.
Subsections
History & Texts of Councils & Creeds
Fallibility of Councils
Appeals
Magistrates may Preside Civilly in Church Assemblies
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 8+
Quote 1
Latin 4
Who Calls Synods 3
Synods have All Powers of Presbyteries 3
.
Articles
1500’s
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – ‘Of Councils’ in The Common Places… (d. 1562; London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 4, ch. 4, ‘Of Ecclesiastical Laws’, pp. 46-48
Calvin, John – 9. ‘Of Councils & their Authority’ in Institutes of the Christian Religion tr. Henry Beveridge (1559; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), vol. 3, bk. 4, pp. 176-91
Bullinger, Henry – 3. ‘Of Councils & Decrees of the Church’ in Questions of Religion Cast Abroad in Helvetia [Switzerland] by the Adversaries of the Same, & Answered… tr. John Coxe (1560; London, 1572), pp. 30-43
Musculus, Wolfgang – ‘The calling of counsels’ in Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563), 3rd Commandment, folio 56.b
Beza, Theodore – A Brief & Pithy Sum of the Christian Faith made in Form of a Confession (London, 1562), Ch. 5
10. Wherein consists the duty and authority of the Church generally
11. Of the Authority of the Universal Councils, and what is a universal council
12. How far we may differ from the councils
13. To whom it pertains to call a council
14. How those ought to be chosen which the Churches do send to the councils
15. Every man ought to be heard in the council, provided that there be no confusion
16. Who ought to preside or be chief in the council
17. How far extends the power of the Councils, and why they be ordained in the Church
21. What is to be answered to those which allege councils against us
22. Of Particular Councils as of nations or provinces
29. Of degrees which ought to be among Ministers of the Word, according as they be dissevered by companies
Beza, Theodore, Anthony Faius & Students – 54. ‘Of Councils & Fathers’ in Propositions & Principles of Divinity Propounded & Disputed in the University of Geneva by Certain Students of Divinity there, under Mr. Theodore Beza & Mr. Anthony Faius… (Edinburgh: Waldegrave, 1591), pp. 153-60
Whitaker, William – Lectures in which is Treated the Controversy on Councils against the Papists, especially the Jesuit Robert Bellarmine tr. by AI by The Other Paul (Herborn: Corvin, 1601), Controversy 3
Question 1, ‘On the Necessity of Councils’, ch. 3, ‘Whether Councils are to be Gathered’ 20-25 Latin
Question 6, ‘Whether Councils can Err’, ch. 1, ‘On the State of the Question’ 206-9 Latin
.
1600’s
Rutherford, Samuel
ch. 17, section 3, ‘Whether they must be wholly indifferent and not restrained to any party who have the right of voting in a synod? We deny against the Remonstrants.’ in Rutherford’s Examination of Arminianism: the Tables of Contents with Excerpts from Every Chapter tr. Charles Johnson & Travis Fentiman (1638-1642; 1668; RBO, 2019), pp. 124-26
ch. 17, ‘On Synods’ in Examination of Arminianism tr. by AI by Monergism (1639-1642; Utrecht, 1668; 2024), pp. 637-57
1. Respecting synods, how much is to be attributed to the authority of them? Explained and proven against the Papists, Remonstrants, and Separatists.
2. Whether synods are neither useful, nor the ideal way for controversies to be decided? We deny against the Remonstrants and Socinians.
3. Whether they must be wholly indifferent and not restrained to any party who have the right of voting in a synod? We deny against the Remonstrants.
Amyraut, Moses – Theological Theses on the Authority of Councils tr. by AI by WesternCatholike 18 pp.
The first half is especially in response to the Romanist Bellarmine regarding the infallibility of councils; the second half more constructively lays out the Biblical principles and reformed view of their authority.
Le Blanc de Beaulieu, Louis – Theological Theses Published at Various Times in the Academy of Sedan 3rd ed. tr. by AI by Colloquia Scholastica (1675; London, 1683), Posthumous Works, 4. Controversies on Councils Latin
1. Origin, necessity and use of councils 1026
2. Who are to be called to councils, and of what kind of persons they should consist 1029
3. Who should preside over councils 1031
4. Who should convene councils 1032
5. Authority of councils, what it is and how great 1035-45
.
