The Dying Mans Testament to the Church of Scotland, Part 4 · Chapter 13
CHAP. XIII. What to do toward uniting in divisions arising from diversity of circumstances in external administrations, and especially arising from Church-government.
A Third matter that occasioneth divisions, is, aDiversity of circumstances in externall administrations. diversity in Worship, Ceremonies, or things that relate to externall administration of Ordinances, when some follow one way in Preaching, administrating of Sacraments, Catechising, &c. and others, another. This ordinarily breedeth janglings, and oftentimes troubled the Church, as we see in the businesse about Easter and Ceremonies. It is not our purpose to insist in this, because ordinarily such debates pretend some lawfulnesse, or unlawfulnesse in the thing contended for, and are to be counted amongst the jangling debates that the men of God are to eschew. And also, because these things are often fully and clearly discussed, We shall only say concerning them. 1. That, as there is a necessity of suffering some difference in Doctrine, So is there also a necessity to bear with some differences in circumstances in the externall manner of Worship▪ &c. and men would not soon offend at every difference, nor be displeased if it proceed not from affectation of singularity, unfaithfulnesse, or some other corrupt rise. And we will find great condescendency in the greatestCondescendency therein. men, both of old and late, in things that are not sinfull in themselves, for keeping of union in the Church: And thus far, the Apostles practice of becoming all things to all, will warrand. Zanchius in an Epistle to this purpose, giveth both many examples of, and reasons for this. 2. We say, that men especially in a time of divisions, would by all means endeavour to keep the trodden and approven way that hath been used, and is in use in a Church in such administrations; because the lesse men be sticking in the manner of these things, and the more simplicity they use, and the lesse they differ from what is most ordinary and approven, the lesse will the hazard of division be in these things, which doth arise from the multiplying of them; the changing of the old, or bringing in of a new manner, the condemning of the way and manner used by others▪ as having someBetter to forbear some new thing, than to alter the old, without some considerable reason. great absurdity in it, and the pressing of their way, even in circumstances, upon others; These and such things are to be eschewed: and so indeed there is no way to peace in these things but to forbear; for it is more easie to forbear some new thing, than to make others alter what is old, except there be some reason in the matter to move to this▪
The great, and usually the most bitter contentionsDivisions about Churchgovernment. of a Church, as was said before, are in things that belong to Government; which are of many kinds, and have their own proportionable cures when blessed of God, We shall instance in these five kinds of contests in this matter. The first, is concerning the form of Government. The second, is concerning the formality of Church-judicatories. The third, concerning the matter enacted or decerned by them. The fourth, concerning particular miscarriages and abuses of power in Government. And the fifth, concerning the persons who ought to govern, or to whom the Government is due, and whose determinations are ultimatly to be obeyed.
For the first, Debates about the nature and formConcerning the form of Government. of Government, may be considered doctrinally, and so it is a difference of judgement; Some think one form of Government lawfull, and others not that, but another. If this difference be fairly carried, it needeth make no division in the Church, as was in the foregoing part hinted. 2. It may be considered practically, that is, when men not only think so differently in their judgement, but accordingly they act, driving opposit designs, as if they were two parties, seeking to get one Church subdued to them, and neitherPracticall difference herein maketh division. of them doth acknowledge the other. This cannot be without division; for, the ground of all union and communion in the visible Church in all the Ordinances of Christ, is, the unity of the visible Church; as even in old time Augustine did presse: So Ecclesiastick union, must be made up and entertained in a Church, by an unity in the Government thereof; for though there may be a forbearance and a kind of peace where the unity of the visible Church is denied, or where there are divided Governments that are not subaltern; yet there can be no Church-union, nor communion in Ordinances, of Word, Sacraments and Government, which results from the former, and doth necessarily presuppose the same. We dare not, nor cannot offer any directions for making up an union here, save that men would unite in one form of Government that can extend to the whole body, and that in such a Government as is allowed by Christ, otherwayes it can be no union; because so it were not a duty, as union is.
