The Due Right of Presbyteries

Object. 2. If ever the Apostles were led by an infallible spirit, 〈◊〉 to be in a matter like this, which so much concerned the 〈◊〉 and consciences of all the Christian Churches amongst the Gen 〈◊〉 : E • go, in this Synod they could not be led by a fallible spirit, but •• an infallible, and so by an Apostolic Spirit.

Answ. I conceive the spirit which led both Apostles and Elders in this Synod, was an infallible Spirit, but Ergo, an immediately inspiring and Apostolic Spirit, it followeth not; yea the holy Ghost of which Luke doth speak, v. 28. as the president and leader of this first mould of all Synods, and so the most perfect Synod, is never fallible, no not in the meanest believer, and it were blasphemy to say the holy Ghost in any can be obnoxious to error; and I think de facto, neither Apostles nor Elders could err in this Synod, because, de fact • , they followed the conduct of the holy Ghost, without any bias in judgment; but it followeth not, 1. that the men could not err, because the holy Ghost leading the men could not err, as we answer Papists who produce this same argument to prove that general councils, and so the Church must be infallible. 2. It followeth not, Ergo, this holy Ghost was that immediately inspiring and Apostolic Spirit leading both Apostles and Elders, which is the question now in hand.

Object. 3. This is a pattern of all lawful Synods, then may all lawful Synods say; It seemed good to the holy Ghost, and to us: if therefore the men might err, the leader, to wit, the holy Ghost might err, which is absurd.

Answ. It followeth only that all lawful Synods should so proceed, as they may say, It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us, and there is a wide difference betwixt Law and Fact, all are lawful Synods convened in the name and authority of Christ, and so by warrant of the holy Ghost speaking in his Word; but it followeth not (as Papists infer, and this argument proveth) that therefore all which de facto, those lawfully assembled Synods do and conclude, that they are the doings and conclusions of the holy Ghost, and that in them all, they may say, It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us. 2. The consequence is false and blasphemous, that if all lawfully convened Synods may not say, It seemed good to the holy Ghost and us, that therefore the holy Ghost is fallible, and may err, but only that men in the Synod following their own Ghost, and spirit, can say no more but, it seemed good to our Ghost and spirit, and cannot say, it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us: for an ordinary Pastor lawfully called and preaching sound doctrine in the power and assistance of God's spirit doth speak in that act from the holy Ghost, and yet because in other acts, wherein with Nathan and Samuel he may speak with his own spirit, see with his own eyes and light, it followeth not that he is infallible, or that the holy Ghost is infallible.

Object 4 Is the Apostles did not conclude in this Synod, what they 〈…〉 an Ap s • a •• k spirit, it shall follow that the holy Ghost 〈…〉 15. 28. is not that same holy Ghost of which Peter 〈◊〉 , 2 Pet. 1. 21. But holy men of God spake as they were moved 〈◊〉 Ghost, and if so, that holy Ghost which spake in the Pro 〈◊◊〉 not also speak in the Apostles.

Answ. I see no necessity of two holy Ghosts, 1 Cor. 12. 4. Now 〈◊〉 •••• ersities of gifts, but the same Spirit, there be divers acts of the same holy Ghost, and I willingly contend that the Synodical acts of Apostles and Elders in this Synod, though coming from the holy Ghost assisting them as Elders in an ordinary Synod, v. 28. are different from the acts of that same holy Ghost as immediately inspiring the Prophets and Apostles in prophesying and penning canonick Scripture; and yet there be not two holy Ghosts, for Paul did not believe in Christ by that same spirit which immediately inspired him and the rest of the Apostles and Prophets to write canonick Scripture. • mean it is not the same operation of the Spirit, because Paul by the holy Ghost given to all the faithful as Christians, and not given to them as canonical writers, or as Apostles or immediately inspired Prophets doth believe in Christ, love Christ, contend for the prize of the high calling of God, as is clear Rom. • . 37, 38, 39. 1 Cor. 2. 12. 16. Phil. 3. 13. 14. 1 Cor. 9. 25. Yea Paul believeth not in Christ as an Apostle, but as a Christian, and yet he believeth by the grace of the holy Ghost; but •• followeth not that the same spirit which immediately inspired the Prophets doth not immediately inspire Paul as an Apostle, and all the rest of the Apostles.

Object. 5. These decrees, Act. 16. 4. are called the decrees of the Apostles and Elders, but if the Apostles in giving out these decrees gave 〈◊〉 as ordinary Elders, not as Apostles, then the sense of the words, Act. 16. 4. should be, that they were the decrees of the Elders and of the Elders, which is absued.

Answ. It followeth only that they are the decrees of the Apostles who in that give them out as Elders, and as a part of the ordinary established Elders of Jerusalem.

Whence if Christ promise the holy Spirit to lead his Apostles in all truth, he promiseth also the holy Spirit to all their successors, Pastors, Teachers and Elders, not only convened in a Congregational-Church, but also in a Synod, as he maketh good his promise here, Act. 15. 28. and whereas the holy Ghost commandeth in a Synod of Apostles and Elders who are lawfully convened, by our brethren's confession, and speaketh authoritatively God's Word by the holy Ghost, Act. 15. 28. they cannot speak it as a counsel and brotherly advise only, for that a brother may do to another, a woman to a woman, Abigail to David, a maid to Naaman: we desire a warrant from God's Word, where an instituted society of Pastors and Elders convened from sundry Churches, and in that Court formally consociated and decreeing by the holy Ghost, as Act. 15. 28. against such and such heresies, shall be no other then a counsel and advise, and no Church-commandment, nor binding decree backed with this power: He that despiseth you, speaking by the holy Ghost, the Word of God, despiseth me, and whether doctrines, or canons concerning doctrine, coming from a lawful Court, convened in Christ's name, have no ecclesiastical power of spiritual jurisdiction to get obedience to their lawful decrees; for if everyone of the suffrages of Elders be but a private counsel having only authority objective from the intrinsical lawfulness of the thing, and no authority official from the Pastors, because Pastors, then the whole conclusion of the Synod shall amount to no higher rate and sum then to a mere advise and counsel. If it be said, that when they are all united in a Synod, and speaking as assembled, Act. 15. 25. and speaking thus Assembled by the holy Ghost, v. 28. the authority is more then a counsel, yet not a power of Church-jurisdiction. Then 1. give us a warrant in God's Word, for this distinction. 2. We ask whether this authority being contemned, the persons or Churches contemnibg it, be under any Church-censure, or not; if they be under a Church-censure, what is this but that the Synod hath power of censure, and so power of jurisdiction? if you say non-communion is a sufficient censure. But I pray you spare me to examine this; 1. If the sentence of non-Communion be a sentence of 〈◊〉 . it must proceed from a judicature that hath a 〈◊〉 of jurisdiction, but give me leave to say as all Church- 〈◊〉 have and must have warrant in God's Word, so must 〈◊〉 , such as non-communion, for the ordinary Church punishments, such as public rebu • ing have warrant in the Word, as in 1 Tim. 5. 20. and excommunication, 1 Cor. 5. 4. 〈◊〉 1 • . and the great Anathema Maranatha, 1 Cor. 16. 22. and forbearing to eat and drink with scandalous persons, 1 Cor. 5. 10, 11. withdrawing from his company, 2 Th • s. 3. 14. and I pray you where hath the Word taught us of such a bastard 〈◊〉 -ensure, or if you will not allow it that name, a censure indicted by the Church or Churches, as is non-communion. May our brethren without Christ's warrant shape any punishment equivalent to excommunication without God's Word? 〈◊〉 they may as well without the Word mould us such a censure as excommunication: if they say, separation warrenth this censure of non-communion. But 2. By what Law of God can an equal give out a sentence of non-communion a 〈◊〉 an equal, an equal cannot as an equal punish, when a Christian denieth followship to another because he is excommunicated, he doth not punish as an equal, for the punisher in this case denying fellowship to the excommunicated doth 〈◊〉 an equal, but as having authority from the Church, who hath given this commandment in the very sentence of communication. 1 Cor. 5. 4. compared with v. 10, 11. Separation under a great controversy, and denied in many cases •• the way of those who are more rigid therein, even by our 〈◊〉 .

