The Due Right of Presbyteries

The way of Church judging in New England.

Answ. Unity is much to be desired in the Church with verity, but your way we understand not.

They answer, These are miserable mistakes, either to think that the people or Elders must needs disassent, or that except they all consent, there can be no rule?

I answer, it is a miserable necessity, through the corruption of our nature, not a mistake; for Simon Magus, and forty like to him, in a Church consisting of threescore, must dissent from twenty, whose hearts are straight in the truth: You have no refuge here, but let the maniest carry the matter to a mischief, and the other twenty must separate, and make a new Church presently.

Answ. But to begin at your last, if one out of weakness disassent, he is to submit his judgment to the Church. But I say, what if forty out of weakness disassent from twenty, may not that whole Church as well submit to a Synod, as Act. 15. as one must submit his judgment to a Church? the conscience of one should no more be fettered, then the consciences of a whole Church.

They answer, in our Churches hitherto, the major part, yea all mind one thing, as Rom. 15. 16. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Act. 1. 14. I answer, 1. that is because they are in Church-government all one, and a conspiracy in error, is but seeming unity. But 2. I say, good men as Paul and Barnabas will differ. But 3. what if all be wrong of three parts, as 1 Cor. 1. 12. Some said, I am of Paul, some, I am of Apollo, some, I am of Christ; all the three were wrong, in that case, doth not a Synod by the word of God determine the matter best? certainly, though Synods may err, yet are they of themselves Christ's lawful way to preserve verity and charity and unity. But our brethren answer us, divisions ought not to be, and they will not but all agree in the truth, if the Church will lay aside corrupt judgment, and depend on Christ, considering the promises made to the Church, Jer. 32. Ephes. 3. 9. Matth. 18 20. Let me answer, there is much more charity in this answer, then verity. 1. They ought not to disassent from truth: true, but what then? the remedy is not given except you return to a Synod; the division, Act. 15. ought not to be; the house should not be fired: true, but the question is how shall water be had to quench it, for many things are, which ought not to be. 2. (Neither will divisions be,) that is false, 1 Cor. 1. 12. 3. As heresies must be, so scandals must be, our author saith (they will not be; they will not be) (say the brethren) if the Church lay aside corrupt judgment, and affection, and attend upon the rule, and depend on Christ. I answer. There is but vanity, and no solidity (I crave pardon) in this answer, it is the vain answer of Arminius in the case of the Saints perseverance. The regenerate (say they) cannot fall away if they be not inlaking to God's grace, and if they in holy fear take heed to their ways, so saith Arminius in his Declaration; and in his answer to Perkins: so also say the Arminians in their confession, and Episcopius. But what is this, but regenerate persons shall persevere, upon condition that they shall persevere? for not to be inlaking to the grace of God, is to cooperate to the grace of God, or with the grace of God, and to cooperate with the grace of God is very perseverance it self; for saith the the wicked Socinus, and Smalcius, and so say our brethren, all shall agree in the truth, if they lay aside corrupt judgment. And what is that, if they lay aside corrupt judgment? that is, if they agree with the truth, and assent to the Word of God. But so it is, that the best regenerate, even Barnabas, a man full of the holy Ghost, Act. 11. doth not lay aside corrupt judgment. But our brethren proveth they will law aside corrupt judgment; but how? you allege the Papists abused Scriptures, Ier. 32. God promiseth to put his Spirit and fear in his Church, that they shall not depart from the Lord. True (say I) they shall not depart from God, providing they lay aside corrupt judgment, as you teach us. But do you not teach us by your answer to elude these pregnant places, which unanswerably prove the necessity of the perseverance of the regenerated? But 2. what though God promise to put his fear in the heart of the regenerate? this promise is not made to the visible Church convened in a Synod, as it is such, nor will it prove that a Synod shall all agree in the truth, & that the whole Church shall lay aside corrupt judgment, except you serve yourselves with these and the like places, as Papists, and by name as Bellarmine, G • etserus, Snarez, Bucanus, Stapleton, Gregorius de Valentia do serve themselves with them, and the like, to prove that Councils are in fallible. What is said in the fourth Section anent the power of the people in Church-govern •••• is already examined, only in the closure thereof, they seem to give something peculiar to the Elders, which the people have not, which I discuss in the ensuing question.

We hold that Christ hath given a superiority to Pastors and Overseers in his House, whereby they are, by office, government, and power of the keys, above the people. But 1. this authority is limited, and conditional, not absolute, as if they may do what they please. 2. It is a power ministerial, not a Dominion; for as mere Servants and Ambassadors of Christ, they do but declare the will and commandment of the King of Kings. 3. When this authority is not exercised by the precise rule and prescript of the Law of God, it is not valid, but null, and of no force. 4. They are so above the people, as 1. they are their Servants, for Christ's sake, 2 Cor. 4. 5. yea we are their servants servants: not as if the people had a dominion over the Pastors, or as if they had their authority from the people, they have it immediately from Christ, but because all their service is for the good, and the salvation of the people. 5. They have so superiority, as they are subject to the Prophets to be judged, and censured by the Church representative of Pastors, Doctors and Elders.

Answ. So say our brethren in their Doctrine, we acknowledge that the people, and gifted men not in office, should teach, and all the faithful is the governing Church, to which Christ hath committed the keys, and power of ordination, and highest Church censures, even excmmunication, and that the Elders should obey the Church of believers. Ergo, in teaching and • uling you acknowledge no Presbytery. 2. Seeing you ordain the Elders to be ordained by the imposition of the people's hands, to be elected, called, censured, excommunicated, exauthorited, show us why the people are not the Rulers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the Elders ruled. 3. The key of knowledge is a chief part of the keys, and these keys by which sins are remitted and retained, and men bound or loosed on earth and heaven: and seeing Morellius, Anabaptists, and yourselves teach that these keys were given to the whole Church of believers, how do you think that people are not in teaching, Overseers as properly as the Elders, and that your government is merely popular, as Morellius taught? to say nothing that when you deny your government to be merely popular, you do not deny, but it is popular; for a government merely popular admitteth of public men to rule for the people, and we never read of a government in Athens, Lacedemonia, or anywhere, in the which all the people did actually judge, rule, and command, and so was merely popular.

I answer. 1. Calling and electing are not to be confounded; electing is no act of authority; but that the people calleth and ordaineth the Elders, wanteth example in the word of God, and therefore the Author addeth, that the people ordaineth the Elders in defect of their Presbytery, that is, where there is no Presbytery; then in case of extraordinary necessity, and where the Church is not constituted, they are to ordain the Elders, but in a Constitute Church, the power of ordination is in the Presbytery; Ergo, ordinarily the people do not exercise this authority over the Elders.

Answ. 1. I deny not, but a Church of believers in the least Congregation is greater then any Pastor, or number of Pastors, as they are such; for the Pastors are servants for the Church, and means for the end, and less and inferior in respect of Christian dignity, but this is not the point, we do not now dispute of Christian dignity, one redeemed soul in that respect is of more worth then a thousand Pastors as they are but mere Pastors, but because the Church sendeth the Elders, the Elders are a part, and a great part of the visible Church, which also send themselves; but it proveth not the Peoples Church authority, as they are contradistinguished from Elders to be superior and above the authority of Elders; for here the comparison must not be betwixt one or two Elders, and the Church including all the people and the rest of the Elders, but the comparison is betwixt spece and spece, the office and dignity and authority of the Elders as Elders, and the people as people; and the Church of Jerusalem was not a Parishonal, but a Presbyterial Church, consisting of many Elders, and Congregations: now we deny not two Elders to be inferior in authority to the whole College of Elders and people, and so there is no authority of the people above the Elders, from this proved.

2. Morton answereth Papists in the like argument, that sending proveth only that those who are sent, are not superiors to those who sent them, for the Father sent his Son into the world.

Answ. 1. If a warrant or example from the word, that one single company of sole believers wanting Elders, did in a Church way censure any one Pastor, or a whole Eldership, and that the Church of Jerusalem consisting only of believers without Elders, called Peter before them judicially to give an account of going in to the uncircumcised, is a dream: and though Peter should have given satisfaction to a number of sole believers, to remove the scandal, it proveth not that they had authority over Peter, for one private offender is obliged to give an account, and a satisfaction to another private brother, whom he hath offended, Matth. 18. 15. yet hath not a brother Church authority over one another, to excommunicate him, as our brethren say, that a company of only private believers may excommunicate all the Elders of the Congregation. 2. It followeth not that Elders should want the medicine of excommunication, when they stand in need thereof, because the people may not excommunicate them, for there be others who of office should excommunicate; and also the want of a mean of salvation, as the want of baptism, where such are wanting, as have the only Church power, to administer such means, doth not condemn men.

Answ. 1. This power of convening the multitude, cannot be the power of governing God's house spoken of, 2 Tim. 3, 4, 5. Tit. 1. 5. to obey those who watch for our souls, Heb. 13. 17. cannot be to convene to a Church meeting at their commandment. 2. To convene the Church meeting or Synods, is an action of the whole Church, for Christ hath given power to his own Church an ecclesiastic power to convene her own Courts, and this can no more be a peculiar act of authority, agreeing only to the Elders, or to a Pastor, then the act of excommunication, for it is given to all the faithful by your own grounds, 1 Cor. 5. 4. 1 Cor. 11. 18 1 Cor. 14. 23. how then is it a peculiar act of auhoritie in the Elders? 1. The Elders, if they be to be accused and censured, are they to convene the Judicatory, as the Consul did convene the Senate, and to summon themselves? also if they have any power to convene the Church, it is but delegated, for orders sake, to them, by the Church; Ergo, this authority is principally and first in the Church, and so it is no authority peculiar to the Elders; also, if it be but a thing of mere order, it is not an act of jurisdiction over the Church; a Moderator who conveeneth the Synod, or a Consul who conveenth the Senate, have not in that, jurisdiction or authority over the Synod or Senate, and may the Elders hinder, I pray you, the convening of the Church? I think not.

3. This is but a Popish argument, Pope Julius the third, in his Bull taketh this upon him, to convene Councils. The Cardinal de Monte President for the Pope gave leave by a special Bull from the Pope to the Council of Trent to advise about the translating of the Council from Trent to Bonony. And Good Bellarmine and Harding, as Jewell teacheth us, make this a part of the transcendent power and authority of the Pope over the Church, to convene the Church Catholic; and if it be an act of authority over the Church to convene the Church, far more must it be in the Pope to convene the Catholic Church.

Lastly, this power in Elders should be made good by the Word of God.

