The Due Right of Presbyteries, Chapter 10 · Section 15 · Objection 2 – Objection 3
Object. 2. But there is no censuring of persons for scandalls in this meeting, because there is nothing here but a doctrinall declaration of the falsehood of their opinion who taught a necessitie of circumcision; and that all is done by way of doctrine and by power of the Keyes of knowledge, not of jurisdiction, is cleare from the end of this meeting, Act. 5. 2. Paul and Barnabas were sent from the Church of Antioc… unto Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders, foreign, concerning this question, and v. 6. the Apostles and Elders came together to consider, foreign, of this matter, consideration of Mr. Mather and Mr. Thomson against Mr. Herle, c. 1. p. 8.questions being the end of the Synod is a thing belonging to doctrinal power meerely, so Mr. Mather.
Answ. 1. It is false that there is no censuring of persons here, for to say nothing that Peter accuseth those of the wrong side as personally present at the Synod, either being summoned or comming thither by appeale, v. 10. Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoake upon the necke of the Discip'es, &c. which reproofe comming from one man onelyonly, cannot be called a Synodicall reproofe; It is more then evident that the publick Synodicall censure of rebuke is put upon those who held and urged the necessitie of circumcision, and why not excommunication also in case of obstinacy? for the Synodicall censure of a publick Synodicall rebuke is onelyonly gradually different, not specifically from excommunication and both must proceed from one and the same power? Now the Synodicall censure is evident in the Text, v. 24. certaine went out from us, (so it is cleare they pretended they were in this point followers of the Apostles) and Lorinus thinketh that some deemed them schismaticks.
2. They have troubled you with words; Lorinus citeth the Sy… foreign vedalacachum, they have terrified you, as if your salvation were not sure, except you keepe Moses his Law of ceremonies and the morall Law. 3. foreign, destraying by false arguments your soules, it is a word contrary to building up in sound knowledge (as Aristotle taketh Aristot. 5. …. text 31.the word) saying that you must bee circumcised and keepe the Law. 4. They abused the name of the Apostles as having an Apostolick commandement, and so a divine warrant for their false doctrine, and therefore are they refuted as liars, foreign, whence it is cleare they did labour to prove a necessitie of circumcision not onelyonly from the old Testament and an expresse divine Law, but also from the authoritie of the Apostles, which was manifestly false; out of which I argue thus. If the Apostles doe not onelyonly in a doctrinall way refute a false doctrine in this Synod, but also in a Church-way, and by a juridicall power rebuke and Synodically charge the authors, as sub…erters of soules, and liars, then they doe not onelyonly use a meere doctrinall power in this Synod, but also a juridicall power: but the former is true: Ergo, so is the latter. 2. Observe two things in these obtruders of circumcision. First, the error of their judgement. It is more then apparent, that they had a heterodox and erroneous opinion of God and his worship, and the way of salvation, as is cleare, Act. 15. 1. And certaine men which came downe from Judea, taught the brethren, (and said) except yee bee circumcised after the manner of Moses, yee cannot bee saved. This doctrine is clearely refuted both by Peter v. 10. That yoake of the Law wee disclaime, there is a way of salvation without that yoake, v. 11. But wee beleeve that through the grace of the Lord Jesus, wee shall bee saved as they, and it is synodically refuted, v. 24. wee gave no such commandement, it is not the mind of us the Apostles of the Lord that you keepe Moses Law, as you hope to bee saved; there was for this error in their judgement required a doctrinall or dogmaticall power, and this the Synod used. 2. Besides this erroneous opinion in their judgement, there was another fault and scandall that the Synod was to censure, to wit, their obtruding of their false way upon the soules and consciences of the Churches, as vers. 1 They taught the brethren this false doctrine. 2. That they wilfully and obstinately did hold this opinion, and raised a Schisme in the Courch, v. 2. wherefore Paul and Barnabas had no small foreign, dissention, (the word signifieth sedition which was raised by those who held that erroneous opinion) and great disputation with them. 3. They laid a yoake upon the brethren, v. 10. and v. 7. They made great disputation against the Apostles, and v. 24. They troubled the brethren and perverted their soules. This was not simply an heterodox opinion which is the materiall part of a heresie, but had something of the formall part of an heresie, to wit, some degrees of pertinacie, of brutish and blind zeale, even to the troubling and perverting of the soules of the Churches, while as they would make disciples to themselves, and lead away soules from the simplicitie of the Gospell; now the Synod doth not helpe this latter simply, in a Synodicall way, by a dogmaticall and doctrinall power, but by an authoritie Synodicall, and therefore they authoritatively rebuke them, as subverters of soules; and whereas these teachers laid on an unjust yoake to keepe Moses his Law upon the Churches, v. 10. the Synod by their ecclesiasticall and juridicall authoritie doth free the Churches of that yoake, and they say in their decree. v. 28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us, (not to lay the yoake of Moses his Law on you, as those who trouble you have done) to lay upon you no greater burden, then these necessary things, &c. now if there had beene nothing to doe but to resolve the question, if this had beene the totall and adequat end of the Synod, in a meere doctrinall way to resolve the question, Whether must wee bee circumcised, and keepe the Law morall and ceremoniall of Moses, upon necessitie of salvation, as the argument of our brethren contendeth; Peter, v. 10. 