taking the rod, as giving an Apple; nor doth he say, they should be Nurses, as if they were to take upon them to act officially in Preaching or in administration, whether of Church seals, or of Church censures. The nature of the similitude forbids it. Nurse-fathers cannot give milk to the Child, but Nurse-fathers, and Nurse-mothers, to take Authoritative care, what milk either Church-Officers, or any others yield forth to the Church, to see that it be good, and accordingly to reward and encourage it, to look that it be not bad, but coercively to restrain it, at least from being milked forth to the Churches hurt: Albeit if kept within the breast that bread it, it is out of their cognizance; nor is this spoken of Heathen Rulers, as Pagans, not Christians, but of such which though as civil Rulers they command in matters of Religion, or righteousness, yet as Members of the Church they obey the Church, stooping to its doctrine and discipline so, they lick up the dust of the Churches feet. 4 A fourth Argument is taken from Zech. 13.2, 3, 4, 5, 6. it is prophesied of as an approved act, of the zealous Members of the purest Churches to be in the dayes of the Gospel, to make use of the coercive power of the civil Magistrate in matters of doctrine( a matter of Religion:) therefore it's the mind of God that in these dayes such coercive power in matters of Religion should be exercised; nor may any here restrain these words to Church-censures, it being not the use of the Holy Ghost to express Church-censures greater and lesser, by taking away the life, wounds, and works in the hands, but rather proveth that power of civil Authority to inflict death in some cases of false doctrine, and some other reproachful corporal punishments, in some cases of errors which are not of moment as the other. Thus much for the Arguments proving the Position; we shall briefly now take off two or three general Objections, and then come to a close of this Question. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but spiritual: Therefore no such use now to the people of God of such carnal weapons as the penal laws or censures of Civil Magistrates in matters of Religion. It's the unhappiness of the most of the Arguments in the late Pamphlets and Pleas for Liberty, used against this Coercive power of the Magistrate in some cases which we pled for, that if they be forcible, they conclude universally, even against that coercive power which our opposites allow to him in matters of the second Table, and so far also of the first, as in things against the light of nature, and Law of Nations: And of this we have a taste in this Argument; for besides the mistake of applying this, as if meant of other persons, then of Church Officers( contrary to the very scope of the Text) the Argument concludeth against the use of Civil Magistrates power by Civil Rulers in matters of the second Table, as well as of the first, because spiritual weapons are as weighty to pull down strong holds against the second Table, as well as against the first: Of like nature is that Objection, Christs kingdom is not of this world, this( if of any force) excluding wholly, takes away the Magistrates power in both Tables. The Church hath sufficient power to reach her ends, in kerbing or curing offences in any matters of Religion; therefore what need is there of such coercive power therein of the Civil Magistrate. Suppose it were granted, that therefore the Church, as a Church, stood not in need thereof: yet the Church, considered as a Civil Society, stood in need thereof, and so far the state of the question were yielded. Or what if the Church had no need, yet in respect of other subjects enjoying the light of the Gospel, though not actually of the Church, as persons not yet joined to any Church, or such as are actually cast out of the Church, that power might be most needful; else they might vent things as well against the light of nature, as Law of Nations, or deny things obstinately, which are fundamental, albeit not against the light of nature, or Law of Nations; as for example, that Jesus Christ is the Redeemer and onely mediator; that the Scriptures are the word of God, &c. should yet not be restrained: yea, that were to suppose some under the shining of the Gospel, left of the Lord in a lawless condition( in respect of any Authority to restrain them) in matters of Religion; the Civil power may not meddle with them, and ecclesiastical cannot, as not being actually of the Church. 2 The Church hath sufficient power to reach her ends, in kerbing and curing offences of the second Table; yet none will thence conclude, that therefore no need no the Church therein, of the Coercive power of the Magistrate. 3 The Church aimeth at restraint from infection of others, as well as amending the parties themselves; now supposing the Church casting out a person for obstinate holding of heretical tenants, yet the Church cannot now restrain him any further in any Ecclesiastical way, but that he may now do more mischief in spreading his tenant then ever, unless the Magistrate also exercise his Coercive power. 