Answ. If to speak first in a Church meeting, prove that the Elders have authority over the Church; then one Elder hath authority over all the rest of the Elders, and must be a little Pope, or a great Prelate, for two or four Elders cannot all speak first. We seek now an act of authority due to Elders or Pastors, as they are such, and above the people; if you make this an act of authority, you then give us in every Church-meeting and Synod a Pastor of Pastors, and an Elder of Elders, and a Pope. 2. If this be an act of authority over the Church, then have Papists well proven that Peter hath an authority and power over all the Church, for Suarez, and Bellarmine, and Harding prove Peter to be a Pope, because he speaketh first in the council, Act. 13. 13. and the text that you cite, they cite also: But Whittakerus, and Gerson saith, as also Lyranus, and Carthusian, It is like that James spake first as President of the Council. 3. The Author leaveth this act of authority, as weak, and saith, that the offended party may speak first. Ergo (say I) to speak first is not an authoritative act of Pastors as Pastors agreeing to them, by virtue of their office, seeing this act is communicated to those who are out of office. Ergo, they have not shown as yet any Pastoral act of office due to the Elders as Elders; and if it were most convenient that Elders should first speak, our brethren will not say that it is due to them by their office, but for their age and gifts, and so they say nothing.

Answ. It cannot be denied, but Elders, that is, preaching Elders or Pastors, have authority over the people in preaching and rebuking with all authority; but 1. I ask at our brethren, by what authority of the Scripture is pastoral binding and loosing an authoritative act of the preaching Elder only? for the concionall or preaching power of remitting and retaining sins, Joh. 20. 21. is all one with the power of the keys, Matth. 16. and that is given (saith our brethren) to the whole Church, and by these texts are not restricted to Pastors as they expone them. 2. Our brethren allege there is a twofold power of preaching in Pastors, one by virtue of their gift, another by virtue of their office. By the first Pastors do preach to Infidels, Turks, and unconverted ones; now this preaching is not proper to Pastors as Pastors, nor is it any authority peculiar to Pastors over all the flock, for all gifted persons (as our brethren teach) may preach, and so the gifted ones amongst the people have authority over the Pastors in this meaning, as well as the Pastors have over them, and so the difference of rulers and ruled, of feeders and the fed, is taken away. Now for the power of Pastoral teaching, the Pastors have authority over the Church, but that is over the invisible Church of believers, and regenerated persons, for Pastors as Pastors do not convert Souls, and so they preach to the unconverted not as Pastors, or with any Pastoral care: for they teach that Pastors, Doctors, and Church-officers are given, Ephes. 4. 11. only for confirming of those who are already converted, not for converting of Souls, and by this means, 1. Pastors do not preach the Law, for the humbling of unconverted sinners, they do not as Pastors, or by virtue of the office open the eyes of the blind, nor are they Ministers by whom men believe, 1 Cor. 3. 5. nor are they Fathers who begot men in Christ Jesus, through the Gospel, as 1 Cor. 4. 25. Nor do they pray men in Christ's stead to be reconciled unto God, as 2 Cor. 5. 20. Which is strange and uncouth Doctrine of our brethren, for all these acts ministerial are performed upon non-converts, who are not properly members of Christ's mystical body, nor of the spouse of Christ, nor members of the visible Church, nor the Sons and Daughters of the Lord God Almighty, nor have some measure of sincerity and truth, as this author Chap. 3. Sect. 3. requireth of members of the visible Church, and these are not under any pastoral care, really and in very deed, who are yet unconverted to the faith, therefore the Pastor, if he convert any by his preaching, he doth it by virtue of his gift, not as a Pastor or by virtue of his office, as they teach in their answer to the 32. questions, & so as Pastors they have no authority over the unconverted within the visible Church; and this authoritative act of Elders over the people, falleth to the ground, by their principles.

3. This authoritative preaching doth not yet make over to the Elders authoritative power above, or over the people, such as we now seek. For 1. By this ruling Elders who do not preach and labor not in the Word and doctrine, 1 Tim. 7. 17. by office, have not this power; Ergo, yet you give no peculiar authority to the whole Eldership over the people. 2. The Spirit of God requireth an authority of overseeing and governing to be in Pastors beside the authoritative power of preaching; for besides that a Bishop should be • apt to teach, 1 Tim. 3. 2. he must also, v. 4, 5, 6. be one, who can both govern his own house, and also the Church of God, and not only must he not neglect the gift of prophesying, 1 Tim. 4. 14. but also he must know, 1 Tim. 3. 13. how to behave himself in the Church of God, and must be circumspect in receiving accusations against an Elder, and lay hands suddenly on no man, and not be partaker of other men's sins, 1 Tim. 5. 19. 22. he must not only be an approven workman, to divide the Word aright, 1 Timothey 2. 15. and preach in season and out of season, 2 Tim. 4. 2. but also must commit the Word to faithful men who are able to teach others, 2 Tim. 2. 2. All which are singular points of authoritative power of government different from authoritative power of teaching. And so Titus must not only have the oversight by sound doctrine to exhort and convince the gainsayers, Tit. 1. 9. but he hath power in governing to order the things of discipline, and to appoint Elders in every city, Tit. 1. 9. Act. 4. 23. yea there is an oversight in watching for souls, in governing no less then in teaching, H • b. 13. 17. Now this Author showeth us nothing, that is a peculiar authoritative power in ruling, governing and a disciplinary overseeing of souls, which the Word giveth to Elders, as they are Elders, and called Governors of God's people, as yet, yea all the people are governors, rulers and overseers in government by them, no less then the Elders.

Answ. This dispensing of Church censures hath two branches. 1. A directing of the Church in the quality of the censures. 2. A binding of the censures upon them, or in executing the censures of the Church. For the former, if it be a pastoral direction, it is all one with preaching of the Word, and is not an act of authority by way of governing, but by way of pastoral teaching. But, 1. We would have a word from God, giving this power of the keys peculiarly to the Pastors, for if you give the keys to all the Church of believers, as believers, and because they are Christ's Spouse, his mystical body, the habitation of his Spirit by faith, then with your good leave, there be neither keys, nor any power of the keys given to the Pastors as Pastors, and in respect of their office, but only as they are a part of Christ's body; now as Pastors or Elders, they are neither believers, nor the bride, nor a part of the bride, but at best the friends of the Bridegroom, Joh. 3. 29. especially seeing the Church as the Church, and as using actually the keys, doth censure and judicially prescribe the quality and quantity of the censure, as they are directed, Matth. 18. 1 Cor. 5. 2, 3, 4, 5. yea and the Church judicially, and authoritatively pronounceth the sentence, and manner of the censure on the sentence: for example, of ten collateral and coequal Judges, if two of these ten be skilled Juristes, and shall direct the rest in the quality of the punishment to be inflicted upon a malefactor, that direction cometh from them, not as Judges over the rest, nor by any peculiar power that they have above the rest, seeing all the ten are equally and jointly Judges of a like power, but that direction cometh from them as skilled Jurists: So here, though the Elders direct the Church anent, the quality of the censure, they do not this by an authority above the Church, seeing the Church with them have received the Keys; yea they principally as the Spouse of Christ, and his mystical body, have received the keys, and the Pastoes and Elders as such have the keys, not but as they are believers and a part of the mystical body, but as they are Pastors and Elders they have not received the keys at all, by our brethren's doctrine; yea as Elders or officers they are not parts of the Church, but only adjuncts and ornaments thereof. For the second, to wit, the execution of the censures of the Church, if they do it as Pastors, and by virtue of their office execute the sentence of the Church as Pastors, they are mere servants of the Church, not collateral Judges, with the Church, and are not as the Judge who doth direct the Jury: for the Jury doth only cognosce of the fact, but hath no judicial power to pronounce the sentence or discern the quality of the punishment, nor can the Jury at all discern any punishment. But the Judge cognosceth both of the Law, and the fact, and authoritatively pronounceth sentence; but the Elders have no authoritative power in directing the people to pronounce, or not pronounce the sentence; or what sentence to pronounce, or what censure to inflict; for if they have this authoritative power, then we seek Scripture to warrant this power. 2. The Elders must then have the keys in a more emminent manner then the people or Church of believers; so all be but blank and empty titles given to Elders hitherto.

An. This is but an empty title also. For, 1. The Pastoronly, & one dismisseth Doctor, Elders, Deacons, and the whole Congregation; and so one is a Pastor of Pastors, and an Arch-Elder of Elders hath authority, by this, over his fellow Elders, and candismisse them, therefore there is nothing peculiar in an official power, here to the whole presbytery, above the people. 2. A majority or superiority is one thing, and a power of jurisdiction is another. Blessing of the Church at their dismission is nothing, but a prayer of the whole Church (the Minister being mouth) who blesseth all, and is no act of superiority of jurisdiction, or power of the keys, of which we now dispute. And you cannot think that to obey those who are over you in the Lord, and submit to them, as it is, Heb. 13. 17. is nothing but to receive a dismissory blessing from the Pastor. And I much doubt, if the Priests blessing of the people, Numb. 6. was moral, and if it was not typical, he not taking in himself, but as a type of Christ, pronouncing the whole visible Church blessed, sorypifying Christ our Priest, in whom all the nations of the earth are blessed, Gal. 38. 14. And do not the people pay the Pastor home in his own coin, for you make the Church of believers to ordain their own Elders, and to lay hands upon them and bless them, so you teach. 3. Nor is dismissing of the Church an act of authority, or of official power, for your preaching and unofficed professors may dismiss, as well as they may publicly pray and preach. 2. A dismission is agreed upon by the Church, before hand, and floweth from the nature of all public meetings. 3. Ejusdem est potestatis congregare & dimittere caetum congregatum; you know to convene Christ's Courts authoritatively is due to no man on earth; the Church hath an intrinsical power of herself to convene (being the Court of the Lord Jesus) and so also to dissolve, and this is the usurped power that the Antichrist taketh to himself to convene the general councils; as Bellarmine, Suarez, Pighius, and Cajetan teach us.

Answ. Here be two diverse things sewed together to make up one thing: 1. to denounce the judgment of God is one thing, 2. to separate from the Church is another thing; the former is an act of authority, being rightly taken, the latter is an act of no authority. But for the first, to denounce judgment on a visible Church, and that with a separation, is • nothing but an act of Pastoral teaching, and so no act of official power of governing in the Elders above the Church, is brought in all these six, and so yet the difference betwixt the feeders and the fed, the shepherds and flock, the watchman and the city, or the people who are to submit and obey these who are over them in the Lord, who rule well, is close everted, and all the Churches are turned masters, feeders, governors, rulers; for Elders have no official authority by our brethren's doctrine, which is not in the Church of believers. 2. To denounce judgment to an Idolatrous and obstinate Church, who by their Apostasy do declare themselves, not to be Christ's body, is a Pastoral act of Pastors exercised on those who now leave off to be Churches, and this is to play the Pastors to that which is not a flock, and as unlawful as for a husband to exercise the actions of a husband to one who is not his wife. 3. To separate from an obstinate Church is by you thought lawful to all private Christians, who would not defile themselves with the pollutions of the Church, how then do you make it an authoritative act of ruling Pastors? 4. For Pastors to remove the Gospel, and preach no more to an obstinate Church, is not, nor can it, in reason, be, that wherein we are to submit and obey those, who are over us in the Lord. My reason is, we are to be agents, at least, for most part, in submitting and yielding ourselves to those who in teaching and governing are over us in the Lord, because they watch for our souls. But in their separating from us and removal of the Gospel, we are mere patients and cannot be agents. 5. Moses his removal of the Tabernacle, and Paul his turning from the Jews, was by another spirits warrant, then Pastors now a days can dare to remove themselves, and their Ministry from a visible Church, for Paul turned from the Jews for their universal Apostasy, blasphemy, and opposing of the main and principal foundation of the Christian faith, to wit, that Christ Jesus came in the world, died for sinners, rose again, and ascended to heaven, &c. The 4. case, to wit, of any particular scandal, or scandals and of obstinacy therein, cannot be the like ground for Elders to separate from a Church and never preach the Gospel again to them.

