Part 2 — Chapter 11: Objections Made against the Authority of Synods, Answered

They who dislike the subordination of particular congregations to higher ecclesiastical courts, object against us, our Saviour's precept, Tell the Church. Wherever we read in Scripture of a visible political church, and not of the invisible Catholic Church, it is ever meant, say they, of a particular congregation, used to assemble in one place for the exercise of God's public worship; and when the Scripture speaks of a whole province or nation, the plural number is used, as the Churches of Galatia, the Churches of Macedonia, the Churches of Asia, etc. Therefore our Saviour in those words did deliver the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, neither to classical presbyteries, nor to synods, but to particular congregations only.

Answ. 1. This place proves indeed that particular churches have their own power of jurisdiction, but not that they alone have it. 2. Yes, it proves that they alone have it not, for Christ has a respect to the form of the Jews, as is evident by these words, Let him be to you as a heathen or a publican. Now we have proved that there was among the Jews a high ecclesiastical Sanhedrin, beside the particular synagogical courts: so that by pointing out the form of the Jewish church, he recommends a subordination, and not an independency of particular churches. 3. By the Church in that place is meant the competent consistory of the church, and so it agrees to all ecclesiastical courts respectively. This sense is given by Parker, though he be most tender in the vindication of the liberty of congregations. For, says he, since Christ would have every man to be judged by his own church (Matthew 18), or if the judgement of his own church should displease him, yet ever it must be by the Church, that is, by a synod of many churches. 4. As for the reason alleged for proof of the contrary exposition, I oppose it both by reason, and by their own tenets, and by Scripture. By reason, because the rule of geometrical proportion (whereof we have before spoken) proves a congregation to be a part of a national church, even as one man is a part of a congregation; for as five is the hundredth part of five hundred, so is five hundred the hundredth part of fifty thousand. By their own grounds, because they hold the form of a visible church, to consist in the uniting of a number of visible Christians into one, by the bond of a holy covenant to walk in all the ways of God. Then say I, we may say the Church of Scotland, as well as the Churches of Scotland, because all the particular churches in Scotland, are united together into one, by the bond of a national oath and covenant, to walk in all the ways and ordinances of God. By Scripture also, because (Acts 8:1) we read of the Church at Jerusalem, not the Churches: howbeit there were at that instant above eight thousand Christians at Jerusalem, and all these still in the city (for the first scattering of them follows thereafter in that chapter). This great number, neither did, nor could usually assemble into one place for the worship of God, but they met house by house (Acts 2:46). And whereas objection is made to the contrary from Acts 2:44 and 5:12 and 6:2, we have before answered to the first of these places, for it is to be expounded by Acts 4:32 — they were in one; that is, they were of one heart, and of one soul. The second place may be expounded of the Apostles, and the preceding words favor this exposition; but though it should be taken of the multitude, it proves not their meeting together into one place for the worship of God, for it was an extraordinary confluence, upon an extraordinary occasion of that which had befallen to Ananias and Sapphira. The last place proves no more, but an extraordinary and occasional meeting, and it is also to be understood that they met turmatim, as four hundred thousand men did assemble together (Judges 20:1).

Another scriptural instance we give from 1 Peter 1:1 with 5:2, the Apostle writing to the dispersed Jews in several provinces, calls them all one flock. We read that Laban had many flocks (Genesis 30:36, 38), yet are they all called one flock (verse 31, 32); so were all the flocks of Jacob called one flock (Genesis 32:7 and 33:13). In like manner every one of the particular churches among those dispersed Jews was a flock, but compared with the whole, it was but a part of the flock. It is no more absurd to say that a congregation is both a body, in respect of its own members, and a member in respect of a national church, than it is to say, that every believer considered by himself, is a tree of righteousness, and a temple of God, yet compared with others, he is a branch of the vine, and a stone of the temple, for all those ways is he called in Scripture.

Sundry particular flocks may be called one flock, three ways: 1. Respectu pastorum, when the same shepherds oversee and take care of the whole. See an example both of the one kind of shepherds (Luke 2:8) and of the other (Acts 20:28). 2. Respectu pabuli: so Paul Baynes speaking of the Low Countries, where sundry congregations in one city make but one church, says, that the sheep feed together into one common pasture, though they bite not on the same individual grass. 3. Respectu pedi, when many congregations are governed by the same pastoral staff of ecclesiastical laws and discipline.

