A Vindication of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. Of the Authority of Synods.
IN that you acknowledge Synods as an Ordinance of Chriſt, and ſet downe the cauſes of aſſembling Churches into Synods, we ſhall eaſily agree with you: The maine controverſie is about their power. Concerning which you move three queſtions.
1. Q. What power it is they have received; which you thus reſolve: [Not only to counſell and give light, but alſo to command and enjoyne things to be beleeved and done.] But this (as was noted in your Prefacers Epiſtle) is but an empty grant. For you meane it rather materially, than formally, by any Authority the Synod hath to bind them to obedience or cenſure: Yes, formally (you ſay) [from the authority of the Synod, which being an Ordinance of Chriſt, bindeth the more for the Synods ſake.] But the great ſcruple is,To make their counſell the more weighty and acceptable; but not to inveſt them with more rule or authority. The way, p 51. what kind of Authority this is, whether it differ ſpecifically from the power of a ſingle Paſtor, or of a Congregationall Preſbytery, or only gradually, as a greater teſtimony; for ſo ſome of yours underſtand it: If in this latter ſenſe, I ſee not how it can be called an Ordinance of Chriſt, or authority diſtinct from the Authority of one ſingle Paſtor: For he hath Authority miniſterially to declare and command people, what God commands and declares to be his will, with all Authority: And this ſeemes to be your meaning; for you ſay [A truth of the Goſpell taught by a Miniſter, bindeth to faith and obedience, not only becauſe it is Goſpell, but alſo becauſe it is taught by a Miniſter for his callings ſake.] Now ſuppoſe 20, or 40, or more Paſtors met together, teach and declare a truth of the Goſpell; & enjoyne it to their ſeverall Congregations, by way of a Decree; I aske what difference is there between this Authority of theirs, and the Authority of any one of them ſingle? If you ſay, none but graduall, then I ſay, they have no Authority as a Synod, but as Paſtors: If you ſay, ſpecificall, that is, juridicall, whereas a Paſtors is but doctrinall, you yeeld the cauſe as we would have it. But then they have a power, not only of decreeing, which one Paſtor hath not; but alſo of cenſuring upon the diſobedience of the people, which you will not eaſily grant. Againe, I thinke you take the authority of a Preſbytery in a Congregation, to be an Ordinance of Chriſt, and to differ, not only gradually, but ſpecifically; And the authority of a Paſtor, or Teacher, or Ruling-Elders ſingle. Now it may ſeeme ſtrange, if a Synod be an Ordinance of Chriſt (as you grant) that a ſingle Preſbytery ſhould have a juridicall authority, to decree and cenſure; and yet a Synod, which is a Preſbytery of Preſbyteries, ſhould have but only a doctrinall authority: You may rather deny Synods to be an Ordinance of Chriſt, and call them (as your Prefacers call the firſt Synod of the Apoſtles) a Conſultation, or if you will, a Reference by way of Arbitration, for deciding of controverſies, &c. Which the particular Churches (unleſſe they bind themſelves by promiſe) need not ſtand to, but may plead their owne Liberty. But (ſay you) [they have a power, (if they cannot heale the offenders) to determine to withdraw communion from them.] This power all the Brethren have, as to withdraw from their owne Elders, apoſtate: ſo from other Churches obſtinate, againſt their admonitions. Or if you place any emphaſis in the word (determine) that is, to decree a ſeparation from them; then you give them a juridicall power, which is aequivalent with the power of excommunication, whereof withdrawing is but the execution.
2. Q. [How far the Fraternity may concurre with the Elders in the power of the Synod.] You reſolve it in 3 particulars: 1. [They have liberty to diſpute their doubts among the Elders, Acts 15.7.12.] The place I thinke is much miſtaken. The diſputation, for ought appeares, was amongſt the Apoſtles and Elders, before the Brethren; not by the Brethren. And when in v. 12. the whole multitude are ſaid to keep ſilence, it proves not that they did diſpute: For 1. certainly that had been too much confuſion, for a multitude to ſpeake all at once. 2. Their ſilence now, argues not that they diſputed before;Acts 21.40. & 22.2. the word foreign, ſignifies no more but this; they were quiet, or held their peace from noiſe or murmurings, uſuall with multitudes, as at an Aſſizes; we feare it; they hearkened attentively. 2. [They had liberty to joyne with the Apoſtles and Elders, in approving the ſentence, and determining the ſame, as the common ſentence of them all.] That they had a liberty to joyne in approving the ſentence, is no more than the multitude at an Aſſizes have to joyne with the Judge in approving of his ſentence: But that they joyned in determining the ſame, as the common ſentence of them all, is far more than the multitude have at the Aſſizes, and is as full Authority as the Elders have; And yet this you preſently deny, when you ſay: [Yet the Authority of the Decrees lay chiefly (if not only) in the Apoſtles and Elders… ] The Apoſtles and Elders did no more but joyne with Iames in determining the ſentence, as the common ſentence of them all. 3 [They had liberty to joyne with the Apoſtles and Elders, in chuſing and ſending meſſengers, and writing Synodall Letters, in the names of all.] If you meant no more than a paſsive approbation, it might be yeelded; but if you meane an actuall, or active concurrence, that they had not been valid without their votes and conſent; its far more than liberty, as good authority as any the Apoſtles and Elders had.