4 The Church may in case by clamorous noise, made in the Assembly, or otherwise by faction, be hindered from the exercise of its power to cen●ure, and so although it have power enough to act, yet it will need the Magistrates help to exercise that power, unless we durst pled as some( it seems do) that in this case the Elders may act by corporal force to redress it, as Phineas the Priest did, in killing Zimri, and Cozbi, disturbing the Congregation then humbling themselves before God; but we say, that was extraordinary, as was the act of Samuel in cutting Agag in pieces; of Elijah in putting Baals Priests to death; and Peters act against the life of Ananias and Saphira; nor would we pled the Priests example, 2 Chron. 26. in thrusting out Uzziah out of the Temple, or such like Arguments; supposing that the Priests of old, and the Levites might, by a dispensation peculiar to those times, be allowed more liberty of acting in matters of a Civil nature, both in the great Synedrion, and other where, then any of us dare say is imitable by, or allowable to Churches, or Church Officers now. Thirdly and lastly, the tares are commanded to be let alone, Mat. 13.29, 30. Therefore what Authority hath the Magistrate to restrain or punish men now under the Gospel, but rather to leave Christians to the liberty of their own Consciences? This is a Parable, and therefore to be taken in the scope and substance, and not according to the circumstances thereof, as Peter Martyr noteth in this case. Now the scope of part of the Parable, is not to be a direction unto us, what we shall do in point of exercise of any power with us, but contains simply a doctrine of providence, what God will order to be the condition of his visible Church in this world, and therefore to show, that Christ intended not any rule of precept of our duty in this sentence of the Parable, vers. 29, 30.( Nay let both grow together) he doth not in his after exposition of the several branches of the Parable, insist at all on the branch mentioned, to give any explication thereof; and if it were any direction, it must either look to Civil or Church power; if to Civil power, then since the tares are expressly interpnted to be the Children of the Devil, and such as offend, and do iniquity, and are as reprobates to be burned, or damned, vers. 38. Then the worst wretches that live, Murderers, buggers, traitors, &c. must be all let alone in their sins, and onely left to Christs Judgement at the last day. And our opposites have least reason to stretch this Parable, as respecting any restraint of the use of the Civil power, when the very scope of it, is not to tell us touching the state of the Civil kingdom in this world, but rather of the state of the kingdom of God, or the ecclesiastical part of the world( the visible Church) and if it look at any restraint of the use of power, it striketh rather at the use of Church power; but if it look at Church power, then the Churches are not to censure heretics, no, not though obstinate, contrary to Titus 3. No incestuous, adulterous, covetous Church-members; contrary to 1 Cor. 5. And that the Parable never intended any abridgement of either powers in the just exercise thereof, is evident in that it speaketh 1 Of such an extirpation of offenders as is onely possible to Angels armed with Christs power; and 2 Of an universal extirpation of all, and every reprobate, from among the company of the Elect; neither of which hinders, but that 1 To such particular offenders as may be rooted up by Civil and Church power, without danger and hurt to godly ones; as are obstinate seducers, heretics, and they may and ought so to be. 2 Such particular offenders, which by their continuance amongst Gods people, do over-run, and over-top them, in such sort as they are hurt and endangered by them, and they cannot grow and thrive spiritually by reason of them, they may& ought to be rooted out by both powers; for if there be any force in the Parable in this way, it is to show, that the tares are to be suffered, in reference, not to the hurt, but to the good of the wheat; so that which tends to the corrupting, blasting, and destruction of the wheat, is therefore to be removed, because hurtful and pernicious to the wheat; so that our opposites would gain nothing to their cause, by pressing this Parable, as directory that way to us; but wee rather( upon the reasons before going) conceive it to be set down not as a direction, or any Command of Christ enjoining us thus or thus to do; but as a doctrinal instruction, that God may and will in his providence suffer for a time, mixtures of good and bad together, elect and reprobate, in his visible Church; nor are we to fret, or be discontented at his providence in it, or to think that by any course wee