Of communion of sister Churches amongst themselves.

Answ. 1. We heartily embrace the doctrine of the communion of Saints, but many things are here which are incompatible with your doctrine; as first communion of Churches, which you call a branch of the communion of Saints, cannot consist with your doctrine, for a Church by you is relative only, to the Eldership of a Church, as sons are relative to Fathers, but a Son is not relative to a brother, so neither is a Parishonal Church properly a Church in relation to a neighbor Church; for a Church hath no Church-state, no Church-privileges, no Church-worship, in relation to a sister-Church; therefore you should say, the Communion of Christians of sister-Churches, not the Communion of Churches, for no Church by your doctrine hath any Church-state; or Church-worship in relation to any, but to its own members.

2. This enumeration is defective, you make a Communion of Churches in the members of sister Churches, in the Lord's Supper, though the members of neighbor Churches be not enchurched in Church-state, by oath, as a member of that Church, where he partaketh the Lord's Supper; and why should not the Child of believing parents in the death or absence of the Pastors of neighbor Churches have communion with you in baptism also? for this communion in baptizing, you deny to any but those who are members of that Church, wherein they receive baptism.

3. if you admit communion of Churches in some things, to wit, in the Lord's Supper, how can you deny communion of Churches in other holy things of God? for you admit no communion of Churches in the power of the keys, as in mutual counseling, warning, rebuking, binding and loosing, for Christ hath left no common power of the keys in many visible Churches, who are united together in an Island or Nation, or Continent, by which these acts of communion should be regulated, and in case of neglect and abuse, censured according to God's Word as you say, for you deny all authoritative power in Synods, let me be resolved, deer brethren, in this, how Christ hath put whole Churches and their souls in worse case then members of your independent Congregations are, for the keys of the kingdom of heaven in binding and loosing, in excommunicating, that the spirit may be saved in 〈◊〉 day of the Lord, the removing of scandals out of sister parishional kingdoms of Christ, the gaining of sister Churches from heresies and scandals, as brethren are to be gained, Matth. 18. 15. 1 Cor. 5. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 30. by censures, the keeping of the holy things of God from profanation, authoritative rebuking, warning, that others may fear, and that the rebuked may be ashamed, and all these means of salvation are denied to your particular Congregations, as if they were Angels and Popes, who cannot be lacking in duties, and yet all these are granted to members of any one particular Church, how hath the care & wisdom of Christ denied these means to many united Churches, and yet you acknowledge that sister Churches have communion amongst themselves, and that seven ways, in visible acts of external communion?

I believe this one argument, though there were no more, doth strongly conclude the lawfulness of Synods, and by consequent, the Law of nature would say, if Christ's wisdom provide ways to regulate the public actions of the members of a particular Church, that they may be edified and built up in the most holy faith, far more hath he taken care for many Churches united in a visible communion seven ways, that Lord that careth for the part, must far rather care for the whole body.

4. You say members of other Churches are admitted to the Lord's Supper amongst you, by consent of your Churches, but what consent do you mean? is the consent authoritative, by power of the keys? 1. This consent authoritative is either concluded in a Synod of many Churches, and so you acknowledge the authoritative power of Synods, if it be done and agreed upon in every particular Church by them alone▪ then I ask, seeing to administer the Lord's Supper to any, and so to make in your Church meeting, that it shall be administered to any, is (as you teach) an act of ministerial power over those, to whom you administer the Seal, chap. 4. Sect. 5. Now how do you exercise acts of ministerial power, or conclude ecclesiastically to exercise these acts in your parishional meeting toward those over whom you have no ministerial power? for members of neighbor Churches are under no ministerial power in your particular Church, as you teach in the same place, as you can exercise no power of the keys when some are absent, that is tyranny upon the conscience, saith Answorth, who will have none censured, or excommunicated, except the whole congregation be present: also he who of another Church communicateth with you, 1. Hath no faith of the lawful calling, and choosing your Ministers, for he neither could nor ought to be present thereat. 2. He knoweth not but he may be leavened by a scandalous lump, which leaveneth the whole Church, and is enough, as you say (chap. 4. Sect.) to hold any from communicating in the Seals with any Church. Now these and many other things he must take in trust from you, which Answorth thinketh tyranny of conscience; neither can a letter of recommendation make one of another congregation, capable of Seals with you; for to dispone is to alienate and give away the ministerial power of the Seals to another Church. Now this power (say you, chap. 5. Sect. 4.) is a part of the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free, and so you cannot dispone it to another Church, except you bring yourself in bondage, contrary to Gal. 5. 1.

5. Mr. Best. and your self, bold that a Pastor can exercise no pastoral act, but over his own flock, and you say that the Scripture saith so, Act. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2. Ergo, either to administer the Lord's Supper, is no pastoral Act, and may be done by non-Pastors, (as Arminians and Socinians destroying the necessity of a ministry, do aver) or then a Minister cannot administer the Lord's Supper to any but his own flock: see you to this.

6. If the sister Church lie under any offense, you will not admit any of their members to the Lord's Supper, though these members be of approven piety; and why? What a separation is this? What if these members do not consent to that offense, as some of the godly in Corinth might be humbled and mourn, that the Church did not cast out the incestuous person, shall they be debarred by you from the seals, because they separate not from that infected lump? the Apostle alloweth communicating, (so that everyone examine himself, 1 Cor. 11. 21. 30.) with drunken persons, and where many were stricken of God, with death, and diverse diseases, as eating and drinking their own damnation.

7. You look at the Lord's Supper, as a seal of communion with all the Churches of the Saints. What communion mean you? invisible? no. You deny that the seals are given to the invisible Church, and the members thereof, but to the visible Church, as you say; If you mean a visible communion of all the visible Churches of the Saints, why then brother do you call the universal visible Church a Chimera, or a dream, as you say? and if all the visible Churches have a visible communion, it is to deny Christ's wisdom and care of his Church, to deny the lawfulness of a Ecumenic and general council of all the Churches of the Saints. We recommend (saith the Author) Brethren for a time to other Churches, as Paul recommended Phoebe to the Church of Rome, Rom. 16. 1. 2. or we give letters dismissorie to such as are forever to reside in another congregation; but members are not to remove from their congregation, but upon just and weighty reasons made known and allowed by the whole Church, for we look at our Church Covenant, as an everlasting Covenant, Jerem. 50. v. 5. And therefore though it may be resigned, and translated from one Church to another, (as God's hand shall direct) yet it is not to be violated, and rejected by us; if members cut off themselves by excommunication, it is their own fault; if any upon light reasons be importunately desirous to remove, the Church is to use indulgence, as not willing to make the Church of God a prison, but often the hand of God in poverty and scandal followeth such, and driveth them to return: when a person recommended by letters cometh to another congregation, the Church by lifting up their hands, or by silence receive him; if he • e altogether unknown, and doubted of, because the Church may err, be is not received till due trial be taken of him.

Answ. We see not how letters of recommendation, most lawful, as we judge, and necessary, can resign ministerial power, a liberty bought with Christ's blood, (as you say) to any other Church, for we think all the visible Churches are one Catholic visible Church, and should have a visible communion, and so that there is no resignation of ministerial power in these letters, but they are declaratory of the Christian behavior of the dismissed Christian. We ask if dimissory letters be authoritative, and done by the Church as the Church, and how can a Church usurp authority (by your way) over a sister Church to recommend a sojourner to a Church state and Church liberties, and seals of the Covenant? one Church hath no authority over another. If these letters be merely private, and merely declaratory, to manifest and declare the sojourners Christian behavior only then he had power and right without these letters, or any act of resignation, or giving away ministerial power, to be a Church-member, of the visible Church to the which he goeth. Ergo, he was a member of the visible Church, to which he goeth before the dimissory letters were written; and the letters do resign no right, but only notify and declare the sojourners preexistent right, and so there is a visible Church and a visible communion of all congregations on earth, and most be an external power and authority in all, for Synods. Let our brethren see to this.

3. The person to remove must be dismissed and loosed by the consent of the whole congregation (it conveniency permit) else he is not exonered of his Church- oath made to that congregation; What if conveniency do not permit? then is he loosed from an oath without consent of the Church, which did by oath receive him. I think eju • dem p • testatis est (as the Law saith) ligare & solvere, that Church power which bindeth must loose.

4. If the Church-Covenant be an everlasting Covenant, as Jer. 50. 5. tying the man to the membership of that particular congregation forever; I see not how the Church can use indulgenees, and Pope-like dispensations against the oath of God, to break it upon light and frivolous reasons; for if God punish Covenant breaking, so also should the Church, and can by no indulgence be accessory to the breach of God's oath, there is too great a smell of Popery, Arminianism, and Socinianisine in this way, in my weak judgment. But if the man be not sworn a member of that particular Church by his oath, he is sworn a member of the visible Church universal, which our brethren cannot well say. Neither is any Covenant called an everlasting Covenant in the Scripture, but the Covenant of grace, Jer. 31. 33. c. 32. 40. Isa. 54. 9, 10. and that is made with the invisible Catholic Church of believers, as is the Covenant, Jer. 50. 5. and not a Covenant with one visible congregation, and what warrant hath the Church to dispense with the breach of such an everlasting Covenant?

5. The testimony of other Churches, if it be a warrant to you, in faith, to receive into the Church such a one as a Saint, and a Temple of the holy Spirit, how should it not also be a warrant to you, to cast out and excommunicate also?

6. The person coming from another Church, if of approven piety, is received, by lifting up of the hands, or silence of the Church, as you say, 1. Have we a warrant from God's word, for such a new inchurching? 2. Why is he not received by a Church oath? as a Minister transplanted to another Church, must have ordination and election of new, for to you there is alike reason. 3. If there be no need of a new Church oath to make him a member of that visible Congregation, seeing now he is loosed from the former, you in • inuate his former Church-oath did make him a member of a visible Church, and so • e that is a visible member in a Church, is a visible member of all, and so there must be a visible Church-Catholic, if there be a Catholic visible membership in any one member, and so you destroy what you build.

Answ. We seek a warrant from the word for this, for Elders are present at the admission, and choosing of officers, as prime agents by authority, not by way of naked counsel and advise. Act. 1. 13. c. 6. 26. c. 14. 23. Act. 13. 3. 1 Tim. 1. 13.

Answ. This Section being closed, I have here two considerable points to be discussed; the one anent the power of Synods: the other anent the power of the civil Magistrates.

For the fuller clearing of this grave question, I would have these considerations weighed by the godly reader.

