The Due Right of Presbyteries, Chapter 10 · Section 15 · Objection 4 – Objection 5
Object. 4. The Acts of this Synod are finaliter acts of government, because they are rules conducing for the governing of the Church, but formaliter, they are acts of dogmaticall power, and not formally acts of jurisdiction, for there is no rebuking of subverters of soules inordine to excommunication, no penall power is exercised here, sub poona, under the paine of excommunication, and therefore there an here no formall acts of government.
Answ. 1. The acts of Church-government finaliter, that is, government, because to prescribe rules and directive Lawes (for they are not properly Lawes which the Church prescribeth, Christ is the onelyonly Law-giver) are formall acts of governing, and one power doth not make Lawes for governing the Church, and another power different in nature punish the contraveners. And what power disposeth and ordereth, the meanes doe also dispose and order the end; Canons of the Church tending to the edification of the Church are meanes tending to the government of the Church, and I appeale to the judgement of our reverend brethren, if wee suppose that one single Congregation should doe all that this Synod doth, if they would not call it a formall governing of that particular Congregation: for example, in the Church of Pergamus, one ariseth and teacheth the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, suppose that fornication is indifferent is the eating of blood, and is no sinne; the Angels of the Church of Pergamus preach against this doctrine, in private, they deale by force of arguments from Scripture, that it is a wicked doctrine, and destructive to holinesse, as Paul and Barnab as disputeth, Act. 15. 1. 2. with the obtruders of a necessitie of Circumcision, yet they prevaile not, now suppose this independent Church following the Apostle Pauls way, thinke good to convene a Synod or a parishionall assembly to determine Synodically that this is a wicked doctrine, and shall in their decree call the holders of this doctrine subverters of soules, and forbid fornication in their Synod, now supposing Pergamus to be a single Church in a remote Iland consociated with no neighbouring Churches, who could in reason deny that this Synodicall power so inacting were a power formally governing the Church of. Pergamus? it is true, some of our brethren say, that it is even to us a received tenent that the power that disposeth of the meanes of governing doth not for that governe in respect that we teach that the classicall presbytery doth decree and in act, and the Congregation doth execute these Decreed, but I pray you doth this prove that the power ordering the meanes of governing is no formall act of governing? yea the contrary is true, because the Congregation executing the acts of the classicall presbytery, as subordinat in that act to the classicall presbytery, & by their authority, therfore while they give out these acts or Canons, doe formally governe, that Congregation executing their acts, in this particular.
Mr. Mather and Mr. Thomson against Mr. Herle, c. 1. p. 9. teach that there is a power of clearing truth dogmatically, and that … …, ultimately, where the controversie is ended, but they will have this ultimate power not in a Synod onelyonly, but also in a Congregation. But 1. they seeme to make this dogmaticall power a Church-power, and the exercise thereof formally an act of Church-government, and so it must bee Church-power and Church-government in the Synod, as well as in the Congregation. 2. The last period and conclusion of the controversie cannot bee both in the Congregation, de jure, by right onelyonly, and in the Synod by right onelyonly, for two last powers cannot bee properly in two subordinate judicatures, for if Antioch appeale to a Synod, as they doc, Act. 15. 2. then Antioch is not the sole, last and ultimate and finall judge; and 3. If the controversie concerne many Churches, as this doth, Act. 15. 2. 23. 24. I see not how a Congregation, except they transgresse their line, can finally determine it.
