Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland, Part 2 · Chapter 8 – Chapter 10
CHAP. VIII. The fourth Argument, taken from Acts 15.
THE example of the Apostolicall Churches, Acts 15. maketh for us. The Churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, being troubled with the question about the Jewish Ceremonies, the matter was debated and disputed at Antioch, the chiefe towne of Coelosyria, where Paul and Barnabas were for the time. It is very probable, that some out of the other Churches in that Province, as also out of the Churches of Cilicia, were present in that meeting and conference, for they were troubled with the very same question, no lesse then the Church of Antioch. Howsoever the matter could not be agreed upon in that meeting, but a reference thereof, was made to a more generall assembly at Hierusalem, and for that effect Paul and Barnabas, and others with them, were sent thither. All this is cleare by comparing verse 2. with 23. Hereupon the Apostles and Elders did synodically come together at Hierusalem, and decided the question, giving forth decrees to be observed by the particular Churches, Acts 15.6.28. and 16.4. We will not dispute what sort of Synod this was, only that it was a Synod with authority over many particular Churches and Congregations, and whereunto the meeting at Antioch (whether it was provinciall, or Presbyteriall only) did referre the determination of the question about Jewish ceremonies.
It is answered by some. 1. That the reason of sending Paul and Barnabas to Hierusalem, was to know whether these teachers who pressed the observation of the ceremoniall Law had any such commission from the Apostles and Elders, as they pretended. 2. That there is here no Synod, nor assembly of the Commissioners of divers Churches, for there were no Commissioners from the rest of the Churches in Iudea, Galilee, and Samaria, mentioned Acts 9.31. nor from the Churches of the Gentiles mentioned Act. 14.23. neither were Paul and Barnabas, and the rest who went with them, Commissioners to represent the Church of Antioch, but messengers only to make narration of the case. 3. Not only the Apostles and Elders, but the whole Church at Hierusalem met together. 4. If the resolution which was given, be considered, as the judgement of the Church at Hierusalem, it was only her advice to her sister Churches, if otherwise considered, it was a decree absolutely Apostolicall, and divine Scripture by infallible direction from the holy Ghost, and for that reason imposed upon all the Churches of the Gentiles, though they had no Commissioners there.
These answers had need to be stronger, before that so many Fathers, Councells, and Protestant Writers, who have understood the matter otherwise should all bee put in an error.
To the first wee reply, that the reason of sending Paul and Barnabas to Hierusalem, was not so much to know, whether these teachers had commission from the Apostles and Elders, to presse the keeping of the Law of Moses, as to get a resolution of the question it selfe, verse 2. about this question. Now the question was not what commission the Apostles had given to those teachers, but whether they should be circumcised, after the manner of Moses, verse 1.
To the second, we say, that if Paul and Barnabas, were messengers to make narration of the case, certainely they were more then sufficient messengers, and there was no need of others to be joyned in message with them, so that it appeareth the rest who were sent with them were Commissioners to represent the Churches which sent them. Neither is it credible, but that all the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, which were in the same case, with the Church of Antioch, did send their Commissioners also to Hierusalem, for otherwise, how could the Apostles and Elders have so certaine and perfect intelligence of the case of those Churches, verse 23. Beside it had beene a great neglect in those Churches, if they had not sent some to Hierusalem, as the Church of Antioch did, for if it was expedient which Antioch did, they ought no lesse to have done it, their case being the same. Moreover it may be collected from verse 3. that the other Churches through which Paul and Barnabas passed in their journey, did send some companions along with them, to joyne with them in their errand, and to give their consent in the meeting at Hierusalem, unto that which was to be concluded. This is the observation of Cajetan, Mentzerus, Calvin, Gualther, and other Interpreters upon that place.
Lastly, it is no way probable, that the Apostles and Elders at Hierusalem, together with those who were sent from the Churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, and the other Churches through which Paul and Barnabas did travell, would come together without acquainting the rest of the Churches of Judea, which were so neare at hand, and might so easily send their Commissioners to Hierusalem.
To the third wee reply, that it cannot bee proved from the Text that the body of the Church of Hierusalem was present, but rather it appeareth from verse 6. that they were not present,Chap. 1. as hath been said before. And though it were granted that they were present, yet Master Robinson saith,Justif. p. 266. that they did no more then consent to the decree.
To the last answer, it is containe that the conclusion of that meeting at Hierusalem, was not a naked counsell and advice, but a decree imposed with authority upon the Churches, Acts 15.28. and 16.4. and 21.25.Robinson ib And whereas it is affirmed, that the decree was meerely Apostolicall, and that the Elders did no more then consent thereto, even as the brethren did, this is manifestly against the Text, for Acts 16.4. It is said of Paul and Silas as they went through the Cities they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the Apostles & Elders that were at Hierusalem. And Act. 21.25. all the Elders speaking to Paul, say, as touching the Gentiles which believe, wee have written and concluded that they observe no such thing. That this was spoken by al the Elders, is plain from v. 18.19.20. So then the Elders did decreee, ordaine, and conclude these things to bee imposed upon the Churches of the Gentiles,Whittak. controv. 3. de conquaest. 3. Sed ut totam istam controversiam dirimamus inspiciamus (quaeso) Act. 16.4. Ubi legimus Paulum civitatibus illis per quas transibat tradidisse foreign, &c. Quis nunc negare audet Presbyteros quo que habuisse suffragium, decisivum, &c. Nam vocabulum foreign ad utros que ex aequo accommodatur, Haectam aperta sunt ut nemo refragari possit. and not the Apostles only. Now the Elders of the Church of Hierusalem, had no authority to impose their decrees upon all the Churches of the Gentiles, with whom they had nothing to doe, as Mr. Robinson saith truely. Since therefore these things were imposed upon the Churches of the Gentiles, as the decrees ordained by the Apostles and Elders, at Hierusalem, this doth necessarily import that there were in that meeting, delegates and commissioners from the Churches of the Gentiles, which did represent the same.