Quote
1600’s
London Provincial Assembly
A Vindication of the Presbyterial-Government & the Ministry… (London, 1650), pp. 18-26
“That the Scripture speaks of synods with ecclesiastical authority, this is evident from Acts 15, in which chapter two things are to be observed:
1. That the apostles in that meeting did not act as apostles with infallible authority, but as elders, in such a way as makes that meeting a pattern for ordinary synods. For the proof of this we offer these reasons:
1. Because Paul and Barnabas did willingly submit to be sent from Antioch to Jerusalem, which they needed not have done (one of them at least being an apostle), nor could have done, had they acted as apostles and not as members for that time of the presbytery of Antioch, Acts 15:2.
2. Because Paul and Barnabas were sent not only to the apostles at Jerusalem, but to the apostles and elders, which at that time were not a few (the believers in Jerusalem being many thousands) which proves that they sent not unto the apostles as extraordinary and infallible (for then what need the advice of the elders?) but as wise and holy guides of the Church who might not only relieve them by some wise counsel, but also set a precedent unto succeeding ages how errors and dissentions in the Church might be removed and healed, as Mr. [John] Cotton observes in his book Of the Keys, etc., p. 23.
3. Because in the synod the apostles did not determine the thing in question by apostolical authority from immediate revelation, but assembled together with the elders to consider of the matter, Acts 15:6 and a multitude of the brethren together with them, Acts 15:12, 22-23. And there the question was stated and debated from Scripture in an ordinary way. Peter proves it by the witness of the Spirit to his ministry in Cornelius his family, [and] Paul and Barnabas by the like effect of their ministry amongst the gentiles. James confirmed the same by the testimony of the prophets; with which, the whole synod being satisfied, they determine of a judicial sentence and of a way to publish it by letters and messages.
4. Because the decrees of the synod are put forth in the name, not only of the apostles, but of the apostles and elders, Acts 15:22-23; 16:4; 21:25.
The second thing to be observed in that chapter is that the apostles and elders did put forth acts of ecclesiastical authority in that synod. This appears plainly from Acts 15:28, ‘to lay no other burden’. To bind burdens is an act of the binding power of the keys, and it appears likewise from Acts 16:4 where mention is made of decrees ordained by the apostles and elders. And it is observable that wheresoever δογμα [dogma] is used in the New Testament, it is put either for decrees or laws, and so frequently by the Septuagint in the Old Testament, as is abundantly proved by the reverend [Westminster] Assembly of divines in their Answer to the Reasons of the Dissenting-Brethren, against the instance of the Church of Jerusalem, p. 66.
3. That the Scripture holds forth a subordination of congregations unto synods, together with appeals thereunto. To prove this, we will bring two places: The first is Dt. 17:8-12, together with 2 Chron. 19:8, 10-11. Out of which two places compared together we gather these two conclusions:
1. That the Jews had two supreme judicatories in Jerusalem; the one ecclesiastical for the matters of the Lord, the other civil for the matters of the king. This appears by Dt. 17:8, where we have a distinction of causes; some forensic between blood and blood, belonging to the civil judicatory; some ceremonial, between stroke and stroke; that is (as not only Jerome, but the Chaldee and Septuagint read the words, and as appears by the frequent use of the word in that sense, Lev. 13 and elsewhere) between leprosy and leprosy, belonging to the cognizance of the ecclesiastical judicatory. And in the 12th verse these two judicatories are distinguished by the disjunctive ‘or’: ‘And the man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken unto the priest (that standeth to minister before the Lord thy God) or unto the judge, etc.’
This further appears by 2 Chr. 19:8, 10-11, in which we have clear mention:
First of two sorts of judges, the Levites and priests, and chief of the fathers, verse 8;
Secondly, of two sorts of causes, some spiritual and ecclesiastical, called ‘the judgment of the Lord,’ verse 8, and ‘the matters of the Lord,’ verse 11, others civil, as between blood and blood, verse 10.
And thirdly, of two presidents, Amariah the chief priest in all matters of the Lord, and Zebadiah the ruler of the house of Judah in all the matters of the king. And this distinction between the civil and ecclesiastical judicatory is the opinion of many orthodox and learned authors which are cited by Mr. Gillespie, Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, [pt. 1] ch. 3, p. 8 where this conclusion is largely and learnedly debated and asserted.
2. That there was a subordination in the Jewish Church of the synagogues in all hard and difficult controversies and in all the matters of the Lord unto the ecclesiastical judicatory at Jerusalem, and appeals thereunto; this appears evidently, Dt. 17:8-9; 2 Chron. 19:8, 10.