It is further objected, that Presbyterian government and the authority of Synods, doe rob the congregations of their rights and liberties, no lesse then the Prelacy did; so that the Churches of Christ in the removall of Episcopacy, have changed Dominum only, not Dominium. Answer. There is a vast difference; for 1. Episcopal government is Monarchical, and Christ has left no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to be exercised by one man. Presbyterian and Synodical government is partly democratical, in respect of the election of Ministers and Elders, and the doing of matters of chiefest importance, with the knowledge and consent of congregations: partly aristocratical in respect of the parity of Presbyters and their consistorial proceedings and decrees. The Monarchical part is Christ's peculiarly. 2. The Prelacy permits not to congregations any act of their own Church government, but robs them of their particular Elderships, which (as Parker well notes) the Classical Presbyteries doe not. 3. It is one thing, says Baynes, for Churches to subject themselves to a Bishop and Consistory, wherein they shall have no power of suffrage: Another thing to communicate with such a Presbytery, wherein themselves are members and Judges with others. 4. The congregations did not agree nor consent to Episcopal government, but were sufferers in respect of the same, but they doe heartily agree to the government of Presbyteries and Synods, in witness whereof they send their Commissioners there to concur, assist, & voice. 5. Special respect is had in Presbyteries and Synods, to the consent of congregations, in all matters of importance, which are proper to the same. This the Prelacy did not regard. 6. Presbyteries and Synods doe not (which the Prelates did) imperiously and by their sole arbitrement domineer over congregations, for their power is directive only, ministerial, and limited by the Laws of God and Nature, and the laudable Ecclesiastical Laws received and acknowledged by the congregations themselves. 7. Experience has showed us Presbyterian and Synodical government to be, not only compatible with, but most conduceable for the supportment and comfort of congregations: whereas Episcopal government draws ever after it [illegible], and a general grievance of the Churches.

Some other objections there are, for obviating whereof I shall permit and explain a distinction which shall serve to answer them all. We may consider a visible Church, either metaphysically or politically. It is one thing to consider men as living creatures endued with reason; another thing to consider them as Magistrates, masters, fathers, children, servants, &c. So is it one thing to consider a visible Church as a society of men and women separated from the blind world by divine vocation, and professing together the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Another thing to consider it as a political body, in which the power of spiritual government and Jurisdiction is exercised, some governing and some governed.

These are very different considerations; for first, a visible Church being taken entitatively or metaphysically, her members doe ordinarily communicate together in those holy things which fall under the power of order, which I may call sacra mistica; but being taken politically, her members communicate together in such holy things as fall within the compass of the power of Jurisdiction, which I may call sacra politica. Secondly, Infants under age being initiated in Baptism, are actually members of the Church in the former consideration, but potentially only in the latter, for they neither govern, nor yet have the use of reason to be subject and obedient to those that doe govern. Thirdly, one must necessarily be a member of the Church metaphysically before he can be a member of the Church politically, but not contrariwise. Fourthly, many visible Churches have sometimes been, and may be without Officers, and so without Ecclesiastical government and exercise of Jurisdiction for that time, yet still retaining the Essence of true visible Churches: whereas a Church which never yet had any Officers ordained therein (of which kind there have been many at the first conversion of a Nation to the Gospel) or which has lost all her Officers by death or persecution, is not for that time an Ecclesiastical Republic, nor can be such till she have Officers. This if they had observed who have taken so great pains to prove that there has been, and may be a Church without Officers, it should happily have made them think their labor lost. It might also have taught Henry Jacob to distinguish between a Church visible and a Church ministerial or political, and not to understand these three terms to be all one, as he does in his Letter, bearing date the 4. of September 1611. pag. 9. Fifthly, my being a member of any one visible Church metaphysically, gives me right and title to communicate with another visible Church (where for the time I am) in sacris misticis, such as the word, prayer, &c. But my being a member of any one visible Church politically does not give me right and title to communicate with another visible Church (where for the time I am) in sacris politicis, such as ordination, deposition, excommunication, &c. Hereunto does Master Robinson assent in these words, As a man once baptized is always baptized, so is he in all places and Churches where he comes (as a baptized person) to enjoy the common benefits of his baptism, and to discharge the common duties which depend upon it. But a Pastor is not a Pastor in every Church where he comes upon occasion, neither can he require in any other Church, saving that one over which the holy Ghost has set him, that obedience, maintenance, and other respects which is due from the officers to the people; neither stands he charged with that ministry and service, which is due to the people from the officers. The like he would have said of an Elder or a Deacon.

