The Due Right of Presbyteries, Chapter 10 · Section 15 · Objection 6 – Objection 10
Object. 6. These decrees which did no other wayes bind the Church of Jerusalem, then they did bind all the Churches of the world, cannot bee decrees of power of jurisdiction over the Church of Jerusalem, and over the Church of Antioch. But these decrees did no otherwise bind the Church of Jerusalem, then they did bind all the Churches of the world, for the decrees of Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, Act. 6. 4, 5. were sent to all the Churches of the world to bee observed, and seeing they could not as Synodicall Canons obliege all the Churches of the world, by an ecclesiasticall tie, because all the Churches of the world sent not Commissioners, and all the Churches of the world couldnot be represented in this Synod, but onelyonly the Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch; yea wee see not that this Synod is any more then the Church of Antioch seeking counsell from the sister Church at Jerusalem; as one Church may advise another Church that is weaker in knowledge, in a matter of such difficultie, because the Apostles were at Ierusalem, and that …. 1. The whole Canons are ascribed to the Church of Jerusalem onelyonly, to the Apostles, Elders and the whole Church, Act. 15. 22. and Act. 15. 22. and Act. 16. 4, 5. and Act. 21. 25. the Elders of Jerusalem take this act or canon to themselves. 2. It cannot be proven that the Churches of Syria and Cilicia had any commissioners he…, farre lesse had all the Churches of the Gentiles, who yet are commanded to keepe those decrees by commissioners there, C. 15. 19. Act. 21. 25. Act. 16. 4, 5. 3. It cannot bee proven that Antioch sent Elders to this meeting, but onelyonly Commissioners, Act. 15. 2.
Answ. This answer is much contradicent to what our brethren other waies hold, for if it be a patterne of a sister Church, giving advise and counsell to another, this is imitable to the worlds end, and if the Canon come from the Apostles as Apostles it is not imitable.
2. That one sister Church can lay burdens on another, and give out foreign, decrees to bee kept is unwarrantable; now foreign as they are called by all that understandeth Greeke, are not friendly advises of brethren; the Seventie Interpreters use the word, Daniel 6. 26. to expresse a Law made by Darius, Luke useth the word, c. 2. 1. saith a decree foreign came from Augustus Caesar to taxe all the World. 2. It is a graver businesse then we can thinke of, to beleeve that these who onelyonly give advise and counsell, and must conveene in a Synod, as Apostles and Elders doe here, v. 23. (2) that they can say as it is v. 28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us to lay no other burden on you then t…se necessary things, for a counsell or advise can never amount to the burden imposed by the holy Ghost speaking in a Synod: 2. It is denied that this decree oblieged the Church of Jerusalem no other way then it oblieged all the Churches of all the world, for here bee three sorts of Churches, and three sorts of Churches are under a tie by this Synod; first, Jerusalem, secondly, Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, thirdly, universally all the Churches of the Gentiles. The Church of Jerusalem have formall commissioners, here under an ecclesiasticall tie as concerning the faith of the things contained in the decree, that it is lawfull for the Gentiles to abstaine from things offered to idolls, from things strangled, and from blood; and they were simply under a tie both of the seventh Commandement, and by the fifth Commandement, to abstaine from fornication, because the Synod had forbidden it. 2. They were under a tie by due proportion, not to keepe the Law of Moses and not to bee circumcised by any necessitie of a Divine Law, but onelyonly by permission to use these ceremonies for feare of scandall. 3. They are tied by proportion also to give no offence in things indifferent. 4. Not to reject the Gentiles whom the Lord had called to his heavenly kingdome, as well as the Jewes. 2. These Churches of the Gentiles who never heard of the Synod, and so were not oblieged to bee there in their Commissioners or not tied at all by this Decree, by vertue of any ecclesiasticall tie, but are onelyonly tied by the Law of Nature, not to abuse their libertie in the use of things in their owne nature indifferent, and so this is false that the Church of Jerusalem was tied no other way by these acts then all Churches of the world, for some of the Churches of the world were not tied at all, by any ecclesiasticall bond, but onelyonly for the necessitie of the Law of Nature. 