The Dying Mans Testament to the Church of Scotland, Part 4 · Chapter 14
CHAP. XIV. What is to be done in order to union about divisions concerning doctrinall determinations.
THe Question may be concerning the matter enacted by some Synod, even when there is no exception against the constitution thereof, that is, when the matter approven by it, is unfound, or when a truth is condemned, at least it is judged to be so. We are not here speaking of such matter as is fundamentall, but such as is consistent with soundnesseDoctrinall, not fundamentall, or nigh the foundation. of judgement in the main, and piety in these who may be upon either side. Such as were these debates concerning the rebaptizing of Hereticks, and Schismaticks; or for the admitting them unto the Church by confirmation only, and questions of that nature, which may fall to be amongst orthodox men. I suppose it were good, that judicial decisions of such things, were not multiplied; yet upon supposition that they are past, somewhat would be said. Such determinations are of two sorts.
First, Some are meerly doctrinall, and of this kind are such questions as are concerning the object of Predestination, order of Gods Decrees, and such like, and others, it may be, which are of lesser concernment than these. These being meerly doctrinal and inferring no diversity in practice, or Worship, there is the easier accesse to union notwithstanding of such, respect being had to the mutuall forbearance mentioned, so that none be constrained to acknowledge what is enacted by vertue of such a decision, because such a determination in matter of Doctrine is but ministeriall, and declarative: And therefore as one man may forbear another to speak his own mind in some things that differ from his, and, it may be, from truth also, and not instantly divide from him, or much contend with him; So ought he to bear with a Synod and not to divide from them upon that account, he having accesse so to declare his own mind and the reasons thereof, and otherwayes to carry himself, as may keep him free of that apprehended guiltinesse; and so a Synod ought to bear with some particular men that differ. But by adding the second kind, there will be ground to speak more.
The second kind is of such determinations as have not only a doctrinall decision, but also some practicallSome doctrinal decisions infer division, others but diversity. consequents following thereupon: which we may again distinguish these wayes. 1. They are either such consequents and practices as infer a division and opposition, or a diversity only▪ some consequents infer a division or separation. As suppose a ChurchSynod should enact, that no persons should keep communion with such as they judge not to be godly, nor joyn in Ordinances, nor so much as sit down with them; Or that no persons, thinking otherwayes, might lawfully be ordained Ministers, or admitted to that office, as sometimes appeareth, hath been determined in very numerous Synods of the Donatists. Indeed the standing of such Sentences in force, and having execution accordingly following them, are such, as there can be no union had upon such tearms. Again, some practices imply no division in Worship, or Government, but only something which possibly is in it self unwarrantable, as that Act of rebaptizing was, which was determined and enacted by severall Councils in Africk: which kind of determination may be considered either as peremptory, and exclusive, that is, allowing none to do otherwayes, or to be admitted to Ministery and Ordinances which should not engage to do so; Or moderated. so as though it held forth such a determination concerning the fact, yet doth not peremptorily presse others beyond their own light. Of the first sort were the peremptory Acts of the West-church concerning Easter, holy dayes and other ceremonies; Of the last, were these Acts of the Council of Africk concerning the rebaptizing of Schismaticks wherein none were pressed beyond thir own judgement.
Again, such consequents and practices that followSome determinations are of things dayly practicable, others only for an exigence, scarcely ever again occurring. Church-determinations, may either be presently necessary to be practised and dayly practicall, as suppose a Church should make constitutions for administration of Baptism and the Lords Supper, by mixing in with the essentials thereof, such and such corrupt ceremonies and additions; Or, they may be such practices as are only supposable and possible; but it may be exceeding improbable-like, at least for the future, that there shall be occasion to put them in actuall exercise; though, it may be, there was some present exigent giving occasion to such a determination, which possibly may never recur; As suppose, a Church should determine, that a converted Iew, or Turk, should not be baptized in the manner that others are baptized, but some other way; it may be there was some Iew or Turk to be baptized when that determination passed; but that particular Act being by, there is no probability that ever there may be accesse to put the same in practice again, although it be not simply impossible. Now there is great odds betwixt these two; and in effect this last case, doth look liker a doctrinall determation when the occasion thereof is past, than any way to be practicall.