2. Christ, Matth. 18. 15, 16. will not have any brother, who 〈◊〉 but private authority and no Church-authority over a bro •••• 〈…〉 non habet potestatem ) to presently renounce 〈◊〉 give up all communion with his brother, though he be 〈◊〉 before two or three witnesses, and inflict on him the sentence of non-communion, while he first tell the Church, and non-communion is inflicted on no man as if he were a heathen

〈◊〉 (to speak nothing of delivering to Satan ) while he •• convened and judicially sentenced before the Church; 〈◊〉 our brethren's sentence of non-communion is in inflicted by an equal Church upon a •• ster Church in a mere p •••• way, and by no Church-process.

4. Non-communion, if it be warranted by the law of •• ture, as communion of equals is, yet should we not be refused of the like favor, when we plead that the Law of nature pleadeth for combination and communion of joint authorities of s • s • er-Churches, in one presbytery: for if non-communion of Churches be of the law of nature, so must communion of Churches, and authoritative communion, and authoritative and judicial non-communion, by natures law must be as warrantable upon the same grounds.

They 6. Object. • the Apostles, were in this Synod as ordinary Elders th • n, The Synod might have censured, and in case of obs • inacie excommunicated the Apostles which were admirable.

Answ. For re • ukeing of Apostles we have against Papists a memorable warrant in Paul, Gal. 2. withstanding Peter to • ce face, and Peter his giving an account, Act. 11 1, 2, 3. to the Church of Jerusalem of his going in to the Gentiles, which Parker acknowledgeth against Papists and Prelates to be a note of Peters subjection to the Church. Papists say it was Peters humility; other Papists say Peter gave but such a brotherly account to the Church, such as one brother is obliged to give to another: also all our Divines, and those Papists who contend that the Pope is inferior to universal councils. doc with good warrant allege that by Matth. 18. Peter is subjected to the Church-censures, if he sin against his brother, and therefore we doubt not, but the Church hath, jus, law to excommunicate the Apostles, in case of obstinacy, and would have used this power i • Judas had lived now when the power of excommunication was in vigor; but we say withal, de facto, the su • position was unpossible in respect that continued and habitual obstinacy, and flagitious and at • ocious scandals deserving excommunication, were inconsistent with that measure of the holy Spirit bestowed upon those Catholic Organs and vessels of mercy: but this exempteth the Apostles from act all excommunication, de facto, but is our brethren ex •• pt them, a jure, from the Law, they transform the Apostles into Popes, above all Law, which we cannot do, Apostolic eminency doth 〈…〉 neither Peter nor Paul to be above either the 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 Law, or the positive Laws gi 〈…〉 One doth wittily say on these 〈…〉 Matth. 8. 15. The Pope is either a 〈…〉 if he be a brother offending, 〈…〉 complain of him to the Church, 〈…〉 be no brother, there's an end 〈…〉 his father, and never after this 〈…〉

Answ. 1. Daniel •• d the Prophecy of Jeremiah, and the Pro 〈◊〉 the books of Moses, and the Apostles read the Old Testament, 〈◊〉 and Paul read • eathen Poets, and citeth them, Act. 17. 〈◊〉 . Ti • . 1. 12. and maketh them Scripture.

2. But the question is now, if as Prophets and immediately in ••• Prophets and Apostles they did so consult with Scripture which they read, as they made anything canoni • k Scripture upon 〈◊〉 medium, and formal reason, because they did read it, 〈◊〉 it out of books, and not because the immediate i •• piration of the holy Ghost taught them, what they should 〈◊〉 canonick Scripture. Suppone a sentence of a • eathen 〈◊〉 suppone this, that Paul left his cloak at Tro • s, not the ••• wledge of sense, not natural reason, not experience, none •• these can be a formal medium, a formal mean to make scripture but as, ( thus saith Jehovah in his word ) is the formal reason why the Church believeth the Scripture to be the Word •• God, so the formal reason that maketh Prophets and Apostles to put down any truth, as that which is formally canonical scripture, whether it be a supernatural truth, as, the 〈◊〉 was made flesh, or a moral truth, as, Children obey your 〈◊〉 , or a natural truth, as The Ox knoweth his owner, or an experienced truth, as make not friendship with an angry 〈◊〉 a truth of heathen morality, as, me are the offspring of God, or a truth of sense, Paul lest his clo • ke at T • oas, I say the 〈◊〉 , formal reason that maketh it divine and Scriptural truth is the immediate inspiration of God, therefore though 〈◊〉 learned by books that the captivity should endure seventi. years, yet his light by reading made it not formally Scripture, but Daniel's putting it in the Canon by the immediate acti • r, impulsion, and inspiration of the holy Spirit; and though Matthew did read in Isaiah, A Virgin shall conceive and beared Son, yet Matthew maketh it not a part of the New Testament, because Isaiah said it, but because the holy Ghost did imdiatly suggest it to him, as a divine truth: for a holy man might draw out of the Old and New Testament a Chapter of orthodox truths, all in Scripture words, and believe them to be God's truth, yet that Chapter should not formally be the Scripture. of God, because though the Author did write it by the light of faith, yet the Prophetical and Apostolical spirit did not suggest it and inspire it to the author. I know some School • . Papists have a distinction here. They say there be some sepernaturall truths in Scriptures, as predictions of things that tall out by the mediation of contingent causes, and the supernatural mysteries of the Gospel, as that Ahab shall be killed in the wars, the Messiah shall be borne, &c. Christ came to 〈◊〉 sinners, and those were written by the immediately inspiring Spirit: others were but historical and natural truths of fact, as that Paul wrought miracles, that he left his cleake at Troas, and these latter are written by an inferior spirit, the assisting, not the immediately inspiring Spirit, and by this latter spirit (say they) much of Scripture was written; and from this assisting Spirit cometh the traditions of the Church (say they) and the decrees of Popes and councils; and this holy Spirit though infallible, may and doth use disputation, consultations, councils of Doctors, reading; but we answer that what counsels determine by an assisting spirit is not Scripture, nor yet • m-ply infallible, nor doth Daniel advise with Jeremialis writing what he shall put down as Scripture, nor Paul with Sos • h •••• , with Timothy and Silvamus, what he shall write as Canonic Scripture in his Epistles, for then as the decrees of the coun 〈◊〉 at Jerusalem are called the decrees of the Apostles and Elders and this decree which cometh from the Apostles and Elders assem • led with one accord, and speaking with joint suffrages from the holy Ghost, v. 7, 8 9, 10, &c. v. 28. as collateral authors of the decree, is the conclusion of Apostles and Elders; so also should the proph • cie of Daniel, at least the first two verses of the ninth chapter, be a part of Daniel, and a part of Jeremi • hs prophecy, and Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians should be the Epistle of Paul and S • sthe • es, and his Epistles to the Colossians, and Thessah • ian • , the Epistles of Paul, of Timothy, of Silvanus, whereas Sosthenes, Timothy, Silvanus were not immediately inspired collateral writers of these Epistles with Paul, but only joyners with him in the salutation.

The erring and scandalous Churches are in a hard condition, if they cannot be edified by the power of jurisdiction in presbyteries.

Object. But it never or seldom in a century falleth out, that a Church is to be excommunicated, and Christ hath provided Laws for things only that fall out ordinarily.