3. Jerusalem, Antioch, Syria and Cilicia were tied by an ecclesiasticall tie, because Jerusalem and the Churches of Antioch had here Commissioners, for Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas with certaine other of them, foreign, this must relate to Pastors and Elders, if Syria and Cilicia had no Commissioners here, as certainly they were oblieged to send Commissioners, as well as Antioch, seeing their case was one with Antioch, v. 23. and they could not but heare of this Apostolick remedie to remove the scandall of false Doctrine, and therefore their Commissioners were either here, or then they were oblieged to bee here, and here wee have the true essence of a Synod, to wit, a meeting of the Churches of Antioch and Jerusalem at Jerusalem to determine of this question. But that the Church of Jerusalem did not determine all the businesse in a Presbyteriall way, and that others had hand in it, is cleare. 1. Because Paul and Barnabas and others with them are expresly sent from Antioch to Jerusalem as Commissioners and Elders, and here they reason and voyce, as is cleare, ch. 15. v. 12. v. 22. v. 28. ch. 16. 4. ch. 21. 25, 26. and the Acts and Decrees are ascribed to all the Apostles and Elders who were present at the councell, ch. 14. 4. ch. 15. v. 22. v. 12. and amongst these were Paul and Barnabas, with certaine others sent from Anti…b, Act. 15. 2. and the Elders of Jerusalem, Act. 21. 25. with the Apostles, Act. 16. 4. (2.) the reasons alledged are false, for Act. 16. 4. Act. 15. 22. Act. 21. 25. the Acts and Synodicall Decrees are not ascribed to Elders of Jerusalem onelyonly, but to the Apostles who were not Elders at Jerusalem, and to the Elders in Jerusalem, Act. 16. 4. not of Jerusalem. 3. It is no matter though it cannot bee proven that the Churches of Syria and Cilicis had no Commissioners there, for first, the contrary cannot bee proven; secondly, they ought to have had Commissioners here; thirdly, the Acts are sent to them conjunctly with Antioch, and messengers to report the mind and sense of the Assembly as to Antioch, v. 23. (4.) It is but a groundlesse conceit to say that Paul and Barnabas came to the Synod as Commissio…s, or as servants to receive information, not as Elders to give their decisive voices, because Paul carried himselfe in the assembly as Peter and James who were Elders in the assembly, and they being Apostles, the decrees are ascribed to the Apostles without any distinction, Act. 15. 28. Act. 16. 4. And if Paul and Barnabas, and Silas a Prophet of the Church at Antioch, Act. 15. v. 32. with Judas, v. 27. also a Prophet, had beene onelyonly Commissioners and servants of the Church at Antioch, and not Elders and members of the Assembly, how could they have voices in the Church or Congregation of Jerusalem? for the messengers of one Congregation hath not place to voyce in another Congregation. 2. It is said expressely, It seemed good to the Apostles and Elders, with the whole Church to send chosen men of their owne, with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chiefe men, (leading men) amongst the Brethren; now I desire to bee resolved in two; 1. how Judas and Silas were men of their owne company foreign, certainly foreign must relate to the Assembly, to wit, to Elders and Apostles, by all good Grammar, and how are they called foreign, Captaines and leading men amongst the Brethren, which brethren are certainly these mentioned in the same verse, Apostles, Elders, and the whole Church, and these mentioned in the next verse, 23. Apostles, Elders and Brethren, that is, chosen men of this Assembly; now it is evident that Judas and Silas were no part of Elders of the Church of Jerusalem, but Prophets at Antiab, v. 32. and members of that Presbytery spoken of Act. 13. 1, 2. and Act. 15. v. 35. And what power then had the Assembly to send them, and especially what power had the Eldership or presbytery of Jerusalem to send men foreign, of their owne company who were not men of their owne company? therefore they were called chosen men foreign of their owne company, and leading men foreign of the Brethren, because they were members of the Assembly, and of that councell gathered together with one accord, v. 25. and not because they were naked messengers of the Church of Antioch, but Elders, Prophets, v. 32. and members of the Assembly, v. 22. 