11. made a cleare issue of the question, We are saved by the grace of God, both …nes and Gentiles, and it is to tempt God to lay the yoake of the Law of Moses upon the brethren; the resolving of that question is the end of the Synod, but not the adequat end, for here that, not onelyonly the doctrinall power was to bee used, but beside that, 1. the schisme was to bee removed, and the authoritie of the Synod to bee used against the wilfulnesse and obstinacie of those obtruders of circumcision, in rebuking them as perverters of soules. 2. For the scandall which might have been taken if the Gentiles should have eaten blood and things strangled, and meats offered to idols, and therefore the Apostles and Elders behoved, as a conveened Synod to forbid a grievous scandall and a spirituall homicide against the Law of nature, to wit, that the Gentiles for feare of scandalizing weake. beleevers amongst the Jewes, should abstaine from the practise of some things at this time meerely indifferent in their nature, though not indifferent in their use, such as were to eate things offered to idols, things strangled and blood: and whereas our brethren, 3. Object, If the Apostles did any thing more then might have been done by private Pastors out of a Synod, it was meerely Apostolicall, and the Elders did but assent to the Apostles Apostolicall determination; and every one did here, Apostles, Elders, and Brethren, more suo, Apostles as Apostles, Elders and Brethren as Elders and Brethren, after their manner as consenters to the Apostles, but other wayes it is a begging of the question, for to say the Apostles and Elders, rebuked Synodically the obtruders of circumcision, its but said, because one Pastor might have rebuked those obtruders; for the specification of actions must not bee taken from their efficient causes, but from their formall objects, therefore this is no good consequence, the Synod rebuked those obtruders, Ergo, the Synod rebuked them as a Synod, and by a power of jurisdiction, it followeth not, for Paul, Gal. 2. rebuked Peter; Ergo, Paul had a power of jurisdiction over Peter. I thinke your selves will deny this consequence.
I Answer, 1. These two answers are contradictory, and sheweth that our brethren are not true to their owne principles, for sometime they say the Apostles gave out this decree as Apostles, and sometime there is nothing here done by a meere doctrinall power, such as Paul had over Peter, or one single Pastor hath over another, now it is sure that Paul had no Apostolick, power over Peter, and that one Pastor have not Apostolick power over another. 2. When our brethren say here that the Apostles as Apostles by an infallible spirit gave out this Decree, they doe in this helpe the Papists, as Bellarmine, Becanus, Gr… rut, and in particular the Jesuit aLorinus com. in loc.Lorinus, who saith, decr…um authenticum cujus inspirator spiritus sanct…, and so saith bCornelius a Lap. in loc.Cornelius a lapide, visi…m est nob is inspiratis & decretis a Spiritu sanctus, therefore saith hee the councell cannot erre, and so cSalmeron in loc.Salmeron and dCajetan in loc.Cajetan say, and expresly eStapleton in Antidot. Apost. inc. 15. v. 28. actor. Apost.Stapleton saith this Apostosack definition flowed from the instinct of the holy Ghost; observandum (saith Stapleton) quanta habenda sit ecclesiae definienth authorit…s; hence our brether here must yeeld either that all Synods are infallible, as Papists say, this Synod the patterne of all Synods being concluded by an Apostolick spirit could not erre, and so neither can councells erre, or they must with Socinians and Arminians say there is no warrant for Synods here at all. And certainly though wee judge our brethren as farre from Popery and Socinianisme, as they thinke wee detest Anti-Christian Presbytery, yet if this Synod bee concluded by an Apostolick spirit, it is no warrant to bee imitated by the Churches, and wee have no ground hence, for lawfull Synods. Whittakerus, Calvin, Beza, Luther, and all our Divines do all alledge this place as a pregnant ground not of Apostolick, but of ordinary and constant Synods to the end of the world; and fDiodatus in in ann. on the place. ac. 15. 28.Diodatus, good to the holy Ghost) because they did treat of ecclesiasticall reders concerning the quietnes and order of the Church, wherein ecclesiasticall authoritie hath place, the Assembly used this tearme, it seemed good to us, which is not used, neither in articles of faith, nor in the commandements which meerely concerned the conscience: and to shew that authoritie was with holy reason and wisedome, there is added, and to the holy Ghost, who guided the Apostles in these outward things also, 1. Cer. 7. 25. 40.
