The Government of the Churches of Christ, Book 5 · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
Reasons against the Allegation brought, of Acts 15. for the Subordination of Synods, Provincial, National, Oecumenical. And Reasons against the Argument drawn from the Analogy of Matth. 18.
BEsides what hath been said against this Example, alledged to prove Presbyterial Acts of Government, by the Elders of the Church of Hierusalem, in the Reasons formerly present, proving, 1. That that one Example, cannot serve to prove both the Presbyterial Government and Synodical; but that if the Assembly will lean to the one, the other must be quitted. 2. That the Assembly was not a formal Synod, but only a Reference by the particular Church of Antioch, of their differences among themselves, unto this particular Church of Hierusalem, and no other. It is moreover added, that the Example of it is here further extended, to prove all sorts of Synods and Subordinations thereof, both Provincial, National, and Oecumenical, and so it must suit all these so great varieties, when it was not made fit for any one of them.
But if it had been a Synod; yet 1. Neither Provincial, nor National, but the contrary; for Antioch consults not with the Churches of her own Nation, but seeks to Jerusalem, a Church of Judea, of another Nation, and another Province. 2. Neither is it the instance of a standing Synod (which the word Subordination doth necessarily infer them to be standing Courts, or else the Links of those chains, will not hang together) but Elective; for they sent, out of Election and choice to them, but about this one question at this time, without any obligation to refer all other matters to them in an ordinary way. 3. Nor is it the Multiplication of Synods, but only of one, in whose Judgment those of Antioch rested. 4. Much less is it the instance of rearing up of a Subordination, and Contignation of Synods, Superiour and Inferiour, which is a further thing. For though when offences are not healed, and one Reference to other Churches is not sufficient to cure them, there should be a seeking to others; yet the example obligeth the Churches that are in difference, not to take and choose the Churches of that Province, either as of that Province, or as the greater number to whom both those among whom the controversie is, and those to whom it was afore referred, must be Subordinarily Subject. Much less doth it hold forth, that the Churches of that Province, may judicially challenge a Right of Authority to decide it, and oblige them sub paena, to their Determination; and then the Churches of that whole Nation, challenge the like over all. But still it runs in this way only, that those who shall be Judged meetest and ablest, and Faithfullest to Determine and compose it, by those who are to refer it.
The Argument is usually drawn from like Reason, and let there be found like Reason, and it is granted; and though it self is not the pattern of a Formal Synod, yet it holds forth this Rule of Equity, that when offences arise among Churches, References ought to be made from out of themselves, to Churches abroad to heal them. But the question is, to what Churches these References are to be made, and how? And let the like Reason held forth in the Example, be kept unto, and decide it. Say we still to those Churches, the Churches offended or divided, shall choose as fittest and ablest to determine it. This is clear in the Example; Antioch was not bound to refer it to the Church of Jerusalem, as greater, or as a next Neighbour, or of the same Province; but as best able to Judge of the Differences. And this way agrees with the Law of Nature, and of Arbitration, so usual amongst Men, which God hath there set up, as an Ordinance and Pattern of proceeding in such cases. But this Subordination of Synods intended, holds so differing a course from this, as 1. In stead of Elective Synods and Occasional, it sets up Standing, and so set to be the Judge of the Churches under them for ever. 2. Not in one case (as Antioch to Hierusalem) but in all cases what ever shall fall out. 3. Not in a way of Multiplication or Diversification, as need shall be, but of Subordination and setled Superiority; and the grounds of this to be, because the greatest must Rule the less, and that they are Neighbour-Churches, in the same Province or Nation. And this the like Reason, in Acts 15. is so far from countenancing, that in all things it is unlike, and so there is a differing constitution, and Rise of those Synods thus Subordinate, and what the Reason drawn from Acts 15. will warrant; and therefore doth make a differing formal Reason in the Government; and Humane Prudence added, will not Rectifie it, when the Reason of the Institution is so much varied from. For instance, if the Fundamental Law for Remedy of Wrongs, and deciding controversies in any Kingdom, were by Arbitration Elective to take them their Judges, whom the parties in difference judge aptest every way for the present controversie, and that the Presidents and Ruled cases hold forth no more; and if that the Government of another Kingdom were, that the greater should Rule and Determine the causes of the less, and according to the proportion thereof, to have Subordinate standing Courts erected, to which (by Appeal from the one to the other) all causes should be brought: Whether were not these two such differing Frames of Government, so as that he that would mould the first to the second, might not be challenged to set up a new Government, differing from the Fundamental Law of that Kingdom? And whether the one is not at liberty to withstand the Second, if it were vouchsafed to any Kingdom (and that is the case here) is humbly Submitted? And the bounds of such Assemblies Elective, needed no set or standing Rule; because they rise from occasional Electiveness, in case of controversie and offence, and the extent thereof: And so the condition and nature of the things themselves, do prescribe their own Limits, and hold forth their own rise; like as the bounds of particular Congregations, to be of such as live so, as conveniently to meet in one place, ariseth from the Nature of the thing it self, and the necessary requisites thereunto.
I shall now consider the Argument drawn from the Analogy of Matth. 18.
