to judge in controversies: they appealed to the judg ment of a general council for forty or fifty years': they, themselves, in councils, condemned the Calvinists, Zuinglians, Papists, and innumerable heretics. The Calvinists of France arranged their church government in successive gradations of synods, of which the highest decided controversies in faith. Those of Holland, in the synod of Dort, condemned the Arminians: the reformed confessions approved of the ancient judgments of the church'. In fine, it is needless to speak of the sentiments and practice of the Oriental, Roman, and British churches, as to the right of the church to judge in controversies of faith. Our churches expressly affirm that "the church has authority in controversies of faith." They exercised this authority in framing articles of doctrine, approving of the ancient creeds, condemning the heresy of Socinus ", excommunicating those who affirm the Articles to be superstitious and erroneous: in fine, their constant law and practice has been to separate from their communion all who are convicted of heresy, according to the prescribed forms. This universal practice of the church, and of all religious communities, renders it superfluous to adduce the accordant sentiments of theologians in different ages. It also renders any attempt to adduce the opposite opinions of individuals perfectly futile. The right of the church to judge in controversies, and to act on her judgments, by separating those who oppose them, is all I here contend for. What the See Part I. c. xi. s. 1. $ Ibid. s. 3. t Ibid. s. 3. ▾ Article XX. In the synod, A. D. 1640. x Canon v. authority of those judgments is, strictly speaking, i. e. what degree of respect individuals are bound to pay to them, is a very different question, which I shall consider presently. CHAPTER II. ON THE MODES OF ECCLESIASTICAL JUDGMENTS. It would be unreasonable to maintain, that the judgment of the church in a controversy cannot be made known, unless each individual declares his sentiments by some formal and public act. In every assembly, that resolution which is proposed in the name of all, and which is opposed by none, or only a few, is accounted to be the judgment of the remainder. If a law be made by the rulers of a commonwealth, which, being published to all, is notoriously approved by many within that commonwealth, and opposed by none, it is evident that all unite in giving it assent. If in any society a sentence of exclusion is passed against certain individuals, by one or more of the members in the name of all, the rest being present and showing no sign of disapprobation, but, on the contrary, receiving and acting on the sentence, that sentence is evidently authorized by all. In the same manner, the judgment of the church may be abundantly made known by the formal public acts of a few of its members; approved, accepted, and acted on by the remainder. The practice of the apostles themselves confirms this. When "all the multitude had given audience to Barnabas and Saul," and when several of the apostles and elders had delivered their judgments, a letter was written to the brethren of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, in the name of the apostles, elders, and brethren, concerning the matter in controversy; thus declaring the approbation of the multitude of the faithful at Jerusalem, though there is no evidence that they individually expressed their judgment, nor perhaps were in any way consenting, except by silence. In the same manner the judgment of the Council of Nice, in the case of Arius, was fairly esteemed the judgment of the whole church of Christ, because it was made known to, approved, and acted on by all christians. But, it may be asked, are there any members of the church peculiarly empowered to issue formal judgments or decrees in controversies of religion, or is every individual equally authorized to do so? I reply that The right of making public and formal decrees, in controversies of religion, is vested in the ministers of Jesus' Christ. C I argue this from the nature of the office of the ministers of Christ, who are leaders of the church in matters of religion, "ensamples to the flock"."... The office of every pastor is to be "an example of the believers... in faith " The duty of the faithful is to attend to their admonitions: "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God, whose faith follow " "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls." They alone are the watchmen of God's Acts xv. 23. b 1 Pet. v. 3. C 1 Tim. iv. 12. d d Heb. xiii. 7--9. g people, who, when they see the sword coming, are to blow the trumpet, and give warning to the people'. They alone are the shepherds of God's flock beneatli the Chief Shepherd ; and, as such, are bound to “take heed unto themselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers "," and to guard this flock from "wolves." To them, and not to all the faithful, is given the power to teach publicly in the church: "Are all teachers?" They are peculiarly commanded to censure and rebuke gainsayers of the truth: "Rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;" "A man that is an heretic after a first and second admonition, reject'." Therefore the ministers of Jesus Christ are authorized, above all the rest of the brethren, to act in controversies of religion; and their judgment ought, according to the divine appointment, to be published before that of the brethren is known. They, alone, judge as the authorized teachers of religion; and the office of the brethren is evidently to accept or reject their judgment, according to its conformity with the Gospel, but not themselves to assume the position of teachers, and to define, formally and publicly, the matters in controversy. When the apostles and elders at Jerusalem were consulted in the controversy concerning legal observances, the brethren of Antioch did not think it necessary themselves to go thither, and join in the decree. Barnabas and Paul were deputed by all the church. In the controversy about the time of Easter, in the second century, synods of bishops judged the question f Ezek. xxxiii. g 1 Pet. v. 4. h Acts xx. 28-31. i Acts xx. 29. 1 Cor. xii. 29. * Tit. i. 13. Tit. iii. 10. in many parts of the world. Paul of Samosata was condemned by seventy bishops of the Oriental diocese. The innumerable synods of the East and West generally comprised only bishops, and the deputies of absent bishops. Each church was represented by its pastor, and the other believers never esteemed it necessary or expedient to attend these assemblies and unite in their decrees, though some were occasionally allowed to be present, and to subscribe. Even the Independent, Owen, holds that in synods, which consist of the delegates and messengers of several churches, "the elders or officers of them, or some of them at least, ought to be the principal; for there is a peculiar care of public edification incumbent on them, which they are to exercise on all just occasions:" and though he contends that others (even of the laity) may be united with them, he does not absolutely affirm it to be necessary: "Yet it is not necessary that they (the ministers) alone should be so sent or delegated by the churches "." The public judgments of Christ's ministers in controversies of religion are sometimes made in œcumenical synods, consisting of bishops from many provinces and nations; sometimes in national synods, consisting of bishops from the provinces of one nation; sometimes in provincial, or even in diocesan synods. Sometimes they are made by the patriarchs or chief bishops of the catholic church singly, sometimes by particular bishops. m Owen's Gospel Church, p. 432. |