can take, it will be otherwise, whilst, and where ever we are in this world; like to that speech of Paul, 1 Cor. 5 10. Now in the close of all, let it be considered whose doctrine doth most infringe true liberty of conscience; those which would have every Christian left to the liberty of his own conscience, in matters of Religion, which at least are not against the light of nature, Law of Nations, or those that maintain the fore-named power of the Magistrate; for suppose the Magistrate be a Christian, he must be left to the liberty of his Conscience too, as well as others: Now if left to the Lesbian warping rule, what if he in his own Conscience, through temptation and error, be in most things a Papist, which may stand with the Law of Nature and Nations, or suppose he in Conscience deny Jesus Christ to be the mediator, or such and such Books in the Old and New Testament to be the word of God, yea, or that there is any use of the Scriptures, but we must onely depend on Revelations; and herein the Law of nature and Nations leaves him: Now he in Conscience thinks, he is bound to establish this as a Rule to all others, which to him is the truth; and in conscience to oppose all contrary doctrine, what then will become of subjects liberty? The word is not made the rule to regulate this Rulers Conscience, according as we say it should; for if that were so his Rule, there were a remedy and way to bring him to the Rule; but his conscience, judgement, and phantasy, touching the Rule that is by this tenant made his Rule, according to which he must be left freely to act without restraint. The mischiefs necessary following this, if once cried up, we leave to such of our opposites sadly and seriously to consider of. The Nature& Power OF SYNODS. The Second Question. WHat be the grounds from Scripture to warrant Synods? In answer to this Question, we shall propound to consideration three Arguments from Scripture, and five Reasons. Arguments. Taken from Acts 15. An orderly Assembly of qualified Church-messengers( Elders and other Brethren) in times of controversy and danger, concerning weighty matters of Religion, for the considering, disputing, finding out and clearing of the truth, from the Scripture, and establishing of Peace amongst the Churches, is founded upon Acts 15. But a Synod is an orderly Assembly of qualified Church-messengers( Elders and other Brethren) in times of controversy and danger, concerning weighty matters of Religion, for the considering, disputing, finding out, and clearing of the truth, from the Scriptures, and establishing of peace amongst the Churches. Ergo, A Synod is founded upon Acts 15. For the confirming of this Argument, three distinctions are to be premised and some Objections to be satisfied. The first distinction is for the clearing of the question; the other with the satisfaction to the Objection, for the clearing of the Text. The necessity of Synods is either 1 Absolute. 2 Respective. Synods are not necessary Absolutely, i.e. unto the being, but respectively, i.e. unto the well-being of Churches. In this Synod some things are first Extraordinary, and not Exemplary, some whereof were certainly so, and the rest may seem to be so unto divers. As 1 The Quality of some of the Members, sc. Apostles, v. 6.23. 2 The style, v. 28. 3 The manner of the Imposition of their Sentence, as immediately and politically binding, at least as some Expound the place. 4 The Object upon whom they imposed the keeping of their Decrees, viz. absent Churches, vers. 23. chap. 16.4. some of which were neither called, nor had ordinary Members, or Messengers there. Others were Ordinary, ergo Exemplary, as 1 The public meeting of Church-messengers, Elders, and other Brethren. 2 The propounding of matters to be considered. 3 The disputing of them, v. 7. 4 The joint resolutions of the questions, out of, and according to the Scriptures, v. 15, 16. 5 The declaration and delivery thereof unto the Churches, to be accepted of, and kept by them, Acts 16. v. 4. 6 Order in all. The Apostles were Elders and Members of every Church, ergo, here were assembled Elders and Messengers of all Churches, ergo, in some respect it may be called an universal Counsel. Hence look upon what was extraordinary, so it may warrant the greatest Counsel; look upon what was ordinary therein, and so it warrants the smallest Counsel. In this Synod are to be considered the Substantials: Matter and form. Circumstantials: Constantly, such as necessary accompany every Synod. Occasionally, which accompany the Synod pro hic& nunc( i e.) according to the circumstances of this time and this place. That which is commanded as continually binding, Acts 15. is the circumstantials of a Synod, the constant circumstantials, and such occasionally as are to edification, pro hic& nunc. These two last distinctions rightly applied, may satisfy many lighter Objections, which we shall not therefore trouble the Reader with. If