And here while as our brethren doe all edge that a Synod hath a power to decree, and make lawes, but hath no power at all to execute these Lawes or to punish the contraveners, but power of punishing is all in the single Congregation. …. They tie all governing power to a punishing power, as if there were no other wayes to governe, but upon supposall of scandalls, whereas all Scripture and polliticians make a power of giving Lawes formally a governing power. 2. When one societie and Synod maketh the Lawes, and another must execute them and punish the contraveners, the single Congregation that punisheth, is more subjected by a truely prelaticall bondage, then if the Law-makers had onelyonly the power of punishing the contraveners, at they onelyonly have the power of making the Lawes. I take not here Lawes for Lawes properly so called, but for ministeriall directories having ecclesiasticall authoritie: and here in effect, our brethren lay truely a prelaticall bondage on the Churches of Christ, for they teach that a Synod may make a Law by a pastorall power, and that this Synod is an ordinance of Christ by Act. 15. and that as Prelates did, they send those Synodic…ll decrees to bee obeyed and put in execution by the Churches, and ordaine the contraveners to bee punished by the Churches, and here is a power above a power, and mandates for government sent by the Synod to the Churches to bee obeyed, and a Synod governing by Churches, this they call prelaticall in us.
But 3. there is no penall power here (say they) and nothing decerved to bee obeyed, sub paena, under the paine of excommunication, therefore no power of jurisdiction. But this consequence is justly denyed, for no politician, no reason in the world can say that all power of jurisdiction is included in the power of excommunication. What? hath the Church a Church-power to threaten, and no Church-power to pardon the penltent? I think if the Church as the Church, Matth. 18. receive a power from Christ to bind in heaven and earth, doth not Christ in that same patent give to her also a power to loose in earth and heaven? and when hee saith, if bee refuse to beare the Church, let him be to thee … aube…hen and publican; doth hee not give to the Church a power to command? if hee command to heare and obey the Church, hee must give a power of jurisdiction to the Church to command, and a power to command not penall onelyonly, but promissorie also, to loose and absolve upon condition of prosessed repentance. Now suppose the Church make a Law, that theresurrection of the dead is a truth of God to bee beleeved, and professed, upon occasion that in the Congregation Hymeneus & Alexander den yeth that Article, in that very Commandement doctrinall the Church doth governe the whole Congregation, and exerciseth a power of formall governing, though in their act they say nothing of the censure of excommunication, to those who shall deny that Article of the resurrection, for (I hope) a simple sanction maketh a Law, though no penaltie bee expressed in it, and though there had beene in the Decree, Act 15. 28. an expresse punishment, this should, to our brethren prove no power of jurisdiction exercised by many, for this which is said, Gal. 1. 8. Though wee or an Angel from heaven preach unto you (another Gospel) then that which wee have preached let him bee accursed, and that 1 Cor. 9. 16. Woe unto mee if I preach not the Gospel, and many other threatnings in Scripture, though a punishment bee annexed expressely, cease not to bee meerely doctrinall, and are not threatnings importing formally any power of Church-jurisdiction, and therefore though mention should have beene made of a censure, if there bee not here a Synod. 2. Having power and authoritie from Christ. 3. Commanding by the holy Ghost, (as these indeed are all here) the name of censure should prove no power of jurisdiction.
Object. 5. The laying on of the yoake spoken of, v. 28. is a meer…, doctrinall yoake, and it importeth no more a poner of jurisdiction, then we can conclude that the obtruders of circumcision bad a power of jurisdiction, because they are said to lay on a yoake also, and to tempt God in so doing, vers. 10.
Answ. I retort this reason, for we can then no more conclude that the Apostles by an Apostolick authoritie layd on this yoake, then wee can conclude that the obtruders of circumcision did lay on this yoake, because they are said to lay on a yoake and to tempt God, v. 10. It is a most unequall reasoning to argue against a iust Synodicall power from a sinfull and unjust power, for these obtruders of circumcision had no lawfull power at all to lay a yoake on the Disciples, but sinned and tempted God in laying on that yoake, but it is not denyed by our brethren, but the Apostles and Elders had a lawfull power to lay on a yoake in this Synod, onelyonly it is controverted whether it bee a meere dogmaticall or doctrinall power, or if it bee a power of jurisdiction, nay the obtruders of circumcision by neither of these two powers layd on a yoake upon the Dsciples.