CHAP. IX. The fifth Argument, taken from Geometricall proportion.
AS is the proportion of 3. to 9. so is the proportiō of 9. to 27. of 21. to 81. &c. This rule of Giometricall proportion affoordeth us a fifth Argument for the point in hand. If we should grant the government of the Church to be popular, then by what proportion, one or two are subject to a whole congregation, by the same proportion is that congregation subject to a provinciall▪ or a nationall congregation. I meane, if all the congregations in a province or a nation were assembled into one collective body (as all the males of the Jewes did assemble thrice in the yeare at Hierusalem, and as in the daies of the Judges,Jud. 20.1. the whole congregation of the children of Israel was assembled together in Mizpeh, as one man, from Dan even to Beersheba, foure hundred thousand men, to try the cause of the Levite, and to resolve what to doe there-anent, which meeting of the Nation, was ordered by Tribes, the Tribes by families, the families by persons) in that case any one particular congregation behoved to be subject to the generall congregation, by the same reason whereby one man is subject to the particular congregation, whereof he is a member, because the whole is greater then a part, and the body more then a member. Now the same rule holdeth in the representatives of Churches, whether we compare them with the collectives, or among themselves. If wee compare the representatives with the collectives, then as one congregation is governed by the particular Eldership representing the …ame, by the like proportion are 14. or 16. congregations governed by a Classicall Presbytery representing them all: by the same proportion are all the congregations in a province subject to a Provinciall Synod: by the same ought all the congregations in a nation to be subject to a nationall Assembly, all of them being either mediatly or immediatly represented in the same;De pol. Eccl. p. 331.332. for as Parker saith well, many Churches are combined into one, in the very same manner, as many members are combined into one Church.
If we compare the representatives among themselves, then by what proportion, a particular Eldership representing only one congregation, is lesse in power and authority, then a Classicall Presbytery which representeth many congregations? by the same proportion is a Classicall Presbytery lesse in power and authority then a Provinciall Synod, and it lesse in authority then a Nationall Synod. So that the authority of Presbyteries whether Parochiall or Classicall being once granted, this shall by the rule of proportion inferre the authority of Synods. I know that Synods are not ordinary Courts, as Presbyteries are; but this and other differences betwixt them I passe: the argument holdeth for the point of authority, that Synods when they are, have authority over all the Churches in a Province or a nation, even as Presbyteries have over the congregations within their bounds.
CHAP. X. The sixth Argument, taken from necessity.
WEE have another reason to adde, and it is borrowed from lawlesse necessity, for without a subordination among Ecclesiasticall Courts, and the authority of the higher above the inferiour, it were utterly impossible to preserve unity, or to make an end of controversie in a Nation. A particular congregation might happily end questions and controversies betwixt the members thereof, and so keepe unity within it selfe (and not so neither, if the one halfe of the congregation be against the other) but how shall controversies betwixt severall congregations be determined, if both of them bee independent? how shall plurality of religions be avoided? how shall an apostatizing congregation be amended?
It is answered: 1. If a particular congregation neglect their duty, or doe wrong to another, the civill sword may proceed against them to make them doe their duty. 2. A particular congregation ought in difficult cases to consult with her sister Churches, for so much reason dictats, that in difficult cases, counsell should be taken of a greater number. 3. Sister Churches when they see a particular congregation doing amisse out of that relation which they have to her, being all in the same body, under the same head, may and ought to admonish her, and in case of generall apostacy, they may withdraw that communion from her, which they hold with the true Churches of Christ.
But these answers are not satisfactory. The first of them agreeth not to all times, for in times of persecution, the Church hath not the helpe of the civill sword: a persecuting Magistrate will bee glad to see either division or apostasie in a congregation; but so it is, that Christ hath povided a remedy, both for all the evills and diseases of his Church, and at all times. The Church (as was said before) is a Republike, and hath her lawes, Courts, and spirituall censures within her selfe, whether there be a Christian Magistrate, or not.
The second answer leaveth the rectifying of an erring congregation to the uncertainty of their owne discretion, in seeking counsell from a greater number. And moreover, if this be a dictate of reason to aske counsell of a greater number, when the counsell of a few cannot resolve us, then reason being ever like it selfe, will dictate so much to a congregation, that they ought to submit to the authority of a greater number, when their owne authority is not sufficient to end a controversie among them.
To the third answer wee say, that every private Christian may and ought to withdraw himselfe from the fellowship and communion, either of one man, or of a whole congregation, in the case of generall apostasie. And shall an apostatizing congregation be suffered to runne to hell, rather then any other remedy should bee used, beside that (commonly ineffectuall) remedy which any private Christian may use? God forbid.
What I have said of congregations, I say also of Classicall Presbyteries. How shall sentence be given betwixt two Presbyteries at varience? How shall a divided Presbytery be re-united in it self? How shall an Hereticall Presbytery be reclaimed? How shall a negligent Presbytery be made to doe their duty? How shall a despised Presbytery have their wounded authority healed againe? In these and such like contingent cases, what remedy can bee had, beside the authority of Synods?