in times of controversy, about weighty matters of Religion, Taken by proportion from Gal. 2.2. the Assembling together of Apostles( who knew the truth before they came on to the Synod, and one of them was greater than all particular Churches) was needful for the testifying to the carrying on of the truth( which is less than the finding out, testifying to, carrying on of the truth) if warranted out of the Scripture, then the Assembling together of Churches by themselves, or by Church-messengers( either of which is a Synod) to the finding out, testifying to, and better carrying on of the truth, is warrantable out of the Scriptures. But in such times of controversy, the Assembling together of Apostles( one of whom was greater than all particular Churches) for the testifying to, and better carrying on of the truth, is warranted out of the Scripture, Gal. 2.2. Ergo, In such times of controversy, the Assembling together of Churches by themselves, or by the Church-messengers( either of which is a Synod) for the finding out, testifying to, and better carrying on of the truth, is warranted out of the Scripture. The Argument proceeds from the greater to the lesser, thus; If the truth in times of weighty controversies had need of the help of the Assembling together of Apostles, then in like times it hath much more need of the Assembling together of Churches. If Apostles at such times had need of the help of other Apostles, then Churches in like times had need of the help of other Churches. Such Assemblies, the examples whereof are recorded and approved in the Scripture, are warranted out of the Scriptures. But the orderly Assembly of the qualified people of God, for the considering of matters of Religion, in times of weighty controversies, are such Assemblies, the examples whereof are recorded,& commended in the Scriptures, erg. The orderly Assembly of qualified persons for the considering of matters of Religion, in times of weighty controversies, is warranted out of the Script: Ezra 7.14. Minor proved. Ezra inquires of the Lord ( id est) consults of the worship of God. 1 Chron. 13.2. David consults with the Congregation concerning the carrying of the Ark to its place. 2 Chr. 30.2. Hezekiah had taken Counsel of all his Princes, and all the Congregation in Jerusalem, to keep the Passeover in the second month. The approved examples of the godly, of imitable and useful nature in practical cases, is a rule unto us. When the cause of a Synod remains, there opportunity being had, From the Causes. the warrantable use of Synods remaines. But under the Gospel the causes of Synods remain, ergo. Under the Gospel the use of Synods is warrantable. The Causes of Synods are either preventing, removing of, or recovering from errors and divisions; or providing for, preserving of, or restoring of truth and peace in matters of Religion. Where there is use of the Ends of Synods, From the End of Synods. namely to clear and declare the truth from scripture, in times of weighty controversy, there the use of Synods is warrantable. But under the Gospel there is use of the end of Synods, namely to clear and declare the truth from Scripture, in times of weighty controversy, ergo. Under the Gospel the use of Synods is warrantable. pre-eminency of knowledge, concerning Church matters, is in the Synod; hence the question is aris'd to the Synod. Church Authority is onely placed in the Churches; hence the cause remaines with the particular Churches. That which is the greatest external means of the Union of Churches, From the Communion of Churches. in one judgement, and consequently an especial help to preserve communion of particular Churches, is of warrantable use. But a Synod is the greatest external means to Unite Churches in one judgement, by conferring apprehensions for the concurring in the same Sentence: ergo, a Synod is of warrantable use. That without which particular Churches in divers of their Administrations are in danger to run in vain, From the Efficacy of Church-Administrations. is of warrantable use: But without the approbation of other Churches for the end whereof Synods are an especial means, particular Churches are in divers of their Administrations in danger to run in vain, from the example of the Apostles, Gal. 2.2. Ergo, Synods are of warrantable use. If the weighty Transactions of each particular Church are such( and so concerning particular Neighbouring Churches) as that it is meet that all Neighbouring Churches should be acquainted and consulted with thereabout, From the Nature of Church-matters. and Synods be the fittest means for that end; then Synods be of warrantable use: But the weighty Transactions of all particular Churches are such( and so concerning all particular Neighbouring Churches) as that it is meet that all neighbouring Churches be acquainted and consulted with thereabout; and Synods be the fittest means to that end, ergo, Synods are of warrantable use. Quod tangit omnes, spectat ad omnes. The Cognizance of that belongs to all, whose practise concerns all. Objections against the urging of that Synod, Acts 15. as an example warranting our ordinary SYNODS. Object. 