Consider. 1. Canons of Councils may be thought to • ye as authoritative Commandments, or as advises and friendly counsels.

2. An advise or counsel doth obleige and tie both for the intrinsical lawfulness of the counsel, it being for matter God's word, and also for the authority of the friends counseling, because the first Commandment enjoineth obedience to all our betters, not only inplace, and official relation, as to Kings, Fathers, Pastors, &c. but also to all above us in age, gifts, knowledge, experience.

3. Hence there is a superiority of dominion, or jurisdiction, and a superiority of reverence, and endowments: the former is the narrower, inadequate, and straiter subject of the fifth Commandment, and both are considerable objects, in this Commandment.

4. All who as friends, equals, brethren, and endued with more grace, experience and light, do advise and counsel good, are superiors in so far, but it is a superiority of reverence, not of jurisdiction: for by this they who are aged, and may counsel what is lawful, have not power to censure or excommunicate those who follow not their counsel. Yet if David had rejected the counsel of Abigail, dissuading him from passionate revenge, he had in that despised God, unlessethe Prince or the High Priest had given that counsel by way of command, though there be degrees of Latitude in despising the one, rather then the other.

5. There is a difference betwixt hability to judge, and right or power to judge: a Presbyterial Church may have right, jus, and ecclesiastical Law to judge of a point, to the judging whereof, they want hability, and therefore de facto, it belongeth to a higher Synod, where more learned men are, though de jure the Presbytery may judge it.

6. Though government of the Church by Synods, be God's positive Law, yet upon the laid down ground, Christ hath given the keys and power of Government to every visible Church, the Government of united Churches by Synods, is a branch of the Law of nature.

7. Synods are necessary for the well-being of the Church, and still are in the visible Church in more, or less degrees, for the authority of Synods consisting of fix only, differeth not in nature and essence, from a general council of the whole Catholic visible Church. Magis et minus non variant speciem. And therefore if Synods be warranted by the word of God, (as no question they are) there is no need to prove by particular places of the word, the lawfulness of everyone of these, a sessionall meeting of the Eldership of a single Congregation. 2. A Presbytery, or meeting of the Elders, or Pastors & Doctors of more Congregations. 3. A Provincial Synod of the Presbyteries of a whole province. 4. The National Assembly, or meeting of the Elders of the whole Nation. 5. The general and Occumenick Council of Pastors, Doctors, and Elders of the whole Catholic Church visible; for all these differ not in essence, but degrees, and what word of God, as Matth. 18. 16, 17. proveth the lawfulness of one, is for the lawfulness of all the five sorts of Synods.

8. Grant the consociation of authorities in sundry Churches, and you cannot deny the authority of Synods above particular Churches.

9. Consociation of Churches to give advise and counsel, is not Consociation of Churches as Churches, but only consociation of Christian professors, who are obleiged to teach, admonish, and rebuke one another.

10. There is a right of dominion, and a right of jurisdiction, as we shall hear anon.

Hence our first conclusion, a general council is a Congregation of Pastors, Doctors, and Elders, or others, met in the name and authority of Jesus Christ, out of all Churches, to determine according to the word of God, all controversies in faith, Churchgovernment, or manners, no faithful person, who desireth, being excluded from reasoning and speaking. Neither is the definition of A • m • in, and Gerson much different from this, save that they think that councils are lawfully convened, if such and such only, as are of the Hierarchike order be members thereof, which we think Antichristian. 2. As also the Pope president here, we disclaim. Yet doth Almain confess that a general council may be convened without the Pope in three cases. 1. when the Pope is dead, either departing this life, or civilly dead, being excommunicated. for any crime of heresy: for the Apostolic Sea hath vaiked often two years together.

2. When the Pope is averse and opposeth reformation. 3. When time and place hath been assigned for the next general, council, as was done in the council of Basil; and the Papists grant that, Matth. 18. Tell the Church, is a warrant for a general council. 1. Because it is a mean for the saving of the spirits of all men, even Pastors and Apostles in the day of the Lord. 2. Because Apostles, though in prophesying and writing canonick Scripture, when they were inspired, could not err, yet otherwise they might err; and if Peter should have remained obstinate in his Judaizing, Gal. 2. and resused to hear Paul or the Church, he was to be excommunicated. 3. By the Church, Matth. 18. (saith the School of Paris) cannot be understood, the Prelates of the Church only, because Christ did speak to Peter; and saith Almain and Gerson, Peter cannot be both an ac • user, a witness, and a Judge. 4. There is a power of the keys to bind and loose, given immediately by Christ to all the rulers of the Catholic or universal Church visible; Ergo, the exercise of this power, though it be sometimes (physice) impossible, because of the corruption of man's nature, there being bloody wars in Christendom, yet it is morally lawful, for many things may be inconvenient, through man's wickedness, and so hic & nunc not expedient, which are morally lawful.

2. Conclusion; Every particular Pastor hath a power, though unproper, of dominion and authority, even out of a Synod, about the Acts of preaching and determining truth; according to the word of God, as Jer. 1. 10. See, I have this day set thee over the nations, and over the kingdoms, &c. 1 Tim. 6. 17. Charge them that are rich that they be not high minded, &c. 2 Tim. 4. 1. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead, &c. So any Pastor hath power of dominion and authority over a Synod, and Paul as a Pastor might preach, even before the council at Jerusalem passed their Synodical determination, Act. 15. that circumcision was not necessary, and that to abstain from things strangled, from blood and fornication was necessary and lawful, yea and in preaching truth the Pastor is subject to no Synod. But the Pastor hath not full power of jurisdiction about his acts of preaching necessary truth. 1. Because the Church may for just causes deprive him from preaching. 2. Because he cannot use the censure of excommunication against those who refuse to receive his true and necessary doctrine, without the Church join her power of jurisdiction with him. 3. He, his alone, cannot in a Synod determine ecclesiastically, and in an authoritative Church power, that same truth which as a Pastor he determined, and with the power of pastoral dominion he pressed upon the consciences of the Church, yea of the whole Synod, because one man is not the Church, or Synod; and James his alone, Act. 15. v. 15. could but say, Wherefore my sentence is that ye trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned unto God, though this was the very word of God, which James as a Pastor, even as an ordinary Pastor might have preached in the name of God; yet is it not the decree of the Church, which the Churches is to keep, Act. 16. 4. while it be determined by the Church. An example we may have possible not unlike to this. A man hath a power of dominion over his own proper lands and goods to use them in God, for his own use, but the supreme magistrate and Parliament hath a dominion of jurisdiction in a judicial sentence over those same lands to forfeit them for crimes committed against King and State: or this may clear it, Samuel hath a power immediately from God, to anoint David King, and in this he is not subject to the suffrages of the tribes of Israel, he hath a power of dominion here; but suppose we that Samuel live till God's time, when all Israel shall crown David King at Hebron, Samuel as a part of the Assembly of Israel, his alone, without the suffrages of Israel, could not make him King at Hebron. Hence we may see how weak the assertion of our brethren is, who say, That Synods should have power to bind the Churches (say they) we see not; Bellarmine indeed holdeth so. But orthodox writers hold that the sentence of councils is but a certain inquisition of the truth, and a ministerial and limited sentence, so that the decree of a council is of as great force as the reason thereof, so saith Ames and Junius. But certainly this is a mere mistake of our brethren, as if they were not orthodox writers, but conspirers against the truth with Bellarmine, who hold the authority of Synods. The essential end (to speak so) of Synods is unity, and the eschewing of schism; and we doubt not, but Peter, Paul, James had in their Sermons, and doctrine determined that same verity, to wit, that the Law of Moses and ceremonies was a yoke not to be laid upon the Christian Churches, yet it was not a decree for unities sake, and fuller authority binding the Churches to observe these, as Act. 16. 4. while it was determined in a Synod, Act. 5. 24. 25.

But truly we hold nothing in this common with Jesuits and Papists, for we condemn not that in Bellarmine, that he holdeth that lawful Synods (for of such we dispute with him) do bind the Churches to obedience in God, to their decrees, not because they say it, but because they say it authoritatively from God's Word; authority of Synods no orthodox writers deny, authority official as the representative Church of Christ they have, He that heareth you heareth me, he that despiseth you despiseth me; Where two or three are gathered together (in a Synod, say our Divines) I will be amongst them. But authority objective they have not, so as what they say, because they say it, therefore the very matter, object and thing said by them, is no less the Word of God, then if the Prophets and Apostles by divine inspiration had said it; at least it is not infallibly true, because they say it, for that we disclaim, and it is that authority of Synods, which Bellarmine and Papists hold, Councils (saith Bellarmine) and Scripture are both infallible, and the Jesuits of Reims, and Lorinus the Jesuit said councils are infallible, the holy Spirit is there present; Gratian said, all the decretal Epistles of Popes, and the Canons of the Councils are of equal authority with the Scriptures: and their Gregorius said he received with the same reverence and authority the four general Councils, & the four Evangelist • ; it is certain (saith Suarez) that a Council is an infallible rule of faith, and Turrecremata saith the same: It is certain (saith Bailius) Councils are •• the Oracles of God to us in difficulties, so saith Cajetan, Cano, and Gregorius de Valentia; we hold the authority of Councils, but ascribe to them as much power over the conscience, as there is reason in them from God's Word, and no more.

But 2. This is a weak reason, councils have no power to command obedience, because their Canons and Decrees are of no more force, then they have reason from God's Word. For 1. Friends, brethren, equals, by that have no warrant to rebuke, because their rebukes have but as much force, as they have reason from the word of God, for the reason is alike in both; lawful Pastors cannot command obedience in the Lord, your independent Congregations cannot command that which bindeth the Church to obedience, because the word or a commandment of a Pastor, or your independent Church is only a commandment ministerial and limited, and hath as much force as there is reason in it, from the Word of God; yea the Church of Corin • h hath not then the power of the Lord Jesus to excommunicate the incestuous person, nor the Church of Thyatira, to cast out and condemn Jezebel the false prophetess; nor do these commandments of the Synod, or Church assembly have any power to bind the Churches to obedience, because these commandments and decrees of censure are but ministerial and limited, and in so far only of force, as they have reason from the Word of God, as you say.