Now this distinction shall serve to answer the objections following.

Object. Every Christian congregation is a complete body Ecclesiastical, having all the parts and members, and all Church officers which Christ has instituted: therefore every congregation has the full and absolute power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.

Answ. Every Christian congregation is a complete Church or body of Christ metaphysically; that is, has the complete Essence of a true visible Church; yet every such congregation is not a complete Ecclesiastical Republic, except in some certain cases whereof we have spoken, Chap. 2. And further, we answer, that this objection is alleged to prove, that 2 or 3 gathered together in the name of Christ, have immediately under Christ the full power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; but sure I am, that two or three gathered together in the name of Christ, are not a complete Ecclesiastical body, having all the members and officers which Christ has instituted, for they themselves hold that in every Christian congregation by Christ's institution there ought to be at least five Officers, and when those five shall be had, there must be also a certain number of Christian people to be governed and served by them. So that their Argument does not conclude that which they propose to prove.

Object. They who have received Christ, have received with him power and right to enjoy him (though all the world be against it) in all the means and ordinances by which he does communicate himself to the Church. But every company of faithful people, if they be but two or three have received Christ; therefore every such company, &c.

Answ. If by the receiving of Christ, they mean the receiving of Christ on his throne, or the receiving of him in his ordinance of Church government, then we deny their Assumption, for every company of faithful people is not a Church politically, as we have showed already. Indeed every company of faithful people who have received Christ in this manner, has right and title to enjoy him in all his political ordinances, yet not independently, but by a certain order and subordination. But if by the receiving of Christ, they mean receiving of him to salvation, or receiving of him by his Word and Spirit, we grant, that not only every company of faithful people, but every particular Christian has right and title to enjoy him in the mystical ordinances of the Word, Prayer, &c. as often as the same can be had; yes further, has right and title to the fruit and benefit of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the exercise whereof is committed by Christ to the officers of the Church, Intuitu Ecclesiae tanquam finis. But that every company of faithful people, who have received Christ to salvation, has right and title to enjoy him in his political ordinances, by their own exercising of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and that independently, this is more than either has been, or can be proved.

Object. The union between Christ and his Church is as strait and immediate, as the union between the Vine and the Branches, between the Head and the Body, between the Husband & the Wife. Therefore every true Church of Christ has direct & immediate interest in, and title to Christ himself, & the whole new Testament, and every ordinance of it.

Answ. The strait union between Christ and the Church, expressed by these comparisons, cannot be understood of the Church taken politically: for then the union between Christ and the Church might be dissolved as often as the Church ceases to be ordered and governed as an ecclesiastical republic. It is therefore to be understood either of the invisible Church, or at most of the visible Church taken metaphysically or entitatively. But I add withal, it is to be likewise understood of every faithful Christian: so that not only every true Church, but every true member thereof, by virtue of this union, has direct and immediate title to Christ, and to the benefit of all his ordinances for his edification and salvation. This is all which the Argument can conclude, and it makes nothing against us.

Object. If all things be the Churches, even the Ministers themselves; yes, though they be Paul, Cephas, and Apollos, then may every Church use and enjoy all things immediately under Christ. But the first is true (1 Corinthians 3:24). Therefore, &c.

Answ. Neither can this prove any thing against us: for when the Apostle says, All things are yours, whether Paul, &c. he is to be understood not only collectively of the Church, but distributively of every believer, who has right to the comfortable enjoyment and benefit of these things, so far as they concern his salvation. And in like manner I may say to the members of any particular congregation, All things are yours, whether Sessions or Presbyteries, or Provincial or General Assemblies. And what wonder? God is our Father, Christ our elder brother, the Holy Ghost our Comforter, the Angels our keepers, heaven our inheritance. It is therefore no strange thing to hear, that as the supreme civil power, so the supreme ecclesiastical power is appointed of God in order to our good and benefit, that it be not a tyranny for hurt, but a ministry for help.