Now that this subordination, together with appeals, did not belong to the Jewish Church as Jewish only, but as it was an ecclesiastical republic, is evident. For though the high priest, amongst the Jews was a type of Christ, yet these gradual judicatories wherein the aggrieved party did appeal from the lesser to the greater (that against the very light of nature the adverse party might not be the sole judge and party too in his own cause) were not in any kind ceremonial or typical.
Appeals (says Dr. [William] Whitaker), they are of divine and natural light and certainly very necessary in every necessity because of the iniquity and ignorance of judges, Whitaker, Controversy 4, De Romano Pontific., bk. 4, ch. 2. And generally all Protestant writers against appeals to the Pope acknowledge yet their necessary usefulness to a synod. So did that renowned martyr [Thomas] Cranmer, the form of whose appeal to a council three several times urged by him with much instance, we have recorded by Mr. [John] Foxe at large, Acts & Monuments.
And indeed, if the benefit of appeals and consociation of churches should not be as free to us as to the Jews, how much more defective and improvident were the Gospel than the Law, contrary to all ancient prophesies of Gospel-communion? How were our Savior, King of Peace and Righteousness, should He have ordained now under the Gospel such a government as by making parties sole judges, were neither righteous, nor peaceable? what Judaical type or ceremony can there be in this communion and mutual assistance in government which God (as by his Word, so) by the very light of nature teaches all societies whatsoever, whether commonwealth, armies, universities or navies? etc. as learnedly Mr. [Charles] Herle, in his Independency, etc.
The second place is Mt. 18:15-18, which text by a parity of reason proves a subordination of congregations unto synods. For there is the same relation between church and church as between brother and brother; and if a brother offending is subordinate unto a particular congregation, then by a like reason an offending congregation is subordinate unto greater assemblies. And the reason of it is because the grounds, reasons and ends of subordination are the same in both, that God might be glorified, the offender shamed, humbled, reduced and sin not suffered to rest upon him, that others may be preserved from contagion and made to fear, that scandal and pollution of the ordinances may be prevented or removed. All which argue as strongly and fully for subordination of an offending congregation to superior and greater assemblies as of an offending brother to a particular congregation. And the truth is, whosoever denies the subordination of a congregation unto a synod, together with appeals thereunto, does in plain terms affirm these three things:
1. That the government of Christ in his Church under the New Testament is a government directly contrary to the very light of nature, making the same men parties and final judges in their own cause.
2. That the government of the Church in the Old Testament was more equal and just than under the New.
3. That Jesus Christ has in his government appointed no effectual remedy to heal the scandals of an offending congregation, or at least a more effectual remedy to redress an offending brother than an offending congregation.
All which are great derogations and disparagements to the kingly office and government of Jesus Christ. And thus we have showed that the presbyterial government is not new to the Word of God, as some falsely object.
We proceed to justify it in other particulars: 3. The presbyterial government challenges no power over men’s bodies or estates. It meddles not in civil affairs or with inflicting civil mulcts [fines] or corporal punishments. It is a government purely spiritual, dispensing the keys of the kingdom of heaven, not of earth; and how then can it be cruel and tyrannical, in fining and imprisoning men’s persons, as was objected?
4. It is not a government that has lordships and great revenues annexed to it, as the prelatical had. It is not gainful and profitable, but burdensome and troublesome. What do the ruling elders gain by their office but reproach and contempt? And is not the condition of the teaching elder worse in regard of maintenance, since he engaged in this discipline, than ever it was? This is a government that has no outward advantages to induce men to accept of it. It is conscience, and (as we hope) pure conscience, that engages any in it, and therefore it is that it has so few friends, because there are so few that are truly conscientious.
5. It is not a domineering hierarchical magisterial government that lords it over people’s consciences, requiring subjection to the decrees of it with blind and slavish obedience. But it is a stewardship, a ministry, a painful and laborious service. We say that all the determinations, even of national synods are to be obeyed no further than they agree with the Word of God. And that a synod is Judex judicandus [a judge being judged], that congregations are to examine with the judgment of discretion what is sent to them from synods. There is no more obedience required to the decrees of a national synod than the Independents claim to the decrees of a particular congregation.
6. It is not an arbitrary illimited government, but bounded and limited:
1. By the Word of God; for in this government everything is to be administered according to the pattern in the mount. We desire none to follow, but where the Word goes before.