If it were asked, What kind of Government that may be most probably, wherein men ought to unite? Answ. We mind not to digresse to a doctrinall debate; yet these characters may be given of it. 1. It mustCharacters of Government fit for uniting. be a Government that can extend unto, and reach all the body; for, one main end of Government is union, Eph. 4. 3, 10, 11, &c. and the removing offences which make divisions, Matth. 18. And this union is not to be in this or that particular part of the body, but in the whole, 1 Cor. 12. that there be no schism in the body: therefore it must extend to all, or be in a capacity to do so. 2. It would be in a proportionable fitnesse to remove these causes that breed divisions, (for, there cannot be union in a Government that is not fitted for that) and therefore must be able to purge corrupt teachers, and the leaven of corrupt doctrine out of the whole Church, or any part thereof. Hence, both in the Scripture, and primitive times, and all alongs, there hath been still a joynt authoritative concurrence for removing these causes of this evil in whatsoever place they did appear. 3. It must be such a Government as hath an unity amongst the whole Governours for this end, and so it must answer to the unity of the body: Hence, in the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul commendeth the remeeding of that evill to them all in a joynt manner, as being one lump, without respect to their subdivision in particular Churches; and if this Authority did not imply unity amongst the Governours wherever they lived, and a capacity to act unitedly upon occasion, there could be no accesse authoritatively to remove such evils from the Church, nor such weight in the mean applied. 4. It must be a Government wherein there is a coordinatenesse amongst the Governours; because so not only the union of the Church is made up, but her communion is represented; and to place the Government in one, as Papists do in the Pope, doth not make an union in the Government, which implieth a mutuall and kindly co-ordinatnesse and associating one with another; but whatever they pretend of union in it, it is really but tyrannie, and such as the most arbitrary ruler may have, when by violence he seemeth to keep down all divisions under him, neither so can that body be said to be united in him. And we see in the primitive times, even after Bishops and Patriarchs were brought in into the Church, that still the supream Government, whereby union was entertained, did reside in a mutual co-ordination, and combination, even of such Bishops, Metrapolitans, Patriarchs, &c. acting in an united and joynt way: whereby manifestly it appeareth, that such a Government as is to be united into, must be extensive unto the body, at least be in capacity so to be extended, and it must be in a coordination and consociation of many Church officers together; and that such subordinations as mar this coordination and equality, must be swallowed up, ere there can be an united Government for the preservation of the union of the Church, because the supream Government and decision must be in many; and many of different degrees and places, cannot be so one as these who are of the same order, to speak so.
Yet we think, that where such an union cannot be had in Government, men that have liberty, without entanglement to their own consciences, to follow their duty, ought to do it with all tender respect to the edification and union of the Church wherein they live, and to make the best of their particular case that may be for that end. But seing the wisdom and goodnesse of God hath made it our lote in this Land, to live under a Government, to which the abovementioned characters do well agree; it is hopefull, if as we ought we conscionably adhere to the principles thereof, we may, yea, shall unite in the Lord.
Secondly, Supposing, that men agree in that same supream government, to wit, Councils and Synods, thereDebates about the constitution of Synods. may be some debate concerning the formal constitution thereof, what is to be accounted a rightly constitute Synod, and such as ought to be acknowledged so? It cannot be denied, but that there is a right and a wrong in this, and that there are rules to be keeped, and that also de facto they may be broken, even where there is no failing in the mater. It is true also, that we will sometimes find worthie men quarrelling the constitution of Synods, and declining them, as was formerly hinted, refusing to appear before them, till some persons were removed from them, as Chrysostom and fourty two Bishops with him, did in reference to that particular Synod at Chalcedon: and sometimes their Acts were declared void, because the meetings were not numerous, as Balsamon doth instance in the case of one Iohannes Amathuntus, whose deposition was declared null, because all the Bishops of Cyprus were not conveened to his tryall, which might have been; and because, in strict reckoning, there was one fewer at his deposition than was allowed by the Canons. Yet concerning this we say, 1. That it will be foundDefects in constitution cannot easily annull without defect in the matter. very difficult to pitch on such defects in the constitution of a Synod, as will make the same null without respect to the matter thereof▪ seing there may be many defects that will not infer this. 2. It will be hard to gather from Church-history, or Writings of the Ancients, or Canons of Councils, what hath been a peremptory rule to them to walk by in such a case. TheirIn ancient Councels soundnesse of matter more regarded than formality or number. practices in this are so various, that it appeareth, the matter hath ever been more headed by them▪ than the formality of the constitution. And therefore, 3. We will find their practice to be according to this; When the matter was sound and profitable, it was accepted, and the Synod was reverenced, although it hath had lesse formality, and hath been of a fewer number; So the Council of Sardica, Laodicea, and some particular Provincial Synods, have ever been of great authority because of their matter, when more numerous Synods, with moe formalities, have never been so accounted of, nor reckoned amongst the General Councils, although their number hath been far greater than many of these other. 4. When they come to determine any thing after the close of corrupt Synods, they do not usually sift the constitution thereof, but examine and condemn the matter thereof, and do repeal their Sentences, and account them null from the beginning; not because of questioning their Authority that did it, but because of their doing the same unjustly, as in the cases of Athanasius, Eustachius, Chrysostom, and Ignatius, that followed him in the same See: All whose depositions were accounted null, because of the unjust violence that was used in them. 5. We say then, that hardly it will be observed, that this consideration of a particular Synods constitution, hath been the rise or ground of division amongst godly and orthodox men agreeing in the same Truth, Form of Government, and Rules for constituting of Assemblies or Synods. But we will ever find where Declinators or Protestations are mentioned, 1. That the party declined hath been palpably corrupt in fundamental doctrines. Or, 2. palpably driving on that general design, and violence against particular persons, as subserving the same. And, 3. it hath been also, after many evidences of such corruptions and violences, as in the former instances that are given of Declinators is clear; where we find, that Synods have been acknowledged, and yet upon the discovery of their corrupt designs and violence, have been declined and protested against as null, as that second Council at Ephesus was. Whereby it appeareth, that if their proceedings had been acceptable, their constitution and authority had not been called in question.