Further, we may distinguish these also in such practices, that are positively enacted to be practised, by an authoritative Act, ordaining in such possible cases, that it be so done, that is, when such a case occurreth, men should be astricted to follow the same, and Ministers should accordingly act; Or they are such cases, as do not ordain any practice to be done, but do declare such a thing to be lawfull; As suppose they should declare, a Minister might lawfully baptize a Iew so as is formerly said, without any peremptory ordaining of the same, which is still, rather a doctrinall decision than a positive ordinance.
We may yet add one distinction more, which is this,Some determinations are for Ministers practice, others are answers to the questions of Rulers. determination is either to declare such a thing lawful to Church-men in some Ecclesiastick matter, as suppose (as was sometimes in the primitive persecutions) upon some Querie from some Ministers, it should be enacted, that in such and such cases Ministers might flie, sell the Church-goods, or use such and such shifts and means for their escape and deliverance, as others, it may be, would think unlawfull. Or it is, when the practising of the supposed case belongs to Magistrates, or men in civil stations; as suppose, upon some Queries from Magistrates or others, enquiring if it were lawfull to admit Iews to dwell in such and such places meerly for civil traffick; or if they might eat and drink with an Ambassador of the Cham of Tartaria; or help Chinas against the Tartars; or such cases, which possibly, beside the occasion of the Querie, might never occur: now supposing the case to be decided affirmatively by a Church-judicatory, and a rent to have followed thereupon, and to continue after the case is not probably practicall, because of the former decision, and so in the rest of the former suppositions, it is to be enquired, If? and, How union may be win at in them respectively?
Now these distinctions being premitted, we come to consider accordingly, How union may be made up, where division standeth upon such accounts?
In reference to all which, in the general, we say, That peremptorinesse and self-willednesse being excluded (which are expresly prohibited to be in a Minister) it is not impossible to attain union amongst faithfull, sober, and orthodox men, who will acknowledge that mutuall condescending and forbearance is necessary; which by going through the particular steps will appear: wherein we may relate to the former generall grounds laid down, and be the shorter in instances and reasons, because this draweth out in length beyond our purpose; and also, because Verbum sapienti satis est: and these especially that are concerned in this, need not by us either to be instructed, or perswaded to their duty, many of whom the Lord hath eminently made use of to teach, convince, and perswade others. We shall only, as in all the rest, offer some things to their view, which may occasion the remembering of what they know, and the awakening of the zeal and affection that they have, to act accordingly.
To come then to the first sort of determinations,More doctrinal decisions in smaller points ought to ma…e no division. which are doctrinall; it may appear from what is said, that there can be no just ground of division upon that account; for, in such things a Church may forbear particular persons: and again, particular persons may forbear a Church. It is not to be thought, that all orthodox Divines are of the same mind in all things that are decreed in the Synod of Dort, particularly in reference to the object of predestination; yet the Synod hath not made any division by Censuring of such, neither these who differ from that determination have broken off communion with the Church, but have keeped communion: and union in the Church hath not been thereby interrupted; yet these who apprehend themselves to be right, cannot but think the other is in an errour: and if this forbearance be not allowed, there can never be union in the Church, except we should think that they behoved all to be in the same mind about such things, and that there should never be a decision in a Church, but when there is absolute harmony; for supposing the plurality to decide right, yet these, whose judgement were condemned, were obliged according to their light to divide, seing they are in their own judgments right, It is true, I suppose that it is not simply unlawful, or hurtful to truth for a Church-judicatory, out of respect to peace in the Church, to condescend abstractly to wave a ministeriall decision without wronging of the matter; As suppose these in Africk, for peace had waved their judiciall decision of the necessity of rebaptizing in such a case; or these who determined the contrary, might have waved theirs, yet neither of them had hurt their own opinion. Or suppose, that in the decisions that were concerning Easter, upon both sides of the controversie, either had past from their decisions, and left the matter in practice to mens arbitrement