How do Synods and Ecclesiastical Rulings Bind the Conscience?

 

In Reformed polity, the judicial power of the Synod pertains to things like excommunication, church-censure, and depositions. The best and most comprehensive explanation I have found of this is in the Dutch Reformed scholastic divine Gisbertus Voetius, from his magnum opus on church government Politicae Ecclesiasticae (4 vols!):

“I add that they have legislative power to make ecclesiastical laws that bind the conscience, not indeed directly, primarily, and immediately, but indirectly, mediately, and by consequence…They also make laws or constitutions and canons about particular orders, modes, and other circumstantial aspects of conducting sacred rites and exercising ecclesiastical government and discipline, to the reception and observance of all which, insofar as they do not contradict divine and natural law, consciences are bound mediately, indirectly, and by consequence,....We see, therefore, that in this whole line of argumentation, the statement is a figment: that true and genuine power of government is to formally contain the power properly and principally of making laws for consciences, binding and obliging the conscience primarily, per se, immediately, and directly. If this fabrication were granted or conceded, it would follow that magistrates have no remaining legislative power, nor parents, masters, or teachers any power of commanding children, servants, or students, nor the latter any glory or necessity of obeying.” (Gisbertus Voetius, Politicae Ecclesiasticae, Pt. III, Book IV, tract. 1, Q. 7)

Obj: If Synods and their decrees ought to be tried and examined by the Word of God, and are not binding in and of themselves, then how can they be authoritative in any manner, when anyone may reject them by private judgment? 

Resp: “That any man should duly, and as he ought beleeve, and receive the decision of a Synod, it must be both true, and he must believe and know that it is true, but that it may oblige him and doth oblige him, whether his conscience be erroneous or no, is as true, for then this Commandment (Thou shalt not kill) (Honor thy father and thy mother) should lay no obligation on a man that believes it is service to God to kill the Apostle, as Joh. 16. some doe. For no man is exempted from an obligation to obey God's Law, because of his own sinful and culpable ignorance, for we speak not now of invincible ignorance of these things which we are not obliged to know or believe. But if our sinful and erroneous conscience free us from actual obligation to be tyed by a Law, then our erroneous conscience freeth us from sinning against a Law, and so from punishment, for whatever freeth a man from actual obligation freeth him also from actual sinning, for all sinne is a doing against a Law-obligation, and if so, then are none to be led by any rule but their own conscience, the written Law and Gospel is not henceforth our rule any more.” (Samuel Rutherford)

Obj: Is an erroneous conscience binding?

Resp: “The learned Casuists teach us, that an erring conscience, though non obligat, yet ligat; though we be not obliged to doe that which it prescribeth, yet are we bound not to doe that which it condemneth….Because he who doeth anything against his conscience, doeth it against the Will of God, though not materially and truly, yet formally and by way of interpretation, for so much as that which conscience counselleth or prescribeth, it counselleth it under the respect and account of the Will of God He who reproacheth some private man, taking him to be the King, is thought to have hurt not the private man, but the King himself. So he that contemneth his conscience, contemneth God himselfe, because that which conscience counselleth or adviseth, is taken to be God's will.” (George Gillespie, A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies
 [Leiden: W. Christiaens, 1637], pg. 16-17)

“It is most false then, that these Libertines say that the Word does not actually oblige except it be understood, for the understanding, information and indictment of conscience does not add any actual obligation to the Word that it had not before, it only is a reporter, to carry both the Word and the actual obligation to the man; the herald promulgating the law adds no obligation, actual or potential, to the law that it had not before, only it makes an union in distance, and near application and conjunction between the actually obliging law and the understanding knowledge of the person or subject, who is obliged to keep the law.” (Samuel Rutherford, A Free Disputation against the Pretended Liberty of Conscience [London: Andrew Crook, 1649], pg. 134)

Any will that is acting against its conscience is wrong and sinful. The Synods cannot oblige a person to act against his conscience:

“For in matters of indifference, the will that is at variance with erring reason or conscience, is evil in some way on account of the object, on which the goodness or malice of the will depends; not indeed on account of the object according as it is in its own nature; but according as it is accidentally apprehended by reason as something evil to do or to avoid. And since the object of the will is that which is proposed by the reason, as stated above (Article 3), from the very fact that a thing is proposed by the reason as being evil, the will by tending thereto becomes evil. And this is the case not only in indifferent matters, but also in those that are good or evil in themselves. For not only indifferent matters can received the character of goodness or malice accidentally; but also that which is good, can receive the character of evil, or that which is evil, can receive the character of goodness, on account of the reason apprehending it as such. For instance, to refrain from fornication is good: yet the will does not tend to this good except in so far as it is proposed by the reason. If, therefore, the erring reason propose it as an evil, the will tends to it as to something evil. Consequently the will is evil, because it wills evil, not indeed that which is evil in itself, but that which is evil accidentally, through being apprehended as such by the reason. In like manner, to believe in Christ is good in itself, and necessary for salvation: but the will does not tend thereto, except inasmuch as it is proposed by the reason. Consequently if it be proposed by the reason as something evil, the will tends to it as to something evil: not as if it were evil in itself, but because it is evil accidentally, through the apprehension of the reason. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 9) that "properly speaking the incontinent man is one who does not follow right reason; but accidentally, he is also one who does not follow false reason." We must therefore conclude that, absolutely speaking, every will at variance with reason, whether right or erring, is always evil.” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-I, Q. 19, art. 5)

Obj: If a person only obeys the Church when they judge to be biblical and lawful, then ecclesiastical authority is rendered to be null and no more than binding than the private counsel of an individual.