Answ. It is true, we see not how an whole Church can be formally convented, accused, excommunicated, as one or two brethren may be, in respect all are seldom or never deserted of God to fall into an atrocious scandal, and willful obstinacy, yet this freeth them not from the Law: as suppose in a Congregation of a thousand, if five hundredth be involved in libertinism, are they freed, because they are a multitude, from Christ's Law? or from some positive punishment by analogy answering to excommunication? 2. The Eldership of a Congregation being three only, doth not seldom scandalously offend, and are they under no power under heaven? The people may withdraw from them saith the Synod of New England, what then? so may I withdraw from any who walketh inordinately, 2. Thes. 3. 14. 15. (3) It is not well said that Christ giveth no Laws for sins that seldom fall out. What say you of Anathema Maranatha, 1 Cor. 16. 22. to be used against an Apostate from the faith, and against such as fall into the sin against the holy Ghost? I think visible professors capable both of the • nne and the censure, yet I think it falleth seldom out, it fell seldom but that an Apostle was to be rebuked, ha • Paul then no law to rebuke Peter. Gal. 2.

Object. 2. A Synod or presbytery may pr • nounce the d •• dfull sentence of non-communion against persons and Churches 〈…〉 .

Answ. But I ask, where is the power, and institution from Christ, that one private man, as he may counsel his brother, so he may by our brethren's grounds, pronounce this sentence.

Object. 3. One private man may not do it, to a whole Church, •• a classical Presbytery and a Synod hath more authority over him, then he hath over them.

Answ. One private man may rebuke another, yea be may plead with his mother the whole Church, that he liveth in, for her whoredoms, Hos. 2. 2. But if he justly plead and his mother will not hear, may he not separate? Our brethren of New England, I think, shall be his warrant to separate; for their sixth Synodical proposition saith, the fraternity, and people are to separate from the Eldership, after they refuse wholesome counsel. Now what Scripture warranteth twenty to withdraw and separate, shall also warrant ten, and five, and one, for no reason that if twenty be careless of their salvation in the duty of separation, and shall not separate, that one man shall not separate; because a multitude doth evil, I am not to do evil with them.

Object. 4. But a Synod or a classical presbytery hath more 〈◊〉 and authority, then one private man, or one single Congregation. 1. Because they are a company of Elders, to whom, as to the Priests of the Lord, whose lips should preserve knowledge, the •• yes of knowledge, and consequently a power and Synodical authority is given, though they have no power of jurisdiction. 2. Because as a private man's power is inferior to a Pastors, so is the power of classical and Synodioall meeting of Elders above a man, or a single congregation; and a Synod, in dogmatical power, ariseth so higher then these, •• divine institution doth fall upon it.

Answ. The power of order and the key of knowledge doth elevate a Pastor, whose lips doth preserve knowledge, above a private Christian, yea as I conceive above a multitude of believers; but I would know if a Synods dogmatical power be above the power of single congregations; I think it is not, by our brethren's • enents, for they say expressly that every particular 〈…〉 , jus, to decide dogmatical points, and this • ight the Church of Antioch had, Act. 15. and labored to end that 〈…〉 in her self, which showeth that they had right and • we, but they had not ability, and therefore in that case, they 〈…〉 , light and advise from other Churches, and they say The c • niociation of Churches into classes and Synods, we 〈◊〉 to be lawful, and in some cases necessary; as namely in things 〈…〉 not peculiar to one Church, but common to all. And likewise when a Church is not able to end any matter, that concerns only themselves, the • they are to seek advise & counsel from neighbor Churches: hence the power of Synods is only by way of counsel and advise, & a Pastors advise is but an advise, & he giveth not his advise, virtute 〈◊〉 , as he is a Pastor, for then his advise should be pastoral and auth •• itative, and proceeding from the power of order, though not from the power of jurisdiction; he only giveth his advise as a gifted and enlightened man, and so, to my poor knowledge, two hundredth, five hundredth holy and learned Pastors determining in a Synod any dogmatical point, they sit all there not as in a court, not as Pastors, for then their Decrees should have pastoral authority, and some power formally ministerial to determine, yea and to sway, in a ministerial way, by power of the keys of knowledge, all the inferior Churches, whom the decree concerneth, even as the Eldership of Perg • mus, which to our brethren is a congregational Church, doth decree by the dogmatical power of the keys of knowledge that the doctrine of Balaam is a false doctrine, therefore they sit there as gifted Christians, and so have no Church-power more then a private brother or sister of the Congregation hath toward, or over another: for though a multitude of counseling and advising friends be safer and more effectual to give light, then a counseling friend, yet are they but a multitude of counseling friends, and the result of all counseling and advising men doth never rise higher then a counsel and advise, and can never amount to the nature of a command: as twenty sch ••• -fellows, suppose as • udent and wise as the twenty masters of an University, if these twenty school-fellows give their advise and counsel 〈◊〉 a weighty business that concerneth the practice and obedience of all the students, the result of their counsel and advise can never be more then an advise, and cannot amount to the same determination of the twenty masters of the University, the result of whose determination is a sovereign commandment and an authoritative and judicial decree and statute to all the whole University. 2. Whereas these Godly brethren say the power of Synods in things which belong to particular Churches is but a counsel and advise, they should have told their mind, whether or no the Synod hath more then advise and counsel in things that are not peculiar to one Church, but common to all the Churches in that bounds, for it would seem that a Synod is a college of commanders in dogmatical points, that do equally concern all Churches (this should have beenespoken to) though in those things which are peculiar to each particular Church, they be but a college of friendly advisers and counselors.

2. If a Synod be but a society of counselors, they have no more any authoritative power to pronounce the sentence of non-communion, against any single Congregation or private man, then a private man or a single Congregation hath authoritative power to pronounce that sentence against them: but 3. You make the Synodical power so above the power of private Christians in counseling, as that this Synodical power is of divine institution, as you say, but let me ask what to do? to counsel and advise only? then that power of counseling in Abigail to David, in one brother or sister to another brother and sister is of divine institution, warranted by the Law of nature, Levite. 19. 18. by the Law of charity, by the communion of Saints, Col. 3. 15. 1 Thes. 5. 14. Heb. 3. 13. Heb. 10. 24. Mal. 3. 16. Zach. 8. 21, 22, 23. for there is a divine institution, for one brother to counsel and teach another. But if our brethren give a positive power to a Synod, to advise and counsel, which private Christians have not, then this Synodical power shall not be different from the power of private Christians gradually only, as a lesser power to advise differeth from a greater power, but specifically and in nature. And indeed some of our brethren teach so, though I doubt if their brethren will return them thanks; for this way, which to me is doubtsome. For then the members of the Synod at Jerusalem, seem to me, to be more then counselors, and there must be a positive institution by our brethren's grounds to warrant a power Synodical sentially different from a Church-power, and essentially above it: for we teach that because a congregation is a part of a classical Church, and a classical Church a part of a provincial Church, that this power in Congregations, Presbyteries, and Synods differ only gradually, in more or less extension, and by the way.