2. If our brethren meane that the Elders and brethren were in this Apostolick and immediatly inspired Synodicall determination, not as collaterall penners of Scriptures joyned with the Apostles, but onelyonly as consenters and as consenters by power of an ordinary holy Ghost working consent in them, more suo, according to their capacitie as ordinary Elders. 1. They yet more helpe the Papists because they must say onelyonly Apostles, and so onelyonly their successors; the Prelates had definitive voices in this Synod, the Presbyters and Brethren did no more then Papists and Prelates say Presbyters did in generall councells of old, and therefore the Presbyter is to subscribe, Ego, A. N. Presbyter consentiens subseribo, whereas the Prelate subscribed (say they) Ego, A. B. Episcopus definiens subscribo; wee crave a warrant in Gods Word to make an Apostle or a Prelate a Synodicall definer, having a definitive voyce, and the Elder Brother, or Presbyter to have a consultative voyce, for here all the multitude (if there was a multitude present) doe make Synodicall decrees by consulting and consenting, yea all the nation may come to a nationall Synod, and both reason, dispute, and consent, because matters of doctrine and government of the Church concerneth all, therefore all have an interest of presence, and all have an interest of reasoning; and 3. by consequent all have an interest of consenting; yea of protesting on the contrary, if the Synod determine any thing against the Word of God. If they say there is a threeford consent in this Synod, 1. an Apostolicall, 2. a second Synodicall agreeing to Elders as Elders, and a third, that of the people, or a popular; What a mixt Synod shall this be? but 1. then as the Epistle to the Tlxssalonians is called the Epistle of Paul, not the Epistle of Silvanus and Timotheus, though Silvanus and Timotheus did consent, so these (dogmata) or decrees should not be called the decrees of the Apostles and Elders, as they are called, Act. 16. 4. Act. 15. 6. Act. 21. 25. but onelyonly the decrees of the Apostles; seeing the Elders did onelyonly consent, and had no definitive influence in making the decree, by this doctrine, as Silvanus and Timotheus were not joynt pen-men of Scripture with Paul.
3. When as it is said the specification of actions must not bee taken from the efficient cause, but from the formall object, and all that a done in this Synod might have beene done by a single Pastor.
I answer, wee doe not fetch the specification of this rebuke and of these decrees from the efficient causes, but from the formall object, for an Apostle might his alone have rebuked these obtruders of circumcision, and made this decree materialiter, for Paul did, more his alone then this, when hee wrote the E…istle to the Romans, but yet one Pastor could not have Synodically rebuked, and given out a decree formally Synodicall, laying an Ecclesiasticall tie on moe Churches then one, there is great ods to doe one and the same action formally, and to doe the same action materially, and I beleeve though actions have not, by good logick, their totall specification from their efficient cause, yet that ordinances of God as lawfull have their specification from the efficient causes in part our brethren cannot deny. For what made the difference betwixt Aaron his fire offered to the Lord, and Nadab and Abihu their strange and unlawfull fire, that they offered to the Lord, but that the on fire had God for its author, the other had men, and the like I say of Gods feasts, and the feasts devised by Jeroboam, else if a woman preach and administrate the Lords Supper in the Church, that preaching and sacrament administrated by her should not have a different specification and essence, if wee speake morally or Theologically, from that same very preaching and celebration of the Supper performed in the Church by a lawfull Pastor; it is (as I conceive) of the essence of an action Synodicall (I say not its totall essence) that it cannot bee performed by one in a Church-way, and with an ecclesiasticall tie, but it must be performed by many, else it is not a Synodicall action, and it is true that Paul, Rom. 14. and 1 Cor. 8. 10. hath in substance the same Canon forbidding scandall, which is forbidden in this Canon prohibiting eating of meats offered to Idolls, and blood, in the case of scandall; but (I pray you) is there not difference betwixt the one prohibition and the other? yea there is, for, Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. 10. it hath undenyably Apostolick authoritie, here it hath onelyonly Synodicall. 2. There it is a commandement of God, here it is a Canon of the Church. 3. There it commeth from one man, here from a colledge of Apostles and Elders conveened, and yet materially it is the same prohibition.