23. And when as it is said Act. 16. 4. Act. 21. 28. These decrees are ascribed to the Elders in Jerusalem. I answer they are not called the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem, as Revel. 2. 1. To the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, v. 8. To the Angel of the Church of Smyrna, and v. 12. of the Church of Pergamus, and v. 18. and Act. 20. 17. but the Eders which were at Jerusalem assembled: and this doth no more prove that all these Elders were onelyonly the Elders of the Church at Jerusalem, then it proveth that the Apostles were the Apostles of the Church at Ierusalem which no man can say: yea by the phrase of Scripture used in other places, it is cleare they were not the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem; and for Act. 21. 25. The Elders of the Church of Jerusalem taketh those Decrees upon them, not as if they made the whole Synod, but because they were a considerable part of the Synod, for it is cleare from the story, Act. 15. that the Apostles and others were members of that assembly, and therefore, that v. 25. Wee have written and concluded, &c. must bee expounded, wee as a part of the Synod, have written, &c. and it is a Synecdoche, and the pronoune foreign (wee) includeth no Apostle but James, whereas Peter, Paul, Barnabas, Iudas, Sil…s and others Elders and Brethren were members of the Synod, yea and (as our Brethren say, though to mee it is not probable) the whole Church of Ierusalem from v. 22. c. 15.
Object. 7. They take away the scandall in a doctrinall way only, declaring that they ought to abstaine from things scandalous.
Answ. The very delivering to Satan may thus bee called doctrinall, because it is a Declaration that the mans sinnes are retained in heaven, yet it is an authoritative declaration, and if it bee meere doctrinall, one Pastor and one Prophet might have done all which this venerable colledge of Apostles and Elders disputed, reasoned, and concluded Synodically. A meere doctrinall power layeth not on burdens and Decrees. Herodian calleth such foreign senatusconsult…in, and Bude…s a man excellently skilfull in the Greeke language saith the like Budens cōme…t. l…ng. …. C. l. n…m & demostbenes ss. delegis.of it, and so doth the civill Law make it a statute of the Senate.
Object. 8. The reason why Patel could not, though hee was an Apostle, determine this at Antioch, was not because hee wanted Apostolick authoritie, but because his Apostolick power was more questionable, hee not having seene Christ in the flesh, nor being a witnesse of the life, death and resurrection of Christ, then the authoritie of James and Peter who wer… eye-witnesses of Christs life, doctrine, and sufferings, and saw him visibly ascend to heaven, and the believers doubted if hee was an Apostle, and the Synod was convened to have theresolution of the Apostles, and so it was meerely Apostolicall.
Ans. Though I grant there beesome truth in this, that Pauls Apostolick calling was now more question …, then the rest of the Apostles; and I easily yeeld that these who disputed with him could not rest upon his authority; yet I deny that hence wee can inferre no Synod: for if the Apostles had convened in Synod to satisfie those who doubted of Pauls authoritie as an Apostle; then they would have reterred the matter to James and Peter, who to these beleevers were undoubtedly the Apostles of the Lord: but if the Apostles had had no intent, but to end the controversie in a mere Apostolick way, and not intended a Synodicall and an …clesiasticall and perpetuall remedy in such cases of controversies, in particular Churches; I shall not beleeve that the Apostles when they were to determine by a superior, an Apostolick and infallible light, they would have joyned with them the Elders, as Act. 15. 16. to consider of the question, and that the Church of Au…ioch doubting if Paul was an Apostle, would have decreed to seeke a resolution from Elders, and that in an Apostolick way, for they sent to the Elders at Jerusalem for a resolution as well as to the Apostles, Act. 15. 2. and judge yee if the Apostles being to determine infallibly as Apostles, would joyne the falliblo and inferiour light of Elders, v. 6. and Brethren, v. 22. if tlloy had not had a mind to determine the question in a Synodicall way.