Whereas some derive all Church-power from a single congregation to presbyteries and classes, ascendendo, by ascending, others derive it from presbyteries to a Congregation, descendendo, yea and some from the Catholic visible Church to national assemblies, and from national assemblies to provincial Synods, and from Synods to Presbyteries, from Presbyteries to Congregations; I, with reverence of the learneder, do here conceive, that there is no such cursory derivation to be dreamed of; but because the Catholic visible Church is the great organical body whereof Christ Jesus God blessed forever is head and King, & it is to • um integrale, therefore there is no derivation either by climbing up stairs, or going down, but Jesus Christ hath communicated his power to this great political body, and all its parts immediately; to a Congregation he hath given, by an immediate flux from himself, a political Church power intrinsically in it, derived from none but immediately from Jesus Christ, and the object of this power is those things that concern a Congregation; and that same head and Lord hath given immediately an intrinsical power to the Presbytery, in things that are purely classical, and that without either the intervening derivation of either a Congregation that is inferior to the Presbytery, by ascending, or without any derivative flux of a Synodical, national or Catholic visible Church, by descending; and the like immediately conveyed power political cometh from this glorious head to a Synodical, or national, or the Catholic visible Church, and the reason is, the very nature of the visible Church which is totum integrale, a great integral entire body, now we know that life cometh to the thighs immediately from the soul, neither by derivation from the feet and legs, by way of ascending, nor yet from the arms, brea • s, and shoulders, by descending. I deny not but here there may be in other considerations, some order; as, if you ask which is t •• first Church; I answer with these distinctions of primatus, firstnesse.

1. The first Church, by way of constitution, is a congregation, in the family of Adam and E •• .

2. The first Church, by way of divine intention, is the Catholic Church.

Hence secondly, The first Church, by generation, or the order of generation, and so the less perfect, is a Congregation, and here is an ascension still from the part to the whole, from a Congregation to a Presbytery, from thence to a provincial Church, from thence to a national, from thence to the Catholic Church.

And the first Church by way of perfection, is that Catholic Queen and Spouse which Christ is to present to the Father, without sp •• or wrinkle, and all parts are for this perfect whole, all the ministry, ordinances, the dispensation of the work of redemption, Christ, his death, resurrection, intercession, &c. are for this as the end, the perfectum totum, Ephes. 5. 25, 26. Ephes. 4. 11. 12. 13. 1 Cor. 15. 23, 24.

Hence thirdly, if we regard the order of operation; The Congregation is primum movens, and primum operans, for all the motions of the Catholic-Church beginneth at the inferior wheels and at the lower spikes, if a general council be to inact anything, motions must begin at the single Congregation at Antioch, at Jerusalem, and from thence ascend to a Preshytery, and from thence a national Church is to send their Commissioners to act in a Catholic council, though if we look to the power it self, it is intrinsically in the whole and in every part of the Catholic Church.

The fourth distinction considerable here is, that we are to regard either,

If we respect the order of nature, the power, by order of nature, is given by Christ immediately, first to the whole Catholic Church, as is proved before at length, and by this order of nat •• • inhereth first in the whole Catholic Church, as man's organized entire whole body is, by natures order, the first adequat and principal subject of life and the reasonable soul, not this •• this part, but in regard of order of time, or real derivation of 〈◊〉 , this whole power is immediately conferred by Jesus Christ on the whole Catholic visible Church, and to every part of it, and any real derivation of power from one part of the Catholic Church to another by ascension or descension is not to be dreamed of here. As Commissioners of cities and shires have from those cities and shires who chose them a virtual power Parliamentary, yet is it not formally a power Parliamentary while the Parliament receive them as formal members, and then, by Law of the State, there falleth on them a formally parliamentall power: so Commissioners have from their Churches which sent them, only a virtual or radical power, but they have never a formally Synodical power, by virtue of a divine institution, while they be convened in Christ's name Syn dically. It is true, the members of a general council derive their virtual power to voice, and conclude from the na ••• n • ll Church that sent them to the council, but give me leave, this is but a derived power of membership making them fit to be incorporated in a Synod, but being once incorporated, they have by their power of order, and by Christ's immediate institution, a power immediately given by Christ, in whose • ames they convene, to voice and conclude as a formal coun ••• , and to say, It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us; they cannot say, 〈◊〉 good to the Churches that sent us.

The 5. distinction is, that the power is considered either • exercised ordinarily, or 2. occasionally. In regard of the •• mer ordinary power is seated collaterally in the Congregation and Presbytery, in each according to its proportion of power, but because the power is compleater in the Presby •• , which is a complete body, and less completely in the Congregation, which is less complete, it is more principally seated in the Presbytery; in regard of the latter Synods are the first subject of the occasional Church-power, in things which • e in common belong to many Presbyteries, or to a national- Church. But to return, if the Synodical power be different in essence and nature and not gradually only, from the counsel and advise of Christians, then, first, it is not a determination that bindeth, by way of counsel and brotherly advise only, but under some higher consideration, which is as like a Church-relation of Church-power, as anything can be, seeing here be Pastors acting as Pastors; 2. formally gathered in a council; 3. speaking God's Word; 4. by the holy Ghost. But this shall be against the Church-government of New England. 2. If it be essentially different from an advise and council and warranted by divine institution, why do not our brethren give us Scripture for it? for if they give us Act. 15. then can they not say that the Apostles in this Synod did determine and voice as Apostles by an Apostolic, and immediately inspiring Spirit, for the spirit Synodical is a spirit imitable and a rule of pertually enduring morality in all Synods, and must lead us, for an Apostolic spirit is not now in the world.

3. As they require a positive divine institution, for the frame of a Presbyterial Church in power above a Congregation, and will not be satisfied with the light of nature, which upon the supposal of a spiritual government instituted by Christ in a Congregation which is a part, may clearly, by the hand, lead us to the enlarging of that same spiritual government in the whole, that is, to a number of consociated Churches which are all interested, as one common society in a common government, so they must make out, for their Synod endued with dogmatical power a positive divine institution.

4. We desire a warrant from the Word why a college of Pastors determining by the Word of God as Pastors having power of order and acting in a college according to that power, should not be a formal and ordinary great Presbytery.

5. How can they, by our brethren's determination, exercise such pastoral acts out of their own Congregations towards those Churches to which they have no pastoral relation, virtute potestatis ordinis?

6. How can the wisdom of Christ, (who provideth that his servants be not despised, but that despisers in a Church way should be censured, 1 Tim. 1. 19, 20.) cloth his messengers in a Synod with a power dogmatical and deny all power of i ••• diction to them, upon the supposal that their determinations be rejected? I fear there be something under this, that none are to be censured or delivered to Satan for heterodox opinions, except they err in points fundamental.

But farther it may be made good that a power dogmatical is not different in nature from a power of jurisdiction, for we read not of any society that hath power to meet to make Laws and decrees, which have not power also to back their decrees with punishments: if the Jewish Synedry might meet to declare judicially what was God's Law, in point of conscience, and what not, and to tie men to it, they had power to convene and make Laws, far more may they punish contraveners of the Law, for a nomothetick power in a society which is the greater power and is in the fountain, must presuppose in the society the less power, which is to punish, and the power of punishing is in the inferior judicature, so a nomothetick power ministerial cannot want a power of censuring. It is true, a single Pastor may ministerially give out commandments in the authority of Christ, but he cannot his alone censure or excommunicate the contraveners of those commandments, but it followeth well in an assembly he hath power to censure and excommunicate, now here Pastors and Elders are in an assembly.

Answ. This argument is much for us, it is proper to acts of jurisdiction ecclesiastical that they cannot be exercised by one only, but must be exercised by a society, now a Pastor as a Pastor his alone without any collaterally joined with him exerciseth his pastoral acts of preaching and of administrating the Sacraments, but those who give out those decrees, cannot give them out Synodically, but in a Synod and Court-ways as forensicall decrees, and so in a juridical way, and because Pastors, whither so ever they come, do remain Pastors. 1. The Apostles are not in this Synod as Apostles, Secondly, nor yet as gifted Christians to give their counsel and advise; nor, thirdly (as this answerer granteth) merely as Pastors, then it must follow that, fourthly, they are here as such pastors convened Synodically, by divine institution, and that this is the pattern of a Synod.