3. Conclusion: There is an authoritative power in Synods, whereby they may and do command in the Lord the visible Churches, in their bounds; the whole Churches are subject to the ordinance and decree of the Church, Act. 1. where with common consent of a Synodical meeting, Matthias is ordained an Apostle; Ergo, all the Churches are to take him for an Apostle. This argument cannot be repelled, because the Apostles by their extraordinary power did choose Matthias. Because, 1. they themselves cite this place to prove the people's power ordinary, which is to endure to Christ's second coming, in calling and electing their own officers and Elders. 2. Almain a Papist allegeth the place with good reason, to prove that a general council is above Peter or the Pope, because Peter would not choose Matthias without consent of the Apostles and Church. 3. If this was extraordinary that Matthias was chosen, why then is the vow and consent of the Church sought? for there is nothing extraordinary and Apostolic flowing from an Apostolic spirit, which is concluded or done by the spirit ordinary of the Church of believers. So also Act. 6. If the Apostles did not by the ordinary and Synodical power of ordinary Pastors choose seven Deacons, how do they first require that the Churches of Grecians and Hebrews should seek out seven men? v. 3. and did ordain them with the common consent of the whole multitude, v. 5. Act. 15. A Synod of moe Churches give decrees which oblige the Churches, v. 28. ch. 16. v. 4. Ergo, Synods have authority over the Churches. Those who say this Synod is not a pattern for after Synods, say far aside; for their reason is, this was 1. An Apostolic Synod; 2. the holy Ghost was here; 3. the thing determined was canonick Scripture. But this is a way to clude all the promises made to Pastors in the word, when as they are first made to Apostles: this promise, Behold I am with you to the • nd of the world, and this, I will send you the other Comforter, who 〈◊〉 lead you in all truth, cannot be made to faithful Pastors, and the Christian Church, that now is, for it is certain Christ is otherwise present with his Apostles, then with his Pastors after them. And that he gave them a tongue & a spirit when they were before the councils and rulers, as to Apostolic men, as Act. 4. 8. 9, 10. Act. 5. 29. as Christ promised, Matth. 10. 19. 20. Luk. 21. 13, 14, 15. for they were full of the holy Ghost before rulers, but by our brethren's doctrine, it shall follow none of these promises belong to Pastors nowadays in the like, because no pastors now are Apostles. Surely this were to fetter and imprison many glorious promises within the pale of the only Apostolic Church; and because Christ ascending to heaven sent down the Apostolic spirit to his Apostles to write and preach canonick Scripture, it shall follow he fulfilleth that promise, John 16. 13. to none nowadays, because none have the Apostolic spirit in the manner and measure that the Apostles had. Yea further it is canonick Scripture that the Apostles at the last supper did show forth the Lord's death till be come again; therefore it shall follow that we have no warrant to show forth the Lord's death till he come again. 2. But that the Apostles in an ecclesiastic way did determine in the Synod for our imitation, and not in an Apostolic way, is clear by many evidences in the text, as Act. 15. 2. Paul and Barnabas were sent commissioners to the Apostles and Elders about this question: Paul as an Apostle needed not be sent to know more of the matter then he knew, as an Apostle; for as an Apostle he knew the whole mystery of the Gospel, Gal. 1. 16. 17. Ephes. 3. 4, 5. Ergo, he was sent to the Synod as a Pastor, and that as an ordinary Pastor. 2. They came together, v. 6. to consider of this business, but as Apostles they needed not the help of a Synod. Ergo, they came together as ordinary Pastors for the Churches after imitation. 3. There was much debating and disputing, v. 7. about the matter. 4. They set down their minds and sentences in order, one after another, as Peter first, v. 7. 8. then Barnabas and Paul, v. 12. then James, v. 13. and to James his sentence the whole Council agreeth, v. 22. Now what the Apostles, as Apostles and from an infallible Spirit do, they do it not by seeking light and help one from another. 5. The Decree of the Council is a thing that Apostles, Elders, and Brethren, and the whole Church resolveth after much dispute, v. 22. But all these, especially brethren, and the whole believers, as our Brethren say, do not join themselves with the Apostles, either to write canonick Scripture, or to give their consent to the writing of it, therefore they do consent by a synodall authority, for the after imitation of the Churches.

Also there be reasons of moment for Synods; and 1. if according to the Law of nature, and nations, no man can be a Judge in his own cause, then are appeals from the Eldership of one congregation, when they are a party to the accused person, natural, and from a Session to the Presbyteries and Synods of many moe Elders. But the former is reason, nature, Law of Nations. Ergo, so is the latter. 1. It is best reason which hath most of Scripture. Paul and Barnabas, Act. 15. 1. 2. had no small disputation with those who said circumcision was necessary; finding their parties could not be Judges. They appeal to a general council at Jerusalem, where were the Apostles and Elders; The Church of the Grecians and the Church of the Hebrews strive, neither of them can judge other, and both appeal to a higher judicatory, to the twelve Apostles, and their own Churches meeting with them, and there is the matter determined a • ent helping the poor by Deacons; if the Judge do wrong, and one particular congregation shall oppress one sincere and sound believer, what remedy hath the care of Christ provided for this? that the oppressors may be edisied by Church censures, and the oppressed freed, and delivered by remedy of discipline of Christ, whose it is to judge the poor of the people, and to save the children of the needy, Ps. 72. 4. Now it is known that Diotrephes doth sometime excommunicate, and the evil se • vant ruleth all, Hieronymus saith Arians ruled all in the days of Constantius and Valens: Basil saith, we may say in our time, that there is neither Prince, nor Prophet, nor Ru ••• , nor oblation, nor incense: Athanasius and Vincentius Lirinent complained that it was in the Arians times, as with the Church and Prophets in the days of Elias: and amongst Papists Occam the author of Onus ecclesiae, and Picus Mirandula complain, there was in their time, no saith, no truth, no Religion, no discipline, no modesty; but all sold offices, Churches, dignities, and benefices, and that ambitious Popes spill all, the Clergy entered by Simony, ruled by Simony, the holy place corrupted. At which times all the godly were crying for a free general council, as a remedy against the corruption of inferior judicatories. Sa • ano • ala reputed a Prophet, counseled Charles the eighth of France, to reform the Church, as he would return from Italy, with honor, as saith Philip de Comines. Gerson pleadeth for the necessity of a general Council. Genebrard saith, for an hundred and fifty years, Popes, to the number of fifty, had made defection, from the faith and godliness of their Ancestors. Aventinus maketh the same complaint, and Almain also, that Prelates were more eaten up with the zeal of money, then the zeal of God's house. Is there not need then of a general Council? Hence came also appeals from the Pope. The Emperor Lodovicus Bavarus (saith the German Chronicle) appealed from Pope John 22. misinformed to a general Council, and the Pope better informed, and the crime was, because he had taken the title of Emperor before he was confirmed by the Pope, for which he was excommunicated. Sigismond Duke of Austria appealed from Pope Pius the second, to the next succeeding Pope, and a general Council under him, for the Pope excommunicated Sigismond, because he kept back Cardinal Cusan from the Bishopric of Brixen within his Dominion; for the Bishopric was given to him, by a commendam, by the Pope: See Aeneas Silvius. Philip the fourth appealed from wicked Boniface the eighth, to the Sea Apostolic then vacant, and to a future Council; so Platina relateth. The University of Paris appealed from Leo the tenth, who wickedly condemned the Council of Basel, to a future Council, as you find it in the treatise called Fasciculus, &c. The Archbishop of Cullen excommunicated by Paul the third, appealed to a lawful Council in Germany, because the Pope stood accused of heresy and idolatry, as Sleidan saith. The gloss of the Canon Law saith, the Pope cannot be Judge in his own cause; and we all know how justly Luther appealed from Leo the tenth, to a general Council: all which saith that the like is warranted by the Law of nature, where a particular Eldership and congregation is accused of scandals, that superior Synods there must be to discuss such causes. And the good use of councils you may see in one: The Council of Constance, Sess. 11. art. 67. condemned John 23. because he taught there was no life eternal, Neque • aliam, post hanc, vitam; pertinaciter credidit animam hominis cum corpore mori, & extingui, ad instar animalium brutorum, dixitque mortuum semel esse etiam in novissimo die minime resurrecturum. The necessity of Assemblies when common enemies trouble the Church, prove that Christ hath instituted Synods. And 1. our present Author reasoneth from the Churches necessity, Synods may convene to examine (saith he) either corrupt opinions or suspicious practices; and citeth for this the Council of Jerusalem, Act. 15. Now this council did authoritatively command, Act. 15. 28. Act. 16. 4. Act. 20. 19. and not give advise or counsel only. 2. If by the Law of nature, and by virtue of the communion of Saints, Churches convened, may give advise; then say I, as communion of counsels and advises is lawful, so by the Law of nature communion of authoritative power is lawful. As after the eye (saith Almain) seeth the danger of the body, it should give warning to the rest of the members to use their power. And this power (saith he) denunciative, or by way of charity, though not authoritative, is in private persons for the convening of a Council. As after (saith Almain in the same place) any is instructed by a skilled Physician of that which is necessary, for the health and safety of the whole body, he is obliged to use that necessary mean, not now by virtue of the precept, or rather counsel and advise of the Physician, but by virtue of the precept and authoritative power of the Law of nature, for the safety of his body: yea further (saith he) if the right band were fettered with chanizees, or should refuse pertinaciously at the nodde of the imagination to defend the body, then the whole power of defending the body, should remain in the left hand. And certainly this is most natural, if a foreign enemy should invade a whole Land, or any part of a Land, the whole Land by the Law of nature were obliged with joint authority and power to resist that common enemy. Now seeing a number of consociated sister Churches make one visible Church body, having visible communion together, as the Author granteth in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which is (saith he) a seal of the communion of all the Churches of the Saints, and in other external acts of Church communion, as hearing the Word, exhorting, rebuking, comforting one another, then are all these visible Churches with united authority and Church power, as Churches, and not as Christians only, to convene and condemn a common heretic infecting all or any part of that visible Church body; and if any one Church or Congregation under the pretence of plenitude of independencie of government within themselves, should refuse to join with the whole, yet the authoritative power of Synodical judging and condemning such a heretic, doth reside by the Law of nature, in the rest of the body. If there be a communion of gifts, there is also a communion of authority. And if a nation have intrinsically authoritative power under a Prince to repel a common enemy, for the safety of the whole, then hath a visible body of many Churches in joining one external communion of sisterly consociation, under one Christ, one Church, power to repel a scandalous heretic, who is a common enemy to the whole Churches visible.