If it be asked upon supposition, That a difference concerning the constitution of a particular Synod, and a division upon that account fall to be amongst godly and orthodox Divines, agreeing in the same Truths, form of Government, general Rules, for constituting of Synods, &c. What should be done for union in such a case?
Answ. It would seem there should be no great needWhat should be done for union, when division ariseth about the constitution of a Synod. to give directions here, the difference being so narrow; certainly many of the Ancients, and also of our Reformers, and eminent Divines, who have groaned and do groan under many sad pressures, corruptions, and divisions in the Church, would have thought, and think it a great mercy to have had, and to have the difference brought to such a point, and betwixt such parties; Yet, seing it is too too possible to be stood upon, we do conceive it is no such thing as may make union, amongst parties so differing, impossible. We say therefore,
1. That such would consider the little usefulnesseLittle usefulness as to the Churches edificationin the thing controverted. and weightinesse, as to the main of edification that is in the thing controverted whatever way it be decided: For, 1. the declaring of such a Synod valid, or null, as to its constitution, doth not corrupt any point of Truth, nor bring-in any new Form of Government, nor alter any Rule concerning the Form agreed in; because the question is not in thesi, what is the form and rule according to which a Synod ought to be constituted? that is agreed upon: But the question is, Whether such a particular Synod be agreeable to such a Rule? and respect to the Rule makes the one that they cannot approve it, and the other that they cannot condemn it: And is it of great concernment to the main of the Churches edification to say it is so, or not, considering it abstractly, or supposing it should never be determined at all? 2. We say, That it is not of much concernment, even to Government, to say that such a particular Synod is right or wrong constituted: for, though a Church cannot want Government, and that cannot be casten; yet a Church cannot lose much by questioning the constitution of one Synod, suppose rightly constituted, abstracting it from the consideration of its matter contained therein; and if its matter be warrantable, it hath weight in it self without such consideration of a constitution, if it be not warrantable, such a consideration of a lawfully constituted Synod cannot make it warrantable. Again, upon the other side, The counting of a particular Synod to be rightly constituted when it is not, cannot be of great hurt to the Church where the Rule is acknowledged. For, 1. It doth not alter the nature of the matter; Nor, 2. doth it alter the manner of constituting Assemblies, because one particular failing in misapplying the Rule cannot incapacitate a Church for all time to come to keep the same, especially if it be guarded that no precedent be drawn from that pattern, to bind any new sense upon the rule. 3. We say, that it would seem if any debate be such as decision may be forborn therein, this may be accounted of that nature, to wit, Whether such a particular Synod be rightly constituted, or not? because, if more corruption and inconvenience, that may be feared, follow, there are more material things to debate, and to differ upon; if more follow not, but that there may be accesse to an united Government whereby these suspicions may be put out of question, then it seemeth unsafe to mar that, and the fruit which may follow by the disputing of what is past.
But more nearly to take notice of such a difference, we may consider it two wayes. 1. As it implieth aThis difference is either in judgement, and may be forborn. difference in judgement. 2. As it inferreth a different practice. First, then, As it inferreth the difference of judgement, there ought certainly to be a forbearance, seing such things are often involved with many difficulties and contradictions in matter of fact, that it is not possible, by debating fully, to convince either party to assent to the other, especially where heat and prejudice hath someway fixed and preoccupied the judgement; and certainly, forbearance here cannot be inconsistent with the duty of Ministers, although there were not such a motive to perswade it. By forbearance we understand, 1. That none peremptorily presse the other either to acknowledge the validity or nullity of such a constitution. 2. There would be a forbearance of publick debating of it, or of any thing that may occasion the same, as pressing of the Acts thereof, if no other ground support the same, but the Authority of such a Synod. And we conceive in the by, this occasion may be prevented by a mutual condescending, or joynt authoritative enacting, that such and such things, as possibly may be usefull afterward, be of force to all, if not by the former constitution, yet by the present appointment, and so both may agree in the matter. 3. A condemning of others for approving or disapproving the former constitution, would be forborn; and seing the question is so little and inconsiderable in it self, it would not be odiously aggreaged or insisted upon.