1. The strength of the Argument runs, that because there should be this Remedy, that therefore there is such a Remedy.
2. 'Tis granted there is a Remedy, which is a going forth to other Churches, which Acts 15. holds forth; but that Excommunication (which is the Remedy held forth in Matth. 18.) of the offending Church or Churches, should be the Remedy, is not there held forth, as hath been shewn. There is a Remedy of Co-ordination, such as between two Nations, and as between Pares (as Churches are) proceeding in a way suitable to their condition, but not this of Subordination, that the greater number of Churches should become standing Courts, and have power to Excommunicate the lesser; but that all Churches have a power to Declare the offence, and withdraw communion from those Churches. And in Reason, how is it possible for a National Church, to Excommunicate all the Churches of a Province? And how ineffectual would that be? Or for a General Council to Excommunicate a Nation? And if they cannot use this Remedy, to what end is this Subordination of Synods, having this Authority pleaded for?
And whereas 'tis said, that there must be the same Remedy, that is is in a Congregation for an offending Brother, or else where the Disease is strongest, the Remedy is weakest: It is answered,
1. That where the Disease is strongest, there this, which is called the strongest Remedy, cannot be applyed, or with an apparent inefficaciousness; for when the Churches in a Province err, or a National, here the Disease is strongest, and yet it would be in vain to interdict them communion among themselves, or deliver them unto Satan. Yea, when it comes to the highest, and where the Disease is greatest and strongest, there is not only no Remedy, but the highest and greatest power to do hurt upon all under them; as when the generality of the Clergy were Arrians: And if they err, the error is worse than of a Pope's erring, or of a Bishop's, he is but one, and may be Deposed; and in the greater Bodies of the Clergy, the greater part are, and have been still the worser, and more corrupt, as is apparent in this Kingdom at present, in which (by vertue of the Presbyterial Principles) all Ministers must be taken in; and if you will put them out, where will others be had in their room? Convert Men we cannot, and if not converted, Ministers of all others, are the worst and greatest opposites to Religion: And if a National Assembly be chosen by these, the greater number are like to be of the worst, and such as may alter all that you now have done. And if it be said, that this would hold against great politick Bodies as well, who may undoe the Common-wealth: The Answer is, that the common and equal interest of all, and the common Principles of preserving the Rights and Liberties of a State, and seeking the common good, is natural to the generality of Men; but the Truth of the Gospel and Purity of Religion, and the power thereof, is contrary to the principles of all Natural Men; and in all Ages the most of the Clergy have been aptest to corrupt the one, and oppose the other. And in those Ages, when such Councils began to be standing, and in most credit, after the first 300 years, then was it that the Mystery of Popery did work most powerfully, and those Superstitious and corrupt Opinions grew up, which made way for the Man of Sin, and that Body of Popish Doctrine, that hath overspread the World. And if there should be no danger of corrupting the Truth; yet the Churches (though Reformed) coming all out of Popery, and not being fully enlightned in all things, and the first Notion of any thing further in matters of Theology, usually falling into the Hearts and Spirits but of a few, we shall have no further Truth taught, but Suppressed, till a whole Nation is inlightened in it.
2. The Efficacy of all Remedies, doth depend first upon Christ's Blessing on them, which depends upon his Institution of them; and Par Ratio, or like Reason will never set up an Ordinance, unless Christ hath himself appointed it: And in the example Acts 15. there is not this way of Proceeding held forth. Secondly, it lies insuitableness to the condition of those that are to be dealt with: Now when many Churches deal with an erring Church, the Churches in a Province, with many erring Churches, or of a Nation with a Province, they must be in Reason dealt with, suitably to the condition of Churches, and of a Multitude; and surely a Brotherly way of Admonition, and withdrawing Communion, is more suitable unto such: As in the civil Government, if a Province Rebelleth, or a great Multitude of Subjects, should the State presently hang up all in that Province, although unto particular Persons Rebelling, this is Efficacious to suppress Rebellion. Thirdly, Christ hath suited his Remedies unto all times. and unto all conditions; and how National and Provincial Assemblies could be during the first 300 years, when yet the Churches were all Governed, is submitted.
3. And Lastly, if the Analogy of this 18th of Matth. be argued; then first let the Analogy be kept, and then when a Church hath offended other Churches, they are not to bring them to a Set Court of Judicatory at first; for Christ's Rule is otherwise, in dealing with an offending Brother, electively to take two or three Churches, and Admonish them, which is suited to that way forementioned, Acts 15. But as for the proceedings against a Brother in a Congregation, there is not a Set appointed number, of two or three standing Persons, to be the Admonishers of all, e're it comes to the Church, nor have they power to Excommunicate: And thus by this proportion, in stead of these Set and Standing Provincial Assemblies, to whom causes are next brought, and these Armed with power of Excommunication, there should only be two or three or more Neighbour-Churches, to Admonish the offending Church; and not a Stated Court to bring it unto. Secondly, Let it be shewn, where a standing Synod of Elders is called the Church; and how then can the Analogy hold, when it holds not in this, the main, Tell the Church? Lastly, the like reason holds not, unless these particular Congregations have the power of Excommunication; for otherwise if these greater Assemblie's power be argued from the Analogy of the lesser, and the same Remedy, Excommunication, and the particular Congregations have not that allowed them; then by the principles of this Analogy, it is no where to be found, but as the Congregational Churches have a power only to Admonish, and to Suspend to Sacraments, that so the greater Assemblies should The Assembly of Divines at Westmister.have no more also. And though the Church Universal, is called a Church, and one Body to Christ; yet as materially considered, and not as a politick Body, in respect to Government; which was never yet asserted by this Assembly.