This Argument is grounded upon the necessity of Synods; our brethren are forced to acknowledge their necessity, by way of counseling, and advising, but Synods as Synods to be necessary, they think popish. The best popish council we read of, is that of Basil, where it was ordained that a general council should be holden within five years next following, the next council within seven years, and always after that, every ten years; and in the council of Basil the Pope is discharged to transgress that time of convocating a council. Now the councils as councils are no popish devices, but rather hated by right down, and well died Papists, as is clear by Gersons complaint who saith omission of general councils is the Churches plugue; a lover of reformation Franc. Zabarell saith, wicked P • pes neglecting general councils, have undone the Church. The learned author of the review of the council of Trent saith gravely, It is but a theating of Christ • ndome above board, to leave the judgment of the necessity of general councils to the Popes will. and no marvel then Popes decline councils; for the council of Pisan (as Bellarmine granteth) was convocated against Julius the second that wicked man, and therefore was rejected by Julian the second in the council of Lateran, yet this council and all the decrees thereof was approven and confirmed by Alexander the first, who was accounted lawful Pope; and (b) Platina faith, this council was approved, and that in it Gregory 12. and Benet 13. were deprived of their papal dignity, all nations assenting, except neither Spain, the King of Scotland, and Earl of Arminac, who followed Pope Benet: and for approbation of the councils of Pise, Constance, and Basil, which censured Popes and deprived them, and subjected them to a general council, let any man read the Review of the Council of Trent, and Bellarmine is therein fully consuted. Also general councils have condemned the doctrine of the Church of Rome, for which they think them not necessary, as the council of Frankford, saith Bellarmine, and Basil and Constance are not approved in all, because they favor not the Roman Churches doctrine and the Popes supremacy above Councils; yea and general councils cannot be simply necessary (saith he because the Catholic Church remained safe, the first three hundredth years after Christ, without general councils, and might have remained safe other three hundredth years, and so a thousand years, and faults may be amended by the Laws of Popes, and by provincial councils (saith he;) and their Costerus saith, the Pope him self without councils hath condemned many heresies, and this is a shorter and more compendious way, then by councils, for it is hard and laborious to convene councils, therefore the Churches salvation doth not depend upon them, saith Bellarmine, yea it is in vain (saith the Jesuit Pererius) to do that by many, which may as conveniently be done by fewer, he meaneth councils may be wanted. Our brethren rejecting councils, and their necessity at all, in this sideth with Papists. Though Calvin saith, Nullum esse nec melius, nec certius remedium, that there is no better, nor surer remedy to find out the truth, then a Synod of true Pastors. And Arminians and Socinians think that Synods are neither necessary, nor profitable; for as our brethren here give no authority to Synods, but to counsel and advise: the very same is taught by a grand Arminian Episcopius, who saith, Synods are not profitable, for the establishing the truth, or rooting out of errors and heresies, but only to advise, sist, examine, and by reasons and arguments to persuade, and therefore are not profitable, either for the being, or for the well being of the Church. Synodici conventus nec ad • esse, nec ad been esse ecclesiae absolute necessarii sunt; ad veritatis divinae stabilimentum, & hereseon, errorumque averruns itionem vel exstirpationem, eo tantum casu utiles esse statuimus, si ad deliberandum, ventilandum, examinandum, & rationibus argumentisque persuadendum congregentur; litium finem facere, circa religions capita, aliter quam persuadendo, est tyrannidem in ecclesiam invehere, & libertatem conscientiarum, si non omnino tollere, saltem vehementer astringere & ligare. To • nd controversies in the Church any otherwise, then by persuading, is to bring in a tyranny in the Church of Christ, and to hurt, if not altogether to evert the liberty of consciences of men. And the Arminians in their Apology teach us that a decision or a determination of a Synod obligeth not those who were not present at the making of that decision. And so have I shown from Answorth, and our brethren's doctrine that they teach, people cannot assent, without tyranny of consciences, to the decrees of the Elders, at the making whereof they were not present, and present, consenters. 2. A Synods decision doth incline the mind to consider of the decision, but doth not compel authoritatively to consent and obey. 3. This is violence to the conscience. 4. To setch expositions of the word from confessions of faith, or decrees of councils is dangerous; and this is the doctrine of Socinians: for Theophil. Nicolaides saith, the Church in a Synod cannot decide controversies, because she may err, neither can she take them away, for that were to do violence to men's consciences: and Smalcius saith, this were (tacit) quietly to leave the writings of the Apostles, and commend human traditions. So our brethren give nothing, but a power of counseling and moral persuading to Synods, and no authority to command, because (say they in their answers to the 32. questions) Synods may err, and their decrees have no more force then they fetch reason from God's Word; and truly our brethren with Socinians and Arminians here do fall in many foul errors. For, 1. all preaching of the Word, and all power of authority of Pastors commanding in the name of the Lord, faith and obedience, is only moral and to persuade, and not authoritative to command, because Pastors may as well err in preaching, as the Church may err in Synods. 2. Because what Pastors preach hath no more force over the conscience, then they have warrant to speak from the Word of God, as is clear, Ezek. 3. 7. Gal. 1. 9. 1 Thess. 2. 13. 2. All confessions of faith that are set down by lawful Synods are null. 3. Liberty of prophesying, and a Cassandrian license of believing in things controverted, anything in this or on that side, is lawful. 4. A perpetual doubting of conscience, except in two or three points fundamental, that all Christians believe, yea and all heretics, is brought in in the Church. 5. The Lord's working with the word preached, is but by way of moral persuasion. 6. But our Divines hold the authority of Synods, and of Pastors preaching the Word from the Scriptures: but I find both our brethren and Arminians do misken the authority of the Church, and of Pastors in both Preaching and Synods, for they think to set up the authority of Synods, is to cast down the authority of the Scriptures, because things to be distinguished are confounded; for we deny that Synods or Pastors have peremptory, absolute, and illimited authority, and power to determine as they please in Sermons and Synods, their Power is limited according to the Word of God, and their word is only to be believed, in so far as it is agreeable to the Word of God; but hence it followeth not, that Pastors and Synods have no power and authority at all to determine, but only to counsel, advise and persuade; for private Christians, our equals and inferiors, have power to counsel, persuade, and advise in a private way by teaching, admonishing, exhorting, rebuking, conference.

They build upon the reproving of events of councils by Nazianzen, which is not against their authority and true fullness, and he speaketh of the councils of his time, and it is not to be denied but Panormitan saith well, dictum unius privati est praeferendum dicto papae, si ill moveretur melioribus rationibus veteris & novi Testamenti; and Augustine saith, latter councils may correct older councils; and Petrus de Monte under Eugenius complained that there was no godly and learned Bishops in his time, to determine truth in a Synod, when Doctors, Professors, Bishops, and all have sworn obedience to the Pope, to their Occumenick councils, and to the wicked decrees of the council of Trent, as the Bull of Pius the fourth requireth.

But before I say anything of the second question anent the magistrates power, I shall close the other ways of communion of sister Churches.

Three other ways of communion of sister Churches.

Ans. This way of communion we acknowledge, but we see not how this communion can stand, wi • hout the authority of Synods; if Churches be not united in one visible body, they cannot authoritatively send help of teachers one to another; and this is a direct acknowledgement of a visible union of more Churches in one visible body; for the Church of Jerusalem authoritatively sent Pastors, Paul and Barnabas, as Pastors to the Gentiles, you will have them sent as gifted men, and that they are not Pastors while they be ordained, and chosen by these Churches to which they go.

Answ. You acknowledge that same order which Christ commandeth, Matth. 18. to gain a brother, is to be kept in the gaining of scandalous Churches. But 1. What warrant have you of the two first steps of Christ's order against scandalous Churches, and to omit the third judicial and authoritative way, when sister Churches turn obstinate? Christ's order for gaining the scandalous is as necessary in the third, as in the former two. 2. Why do you allow the third in a sort? for if the sister Church will not be admonished, you will have her rebuked, before moe sister Churches, that are convened, that is, before a Synod; is it because you think there is more authority in a Synod, then in one sister Church? then you think there is authority in a Synod; for by good Logic, we may infer the positive degree from the comparative, and there is no other reason why the matter should come before a Synod, for all in a Synod wanteth authority and power to censure, as you think, yet to complain to a Synod is an acknowledgement of the authority of a Synod, as Christ's order saith, Matth. 18. 17. If he neglect to hear them, tell it to the Church.

3. What is the withdrawing of brotherly communion from obstinate sister Churches, but as Ames saith well, excommunication by proportion and analogy? Ergo, say I, in this a Synod hath a Synodical authority over the Churches within the bounds of the Synod by proportion, for who can inflict a punishment of a Church censure, by proportion answerable to excommunication, but a Church, or a Synodical meeting, which hath the power of the Church by proportion? Ames would prove that a particular Church cannot be excommunicated, because a Church cannot be cast out of communion with it self, for then she should be cast out of herself. But this argument with reverence of so learned and godly a man, proveth only that a particular Church cannot excommunicate herself, which I grant, but it concludeth not, but a particular obstinate Church may be excommunicated out of the society of all sister Churches, who meeting in a Synod in the name of Jesus Christ have power to save the spirits of sister Churches in the day of the Lord, and are to edify them by counsel and rebuking, as the Author granteth, and why not by an authoritative declaring that they will have no communion with such an obstinate sister or rather daughter Church?

Answ. That you have never been put to these duties to the utmost, will never prove that the government is of God, for Corinth, Ephesus, Pergamos, Thyatira, which were glorious Churches by your own confession, were put to a necessity of the utmost extent of these duties; yea it proveth your government to be rather so much the worse, because Christ's government is opposed by secret enemies in the Church.

2. You make the spirit of love in a pastoral care over other Churches to be dead, because none have any pastoral care over any other Churches, but the particular Congregation over which they are Pastors, and pastoral love to unconverted ones, as pastoral, you utterly deny.

Answ. 1. This way of enlarging Christ's kingdom is defective. 1. It showeth the way of enlarging the number of invisible Churches, and multitudes of converts into new incorporations, but doth show no way how to plant souls who were non-converts, and branches of the wild olive in Christ Jesus, and to make new visible Churches; but it is certain that the Apostles as Apostles, and as Pastors, by virtue of their office converted obstinate sinners to the faith of Christ, and planted them in a visible Church, consisting of professors of the faith, partly converted, partly not converted; but the pastors by your doctrine have no power as Pastors, or by any Pastoral authority, to plant the Gospel where it hath never been, that pastoral spirit is dead with the Apostles; and in this, contrary to all reason and sense, and contrary to the Scriptures, you make private Christians the successors of the Apostles to plant Churches, and to convert souls, and to make them fit materials for the visible Church of regenerate persons; for Pastors as Pastors, and visible Churches as visible Churches do nothing at all to the multiplying of Churches, seeing Pastors and visible Churches as they are such, by your doctrine, are but nurses to give suck to those who are already converted, but not fathers to convert them; for private Christians, or pastors as Christians gifted to prophesy, not as Pastors, do multiply Churches, and convert men to Christ, as you teach, now we all know that nurses as nurses do not propagate, or by generation multiply people in the Common-wealth, that fathers and mothers only can do; your Churches have no ministerial breasts, but to give suck to babes who are already borne: but we see by your doctrine no ministerial power of Pastors or Churches to send forth members to enter in a Church covenant, or to enter in a new Church relation of a daughter, or a sister visible Church; if they send a number to be a new Church, your Pastors or visible Church did not multiply them, it is presumed they were converts, before they were members of the visible Church, which now sendeth them out; and if they be multiplied in the bosom of your visible Church and converted, they were not truly members of that visible Church before their conversion, and also that they were not converted by any public ministry, but by private Christians gifted to prophesy, who are the only successors of the Apostles to plant visible Churches: but what pastoral authority have you to send them forth to be a new visible Church? none at all? they have as believers power to remove from you, and because of multiplication, to make themselves a new Church, and this ministerial power of making themselves a new Church they have not from you, but from their fathers who converted them, so that you make a visible Church within a visible Church, but not a Church begotten or borne of a visible Church, as a child of the mother; and we desire a word of God, either precept, promise, or practice of such a Church multiplication, man's word is not enough.