Obj. But Elders in a Synod have no authority to determine any act to bind the Churches, but according to their inſtructions. You anſwer: [We doe not ſo apprehend it: For what need Churches ſend to a Synod for light and direction, if they be reſolved afore hand, how far they will goe?] Reply: Here either you deſtroy the liberty of the Brethren, afore granted, and give the Synod a binding power, which you ſeeme to deny? or elſe prevaricate in this cauſe. For according to your principles, the Synod hath no power to bind the Churches to ſtand to their arbitrement (for thats the true power of your Synods) under any penall cenſure; only they may withdraw; And then I returne you your owne words: [What need Churches ſend to a Synod for light and direction, &c. if they be reſolved afore hand, how far they will goe?]
3. Q. [Whether the Synod hath power to enjoyne things both in their nature and uſe indifferent.] You reſolve it negatively.
1. [From the patterne of Synods, Acts 15.28. who enjoyned nothing but neceſſaries, in nature or uſe.]
Sol. This is an Argument from Scripture, negativè; they did not here enjoyne any thing but neceſſaries; ergo, they had no power to enjoyne things indifferent: The conſequence is naught. 2. [The Apoſtles are commanded to teach what Chriſt commanded; ergo, if they teach more, they exceed their commiſsion.]
Sol. This Argument is like the former: They were to teach what Chriſt commanded; ergo, they might teach nothing elſe in things indifferent: They might teach nothing as a commandement of Chriſt doctrinally, in matters of Faith or worſhip; but this hinders not, but they might enjoyne ſome things indifferent; as they did forbid the uſe of ſome things indifferent in their owne nature; viz. bloud, and ſtrangled. If it be ſaid, thoſe were not indifferent in their uſe, at that time: I anſwer; There is nothing in the individuall, properly indifferent in the uſe; becauſe it fals under ſome generall rules of Scripture; and ſo is to be uſed or not uſed accordingly: The queſtion therefore ſhould be; [Whether a Synod may enjoyne (or forbid) the uſe of a thing in its owne nature indifferent?] And then I ſhould anſwer affirmatively, and defend my ſelfe by this very preſident of the Apoſtles, Acts 15. Who did forbid the uſe of ſomethings in their owne nature indifferent? I would not therefore anſwer: [Chriſt ſpeaketh only of teaching ſuch things which he had commanded, as neceſſary to ſalvation:] But I would ſay, Chriſt ſpeaks of matters of faith, or worſhip: That they ſhould teach nothing to be beleeved, as a Doctrine of Faith: or practiſed as a part of Gods worſhip, but what he had commanded them. Otherwiſe the Apoſtles did goe beyond their commiſsion, in teaching as neceſſary, to abſtaine from bloud, &c. which Chriſt never commanded them, but rather forbad, in abrogating the Ceremoniall Law. And whereas you ſay; [The Apoſtle 1 Cor. 14.40. doth not at all enjoyne, nor allow the Church to enjoyne ſuch things as decent, whoſe want or whoſe contrary is not undecent: nor ſuch orders, whoſe want or contrary would be no diſorder.] I anſwer: that for men to pray or propheſie with their heads covered, or with long haire, and women uncovered, were things in their owne nature indifferent (unleſſe you make it neceſſary, as a morall duty, for men to pray or propheſie uncovered, and women contra; which no Interpreters upon that Text doe) and yet the Apoſtle enjoynes the Corinthians ſo to doe; ergo, the Synod may doe ſo too: And for your inſtance of preaching in a gowne; [A gowne (ſay you) is a decent garment to preach in, yet ſuch an injunction (for Miniſters to preach in a gowne) is not grounded upon that Text of the Apoſtle: For then, a Miniſter in neglecting to preach in a gowne, ſhould neglect the commandement of the Apoſtle; which yet he doth not; for if he preach in a cloake, he preacheth decently enough.] True, he ſins not in point of decency; but ſuppoſing ſuch a cuſtome in a Church (as the cuſtome was for men, amongſt Corinthians, to preach uncovered, and the women to be convened in the Congregations) the Synod might enjoyne all the Miniſters to preach in a gowne, (as the Apoſtle did enjoyne them to preach uncovered) and he that ſhall preach in a cloke, preaches decently indeed, but not orderly; and ſo ſins againſt the Apoſtles rule of order, though not of decency. You ſo ſpeake, as if there were only one Rule to be obſerved, or two at moſt, in the uſe of things indifferent; whereas there are at leaſt five to that purpoſe: And by the ſame reaſon, that the Apoſtle enjoynes men to keep decency, he enjoynes to keep order; and ſo other rules, concerning things indifferent. Doth not the Apoſtle complaine of diſorder in the Corinthians preaching covered? yet the contrary Order was not neceſſary, but in it ſelfe indifferent. The eating of things offered to Idols, was a thing in it ſelfe, before that decree of the Apoſtles, indifferent, 1 Cor. 10.25. 1 Cor. 8.8. yet was now forbidden: If you ſay, this was offenſive to the Iewes, and ergo neceſſary pro hic & nunc: I anſwer, this reaſon made it neceſſary only, where ſuch eating was knowne to be offenſive, but the Canon made it neceſſary every where.