Resp: " It follows in no sort, if rulers are only to be obeyed when they bring God’s Word, that then they are no more to be obeyed than equals and inferiors, because there is a double obedience, one of conscience, and [one] objective, coming from the thing commanded; And in respect of this, the Word has no less authority, and does no less challenge obedience of conscience, and objective, when my equal speaks it in a private way, yea, when I write it in my muse, than when a pastor speaks it by public authority; For we teach against Papists that the Word borrows no authority from men, nor is it with certainty of faith to be received as the Word of man, but as indeed the Word of God, as the Scripture says: 1.  There is another obedience-official, which is also obedience of conscience, because the Fifth Commandment enjoins it.  Yet not obedience of conscience coming from the particular [positive aspect] commanded in human laws, as human; so I owe obedience of subjection, and submission of affection, of fear, love, honor, respect, by virtue of the Fifth Commandment to rulers when they command according to God’s Word, and this I owe not to equals or inferiors; and so it follows not that the power of rulers and synods is titular, because they must warrant their mandates from the Word…3. That I owe no more objective subjection of conscience to this, ‘Thou shalt not murder’, ‘Believe in Jesus Christ,’ when rulers and pastors command them, than when I read them in God’s Word…whether public or private person, adds not any intrinsical authority to the Word, for then the Word should be more or less God’s Word, as the bearers were public, or private, more or less worthy.  As God’s Word spoken by Amos, a prophet, should not be a word of such intrinsical authority as spoken by Moses, both a prince and a prophet." (Samuel Rutherford, The Divine Right of Church Government [London: John Field, 1646], pgs. 210-211)

Scriptural Proofs for the Office of the Ruling Elder

 

In the Old Testament, we do see a distinction between priests and the elders in the Jewish church, and between the civil and ecclesiastical Sanhedrim:

“8 If any case arises requiring a decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case within your towns that is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord your God will choose. 9 And you shall come to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision. 10 Then you shall do according to what they declare to you from that place that the Lord will choose. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you. 11 According to the instructions that they give you, and according to the decision which they pronounce to you, you shall do. You shall not turn aside from the verdict that they declare to you, either to the right hand or to the left. 12 The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.” (Deuteronomy 17:8-12)

“Thus says the LORD, ‘Go, buy a potter’s earthenware flask, and take some of the elders of the people and some of the elders of the priests.’” (Jeremiah 19:1)

“Of the Izharites, Chenaniah and his sons were for the outward business over Israel, for officers and judges.” (1 Chronicles 26:29)

“Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites, and of the priests, and of the chief of the fathers of Israel, for the judgment of the LORD, and for controversies, when they returned to Jerusalem.” (2 Chronicles 19:8)

“As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.” (Acts 22:5)

Some (such as Thomas Bilson) have thought that texts like 2 Chron. 19:8 are simply referring to civil magistrates. However, they are expressly distinguished from them in verse 11 of that same chapter. Similarly, the elders are distinguished from the heads of the twelve tribes in Deuteronomy 5:23; 2 Kings 10:5; Joshua 8:33.

These elders of Israel acted as the representatives of the people. In Exodus 12:3, the Lord prefaces the institution of the Passover with the words “Tell all the congregation of Israel….”, and in verse 21 “Moses called all the elders of Israel and said to them….”. Thus, the elders represented the people.

Obj: In Deuteronomy 21:3-4, we read of the “elders of the city” who deal with cases of unsolved murders. Thus, these were simply the civil magistrates amongst the Jews.

Resp: On the contrary, these decisions were ecclesiastical, as in verse 5 where the dispute is settled by the priests and Levites. Furthermore, verse 2 distinguishes the elders of the city from the judges thereof. 

A concrete narrative example is Jeremiah 26, when the prophet Jeremiah is condemned to die by the priests and prophets of the people (Jer. 26:8-9), but his life is spared by the civil officials (vv. 10-11, 16). Thus, these civil and ecclesiastical courts were distinct. 

Some of the rabbinical writings of Jewish law also give us some indications about this. In the Talmud (Sanhedrin 2a, 13-14) and Mishnah (Sanhedrin, 1.6), the Great Sanhedrin was made up of 70 judges (71 with Moses included during his lifetime) and the Lesser Sanhedrin had 23 judges. In Luke 22:66, we read of an “assembly of elders” at Jerusalem.

In the times of the New Testament, the Lord Jesus made a distinction between the civil courts and the Synagogue (Matthew 10:17). 