2. We hold that the sending of the Apostles to all the world was not in it self, that which essentially distinguisheth the Apostle from the now ordinary Pastor, who is fixed to a single Congregation, but the gift of tongues to preach to all the world upon the Lord's intention to send the Gospel to all nations, that as many as were chosen to life, might believe, was that which essentially differenceth the Apostle from the ordinary pastor, together with a special revelation of God, to go to such and such people, to Macedonia, and not yet to Bythinia. And now seeing these two are taken away, the ordinary Pastors which now are, have as Pastors a sufficient calling to preach the Gospel to all nations, to whom by God's providence they shall come, and can understand their language, whether of their own Congregation or not. Neither is a Pastor tied as a Pastor by God's Word, to one only Congregation, for then it should be unlawful for a Pastor as a Pastor to plant a new Church; but shall it be lawful for private Christians to plant new Churches, who are not the Apostles successors, and yet it shall be unlawful for Pastors, who are the undoubted successors of the Apostles, to plant new Churches? I would think that admirable doctrine, for so you give to private Christians that which you make essential to the Apostles, and you deny it to the undoubted successors of the Apostles, to wit, to Pastors. But we hold a lawful Pastor is a Pastor in relation to all the world, with this distinction, he is by Christ's appointment and the Churches a Pastor to all congregations, to plant and water, and preach, but by special designation of God's providence, and the Churches appointment designed and set apart for such a determinate flock, just as the Apostles in general were made Pastors to all the world, Matth. 28 19. Go teach all nations, but by special revelation and Apostolic appointment, Peter was appointed the Apostle of the Jews, Paul of the Gentiles, Gal. 2. 9. yet Paul was a Pastor in relation to the Jews, and Peter also in relation to the Gentiles: so by special revelation, Act. 16. they are forbidden to preach the word in Bythinia, and commanded to preach it elsewhere; and for this cause, pious antiquity, as Morton observeth, called some learned fathers Pastors of the World, Athanasius is saluted Pontifex maximus, as Russinus saith, and Origen magister ecclesi • rum, master of the Churches, so Hieronymus, and Cyprian totius orbis praeses, Cyp • ian the Bishop of all the world, yea and Pope, so Nazianz. Hilarius is called by Augustine insignis ecclesiae doctor, a renowned teacher of the Church, and Nazianzenus calleth Basilius the light of the word, and Damascenus the light of the whole world, and Theodoret saith Chrysostom is called totius orbis terrarum doctor, the Doctor and teacher of the whole world: all which titles saith evidently that antiquity believed never a Pastor, or Bishop, not to be a Pastor only in relation to the one single Congregation, whereof he is Pastor, but a Pastor in relation to the whole visible Church, though by designation of the Church his ministry be appropriated to one particular Church. Thus it is clear that our brethren deny all communion of Churches, while they confine a visible Church to one only single and independent Congregation, subjected in its visible government to Christ Jesus immediately, and to no universal visible Church or Synod on earth.

Anent Magistrates sundry things are questioned to make presbyterial government odious. And first our brethren complain that our Churches are constitute by the authority of the Magistrate, Robinson saith, it was a presumptuous enterprise, that people were hailed against their will into covenant with God, to swear obedience to the protestant Faith, being a profane multitude, living before in gross idolatry, and that by the authority of the supreme magistrate, for the commandment of the magistrate (say they) can make no members of the visible Church, or of Christ's body, because it is a voluntary act of obedience to Christ, that men adjoin themselves to the visible Church; Ergo, none can be compelled thereunto by the authority of the Magistrate; faith may be counseled, it cannot be compelled. For the clearing of this question, these considerations are to be weighed.

1. The Magistrate may compel to the means, and external acts of worship, and to desisting from external false worship of the false God, or of the true God worshipped in a false way, he cannot compel to internal acts of faith, love, and such like, as having no power over the conscience.

2. There is one consideration of a Heathen or Pagan nation which never received Christianity, and the true faith, and another consideration of a nation baptized and professing Christ.

3. A Magistrate may compel a heathen nation to the negative reverence of Christ in a indirect way, and that with the sword, though he cannot compel to the positive worshipping of him: if a Christian Prince subdue a Pagan nation, he cannot force them with the Sword to a positive receiving of the doctrine of the Gospel, but if it be a nation expressly blaspheming Christ, as the nation of the Jews now do, he may compel them to an abstinence from a professed blaspheming of Christ, because he is to use the sword against blasphemy.

4. The weapons of the Church as the Church are not carnal, but spiritual and mighty through God.

5. The compelling power of the Magistrate is terminated upon external worship as abstracted from either hypocrisy or sincerity in worship,

6. Though no man resist the Magistrate in a matter of religion, except in a hypocritical way, save only he who thinketh he hath reason 〈◊〉 , and is led by the judgment and inditement of conscience to resist, • et is not the in litement of conscience, but only the Word of God • et rule of man's obedience, or resisting in actions, purposes & conversation.

1. Conclusion. Fire and sword, or war, or the coactive power of a magistrate is not God's way of planting the Gospel in a heathen nation, which never heard of the Gospel before. 1. Because the Apostles were commanded, by teaching the Gospel to all nations, Matth. 28. 19, 20. Mark. 16. 15. Act. 7. 8. and not by war, to spread the Gospel. 2. Because Christ's Kingdom is not of this world, for then his servants would fight for him, Joh. 18. 36. nor are the weapons of our warfare carnal, 2 Cor. 10. 4. nor is Christ's sword any other thing, then the Word of God, Rev. 19. 15. Gal. 6. 17. And in this meaning, and with relation to the internal acts of sound believing, have the learned taught us, that, religio suaderi potest, cogi non potest: if these be the constitutions of Clemens, let it go for a truth in this sense, that God hath given liberty of will to men, not punishing them with temporal death, but calleth them to give an account of •• eir doings, in the life to come: which yet cannot be universally true, except that the Author with Anabaptists take away the power of the civil magistrate; and Athanasius meaned with us, when he citeth that, If any will come after me, let him take up his cross; to prove that the will cannot be compelled; and that of Lactantius is approved by all, defendenda tamen religioest, non occidendo, sed moriendo, non saevitiâ, sed sapientiâ, non s •• lere, sed fide; illa enim malorum sunt, baec bonorum; & necesse est bonum in religione versari, non malum: Nam si sanguine, si tormentis, si malo religionem defendere velis, jam non defendetur illa, fed polluetur, & violabitur. Nihil est tam voluntarium quam religio, in qua si animus sacrificantis est eversus, jam sublata, jam nulla est: all which tendeth to this, that religion is like freewill, and free-will like a Virgin which cannot be ravished. Let that of Tertullian stand, Lex nostra non se vindicate ultore gladio • Procopius saith that Justinian was blamed, because he compelled the Samaritans to embrace the Christian faith.

2. Conclusion. A Christian Prince subduing a heathen Nation, may compel them to desist from a negative dis • onouring of Christ, and from an external false worship. Dan. 3. 29. Therefore I make a Decree, that every People, Nation, and Language, which speak anything amiss against the God of Sadrach and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dung • ill. 2. The Magistrate beareth not the sword for nothing, or invaine, for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath on those who do evil, Rom. 13. 4. Therefore he should be God's Minister to execute wrath on those who dishonor Christ. Nor must we approve of that of Tiberius, that God's take care of wrongs dene to themselves: and that of the Emperor Alexander, it's sufficient that the breach of an oath hath God to be the revenger. Yet the Emperor Constantine commanded all the Churches of the Pagan God's to be closed up, and Ambrose and Augustine both commended the fact; and Ferdinand King of Spain, commanded all the Jews, who would not turn Christians, to remove out of Spain.

3. Conclus. Where a Nation hath embraced the faith, and sworn thereunto in Baptism, it is lawful for the Magistrate to compel them to profess that truth to the which they have sworn in Baptism. 1. Because the Magistrate is a keeper of both Tables of the Law. Ergo, he may take care that these who are baptized, and sworn to be followers of Christ, should profess what they have sworn to profess. 2. Because the Magistrate may compel, ad actus imperatos, non ad actus elicitos, commanded and external acts of worship, though he have no power over the conscience to command the elicit acts of will and mind. 3. He may command to use the means of Religion, though he cannot force Religion it self: and this Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Asa, and Josiah, and other good Kings commanded, and in that are set forth to all Princes as patterns of zeal. 4. The most pungent argument of our brethren in the contrary is of no weight, because (say they) for one to adjoin himself to the visible Church in a profession of the faith, it is a supernatural work of Grace, and must be voluntary, else the Magistrate should compel men to hypocrisy, yea and he should, saith Gregorius de Valentia, following Cajetan, indirectly concur to sacrilege, to profane the holy things of God; and fear of punishment maketh an action against the will, secundum quid, in some respect, and for the point of supernaturality of professing, Durand handleth it. Now (I say) that this is of no weight, because (as Suarez. saith) one may be compelled to hear the Word, who yet cannot be compelled to believe; so (say I) to make such a profession, as may constitute any one a member of the visible Church, is no supernatural act, though there be a moral obligation tying the professors to the supernatural sincerity of the act, yet there is no essential obligation, as touching the essence of a visible member tying him thereunto, and therefore the Magistrate may compel thereunto, and so Antonius following Gregorius do teach that an indirect compulsion to the faith is lawful; and the compelling power of the Magistrate is terminated upon the profession, not upon the hypocrisy of the profession; else it were as good an argument to prove that the Magistrate by the sword cannot compel subjects to ab • taine from murder, sorcery, perjury; because many in an hypocritical and servile manner, for fear of the Magistrates wrath, not for fear of God, do abstain from these ils, nor is their abstinence from worshipping idols, a thing of it self, as the Magistrate commandeth it, supernatural. Neither would men by the Covenant of the Lord, which King Asa did cause the people to swear, to wit, that they should seek the Lord God of their fathers, 2 Chron. 15. 12. be compelled, so as their seeking of God, should not be willingly performed. 5. This opinion is the way to Arminian liberty of conscience, that men in a Christian Common-wealth, may be of any Religion, and the Magistrate is to behold men as an indifferent spectator, not caring what religion they be of, whether they be Papists, Jews, Pagans, Anabaptists, Socinians, Macedonians, &c. which should infer, that the Magistrate were no nurse-father of the true Church, nor yet a preserver of Religion, if men might be of any Religion. Neither is this the way (as saith Robinson) to the Papists implicit faith, when men believeth, as the Church believeth, though they know not what it is: nor is it a compelling of men (as he saith) to blasphemy, and apparent wickedness, because the Magistrate is not to compel to profession of the truth immediately, and without any foregoing information of the mind; for the Church is to teach and instruct in all the external acts of worship, before the Magistrate doth compel to these acts; yea and the same Robinson acknowledgeth that Jehoshaphat made compulsive laws about Religion. Ergo, if he should execute these Laws, he should compel to some acts of Religion, and should compel to hypocrisy, as the same Mr. Robinson argueth against us.