Object. 9. But it is not cleare that in this act they either censure persons, or doe any thing in order to Church-censure, but onelyonly exercise a naked doctrinall power.
Answ. A doctrinall power was in a higher measure in the Apostles, then in all the Elders of the world, who were all but fallible men, and James and Peter to these beleevers, who moved the question, were undenyably Apostles, and what doctrinall power could they seeke in the Elders to whose determination, by intention both of Antioch, ch. 15. 2. and by the Apostles intention, v. 6. the question is referred as well as to the Apostles? if the matter was not to bee ended by a formall Synod. 2. Nor can they deny a power of jurisdiction though there were no persons rebuked and censured in this Synod; for the object of a juridicall power is not onelyonly persons, but things of order, decencie, circumstances, questions of doctrine, as is cleare, Re…el. 1. 14. 15. & officers to be ordained, Act. 6. 3, 4, 5, 6. 1 Tim. 5. 22. 2 Tim. 2. 2, 3. (3.) Our brethren cannot deny but the sentence of non-Communion is a censure, and a great one, yea and of kindred and blood most neare to excommunication, and that if any Churches should have ref…sed those Canons, by this Canon the Churches might have pronounced the sentence of non-communion against them, and to pronounce this sentence is an act of government as properly so called, as to pronounce the sentence of excommunication, for it is the formall halfe of the sentence of excommunication.
Object. 10. It seemeth that Apostles here determine as Apostles, for they condenme the obtruders of circumcision, because they taught these things without any Apostolick, Commandement, v. 24. They teach that you must bee circumcised and keepe the Law, to whom, wee, (the Apostles) gave no such commandement.
Answ. This is no more a good argument to prove that the obtruders of circumcision did teach false doctrine, and were not condemned by the Apostles and Elders Synodically, then if one should say, this is not a Synodicall decree of the Church, because it is proven and made good by the Word of God, for Synodicall decrees exclude not Gods word, though they bee not formally Scripture; for in some part of the Epistle the Apostles may well speak of themselves as distinguished from Elders and as Apostles, and yet the assembly is an ordinary Synod and not an Apostolick meeting, for if wee should argue thus, the whole Church, men and women, v. 22. sent messengers to Antioch, as the Church, and not as Apostles, our brethren would thinke it a weake consequence to inferre, Ergo, this was nothing but a Congregational, not an Apostolical meeting. Yet our brethren contend that the whole Church and single Congregation of Ierusalem did concurre in this meeting as consenters, and having power also, though not of jurisdiction; but I wonder why our brethren should so contend that there was no power of censuring put forth in this Assembly, seeing one of their speciall answers, whereby they would prove that this it not a patterne of an ordinary Synod, and such a Synod as wee contend for, having power of jurisdiction is, that this was an ordinary meeting of the Elders and Church of Ierusalem, giving counsell and advise with the Apostles to the Church of Antioch, but I am sure the businesse of not scandalizing did as much concerne the Church of Ierusalem, and therefore in the Synod they ought to put forth power of jurisdiction, if any of their members, hearing that the Apostles contended that the ceremoniall Law did not lay a tie on the conscience of either Jew or Gentile, in foro dei, before Gods court, as the places cited by Iames prove, v. 15, 16, 17. (& Peter saith expresly that God now putteth no difference betwixt Iewes and Gentiles, v. 9. but … are saved through the grace of our Lord Iesus, v. 11.) should ab …aine from blood, to the offence of the weaker, should not this Congregation all Church condemne such, in ordine ad censuram, in order to excommunication? yea the Eldership and Congregation of Jerusalem here convened as our brethren say, should have failed in this first Synod, and also the Apostles with them, if they neglected to exercise juridicall power over their owne Congregation in the case of scandall, and a scandall as possible to them to fall in as the Gentiles, and therefore either this assembly consisting of Apostles and of the particular Church of Ierusalem erred, which wee cannot say, or then they did exercise power in order to excommunication towards their owne Church, and so there is some juridicall power put forth in this meeting.