Object. 2. But there is no censuring of persons for scandals in this meeting, because there is nothing here but a doctrinal declaration of the falsehood of their opinion who taught a necessity of circumcision; and that all is done by way of doctrine and by power of the Keys of knowledge, not of jurisdiction, is clear from the end of this meeting, Act. 5. 2. Paul and Barnabas were sent from the Church of Antioc • unto Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , concerning this question, and v. 6. the Apostles and Elders came together to consider, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of this matter, consideration of questions being the end of the Synod is a thing belonging to doctrinal power merely, so Mr. Mather.

Answ. 1. It is false that there is no censuring of persons here, for to say nothing that Peter accuseth those of the wrong side as personally present at the Synod, either being summoned or coming thither by appeal, v. 10. Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the Discip'es, &c. which reproof coming from one man only, cannot be called a Synodical reproof; It is more then evident that the public Synodical censure of rebuke is put upon those who held and urged the necessity of circumcision, and why not excommunication also in case of obstinacy? for the Synodical censure of a public Synodical rebuke is only gradually different, not specifically from excommunication and both must proceed from one and the same power? Now the Synodical censure is evident in the Text, v. 24. certain went out from us, (so it is clear they pretended they were in this point followers of the Apostles) and Lorinus thinketh that some deemed them schismatics.

2. They have troubled you with words; Lorinus citeth the Sy 〈◊〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vedalacachum, they have terrified you, as if your salvation were not sure, except you keep Moses his Law of ceremonies and the moral Law. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , destraying by false arguments your souls, it is a word contrary to building up in sound knowledge (as Aristotle taketh the word) saying that you must be circumcised and keep the Law. 4. They abused the name of the Apostles as having an Apostolic commandment, and so a divine warrant for their false doctrine, and therefore are they refuted as liars, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whence it is clear they did labor to prove a necessity of circumcision not only from the Old Testament and an express divine Law, but also from the authority of the Apostles, which was manifestly false; out of which I argue thus. If the Apostles do not only in a doctrinal way refute a false doctrine in this Synod, but also in a Church-way, and by a juridical power rebuke and Synodically charge the authors, as sub • erters of souls, and liars, then they do not only use a mere doctrinal power in this Synod, but also a juridical power: but the former is true: Ergo, so is the latter. 2. Observe two things in these obtruders of circumcision. First, the error of their judgment. It is more then apparent, that they had a heterodox and erroneous opinion of God and his worship, and the way of salvation, as is clear, Act. 15. 1. And certain men which came down from Judea, taught the brethren, (and said) except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. This doctrine is clearly refuted both by Peter v. 10. That yoke of the Law we disclaim, there is a way of salvation without that yoke, v. 11. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus, we shall be saved as they, and it is synodically refuted, v. 24. we gave no such commandment, it is not the mind of us the Apostles of the Lord that you keep Moses Law, as you hope to be saved; there was for this error in their judgment required a doctrinal or dogmatical power, and this the Synod used. 2. Besides this erroneous opinion in their judgment, there was another fault and scandal that the Synod was to censure, to wit, their obtruding of their false way upon the souls and consciences of the Churches, as verse. 1 They taught the brethren this false doctrine. 2. That they willfully and obstinately did hold this opinion, and raised a Schism in the Courch, v. 2. wherefore Paul and Barnabas had no small 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , dissention, (the word signifieth sedition which was raised by those who held that erroneous opinion) and great disputation with them. 3. They laid a yoke upon the brethren, v. 10. and v. 7. They made great disputation against the Apostles, and v. 24. They troubled the brethren and perverted their souls. This was not simply an heterodox opinion which is the material part of a heresy, but had something of the formal part of an heresy, to wit, some degrees of pertinancy, of brutish and blind zeal, even to the troubling and perverting of the souls of the Churches, while as they would make disciples to themselves, and lead away souls from the simplicity of the Gospel; now the Synod doth not help this latter simply, in a Synodical way, by a dogmatical and doctrinal power, but by an authority Synodical, and therefore they authoritatively rebuke them, as subverters of souls; and whereas these teachers laid on an unjust yoke to keep Moses his Law upon the Churches, v. 10. the Synod by their ecclesiastical and juridical authority doth free the Churches of that yoke, and they say in their decree. v. 28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us, (not to lay the yoke of Moses his Law on you, as those who trouble you have done) to lay upon you no greater burden, then these necessary things, &c. now if there had been nothing to do but to resolve the question, if this had been the total and adequat end of the Synod, in a mere doctrinal way to resolve the question, Whether must we be circumcised, and keep the Law moral and ceremonial of Moses, upon necessity of salvation, as the argument of our brethren contendeth; Peter, v. 10. 11. made a clear issue of the question, We are saved by the grace of God, both •• nes and Gentiles, and it is to tempt God to lay the yoke of the Law of Moses upon the brethren; the resolving of that question is the end of the Synod, but not the adequat end, for here that, not only the doctrinal power was to be used, but beside that, 1. the schism was to be removed, and the authority of the Synod to be used against the willfulness and obstinacy of those obtruders of circumcision, in rebuking them as perverters of souls. 2. For the scandal which might have been taken if the Gentiles should have eaten blood and things strangled, and meats offered to idols, and therefore the Apostles and Elders behooved, as a convened Synod to forbid a grievous scandal and a spiritual homicide against the Law of nature, to wit, that the Gentiles for fear of scandalizing weak. believers amongst the Jews, should abstain from the practice of some things at this time merely indifferent in their nature, though not indifferent in their use, such as were to eat things offered to idols, things strangled and blood: and whereas our brethren, 3. Object, If the Apostles did anything more then might have been done by private Pastors out of a Synod, it was merely Apostolical, and the Elders did but assent to the Apostles Apostolical determination; and everyone did here, Apostles, Elders, and Brethren, more suo, Apostles as Apostles, Elders and Brethren as Elders and Brethren, after their manner as consenters to the Apostles, but other ways it is a begging of the question, for to say the Apostles and Elders, rebuked Synodically the obtruders of circumcision, its but said, because one Pastor might have rebuked those obtruders; for the specification of actions must not be taken from their efficient causes, but from their formal objects, therefore this is no good consequence, the Synod rebuked those obtruders, Ergo, the Synod rebuked them as a Synod, and by a power of jurisdiction, it followeth not, for Paul, Gal. 2. rebuked Peter; Ergo, Paul had a power of jurisdiction over Peter. I think yourselves will deny this consequence.

I Answer, 1. These two answers are contradictory, and showeth that our brethren are not true to their own principles, for sometime they say the Apostles gave out this decree as Apostles, and sometime there is nothing here done by a mere doctrinal power, such as Paul had over Peter, or one single Pastor hath over another, now it is sure that Paul had no Apostolic, power over Peter, and that one Pastor have not Apostolic power over another. 2. When our brethren say here that the Apostles as Apostles by an infallible spirit gave out this Decree, they do in this help the Papists, as Bellarmine, Becanus, Gr •• rut, and in particular the Jesuit Lorinus, who saith, decr • um authenticum cujus inspirator spiritus sanct • , and so saith Cornelius a lapide, visi • m est nob is inspiratis & decretis a Spiritu sanctus, therefore saith he the council cannot err, and so Salmeron and Cajetan say, and expressly Stapleton saith this Apostosack definition flowed from the instinct of the holy Ghost; observandum (saith Stapleton) quanta habenda sit ecclesiae definienth authorit • s; hence our brether here must yield either that all Synods are infallible, as Papists say, this Synod the pattern of all Synods being concluded by an Apostolic spirit could not err, and so neither can councils err, or they must with Socinians and Arminians say there is no warrant for Synods here at all. And certainly though we judge our brethren as far from Popery and Socinianism, as they think we detest Anti-Christian Presbytery, yet if this Synod be concluded by an Apostolic spirit, it is no warrant to be imitated by the Churches, and we have no ground hence, for lawful Synods. Whittakerus, Calvin, Beza, Luther, and all our Divines do all allege this place as a pregnant ground not of Apostolic, but of ordinary and constant Synods to the end of the world; and Diodatus, good to the holy Ghost) because they did treat of ecclesiastical reders concerning the quietness and order of the Church, wherein ecclesiastical authority hath place, the Assembly used this term, it seemed good to us, which is not used, neither in articles of faith, nor in the commandments which merely concerned the conscience: and to show that authority was with holy reason and wisdom, there is added, and to the holy Ghost, who guided the Apostles in these outward things also, 1. Cer. 7. 25. 40.