2. By the civil magistrate, in regard of the exercise of it. For we acknowledge ourselves (as we have said) accountable to the civil magistrate, to punish us with civil mulcts, if we abuse our power.
7. It is not a government that does rob and spoil particular congregations of their just power and privileges, but helps and strengthens them. For it is not (as the prelatical was) extrinsical to the several congregations (which had no vote in the government, nor consent to it, but were sufferers only of it and under it).
Neither does it assume to itself the sole power of ordination and jurisdiction (as the prelatical likewise did, and in this was lordly and tyrannical over all particular congregations in each diocess). But it is intrinsical to the congregation, consisting of the pastors and elders of every congregation, governing one another by their own officers: For we hold (which few of our adversaries will understand or consider) that all congregations are equal: No one congregation over another; that all ministers are equal: No one Minister, by divine right, over another.
That which concerns all, must be managed by all.
We hold no mother-Church, on which all other Churches should depend. But our government, so far as it is distinct from the congregational, consists of diverse sister-churches, combined by mutual concernment, and governing one another in matters of mutual concernment, by the common agreement of pastors and elders, according to that golden rule, Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari debet [That which concerns all, by all ought to be treated]. In the presbyterial government every congregation has a voice by the pastors and elders thereof, and so is governed by a power intrinsical to itself, which cannot in its own nature be tyrannical. Though there is no power in the world so just but by abuse may prove tyrannical.
To illustrate this by a simile: The presbyterial government is like the government of the city by the common-council, wherein there are common-council-men sent from every ward to judge and determine of matters that concern the good of the whole city, which certainly in its own nature cannot be prejudical to the several wards, but very helpful and commodious; whereas the prelatical-government was just as if the city should be governed by a high-commission chosen of foreiners; and the Independent-government is just as if every ward should undertake to govern itself, divided from one another, and not at all to be under the power and authority of the common-council.
Add besides this, the presbyterial-government does give unto people of particular congregations all that is by Christ left them. For:
1. We allow unto every congregation a particular eldership, where it may be had.
2. We impose upon no congregation a minister against whom they can give a rational dissent.
3. We allow the congregational eldership to judge in all matters which concern that particular church; and to keep from the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper all those whom they find to be ignorant or scandalous.
4. In the great censure of excommunication we say that it ought not to be executed against the consent of that particular congregation to which the party to be excommunicated belongs. And in all other matters of importance, the presbyterian-government has great respect to that congregation which is particularly concerned therein. And therefore it is so far from robbing, that it is a great pillar to uphold and support congregational government; as for example:
1. When a particular congregation is destitute of a minister, then the neighbor-ministers of the classis [presbytery] help [by] what in them lies to make up that defect, by sending supply in the mean time, and afterwards by joining in the ordination of another.
2. When there is an insufficient eldership, then the classical presbytery contributes light and strength.
3. When an eldership proves heretical, then the classical presbytery helps to convince them of their heresies, which the people are not able ordinarily to do, and thereby to preserve the congregation from spiritual contagion.
4. When any member is wronged by the eldership, the classis, or synod contributes aid and relief, as will appear further in the next particular.
8. The presbyterial-government is so far from being tyrannical, as that it is the greatest remedy against Church-tyranny, because it is as a city of refuge for all those that are oppressed in their particular congregations, to fly unto. For under the congregational-government, when a brother is (as he conceives) wronged by the major part of the Church of which he is a member, he is forever locked up and has no authoritative way to relieve himself. (Indeed, he has moral ways, by advice and counsel, which are altogether insufficient). But the presbyterian-government is a Zoar, and an ark for the wronged party to fly unto from the particular congregation to a classical, provincial or national assembly.
Give us leave to show you the difference by this example: Suppose in the civil government every corporation should plead a power independent from a parliament, and challenge to be unaccountable, would not this make as many parliaments as corporations? And if any member should be wronged by the major part of the corporation to which he belongs, were he not left without remedy? And if these corporations should cry down the parliament’s power over them as tyrannical, would it not be said that this is therefore only done that they themselves might become petty tyrants? So is it here.”
.