These are the objections alleged for the independent and absolute power of congregations. But this is not all: Some seem to make use of our own weapons against us, making objection from the form of the Jewish Church, which we take for a platform. They say, that the Synagogues of the Jews were not as the particular Churches are now: for they were not entire Churches of themselves, but members of the national Church, neither could they have the use of the most solemn parts of God's worship, as were then the sacrifices. That the whole nation of the Jews was one Church, having reference to one Temple, one high Priest, one Altar; & it being impossible that the whole body of a Nation should in the entire and personal parts meet and communicate together in the holy things of God, the Lord so disposed and ordered, that that communion should be had after a manner, and in a sort, and that was by way of representation: for in the Temple was daily sacrifice offered for the whole national Church. So the names of the twelve Tribes upon the shoulders of the Ephod, and upon the Breastplate, and the twelve loaves of Shewbread, were for Israel signs of remembrance before the Lord. That now the Church consists not (as then) of a Nation, but of particular Assemblies, ordinarily communicating together in all the Churches holy things: from where it comes, that there are no representative Churches now, the foundation thereof, which is the necessary absence of the Church which is represented, being taken away in the new Testament. That besides all this, if we take the representative Church at Jerusalem for a pattern, then as there not only hard causes were opened, and declared according to the Law, but also the sacrifices daily offered, and the most solemn service performed without the presence of the body of the Church: so now in the representative Churches, (such as Presbyteries and Synods) consisting of Officers alone, there must be not only the use of jurisdiction, but the Word and Sacraments, whether people be present or not: for how can there be a power in the Church of Officers for the use of one solemn ordinance out of the communion of the body, and not of another?

Answ. 1. To set aside the sacrifices, & other ceremonial worship performed at Jerusalem, the Synagogues among the Jews had God's moral worship ordinarily therein, as Prayer, and the reading & expounding of the Scriptures. 2. Whatever the Synagogues had, or whatever they wanted of the worship of God, they had an ecclesiastical Consistory, and a certain order of Church government: else how shall we understand the excommunication, or casting out of the Synagogue, the Rulers of the Synagogue, and the chief Ruler of the Synagogue? (of which things we have before spoken.)

I will not here dispute whether every sin among the Jewes was either appointed to be punished capitally, or else to bee expiated by sacrifices; but put the case it were so, this proveth that no excommunication or Ecclesiasticall censure was not then necessary: for beside the detriment of the Common-wealth by the violation of the Law, which was punishable by death; and beside the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] and guiltinesse before God, the expiation whereof by the death of Christ was prefigured in the sacrifices, there was a third thing in publike sinnes, which was punishable by spirituall censures, and that was the scandall of the Church, which could not be taken away by the oblations of the delinquent, but rather made worse thereby, even as now a publike offender does not take away, but rather increase the scandall of the Church by his joyning in the acts of Gods worship, so long as there is no Ecclesiasticall censure imposed upon him; neither yet (to speake properly) was the scandall of publike offences punishable by bodily punishments, but the Church being a politicall body had her owne Lawes, and her owne censures, no lesse then the Common-wealth. 3. As the Synagogues were particular Churches politically, so all of them collectively were one Nationall Church politically, governed by one supreame Ecclesiasticall Sanedrim, which is the representative wee meant of in our Argument. 4. But if we take the Nationall Church of the Jewes metaphysically, there was no representative thereof, unlesse it were all the males who came three times in the yeare to Ierusalem. The daily offering of Sacrifices was not by a representative Church, but by the Priests: and though there were twelve loaves of Shewbread before the Lord, and the names of the twelve Tribes upon the brestplate, this proveth not a Church representative, but signes representative. 5. The body of the Church is now (as then) necessarily absent from the Consistorial actions of debating and deciding matters of Church government, and of Jurisdiction; and so that which was called the foundation of a representative Church does still remaine.

Now before I make an end, I must answer yet other two objections which have beene lately made. There is one who objecteth that the Assembly of the Apostles, Acts 15. can bee no president nor patterne for succeeding ages: First, because the Apostles were inspired with the holy Ghost, which wholly guided them in all matters of the Church; so as in that their determination, they say expressely, It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burthen. Now, what Synod in any age after the Apostles could ever say that they were infallibly inspired and assisted by the holy Ghost? Secondly, that injunction of the holy Ghost and of the Apostles was but [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], for that present time, for the avoiding of offences betweene Jewes and Gentiles. But the like we read not afterward in all the writings of the Apostles.