4. Conclus. It is one thing to command acts of divine worship, under the pain of civil punishment, and another thing to punish, or inflict civil punishment, when these commandments are transgressed, Christian Princes may do both. And that they do the latter by God's commandment and warrant is clear, in that Jehu destroyed all the house of Ahab for Idolatry, and killed Baals Priests. Good Josiah killed the Priests of the high places, and burnt their bones upon the Altar. Elias, when the Magistrate would not do his duty, in an extraordinary way, killed Baals Priests; and if the Magistrate also in the New Testament have the sword given to him of God, for the punishing of evil doers, as Rom. 13. 4, 5. that same Law must now also have force, though in the use of the sword sundry heretics are here to be distinguished, as 1. seducing heretics, drawing others away, from the worship of the true God to idolatry, such are not to be pitied by the Magistrate, as Deut. 13. 5, 6, 7. Zach. 13. 4, 5, 6. whereas seduced, and drawn away souls, for simple heresy, cannot be put to death. 2. Heretics falling away in many particulars from the faith to Popery, or other heretical ways, are more severely to be punished, then those who are heretics in one or two fundamental points only. And those who are universal Apostates, and fall from the Christian faith to Judaism and Paganism, deserve no less then death. 3. Self-condemned heretics, after sufficient information, and malicious opposers of the truth, deserve harder dealing, then simply seduced heretics. 4. All who believe blasphemies to be truth, and hold them, are not to be reckoned amongst formal blasphemers, whose malice carrieth them on to rail upon the unspotted ways of God. 5. No heretics having false opinions of God, such as Antinomians and Libertines, who think that the regenerate cannot sin, or that the worshipping of a creature is not idolatry, can be innocent, as if ••• mply acts of the judgment and mind not conform to God's will revealed in his word were not sins, (as Arminians teach) whereas all the faculties of the soul are under God's Law. 2. Hardly doth the mind conceive false thoughts of God, or his worship, but there be wicked crookes in the will and affections inclining thereunto the mind, and smoking the mind with will-guiltiness.

6. Except God was too rigorous and cruel in the Old Testament (God avert such blasphemous thoughts) what ever punishment even to blood and death was inflicted upon heretics, seducing Prophets, Idolaters, Apostates, these same stand yet in the plentitude of moral obligation against such as offend in the New Testament, if the Magistrate bear the Lord's sword, as he doth in the New Testament, Rom. 13. 4, 5.

Monfortius the Anabaptist as Beza saith, had no Scripture to say, because Christ is a meek Savior, all corporal punishment inflicted upon heretics in the Old Testament, is turned over in spiritual punishment; only our brethren who deny that the Magistrate can compel any to an external profession of the Gospel, do herein follow Arminians and Socinians. So the Re • onstrants, and Episcopius deny that the Magistrate can use any bodily punishment against heretics. The learned Professors of Leiden observe that Arminians here teach that same with the Socinians, and the same is refuted well by Vedelius, yea and Gerardus, and Mersnerus, and other pretended Disciples of Luther in this side with Arminians and Socinians: and Socinians teach in this, 1. that Heretics should not be molested nor punished with the sword. So Socinus, Theophilus Nicolaides, Ostorodius, because the tares are not to be rooted out till harvest. 2. Episcopius, Slatius amongst Arminians, and Ostorodius, and the Catechize of Raccovia teach farther, that the Magistrate may punish by fines and pecuniall mulcts, but he cannot shed blood, or punish to death any murderer, because the Commandment of our meek Savior, doth not permit to take away any man's life; now it is certain meek Jesus, while he was on earth, did neither fine nor imprison, more then put to death. 3. So • inians teach that all wars under the New Testament are unlawful; for saith Smal • ius, wars cannot consist with the 〈◊〉 of our enemy, commanded by Christ: Socinus and Ostorodius say it is an old precept not to shed blood, and never retracted in the New Testament, and God licenced it to the Jews, because he promised to them an earthly kingdom, which he hath not now promised under the New Testament. Our Divines hold ringleading and seducing heretics are to be punished to death, for so Beza, Junius, Bucanus, Zanchius, Perkinsius, Daneus, Bullingerus, the Professors of Leiden teach.

Answ. This proveth that the false God's of Demetrius were but false God's, because they were not able to revenge the wrongs done to themselves, as the true God, who made the heaven and the earth, can do, but nothing against the punishing of the Heretics, for then it should follow, that blasphemy against the holy Ghost, and no sins should be punished, for all sins are injuries done to God, and therefore neither Magistrates, nor parents, nor doctors, yea nor the Church should use any rod, either corporal or spiritual, against subjects, children, or scandalous persons, because God can revenge his own quarrel; yea excommunication is a revenging of a wrong done to God. 2. They object the Apostles way was to watch against Heretics, Act. 20. 29. 31. and Rom. 16. 17. to es • hew them, 2 Tim. 2. 25. the servant of the Lord must be gentle.

Answ. This is objected by Gerardus, as also because they may be converted, Ergo, they are not to be killed, Christ would not have fire coming down from heaven to destroy the Sa 〈◊〉 , for afterward they were converted; but we think not any should be put to death for simple heresy, as Mus • u • us and Whittaker teach, they are to be instructed, censured, rebuked, eschewed, but though Ananias and Sapphira might be converted, Peter strake them with death, and Paul did right in • iking Elymas the Sorcerer with blindness, Act. 13. because he labored to turn away Sergius Paulus from the faith, these were extraordinary judgments, but yet they do well prove that where the Magistrate is armed with authority, he ought to inflict bodily punishment upon the seducing heretics, so it he done as Augustine saith, Animo corrigendi, non vindicandi. See Beza, Professors of Leyden, and what Elias did by an extraordinary power in killing Baals Priests, that Ahab the then supreme Magistrate should have done. 3. They object that it is contrary to the meek spirit of Christ in the New Testament, that any should be punished for heresy, and that it is proper to enemies of the truth, and Antichrist so to do, as their practice declare. Nestorius being made Archbishop of Constantinople, said to the Emperor, I will give thee heaven O Emperor, if thou with free the earth of heretics; Dioscorus compelled, with armed soldiers, the Bishops to subseribe to the heresy of Entyches; Eud • xius the Arian obliged Valens the Arian Emperor to root out 〈◊〉 orthodox professors. The Turk in his Alcoran commandeth to kill all who obey not his law.

Answ. The sword is expressly given by God, Rom. 13. to Christian Magistrates, and this is not against the meekness of Christ, no more nor to deliver to Satan, or to curse and excommunicate Apostates with that great curse called Anath • ina Maranatha, 1 Cor. 16. 22. And though Heretics and Mahomet teach that Heretics, as also they teach that manslayers, adulterers, paricides should die the death, it followeth not that we are not to teach the same. Fourthly, The parable of letting the Tares grow, while the day of judgment is alleged. It is true Chrysostom saith that many innocent persons are killed in the rooting out the tares by bloody wars; Chrysologus saith, Neither Matthew the publican, nor Paul should have been comerted, if the Sword had been used, and Augustine seemeth to call the tares haereticorum falsitates, and Theophylact, Zizania sunt heresies. But I answer, Christ exponeth the tares 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Syriace 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beza, filii illius improbi, Erasmus diaboli, the children of the devil, and Theophylact addeth, Zizania sunt h • reses, vel malae cogitations, and Gerardus perverteth Theophylact, for he extendeth the tares not only to Heretics, but also to wicked men, to Matthew who was a publican, but not a Heretic properly. And first the field is the world of the visible Church, where the seed of the Word is sown, and it must be meaned of all scandalous persons in Christ's visible kingdom, so all shall be spared, and there shall neither be use of the Magistrates sword, nor of the Church discipline in the Church, as Anabaptists expone the place. 2. There should not so much as rebukes and threatenings been used, but wicked men should be permitted to grow, while the day of judgment, that the Angels root them out. Now it is known that the power of the word preached hath rooted out some tares, because it hath converted them. 3. Heretics are not all things which offend; the incestuous Corinthian offended also. 2. Only Heretics are not such as work iniquity, there be others also in the visible Church, as our brethren expone, Revel. 22. 15. nor are only heretics to be cast out in the furnace of fire, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 3. Nor are only the good wheat those who are orthodox and opposite to heretics, who shall shine as the Sun in the kingdom of their father, p. 42. 43. except we would say that all sound in the faith and holding no heretical doctrine shall shine in the firmament as the Sun. 4. The casting out of Heretics out of the visible Church by excommunication is a rooting of them out of the field of the visible Church; Let more of this be seen and considered in those who have written thereof, as in G • rardus, loc. cit. Beza de puniend. Haeret. Bellarm. de laicis, c. 21. Costerus Enchirid. de mori • us haereticor. Pelr. Gregorius, lib. 12. de repub. c. 4. Suarez. de tripl. virtut. theolog. disp. 18. sect. 2. Gregorius de Valent. 〈◊〉 . 3. disp. l. q. 10. punc. 6. Jus Canonicum C. Quid autem. dist. 49. Meiser. lib. 4. de legibus, sect. 1. • . 10, 11, 12. Lipsius l. 4. 〈◊〉 . c. 2. Co •• d B • unus, l. 3. de haeretic. c. 13. Paulus Windeck. lib. de exs • irpandis haeretic.

APPENDIX.

A further consideration of compelling, or tolerating, those of contrary Religions and Sects in the Church.

W Ee still hold (as is already said) that Christian Magistrates cannot compel Pagans to embrace the Christian faith. Nor can the Church in a Church-way compel Pagans or Jews coming to remain amongst us Christians, because Pagans are to be gathered to a Church, by the preaching of the Word, and by that way that the Apostles planted Churches, which was by the sword of the Spirit only, as Matth. 28. 19, 20. 1 Cor. 2. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 10. 4, 5, 6. But the argument which the Jesuit Tannerus, & other Papists bring for it, I judge most weak, for they will not have them compelled to the faith, because, 1. faith is a voluntary and free act, 2. because it is a supernatural work of God, and so they are not under the stroke of the Magistrates sword; for freewill in supernatural acts is alike uncogible and free from all external violence, in both those who are baptized professors within the bosom of the visible Church, and in Pagans; and the truth is, neither the Magistrate nor the Church can censine opinions, even erroneous in fundamental points, as they are opinions; for no society, no human authority can either judge of, or punish the internal acts of the mind, because as such they are indeed offensive to God, but not offensive or scandalous to either Church or Commonwealth, and so without the Sphere of all human coercive power: nor is Titus, Tit. 1. To rebuke gainesiyers, v. 9. that they may be sound in the faith, v. 13. but in so far as that faith is visible, and as it cometh out of perverse mouths, which must be stopped, v. 11. Also punishments either civil or ecclesiastical do no other ways work upon the mind and heart, but by a moral & swasory influence, for it is a palpable contradiction, that freewill can physically be compelled, & therefore here (saith Philip Gamacheus) there is no need of an Emperors sword, but of a Fishers Angle. Let it go then, which is taught as a truth, in this point, by Covarruvias, (e) Gregori. de Valent. Gamacheus, Tannerus, Malderus, that Princes have neither from the Law of nature, or from any divine Law, a coercive power over the faith of Pagans; nor is Scotus in this to be heard, that the same divine law obliegeth all Princes, and the Churches, that did lie upon Israel to destroy the Cansanites.

Yet may it be lawful in some cases indirectly to force them, in their false worship, (as