2. If our brethren mean that the Elders and brethren were in this Apostolic and immediately inspired Synodical determination, not as collateral penners of Scriptures joined with the Apostles, but only as consenters and as consenters by power of an ordinary holy Ghost working consent in them, more suo, according to their capacity as ordinary Elders. 1. They yet more help the Papists because they must say only Apostles, and so only their successors; the Prelates had definitive voices in this Synod, the Presbyters and Brethren did no more then Papists and Prelates say Presbyters did in general councils of old, and therefore the Presbyter is to subscribe, Ego, A. N. Presbyter consentiens subseribo, whereas the Prelate subscribed (say they) Ego, A. B. Episcopus definiens subscribo; we crave a warrant in God's Word to make an Apostle or a Prelate a Synodical definer, having a definitive voice, and the Elder Brother, or Presbyter to have a consultative voice, for here all the multitude (if there was a multitude present) do make Synodical decrees by consulting and consenting, yea all the nation may come to a national Synod, and both reason, dispute, and consent, because matters of doctrine and government of the Church concerneth all, therefore all have an interest of presence, and all have an interest of reasoning; and 3. by consequent all have an interest of consenting; yea of protesting on the contrary, if the Synod determine anything against the Word of God. If they say there is a threeford consent in this Synod, 1. an Apostolical, 2. a second Synodical agreeing to Elders as Elders, and a third, that of the people, or a popular; What a mixed Synod shall this be? but 1. then as the Epistle to the Tlxssalonians is called the Epistle of Paul, not the Epistle of Silvanus and Timothy, though Silvanus and Timothy did consent, so these (dogmata) or decrees should not be called the decrees of the Apostles and Elders, as they are called, Act. 16. 4. Act. 15. 6. Act. 21. 25. but only the decrees of the Apostles; seeing the Elders did only consent, and had no definitive influence in making the decree, by this doctrine, as Silvanus and Timothy were not joint pen-men of Scripture with Paul.

3. When as it is said the specification of actions must not be taken from the efficient cause, but from the formal object, and all that a done in this Synod might have been done by a single Pastor.

I answer, we do not fetch the specification of this rebuke and of these decrees from the efficient causes, but from the formal object, for an Apostle might his alone have rebuked these obtruders of circumcision, and made this decree materialiter, for Paul did, more his alone then this, when he wrote the E • istle to the Romans, but yet one Pastor could not have Synodically rebuked, and given out a decree formally Synodical, laying an Ecclesiastical tie on moe Churches then one, there is great ods to do one and the same action formally, and to do the same action materially, and I believe though actions have not, by good logic, their total specification from their efficient cause, yet that ordinances of God as lawful have their specification from the efficient causes in part our brethren cannot deny. For what made the difference betwixt Aaron his fire offered to the Lord, and Nadab and Abihu their strange and unlawful fire, that they offered to the Lord, but that the on fire had God for its author, the other had men, and the like I say of God's feasts, and the feasts devised by Jeroboam, else if a woman preach and administrate the Lord's Supper in the Church, that preaching and sacrament administrated by her should not have a different specification and essence, if we speak morally or Theologically, from that same very preaching and celebration of the Supper performed in the Church by a lawful Pastor; it is (as I conceive) of the essence of an action Synodical (I say not its total essence) that it cannot be performed by one in a Church-way, and with an ecclesiastical tie, but it must be performed by many, else it is not a Synodical action, and it is true that Paul, Rom. 14. and 1 Cor. 8. 10. hath in substance the same Canon forbidding scandal, which is forbidden in this Canon prohibiting eating of meats offered to Idols, and blood, in the case of scandal; but (I pray you) is there not difference betwixt the one prohibition and the other? yea there is, for, Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. 10. it hath undeniably Apostolic authority, here it hath only Synodical. 2. There it is a commandment of God, here it is a Canon of the Church. 3. There it cometh from one man, here from a college of Apostles and Elders convened, and yet materially it is the same prohibition.

Object. 4. The Acts of this Synod are finaliter acts of government, because they are rules conducing for the governing of the Church, but formaliter, they are acts of dogmatical power, and not formally acts of jurisdiction, for there is no rebuking of subverters of souls inordine to excommunication, no penal power is exercised here, sub poona, under the pain of excommunication, and therefore there an here no formal acts of government.

Answ. 1. The acts of Church-government finaliter, that is, government, because to prescribe rules and directive Laws (for they are not properly Laws which the Church prescribeth, Christ is the only Law-giver) are formal acts of governing, and one power doth not make Laws for governing the Church, and another power different in nature punish the contraveners. And what power disposeth and ordereth, the means do also dispose and order the end; Canons of the Church tending to the edification of the Church are means tending to the government of the Church, and I appeal to the judgment of our reverend brethren, if we suppose that one single Congregation should do all that this Synod doth, if they would not call it a formal governing of that particular Congregation: for example, in the Church of Pergamos, one ariseth and teacheth the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, suppose that fornication is indifferent is the eating of blood, and is no sin; the Angels of the Church of Pergamos preach against this doctrine, in private, they deal by force of arguments from Scripture, that it is a wicked doctrine, and destructive to holiness, as Paul and Barnab as disputeth, Act. 15. 1. 2. with the obtruders of a necessity of Circumcision, yet they prevail not, now suppose this independent Church following the Apostle Paul's way, think good to convene a Synod or a parishional assembly to determine Synodically that this is a wicked doctrine, and shall in their decree call the holders of this doctrine subverters of souls, and forbid fornication in their Synod, now supposing Pergamos to be a single Church in a remote Island consociated with no neighbouring Churches, who could in reason deny that this Synodical power so inacting were a power formally governing the Church of. Pergamos? it is true, some of our brethren say, that it is even to us a received tenent that the power that disposeth of the means of governing doth not for that govern in respect that we teach that the classical presbytery doth decree and in act, and the Congregation doth execute these Decreed, but I pray you doth this prove that the power ordering the means of governing is no formal act of governing? yea the contrary is true, because the Congregation executing the acts of the classical presbytery, as subordinate in that act to the classical presbytery, & by their authority, therefore while they give out these acts or Canons, do formally govern, that Congregation executing their acts, in this particular.

Mr. Mather and Mr. Thomson against Mr. Herle, c. 1. p. 9. teach that there is a power of clearing truth dogmatically, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ultimately, where the controversy is ended, but they will have this ultimate power not in a Synod only, but also in a Congregation. But 1. they seem to make this dogmatical power a Church-power, and the exercise thereof formally an act of Church-government, and so it must be Church-power and Church-government in the Synod, as well as in the Congregation. 2. The last period and conclusion of the controversy cannot be both in the Congregation, de jure, by right only, and in the Synod by right only, for two last powers cannot be properly in two subordinate judicatures, for if Antioch appeal to a Synod, as they doc, Act. 15. 2. then Antioch is not the sole, last and ultimate and final judge; and 3. If the controversy concern many Churches, as this doth, Act. 15. 2. 23. 24. I see not how a Congregation, except they transgress their line, can finally determine it.