1. Paul and Barnabas, and the other Brethren sent by the Church of Antioch, were sent unto the Elders and Apostles, vers. 2. but we do not red that the Churches were sent unto, which in ordinary Synods order calls for. Resp. 1. Though it be not in so many words expressed that the Churches were sent unto, yet it cannot be denied but they might be sent unto implicitly, though not explicitly. 2 'tis not to be doubted, but that the Church of Antioch, and the Church of Jerusalem, walked by the same rule: As therefore Paul and Barnabas went not to this Assembly without the cognizance of the Church of Antioch, so we may well think the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem came not to this Assembly without the cognizance of the Church of Jerusalem. 3 Considering the extraordinary power of the Apostles: It is a sufficient acknowledgement of the liberty of Churches, that they had orderly and seasonable notice of the Assembly, were present at it, and were joined together with the Apostles in the conclusions of it; all which are manifest from the Text, either in express words, or just Consequence from thence, vers. 4.22, 23. Object. 2. Our Synods consisting onely of such Members as are Messengers of Churches, seem not to be exemplified by that, Acts 15. because that Assembly was constituted not of Messengers of the Church of Antioch, and the whole Fraternity of the Church of Jerusalem. Resp. 1. It's not to be doubted but the Apostles and Elders were present, according to the desire of the Church of Jerusalem, and so were as Messengers. 2 'tis all one upon this point, whether a Church be present by the Fraternity itself, or by their Messengers: If conveniency of the place, and transaction of affairs will permit, 'tis at the choice of the Fraternity to be present immediately, or to sand their Messengers. 3 What the Fraternity of Jerusalem did here, the like may the Fraternity of any Church in like cases do with us; as the Church of Cambridge( for instance) now if they please. 4 Where the Fraternity is present formally, there the Messengers are present virtually. 5 In such cases where the presence of the Fraternity immediately, or sending of Messengers are occasional circumstances( of which before) 'tis in the liberty of the Fraternity to do as they judge most for their Edification. Object. 3. The judgement of the question in our Synods or Assemblies, ordinarily proceeds jointly from the Messengers of all Churches; at least the mayor part of them. But the judgement concerning matters agitated in that Synod, Acts 15. seems to proceed from one part thereof onely, namely the Church of Jerusalem, as appears by the Letters sent from thence, not mentioning any part of that judgement, as proceeding from the Church Messengers of Antioch. Resp. 1. We may distinguish between the Synods passing for acts of judgement upon the Question discussed, and the sending of that judgement passed by the Synod. That the Messengers of the Church of Antioch did judge jointly with the Church of Jerusalem, concerning the matters agitated in that Synod, appears thus: In every regular discharge of the duty of the Church-messengers in a Synod where there is a concurrence of ability, right, and duty, to pass an actual judgement, as declarative to the truth, there was an actual judgement. But such was the case in this Synod, ergo. The Reason why the judgement of the Church of Jerusalem, and not of the Messengers of the Church of Antioch, is onely made mention of in the letter, might be, because the judgement of the Church-Messengers of Antioch was already known to the Church; nor had they any doubt of their Messengers concurrence with the Church of Jerusalem in the present Conclusions; if there were any doubt in that respect, they were personally present to satisfy it. 2 Because the contrary minded had already signified their non acquiescence or not resting, either in the judgement of the Church of Antioch, or their Messengers, in the delivery of the Decrees of the Synod unto Churches, there appears not any cause out of the Text, to doubt the delivery of the same, as the joint judgement of them all, but the contrary. Object. 4. A party may not be a Judge. Paul and Barnabas were parties in this business, Acts 15. ergo. Resp. 1. Paul and Barnabas here are not properly parties, in that they act not their own case, but the case of the truth,& that as sent from the Church. 2 Though they be supposed to be parties, yet it's not universally true, that a party may not be a Judge. As 1 In case the party offended be a society, or some public person equivalent. 2 In case the party in such acts of judgement, be freed from error; which was the present condition of the Apostles, guided in their administrations by an infallible spirit. Object. 