One key New Testament text for the proof of this distinct office of the ruling elder is Romans 12:8 - “Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.” 

Note here that the apostle, in enumerating various gifts and duties of Christ’s church, lists “ruling” as distinct from the act of exhorting. Some have objected that Paul here is referring to those who rule families, but this does not accord with Rom. 12:5 which speaks of Christ’s body and members. The apostle is therefore speaking about the church here in this text. 

Obj: In Romans 12:8, Paul is speaking merely of spiritual gifts, not of church offices.

Resp: On the contrary, verse 4 says “For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office.” Thus, not all church members are to attend to the ruling spoken of in verse 8.

The next text to examine is 1 Timothy 5:17 - “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially [μάλιστα] they who labor in the word and doctrine.”

The great Scottish divine Samuel Rutherford gives five considerations upon this text to show that Paul is teaching that the ruling elder is a distinct office:

“But we desire that the confluence of these five may be looked onto : as 1. There is a genus, a general attribute πρεσβυτεροι, Elders ; and this agreeth both to well ruling Elders, and to those which labor in the word and doctrine. 2. There be here two participles, προεστῶτες, κοπιῶντες. 3. Two articles, οἱ, οἱ.  4. Two species, two kinds of Elders, under the generall attribute of πρεσβυτεροι As the one species or kind is, οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες, such Elders as rule well ; and the other kind of Elders be οι κοπιῶντες ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλία, such as labor in the Wordy as Pastors ; and in Dottrine, as Doctors. And fifthly, which is most considerable, here be two Participles, two Articles, two special Elders divided and separated διακριτως, by the discretive particle (μάλιστα)......also that μάλιστα is a particle of discretion and multiplication of divers kinds to me is clear, as Titus 1:11. There be many unruly and vain talkers μάλιστα οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς, especially those of the circumcision. If μάλιστα the particle do not divide two sorts of vain talkers some vain talkers of the circumcision and some vain talkers not of the circumcision; then must this particle conjoin them, and make no vain talkers save only these of the circumcision ; and Paul shall say thea, there be many unruly and vain talking persons of the circumcision but especially those of the circumcision ; which nonsense is not to be ascribed to the spirit of God.” (Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries [London: E. Griffin, 1644], pgs. 145-46)

One contrasting interpretation of the key term μάλιστα in this text is that it does not (as Rutherford says) function in the distinctive sense of enumerating two types of elders and a "multiplication of diverse kinds [genera]", but rather descriptively, so that the sense would be “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, namely those who labor in the word and doctrine.” However, this rendering of μάλιστα would make other texts in Scripture absurd. If we compare such passages, it is clear that μάλιστα functions in the distinctive sense (aside from the passage that Rutherford quotes from Titus 1:11):

"All the saints greet you, especially [μάλιστα δὲ] those of Caesar’s household." (Philippians 4:22)

“no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother—especially [μάλιστα] to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.” (Philemon 1:16)

“But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8)

Gisbertus Voetius provides us with a good argument from reason as to why this interpretation of 1 Tim. 5:17 is absurd:

“If προιστημι encompasses labor in preaching and doctrine (which is intended by the adversaries' interpretation); then it would follow that one who labors in one part of his office (in preaching and doctrine) is more worthy of double honor than one who labors in all parts of the office. This is indeed absurd, as it involves a contradiction: the whole is greater than its part.” (Gisbertus Voetius, Politicae Ecclesiasticae, 3:444) 

It is further evident that 1 Tim. 5:17 is speaking of the office of elder by the fact that verse 18 quotes Scripture saying that “the laborer deserves his wages.” And yet not all in the church are given wages and stipends as a result of their labor therein. Thus, Paul is speaking of church officers here.

Some have said that the text should be rendered thus: “Let elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honor, laboring greatly in the Word and doctrine.” By this faulty logic, we would need to render 1 Timothy 4:10 as follows: “God is the Savior of all men who believe much.”

Obj. If there are two sorts of elders, then there are two sorts of bishops, since Presbyterian polity teaches that these terms are synonymous in their biblical usage.

Resp: The Presbyterian position is that the preaching elder and “bishop” (episkopos) are the same, not that “bishop” and elder as a general category are the same. 

Obj. In Eph. 4:11, Paul does not list the ruling elder as one of the offices instituted by Christ for the church. Ergo, it is not a legitimate ecclesiastical office.

Resp: If this reasoning were true or valid, it would follow that we are not believe in the Holy Spirit as God, since John 17 says it is eternal life to know the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit not being mentioned in this particular text. Furthermore, Paul in Eph. 4 is listing the offices essential to planting a church, not for a church already constituted. 

The final text worth addressing here is 1 Corinthians 12:28 - “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.”

Presbyterians have classically interpreted the “governments” Paul speaks of here as referring to ruling elder.

Obj: Paul is here dealing only with “governing” in the abstract as a spiritual gift, and not a concrete office, as he enumerates “apostles” and “prophets.”

Resp: In verses 29-30, Paul interprets himself and speaks of the things mentioned in verse 28 insofar as they exist in individual people - “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?”