And here while as our brethren do all edge that a Synod hath a power to decree, and make laws, but hath no power at all to execute these Laws or to punish the contraveners, but power of punishing is all in the single Congregation. • . They tie all governing power to a punishing power, as if there were no other ways to govern, but upon supposal of scandals, whereas all Scripture and polliticians make a power of giving Laws formally a governing power. 2. When one society and Synod maketh the Laws, and another must execute them and punish the contraveners, the single Congregation that punisheth, is more subjected by a truly prelatical bondage, then if the Law-makers had only the power of punishing the contraveners, at they only have the power of making the Laws. I take not here Laws for Laws properly so called, but for ministerial directories having ecclesiastical authority: and here in effect, our brethren lay truly a prelatical bondage on the Churches of Christ, for they teach that a Synod may make a Law by a pastoral power, and that this Synod is an ordinance of Christ by Act. 15. and that as Prelates did, they send those Synodic • ll decrees to be obeyed and put in execution by the Churches, and ordain the contraveners to be punished by the Churches, and here is a power above a power, and mandates for government sent by the Synod to the Churches to be obeyed, and a Synod governing by Churches, this they call prelatical in us.

But 3. there is no penal power here (say they) and nothing decerved to be obeyed, sub paena, under the pain of excommunication, therefore no power of jurisdiction. But this consequence is justly denied, for no politician, no reason in the world can say that all power of jurisdiction is included in the power of excommunication. What? hath the Church a Church-power to threaten, and no Church-power to pardon the penltent? I think if the Church as the Church, Matth. 18. receive a power from Christ to bind in heaven and earth, doth not Christ in that same patent give to her also a power to loose in earth and heaven? and when he saith, if be refuse to bear the Church, let him be to thee • aube • hen and publican; doth he not give to the Church a power to command? if he command to hear and obey the Church, he must give a power of jurisdiction to the Church to command, and a power to command not penal only, but promissory also, to loose and absolve upon condition of professed repentance. Now suppose the Church make a Law, that theresurrection of the dead is a truth of God to be believed, and professed, upon occasion that in the Congregation Hymenaeus & Alexander den yeth that Article, in that very Commandment doctrinal the Church doth govern the whole Congregation, and exerciseth a power of formal governing, though in their act they say nothing of the censure of excommunication, to those who shall deny that Article of the resurrection, for (I hope) a simple sanction maketh a Law, though no penalty be expressed in it, and though there had been in the Decree, Act 15. 28. an express punishment, this should, to our brethren prove no power of jurisdiction exercised by many, for this which is said, Gal. 1. 8. Though we or an Angel from heaven preach unto you (another Gospel) then that which we have preached let him be accursed, and that 1 Cor. 9. 16. Woe unto me if I preach not the Gospel, and many other threatenings in Scripture, though a punishment be annexed expressly, cease not to be merely doctrinal, and are not threatenings importing formally any power of Church-jurisdiction, and therefore though mention should have been made of a censure, if there be not here a Synod. 2. Having power and authority from Christ. 3. Commanding by the holy Ghost, (as these indeed are all here) the name of censure should prove no power of jurisdiction.

Object. 5. The laying on of the yoke spoken of, v. 28. is a mere • , doctrinal yoke, and it importeth no more a poner of jurisdiction, then we can conclude that the obtruders of circumcision bad a power of jurisdiction, because they are said to lay on a yoke also, and to tempt God in so doing, verse. 10.

Answ. I retort this reason, for we can then no more conclude that the Apostles by an Apostolic authority laid on this yoke, then we can conclude that the obtruders of circumcision did lay on this yoke, because they are said to lay on a yoke and to tempt God, v. 10. It is a most unequal reasoning to argue against a just Synodical power from a sinful and unjust power, for these obtruders of circumcision had no lawful power at all to lay a yoke on the Disciples, but sinned and tempted God in laying on that yoke, but it is not denied by our brethren, but the Apostles and Elders had a lawful power to lay on a yoke in this Synod, only it is controverted whether it be a mere dogmatical or doctrinal power, or if it be a power of jurisdiction, nay the obtruders of circumcision by neither of these two powers laid on a yoke upon the Dsciples.

Object. 6. These decrees which did no other ways bind the Church of Jerusalem, then they did bind all the Churches of the world, cannot be decrees of power of jurisdiction over the Church of Jerusalem, and over the Church of Antioch. But these decrees did no otherwise bind the Church of Jerusalem, then they did bind all the Churches of the world, for the decrees of Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, Act. 6. 4, 5. were sent to all the Churches of the world to be observed, and seeing they could not as Synodical Canons oblige all the Churches of the world, by an ecclesiastical tie, because all the Churches of the world sent not Commissioners, and all the Churches of the world couldnot be represented in this Synod, but only the Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch; yea we see not that this Synod is anymore then the Church of Antioch seeking counsel from the sister Church at Jerusalem; as one Church may advise another Church that is weaker in knowledge, in a matter of such difficulty, because the Apostles were at Jerusalem, and that 〈◊〉 . 1. The whole Canons are ascribed to the Church of Jerusalem only, to the Apostles, Elders and the whole Church, Act. 15. 22. and Act. 15. 22. and Act. 16. 4, 5. and Act. 21. 25. the Elders of Jerusalem take this act or canon to themselves. 2. It cannot be proven that the Churches of Syria and Silicia had any commissioners he •• , far less had all the Churches of the Gentiles, who yet are commanded to keep those decrees by commissioners there, C. 15. 19. Act. 21. 25. Act. 16. 4, 5. 3. It cannot be proven that Antioch sent Elders to this meeting, but only Commissioners, Act. 15. 2.

Answ. This answer is much contradicent to what our brethren other ways hold, for if it be a pattern of a sister Church, giving advise and counsel to another, this is imitable to the worlds end, and if the Canon come from the Apostles as Apostles it is not imitable.