3. A third reaſon is taken (you ſay) from the nature of the [Miniſteriall Office in Church or Synod: which is ſtewardly, not Lordly, and ergo, they may diſpenſe no more injunctions to Gods houſe, than Chriſt hath appointed them.] I anſwer, its true, he may diſpenſe nothing as an inſtitution of Chriſt, but what he hath commanded: But yet a Steward may require of the Family, and enjoyne them the uſe of things in themſelves indifferent, for Order and uniformity. As that all ſhall meet in ſuch an houre, in ſuch a place, to prayers, &c. So I thinke you doe in your owne Churches. It is indifferent to receive the Lords Supper at Morning or at Evening, yet ſome of you enjoyne it to be done at Evening. It is indifferent to baptize, in a river, in a paile, in a Font, in a Baſon; yet, I beleeve, you enjoyne one of theſe, and forbid the other. And whereas you ſay, [Chriſt in theſe things never provided for uniformity, but only for unity.] I anſwer: then the Apoſtle exceeded his commiſsion, in enjoyning the Corinthians uniformity, in their orderly praying or prophecying; yea, unity is much preſerved by uniformity.
But you propound à queſtion; [Whether a Synod hath power of Ordination or excommunication:] And anſwer 1. That you doubt it was not ſo from the beginning. 2. That if any ſuch occaſion ſhould ariſe amongſt you, you (in a Synod) ſhould determine it fit to be done, but referre the adminiſtration of both, to the Preſbytery of ſeverall Churches.] So perhaps would the Presbyteriall Churches. But the queſtion is, what is to be done, if the Officers of the particular Churches be dead, or hereticall, who then ſhall doe thoſe acts? Either the Synod muſt doe it, but that you refuſe, or a Claſsis, The way, p. 50, 51.or a Preſbytery of another Congregation; but that you alſo deny, as having no warrant: Then it followes, the Brethren without Officers muſt both ordaine Elders, Page 100.and excommunicate offenders; which you fully grant in the other Tract. But as clearly contradict in this, as is evident in the former Chapter.
If it be ſaid, for Synodicall Ordination, [that Matthias was ſo called to be an Apoſtle, Acts 1.] you anſwer: [It appeares not, they acted them in a Synodicall way.] But I pray Sir, remember what you ſaid above, concerning that Synod, Acts 15. [That it riſe up to be a Synod, or generall Councell, by the Apoſtles preſence, they being Elders of all the Churches.] So it may be ſaid of that Aſſembly, Acts 1. the Apoſtles preſence, and the whole Church, then extant, there aſſembled, made it a Synod; and if ſo, then in a Synod, there was an Apoſtle ordained: If I may uſe that word of an Apoſtle, which I may the better to doe, by your grants, who urge the word foreign,The Keyes, p. 12. [he was voted by the common ſuffrages of them all.] And if an Apoſtle, much more a Deacon, or other Officers, as Acts 6. in another like Aſſembly. The other inſtance of the Preſbyters impoſing hands upon Paul and Barnabas, Paul and Barnabas were ordained to that Office (of Apoſtleſhip) by the impoſition of hands of ſome Officers or members of the Church: The way, p. 45was not indeed an Ordination, properly ſo called, though you call it a [ſeparation of them to the worke of the Apoſtleſhip.] nor in a Synod, but in a particular Church; yet it was in a Presbytery of Prophets and Teachers, perhaps of ſeverall Churches, there occaſionally met, and yeelds us this inſtruction; That Elders of one or more Churches, may impoſe hands, that is, ordaine (in your ſenſe) Elders imployed in other Churches; for ſo were Paul and Barnabas. Whence we would inferre two things more: 1. That if a Claſsis or Preſbytery may ordaine, then may a Synod ordaine. 2. That however the people or Brethren have no power to ordaine or impoſe hands: for thoſe were Prophets and Teachers, that impoſed hands on Paul and Barnabas.
To conclude this Chapter: whereas you ſaid, [The Synod, Acts 15. did diſpenſe no cenſure againſt the falſe Teachers, an evident argument, they left the cenſure to the particular Churches.] I anſwer: This is an Argument like the former: They diſpenſed no cenſure, ergo, they had no power, perhaps they revoked their errour, and repented, and ſo there was no need: However, the Synod could not cenſure them, till they knew them obſtinate. What was after done, we know not.