5. This Synod, Acts 15. so speaketh, {αβγδ} Septuag. {αβγδ} some call it {αβγδ}, vid. Schindl. Lexi. as having power to lay the truth of God( cleared and declared by it) as a burden upon the Churches, v. 28. which our ordinary Synods seem not to have power to do. Resp. The notion or term [ burden] may be taken politically ( i. e.) for a truth imposed by virtue of Church power and Authority: this though the Apostles as Apostles might do, yet if they did so in this place( which we rather conceive not) it was extraordinary, and Consequently not Exemplary. Or the word burden, may be taken for the charging of the Church to receive and yield Obedience in the Lord unto the truth, discussed, cleared, and orderly commanded to them: In which sense if we take it here according as it's taken in divers places elsewhere, Pro. 30.1.& 21.1. Rev. 2.24. then the style or manner of speaking is exemplary. OF THE POWER OF Synods. The Third Question. WHat is the Power of a Synod? The Power of a Synod Is Decisive Directive,& Declarative of the truth, by clearing and evidencing the same out of the word of God; non coactive, yet more than discretive. For the better understanding hereof, consider that ecclesiastical Power is 1 Decisive, in determining by way of discussion and disputation, what is truth, and so consequently resolving the Question in weighty matters of Religion, Acts 15.16, 28.& 16.4. This belongs to the Synod. 2 Discretive, in discerning of the truth or falsehood that is determined; this belongs to every Believer. 3 Coactive or judicial( for we omit to speak in this place of Official judgement) in judging of the truth determined Authoritatively, so as to impose it with Authority, and to censure the disobedient with Ecclesiastical censure, 1 Cor. 5.12. Mat. 18.17. This belongeth to every particular Church. The judgement of a Synod is in some respect superior, in some respect inferior to the judgement of a particular Church; it is superior in respect of direction; inferior in respect of jurisdiction, which it hath none. Quere. How, and how far doth the sentence of a Synod bind? Answ. We must distinguish between the Synods declaration of the truth, and the political imposition of the truth declared by the Synod. The Synods declaration of the truth binds not politically, but formally onely, ( i.e.) in foro interiori( i.e.) it binds the conscience, and that by way of the highest institution that is merely doctrinal. The political Imposition of the truth declared by the Synod, is ecclesiastical, or Civil: ecclesiastical, by particular Churches, and this binds not onely formally, but politically, in foro exteriori, i.e. it binds the outward man, Supremi Magistratus approbatio est supremum( ut soquuntar) arrestum. Fr. Hom. disp. 18. Th. 4.& disp. 17. Thes. 3. so as the disobedient in matters of offence, is subject unto Church censure, affirmatively, towards their own Members; negatively, by non communion, as concerning others, whether Church or Members. Civil, by the Magistrate strengthening the truth thus declared by the Synod, and approved by the Churches, either by his mere Authoritative suffrage, assent, and testimony,( if the matter need no more) or by his authoritative Sanction of it by Civill punishment, the nature of the offence so requiring. In this orderly proceeding of the Churches, and Civil Magistrate together in their respective political imposition of the truth cleared and declared by the Synod, we are to be understood to speak of such a place wherein the Christian Magistrates walk together orderly, reserving ecclesiastical binding power to the particular Churches, where either there is no Magistrate, or the Magistrate is wanting in his duty; as also civil power to the Christian Magistrate, where the Churches are wanting to their duty. The Fourth Question. To whom belongeth the power of calling a Synod? For satisfaction to this Question, we shall propound one distinction, and answer three Queries. Distin: The power of calling Synods is either Single Authoritative, belonging to the Magistrates. ministerial, belonging to the particular Churches. Mint When both proceed orderly and jointly in the use of their several powers. Arguments, proving the Authoritative Power of Calling SYNODS, to belong to the Magistrate. 1 Because the Magistrate is Custos utriusque Tabulae, i.e. Charged with the custody of both Tables; That he is keeper of the second Table is granted, that he is keeper of the former, is sufficiently proved in the first Question. 2 From the recorded and approved examples of godly Kings in the Scriptures: David, 1 Chron. 23.2. Hezekiah, 2 Chron. 29.4. Josiah, 2 Kin. 23.1, 2. 3 From the nature of such great Assemblies: Though synodical Assembling be spiritual, yet mere assembling of a multitude together( which a synodical Assembly presupposeth) is a Civil act, and therefore cannot in good policy be suffered without the consent of the Magistrate. 