2. That one sister Church can lay burdens on another, and give out 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , decrees to be kept is unwarrantable; now 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as they are called by all that understandeth Greek, are not friendly advises of brethren; the Seventie Interpreters use the word, Daniel 6. 26. to express a Law made by Darius, Luke useth the word, c. 2. 1. saith a decree 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 came from Augustus Caesar to tax all the World. 2. It is a graver business then we can think of, to believe that these who only give advise and counsel, and must convene in a Synod, as Apostles and Elders do here, v. 23. (2) that they can say as it is v. 28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us to lay no other burden on you then t •• se necessary things, for a counsel or advise can never amount to the burden imposed by the holy Ghost speaking in a Synod: 2. It is denied that this decree obliged the Church of Jerusalem no other way then it obliged all the Churches of all the world, for here be three sorts of Churches, and three sorts of Churches are under a tie by this Synod; first, Jerusalem, secondly, Antioch, Syria and Silicia, thirdly, universally all the Churches of the Gentiles. The Church of Jerusalem have formal commissioners, here under an ecclesiastical tie as concerning the faith of the things contained in the decree, that it is lawful for the Gentiles to abstain from things offered to idols, from things strangled, and from blood; and they were simply under a tie both of the seventh Commandment, and by the fifth Commandment, to abstain from fornication, because the Synod had forbidden it. 2. They were under a tie by due proportion, not to keep the Law of Moses and not to be circumcised by any necessity of a Divine Law, but only by permission to use these ceremonies for fear of scandal. 3. They are tied by proportion also to give no offense in things indifferent. 4. Not to reject the Gentiles whom the Lord had called to his heavenly kingdom, as well as the Jews. 2. These Churches of the Gentiles who never heard of the Synod, and so were not obliged to be there in their Commissioners or not tied at all by this Decree, by virtue of any ecclesiastical tie, but are only tied by the Law of Nature, not to abuse their liberty in the use of things in their own nature indifferent, and so this is false that the Church of Jerusalem was tied no other way by these acts then all Churches of the world, for some of the Churches of the world were not tied at all, by any ecclesiastical bond, but only for the necessity of the Law of Nature. 3. Jerusalem, Antioch, Syria and Silicia were tied by an ecclesiastical tie, because Jerusalem and the Churches of Antioch had here Commissioners, for Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas with certain other of them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , this must relate to Pastors and Elders, if Syria and Silicia had no Commissioners here, as certainly they were obliged to send Commissioners, as well as Antioch, seeing their case was one with Antioch, v. 23. and they could not but hear of this Apostolic remedy to remove the scandal of false Doctrine, and therefore their Commissioners were either here, or then they were obliged to be here, and here we have the true essence of a Synod, to wit, a meeting of the Churches of Antioch and Jerusalem at Jerusalem to determine of this question. But that the Church of Jerusalem did not determine all the business in a Presbyterial way, and that others had hand in it, is clear. 1. Because Paul and Barnabas and others with them are expressly sent from Antioch to Jerusalem as Commissioners and Elders, and here they reason and voice, as is clear, ch. 15. v. 12. v. 22. v. 28. ch. 16. 4. ch. 21. 25, 26. and the Acts and Decrees are ascribed to all the Apostles and Elders who were present at the council, ch. 14. 4. ch. 15. v. 22. v. 12. and amongst these were Paul and Barnabas, with certain others sent from Anti • b, Act. 15. 2. and the Elders of Jerusalem, Act. 21. 25. with the Apostles, Act. 16. 4. (2.) the reasons alleged are false, for Act. 16. 4. Act. 15. 22. Act. 21. 25. the Acts and Synodical Decrees are not ascribed to Elders of Jerusalem only, but to the Apostles who were not Elders at Jerusalem, and to the Elders in Jerusalem, Act. 16. 4. not of Jerusalem. 3. It is no matter though it cannot be proven that the Churches of Syria and Cilicis had no Commissioners there, for first, the contrary cannot be proven; secondly, they ought to have had Commissioners here; thirdly, the Acts are sent to them conjunctly with Antioch, and messengers to report the mind and sense of the Assembly as to Antioch, v. 23. (4.) It is but a groundless conceit to say that Paul and Barnabas came to the Synod as Commissio ••• s, or as servants to receive information, not as Elders to give their decisive voices, because Paul carried himself in the assembly as Peter and James who were Elders in the assembly, and they being Apostles, the decrees are ascribed to the Apostles without any distinction, Act. 15. 28. Act. 16. 4. And if Paul and Barnabas, and Silas a Prophet of the Church at Antioch, Act. 15. v. 32. with Judas, v. 27. also a Prophet, had been only Commissioners and servants of the Church at Antioch, and not Elders and members of the Assembly, how could they have voices in the Church or Congregation of Jerusalem? for the messengers of one Congregation hath not place to voice in another Congregation. 2. It is said expressly, It seemed good to the Apostles and Elders, with the whole Church to send chosen men of their own, with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men, (leading men) amongst the Brethren; now I desire to be resolved in two; 1. how Judas and Silas were men of their own company 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , certainly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must relate to the Assembly, to wit, to Elders and Apostles, by all good Grammar, and how are they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Captains and leading men amongst the Brethren, which brethren are certainly these mentioned in the same verse, Apostles, Elders, and the whole Church, and these mentioned in the next verse, 23. Apostles, Elders and Brethren, that is, chosen men of this Assembly; now it is evident that Judas and Silas were no part of Elders of the Church of Jerusalem, but Prophets at Antiab, v. 32. and members of that Presbytery spoken of Act. 13. 1, 2. and Act. 15. v. 35. And what power then had the Assembly to send them, and especially what power had the Eldership or presbytery of Jerusalem to send men 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of their own company who were not men of their own company? therefore they were called chosen men 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of their own company, and leading men 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Brethren, because they were members of the Assembly, and of that council gathered together with one accord, v. 25. and not because they were naked messengers of the Church of Antioch, but Elders, Prophets, v. 32. and members of the Assembly, v. 22. 23. And when as it is said Act. 16. 4. Act. 21. 28. These decrees are ascribed to the Elders in Jerusalem. I answer they are not called the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem, as Revel. 2. 1. To the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, v. 8. To the Angel of the Church of Smyrna, and v. 12. of the Church of Pergamos, and v. 18. and Act. 20. 17. but the Eders which were at Jerusalem assembled: and this doth no more prove that all these Elders were only the Elders of the Church at Jerusalem, then it proveth that the Apostles were the Apostles of the Church at Jerusalem which no man can say: yea by the phrase of Scripture used in other places, it is clear they were not the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem; and for Act. 21. 25. The Elders of the Church of Jerusalem taketh those Decrees upon them, not as if they made the whole Synod, but because they were a considerable part of the Synod, for it is clear from the story, Act. 15. that the Apostles and others were members of that assembly, and therefore, that v. 25. We have written and concluded, &c. must be expounded, we as a part of the Synod, have written, &c. and it is a Synecdoche, and the pronoun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (we) includeth no Apostle but James, whereas Peter, Paul, Barnabas, Judas, Sil • s and others Elders and Brethren were members of the Synod, yea and (as our Brethren say, though to me it is not probable) the whole Church of Jerusalem from v. 22. c. 15.

Object. 7. They take away the scandal in a doctrinal way only, declaring that they ought to abstain from things scandalous.

Answ. The very delivering to Satan may thus be called doctrinal, because it is a Declaration that the man's sins are retained in heaven, yet it is an authoritative declaration, and if it be mere doctrinal, one Pastor and one Prophet might have done all which this venerable college of Apostles and Elders disputed, reasoned, and concluded Synodically. A mere doctrinal power layeth not on burdens and Decrees. Herodian calleth such 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 senatusconsult • in, and Bude •• s a man excellently skillful in the Greek language saith the like of it, and so doth the civil Law make it a statute of the Senate.

Object. 8. The reason why Patel could not, though he was an Apostle, determine this at Antioch, was not because he wanted Apostolic authority, but because his Apostolic power was more questionable, he not having seen Christ in the flesh, nor being a witness of the life, death and resurrection of Christ, then the authority of James and Peter who wer • eye-witnesses of Christ's life, doctrine, and sufferings, and saw him visibly ascend to heaven, and the believers doubted if he was an Apostle, and the Synod was convened to have theresolution of the Apostles, and so it was merely Apostolical.

Ans. Though I grant there besom truth in this, that Paul's Apostolic calling was now more question 〈◊〉 , then the rest of the Apostles; and I easily yield that these who disputed with him could not rest upon his authority; yet I deny that hence we can infer no Synod: for if the Apostles had convened in Synod to satisfy those who doubted of Paul's authority as an Apostle; then they would have reterred the matter to James and Peter, who to these believers were undoubtedly the Apostles of the Lord: but if the Apostles had had no intent, but to end the controversy in a mere Apostolic way, and not intended a Synodical and an • clesiasticall and perpetual remedy in such cases of controversies, in particular Churches; I shall not believe that the Apostles when they were to determine by a superior, an Apostolic and infallible light, they would have joined with them the Elders, as Act. 15. 16. to consider of the question, and that the Church of Au • ioch doubting if Paul was an Apostle, would have decreed to seek a resolution from Elders, and that in an Apostolic way, for they sent to the Elders at Jerusalem for a resolution as well as to the Apostles, Act. 15. 2. and judge ye if the Apostles being to determine infallibly as Apostles, would join the falliblo and inferior light of Elders, v. 6. and Brethren, v. 22. if tlloy had not had a mind to determine the question in a Synodical way.

Object. 9. But it is not clear that in this act they either censure persons, or do anything in order to Church-censure, but only exercise a naked doctrinal power.