Latin
1600’s
Alsted, Johann H. – 3. ‘On Councils’ in Chronicles of Theological Similitudes in Theological Common Places Illustrated by Perpetual Similitudes (Frankfurt, 1630), pp. 183-86
Rutherford, Samuel – ch. 17, ‘On Synods’ in The Examination of Arminianism ed. Matthew Nethenus (1639-1643; Utrecht, 1668), pp. 692-716
Voet, Gisbert – Ecclesiastical Politics (Amsterdam: Waesberge, 1663)
vol. 1, pt. 1, bk. 2, tract 3
3. Of the Solutions of Doubtful Things, Determinations of Issues, Councils about Theology, Domestic and Private Institutions, Convicting of the Erring, the Consoling of the Afflicted, Exhortations of the Lukewarm and Corrections for the Slipping 887
vol. 4, pt. 3, bk. 1, Tract 3, Of the Assemblies, Gatherings [Collegiis] and Corresponding Relations of the Antecedents of Churches
2. Of the Union of Churches and the Government of Them in Classes and Synods 117
3. Arguments Against Classical and Synodical Government are Refuted 138
4. Exceptions to our Arguments for Classical and Synodical Government are Refuted 161
5. Various Problems being Made to the Explication of the Classical and Synodical Government are Determined 166
6. Of Councils or Synods 180
7. Of the Persons present in Synod, or of the Persons Convened to the Synod 190
8. Of the Business and Causes which ought to be Handled in a Synod 203
9. Containing Some Questions about Synods, Returned to and More Fully Explicated 224
.
Who May Call Synods & in What Circumstances?
See also, ‘Magistrate may Preside Civilly in Church Assemblies’.
.
WCF & the Scottish Qualification
Articles
1600’s
Gillespie, George – pt. 3, ch. 8, Digression 2, ‘Of the Convocation & Moderation of Synods’ in A Dispute Against the English-Popish Ceremonies... (1637), pp. 173-76 The first part of the article deals with calling synods, only the last paragraph pertains to modertaing in them.
Le Blanc de Beaulieu, Louis – 4. ‘Who should convene councils’ Theological Theses Published at Various Times in the Academy of Sedan 3rd ed. tr. by AI by Colloquia Scholastica (1675; London, 1683), Posthumous Works, 4. Controversies on Councils, pp. 1032-35 Latin
.
Synods & Higher Assemblies have All the Powers of a Presbytery
Intro
The question here is not if it may be more appropriate for a synod or a general assembly to refer or defer something to a presbytery, for any number of reasons, whether for good order or otherwise, but whether presbyteries have powers in principle that a synod absolutely cannot exercise.
This seems to sometimes be thought under the notion that the presbytery, in presbyterianism (and in Scripture), is the ‘root of Church of power’. However, this is a misunderstanding of this concept, as Rutherford delineates below.
If a synod or greater assembly did not have all the power of presbyteries, it could never override and correct errant presbyteries under it; but it can, and must be able so to do for the sake of the health of Christ’s Church. Numerically greater assemblies of pastors (and elders) do not lose authority that smaller assemblies of pastors (and elders) have.
.
Order of Quotes
Rutherford
C. Hodge
.
1600’s
Samuel Rutherford
A Peaceable & Temperate Plea... (London, 1642), ch. 13, pp. 188-99
“This presbytery consisting of more pastors is the first ruling and governing Church, having power of the keys in all points of discipline within themselves; They have intensively power of the keys in all points, and equal power, intensive [intensively] with greater synods and assemblies, because ordination of pastors by them, 1 Tim. 4:14, is as valid in the point of Church discipline as the decrees made in the great council convented at Jerusalem, Acts 15:21-22, etc.
But provincial synods and national assemblies have greater power than the presbyteries extensive [extensively]; because they have power as a great body to exercise discipline that concerns the whole congregations of all the nation, which power is not in inferior elderships.”
.
1800’s
Charles Hodge
Discussions in Church Polity… (NY: Scribner’s Sons, 1878), pt. 2, ch. 16, ‘Discipline’, section 3, ‘Appeals & Complaints’, a. ‘Appeals in Cases Not Judicial’, pp. 479-80
“It is a radical [root] principle of our system ‘that a larger part of the Church, or a representation of it, should govern a smaller, or determine matters of controversy which arise therein.’…
This is of the essence of Presbyterianism. It is involved in the declaration that the Church is to be governed not only by congregational and presbyterial, but also by synodical assemblies; and more expressly in the declaration that synods have authority ‘to redress whatever has been done by presbyteries contrary to order.'”
.
.
.
Related Pages
On the Governing of the Church
How Church Rulings Do & Do Not Bind, on Guilt & Innocence in Breaking Them, & on Contumacy