Ans. 1. I say with Whittaker, Posse alia, &c. That other lawfull councells may in like manner affirme their Decrees to be the Decrees of the holy Ghost, if they be like to this councell, and if they keepe the same rule which the Apostles did keep and follow in this councell, for if they decree and determine nothing but from the Scriptures, which was done in this councell; and if they examine all questions according to the Scriptures, and in all their Decrees follow the voyce of the Scripture, then may they affirme that the holy Ghost has so decreed. 2. If the Doctrine or exhortation of a Pastor well grounded upon the Scriptures bee the Word of God, then much more is the Decree of a Synod well grounded upon the Scriptures, the Decree of the holy Ghost. 3. That Assembly was not of the Apostles alone, but of the Apostles and Elders, neither did the Decrees proceed from the Apostles alone, but from the Apostles and Elders (Acts 16:4 and 21:25), and in the place which is now objected (Acts 15:28), not the Apostles alone, but the Elders with them, say, It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us. What the Elders did then, the Elders may doe now, for time has not diminished their authority. 4. No, what the Apostles did in that Synod, the Elders may doe in a Synod now; for the Apostles then did nothing but in the ordinary and common way of disputing and debating, comparing reason with reason, and sentence with sentence, and thereafter framing the Decree according to the light which they had by reasoning and by searching the Scriptures. But (which is most observable) the sentence of the Apostle Peter in that Synod was very imperfect and defective; for he only disswadeth from imposing the yoke of the ceremoniall law upon the Churches of the Gentiles, but maketh no mention of any overture for avoiding the offence between the Jewes and the converted Gentiles at that time, which I may suppose he would have done, if his light and judgement had carried him that farre: In this the Apostle Iames supplieth the defect of Peters sentence, and propoundeth an overture which pleased the whole councell, and according to which the decree was given sorth. This made Luther to say that Iames did change the sentence of Peter. And all this it pleased God so to dispose, that we might understand that Synod to bee indeed a president and paterne for ordinary Synods in succeding ages. 5. Henry Iacob in his third argument for the Divine Institution of the Church, says: It is absurd and impossible, that the Text Matthew 18. was never understood for 1500 yeares after Christ. Sure this Text (Acts 15.) was never understood for that whole space, if the Assembly there mentioned, be not a president to succeeding ages. 6. It maketh nothing against us, that he says, the decree of the Apostles & Elders, was for that present time onely; no, it maketh for us: for in this also that Synod was a paterne to succeeding ages, forasmuch as Synods now have no power to make a perpetuall restraint from the practice of any indifferent thing, (such as was then the eating of bloud, and things strangled) but onely during the case of scandall. And moreover, the decree of the Apostles and Elders in that Synod, is also perpetuall, in so farre as it is conceived against the pressing of circumcision as necessary to salvation.

One objection more I find in another late piece, which strikes not at the authority alone, but at the very reputation of Synods. This author alleges, that the ordinary government by Synods, is a thing of great confusion, by reason of the parity and equality, the voices being numbered, not weighed. Equidem (says a wise Father) at vere, &c. To say the truth, I am utterly determined never to come to any Council of Bishops: for I never yet saw good end of any Council: for Councils abate not ill things, but rather increase them. Answ. 1. If the parity and equality make a great confusion in the ordinary government by Synods, it shall make no less, but rather greater confusion in an extraordinary Synod: so that there is no ground for his restriction to that which is ordinary. 2. If the numbering of voices, and the parity of those that do voice, make a confusion in Synods, why not in Parliaments also, and in other civil courts? 3. That testimony does only strike at the Councils of Bishops, and so makes not against parity, but against imparity in Councils: and, to say the truth, we have found in our own experience, that Prelatical Synods have not abated, but rather increased evils in the Church. 4. The words of Nazianzen (for he is the Father here meant of) are not to be understood against Synods, but against the abuse of Synods at that time. And in this we must pardon him (says Whittaker) that he shunned all Synods in those evil times of the Church, when the Emperor Valens was opposite to the Catholic faith, and when the faction of heretics did most prevail: in that case indeed Synods should have produced greater evils. But we trust it shall be now seen that well constituted and free Synods of Pastors and Elders, shall not increase, but abate evil things.