Secondly, Considering it as it relateth to practice, Or it relates to practice, and so something is to be tolerate and something done.something is to be forborn, and something is to be done. 1. For forbearance What might involve either party in the matter of fact contrary to their judgment, would be abstained; and this forbearance in practice would be as broad as forbearance in judgment, that, as Cyprian saith, (in another case) differing brethren may both have their judgment and practice in such things at their own free arbitrements, as to such restraints. Neither can this forbearance mar the peace of any, because if such things be indifferent, and although lawfull, yet not necessary, the preserving of the Churches peace, and the preventing of what offence would follow, is ground enough to abstain from such things, out of respect to the consciences of others. If the thing be necessary, then indeed it is not to be forborn, neither is that pleaded-for here; yet the doing of it upon the account of such an authority, is not necessary; but the matter of the thing or some uncontroverted ground may be had for warranting the same. 2. That which is to be done, we conceive, is this, That there be endeavours to have some united, uncontroverted authority established, by whose authority things necessary may be done, without infringing the authority of what was past in respect of those who acknowledge the same, and also without leaving the weight of the authority upon the former to those who question the same: And we conceive this being done, neither is there any conscience straitened, nor any thing necessary for the Churches good omitted; yea, by this means there is access unitedly to seek the Churches edification, without any prejudice by the former contention; because by laying this new foundation posteriour to the former, the Church is put beyond that stumblingblock, and carried over, or by the same; And therefore there is no reason to fear falling upon such a difficulty, but rather with the greater speed to make progresse when men may win by it and leave it behind them. This was the way that the Ancients took in the primitive times, even when Synods in this respect might have been said to have been corrupted, when God gave opportunity they set themselves to rectifie the matter, and to do upon it what was fit for the good of the Church, without mentioning the nullity of the form thereof, or insisting thereupon. And indeed, the doing otherwayes seems to lay too much weight upon the authority or constitution of a Church-judicatory, as if when the same is every way regular, it could adde something, or ought to have weight, where the matter is not in it self approvable; which hath been eschewed by Orthodox Divines both of old and late, who ever therefore looked most unto the matter determined or decided.
If it be asked, What usually was done in suchWhat usually hath been d…ne when Authority was declined. cases where the Authority seemed to be declined? From what is said, the Answer may be gathered, to wit, That both sides satisfied themselves with the rectifying of the matter wherein there was any grievance. And therefore▪ 1. it will hardly be found, when such a Declinatour was expressed in one Synod that any mention is made thereof in the next ensuing Synod that did rectifie the matter, but instantly they fall upon that. 2. We will find, that where …o expresse Declinatour was, yet did not that any way strengthen such an Authority, nor mar the condemning thereof more than in other Synods where it was, and therefore neither is so much weight to be laid upon it, whether it be or not; for, its standing doth not weaken Authority where it is, and its removing or not being at all, doth not adde Authority where it is not, because Authority must stand and fall according to its own intrinsick grounds and warrant. And we conceive that it is not suitable to the Authority of Christ's Ordinances, and the nature of His Courts, that either the removing or standing of such a legall formality, should be rigidly pressed, and it maketh proceedings in Christ's Courts to be involved in too many subtilties that are used in humane Laws. And also supposing, that a corrupt constitution may be without such a formal Protestation, it seems to give too much advantage thereto, as if there were lesse accesse afterward to condemn the same; And upon the other side, supposing that a lawfully constituted Synod should be declined, as the Synod of Dort was lately by the Arminian Remonstrants, the pressing too vehemently of the removing thereof, doth suppose some way the constitution to be lesse valid if such a thing should stand. This is only to be understood in the case presupposed, to wit, Where the question is not about the authority of Synods simply, but of thisGreat difference between the declining of Synodicall Authority simply, and the constitution of a particular Synod. or that constitution of a particular Synod: the first indeed, that is, the questioning of Synodical Authority, hath been thought intolerable in all times, because it strake at the root of Church-government and Order, without which the Church cannot subsist; But the second, which acknowledgeth the same Government in general, and Rules of Constitution, and professeth respect to that same Authority, is indeed not so intolerable, because it doth suppone still the Church to have power, and the exercise thereof to be necessary. Hence we will find, that in the primitive times they did utterly condemn appellations from Synods simply, that is, the betaking them to another Judge, as more proper than, or superiour unto, such Synods; and there are severall Canons in the Councils of Africk that threaten Excommunication to such as decline their Authority and appeal to Rome, or any forreign power as a superiour Judge; Yet we will find, that the Councils do allow Appeals from a lesser number to a greater, or from particular Councils to a general. Yea, from their own particular Synods to a more general hearing of others in the Province; yea, they allow even adjacent Provinces to be appealed to in case corruptions should be in one particular Province: This was enacted in the Council of Sardica, and Bishops are requested by severall Canons not to think this derogatory from their authority, because this did consist well with respect to Church-authority and Government in it self, but tended only to prevent or remedy exorbitances and abuse therein; which of it self, if it be not abused, is not ill.