without any decision, I suppose this had not been a wrong to truth (supposing it to have been on either side) And indeed considering what is written in the History, something like this may be gathered. For, first, It is clear, that there were determinations on both sides, and particularly, That the West Church, and these that joyned with them, did determine the Lords Day necessarily to be keeped for distinguishing them from the Iews. 2. It is also clear, That Policrates, with many Bishops in Asia, did judicially condemn that deed, appointing the fourteenth day of the month to be keeped, So that necessarily both decisions could not stand. And▪ 3. this is clear also, That the way that was taken to settle that difference so stated, was, That judiciall decisions should be waved, and men left to their own arbitrement to observe what day they thought good, whether in the East or West Church, whereupon followed an union; and Policarpus did communicate with Anicetus at Rome upon these tearms, Ut neuter eorum sententiam suam urgeret aut defenderet (as the Centariators have it out of Ireneus) that is, that neither of them should urge or defend their own opinion: and upon this there followed peace notwithstanding of that difference. It brake up again more strongly in the time of Victor, and although Ireneus was of his judgment, yet did he vehemently presse him not to trouble the Church by pursuing such a determination, and did exceeding weightily expostulat with him for it; He wrote also to the other party, that both of them might forbear the pressing of such decisions, and that the thing might be left to mens arbitrement, without prejudice to the Churches union, as formerly it had been used: this is clear from Church-history, and that word of Sozomen, lib. 7. cap. 19. is weighty, Frivolum enim, & quidem merito, judicarunt, consuetudinis gratia, à se mutuo segregari eos qui in praecipuis religionis capitibus consentirent, that is, They judged it, and upon good ground, most frivolous for men to be separated or divided one from another, because of a custome, who did agree together in the main points of Religion. And though this matter be of it self no controversie decided in the Word, (at least as it was stated) yet considering their thoughts of it, and the grounds which they alleage for it, it was not so to them: and that peremptorines of Victors, who afterward would not be reclaimed from that second determination, is condemned by all, as being the ground of that following schism. And indeed in such cases, where two parts of a Church are divided, having independent authorities as to one another, and there being contrary determinations in the same question, it seemeth convenient and necessary for peace, that either both should wave their decisions, or that both should permit the decisions of each other to stand and be in force, to such only as should acquiesce therein, and willingly acknowledge the same.
Again, where there is nothing like a party or equality,How the smaller number should yeeld to the greater. but the division is in the same one Church betwixt a greater and smaller number, and the greater will not be induced to remove their determination; It is no way sinfull to the lesser to joyn with them notwithstanding thereof, they having their own freedom and liberty cautioned, as was formerly said; Yea, this seemeth not unexpedient that they should do for the good of the Church. 1. Because it is not so readily to be expected, that men who have such an advantage will cede to these who have it not. 2. It may have inconveniencies, if a smaller dissenting number should necessitat a Church to wave former determined truths, though possibly not fundamental, because of their dissatisfaction therewith, who esteem them not to be truths, and strengthen others in a schism, as if they could not keep union and communion with a Church where any thing contrary their mind were determined. Also, 3. it seemeth most agreeable to reason, that in sinlesse cedings, the lesser number should cede to the greater. And, 4. because by so doing, this accidental confirmation of an opinion, by having the plurality of a Church or Synod for it, is left open to the other side, when they may be the plurality. Hence we see generally, that the minor part cedeth to the greater (if the not pressing of the removal of such a decision be a ceding) yea, even when the plurality were wrong, as in that case of Africk, these who differed, did not presse the rescinding of that determination, having their own liberty: Nor did these that had the plurality then for them, impose any bond to keep the other from rescinding their determinations, if they should come to be in such a capacity, but both keeped peace for the time; and afterwards, in the dayes of Augustine, we will find Councels of the Church of Africk, determining the just contrary concerning that case of Baptizing, and yet still entertaining peace and communion amongst themselves, although the authoritative decision stood alwayes upon the side of the plurality.