4 From the necessary( though not essential) requisites to the being of a Synod, as place, time, manner of meeting, peace, all which need the consent of the Magistrate in case of violent disturbance: the Churches as such, having no civill power to defend them, cannot but want the assistance of the Magistrate, that they may meet and transact the matters of the Synod in safety and quietness. 5 From the proportion that the Magistrates Con-coactive or calling power of a Synod, holds with his confirmation of the conclusions of the Synod; the same reason that warrants his confirming power for the better strengthening the observation of the conclusions of the Synod, warrants his calling power for the better being of the Synod. Arguments proving the ministerial Power of Calling Synods( which may be fitly called a power of liberty, because Churches therein have no Authority one over another) to belong unto the particular Churches. 1 From that famous example, Acts 15. where the Synod meets, and sits, without the call of Civil Authority; there being then no Christian Magistrate. 2 Because the power of the constitution of Synods, as properly such, firstly resideth with, ariseth from, and lastly returneth to particular Churches. 3 Because the power of the Magistrate tends not to the being, but to the better being of Synods; and added thereunto is accumulative, not privative ( i.e.) it adds strength to it, but takes not any power from it: Hence a Synod may in case be without any consent of the Magistrate, but cannot be without some consent, explicit or implicit, of the Churches. 4 Because the Lord Jesus hath invested the Churches with sufficient ecclesiastical power in the best ecclesiastical manner, to attain their ecclesiastical end, which yet were not, if they had not power of themselves by joint content to call a Synod. Queries. In what case may the Magistrate proceed to call a Synod without the consent of the Churches? The Magistrate in case the Churches be defective, and not to be prevailed with, for the performance of their duty,( just cause so requiring) may call a Synod, and the Churches ought to yield obedience thereunto. But notwithstanding the refusal, he may proceed to call an Assembly, and that for the same end that a Synod meets for, namely, to consider of, and clear the truth from the Scriptures, in weighty matters of Religion: But such an Assembly called and gathered without the consent of the Churches, is not properly that which is usually understood by a Synod, for though it be in the power of the Magistrate to Call, yet it is not in his power to Constitute a Synod, without at least the implicit consent of the Churches: Because Church-Messengers, who necessary presuppose an explicit( which order calls for) or implicit consent of the Churches, are essential to a Synod. In what case may the Churches call a Synod without the consent of the Magistrate? In case the Magistrate be defective, and not to be prevailed with for the performance of his duty; just cause, providence, and prudence concurring: The Churches may both Call and Constitute a Synod: The Reason why the Churches can Constitute a Synod without the consent of the Magistrate, although the Magistrate cannot constitute a Synod without the consent of the Churches, is because the essentialls of a Synod, together with such other cause, as is required to the being( though not so much to the better being) of a Synod, ariseth out of particular Churches: as appears from the following Enumeration of the Causes thereof: The essential material formal final Cause: Remote The Authoritative Call of the Magistrate. Next The ministerial Call of the Churches. The Members of the Synod ( i.e.) qualified Church-Messengers. The meeting together of such Church-Messengers in the name of Christ. To consider of, and clear the truth in question from the word of God. In case the Magistrate and Churches are both willing to proceed orderly in the joint exercise of their several Powers, whether it is lawful for either of them to call a Synod without the Consent of the other? No; they are to proceed now by way of a mixed Call ( i.e.) orderly and jointly in the use of their several Powers. That which learned Parker speaks of the Power of particular Churches, concerning Calling of SYNODS, holds also in this case concerning the Power of the Magistrate; Their Powers are divers, yet in respect of exercise they ought not to be divers, nor divided the one from the other, as before. The Churches desire, the Magistrate Commands; Churches act in a way of liberty, the Magistrate in a way of Authority. Moses and Aaron should go together, and kiss one another in the Mount of GOD. FINIS. Courteous Reader; BY reason of the Death of the Reverend Author, and the far distance of his loving Friend( the Publisher of this book) some faults may have escaped the press, for the which the Printer desireth excuse. Vale.