And the scripture text this afternoon is from the book of Acts, chapter 15, if you will turn there in your Bibles. And we are not reading the whole of this long chapter, much as I would have otherwise been tempted to do so, but in the interest of time, verses 1 through 6 of Acts 15, and then picking up the narrative at verse 22 through verse 29. The accounts of the great synod of Jerusalem and certain men which came down from Judea taught the Brethren and said except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved when therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them should go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders about this question and being brought on their way by the church they passed through Pernissi and Samaria declaring the conversion of the Gentiles and they caused great joy unto all the brethren and when they were come to Jerusalem they were received of the church and of the apostles and elders and they declared all things that God had done with them but there rose out certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed saying that it was needful to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses and the apostles and elders came together for to consider this matter we pick up in verse 22 then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas namely Judas, so named Barsabbas and Silas chief men among the brethren and they wrote letters by them after this manner the Apostles and Elders and Brethren send greetings unto the Brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words subverting your souls saying ye must be circumcised and keep the law to whom we gave no such commandment it seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things, that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication, from which, if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. May God bless us that short reading from his own inspired and holy words. Now as you are all aware we have for many Sunday afternoon services been considering the great central doctrines of the Christian faith following the order laid out as you were aware in the Westminster Confession of Faith the subordinate standard of many Presbyterian churches. We only have two more chapters of the Confession of Faith to consider on these Sunday afternoons. Now, as I mentioned, I think, in my introduction last Lorsday afternoon, some subjects that we have been considering together are obviously more appropriate in the eyes of many Christians than other subjects more applicable to the living of the Christian life. For instance, who can doubt the subject of Scripture with which our studies began these many months ago? Who can doubt the importance of the doctrine of justification by faith alone? Or the importance of sanctification in the Christian life? Or the sacraments and so on and so forth? but as I mentioned last Sunday afternoon the subject of church discipline which was before us a week ago and this subject here today of synods and councils may seem much less obvious in terms of being applicable to the ordinary Christian you may well say this afternoon, and I can understand the feeling if you did say this well these are subjects of interest to church officers, elders and ministers but not to us as members of a congregation well I need to respond to that because I need to remind you that church government is taught very clearly in the Scriptures of God's Word and if you remember in our very first introductory study on the doctrine of Scripture, there in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, the most magnificent treatment, I think, of the doctrine of Scripture outside of the Bible itself, there you will find that we have been reminded that all things necessary for our salvation and spiritual well-being are included in the Scripture. and that certainly includes the subject of church discipline and this afternoon the subject of church government of synods and councils because the scripture, we were reminded, contains the whole counsel of God respecting our salvation not just part of it, but the whole counsel of God Now, it's interesting, and I think I said this to you last Lord's Day as well, that both the previous chapter of the Confession, Chapter 30, and this one, Chapter 31, were never approved by the English Parliament, which had called the Westminster Assembly to meet there in London, England, in 1643 to 1647. Parliament refused to give its assent to the chapter on church discipline or the chapter on synods and councils and this is because the Parliament was so jealous to maintain some kind of control over the church which the Westminster divines rightly were not willing to yield and I'll say more about that in a moment or two but it's very interesting that neither of these chapters received official approval by the English Parliament when they were formulated, although the rest of the Confession did receive official approval. Now it took a great deal of courage in these godly divines to write so clearly on these subjects, knowing that it would be offensive to even the civil government in their own day. Well let me say a word or two before we look at the five sections of the Westminster Confession. Let me say a word or two about Acts chapter 15. It is in many ways a pivotal chapter in the book of Acts. You remember that Paul had gone with Barnabas to establish a church among the Gentiles in Antioch of Pisidia, north of Judea. and God had greatly blessed their work, the church was flourishing and growing and then at the beginning of Acts 15 as we read there were certain Christians who came to the church in Antioch, the Gentile church and began to teach what was in effect another gospel saying that it was necessary for these Gentile Christians to become Jews in order to be proper Christians, in other words, to be circumcised and to observe the requirements of the Law of Moses, we read that in verse 1 now naturally, Paul and Barnabas, as we read in verse 2, had no small disputation and dissension with them I did mention that Christians are not to be in disputes this morning in Philippians 2, well here is a valid instance where disputing is justified and authorized because wrong doctrine was being taught to be undermining of the church in Antioch and even further afield. Now, what is so significant, congregation, is that Paul and Barnabas, who were officers in that church in Antioch, did not seek to settle the question of what was the right understanding of the gospel by themselves, nor among their elders, which undoubtedly they had in that church in Antioch. but they took the issue to the first church council recorded in the New Testament Scriptures what is normally known as the Council or Synod of Jerusalem and we read in our scripture reading how they with others from Antioch went up to Jerusalem to lay the whole matter before what was in fact the first recorded church synod or council in New Testament times Now we didn't leave the centre of the chapter because of the interest of time but you find there that there was considerable discussion among the apostles and elders from many churches who had gathered there until the mind of the Holy Spirit became crystal clear and we did pick up the story in verse 22 through 29 where I want you to notice particularly but this church council sent something down which was not merely advice this was indeed authoritative and this is very very clear from the language that is used, verse 28, it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us we are expressing the mind of God, in other words, on this issue and they use the language in verse 28 to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things here is an authoritative action congregation it is not merely advice to the churches this is a requirement laid down by the Synod of Jerusalem verse 29, the various abstentions that are required but no insistence, whatever you notice, upon the necessity of circumcision. In fact, the very denial of this, as they say earlier in their communication, that the men who had preached this gospel had never represented the minds of the apostles and the elders in this church council. Now, it's very significant, because you see, the Holy Spirit has recorded this, not just for our historical interests, interesting as it is, the Holy Spirit has recorded this in order that it may become a pattern of biblical church government. Synods and councils, in other words, are justified from Scripture itself. Well, having made these few comments on Acts 15 and its importance, I want to come to the teaching in the subordinate standard, Chapter 31 of the Confession of Faith of Synods and Councils. Now, all of these sections are short, and I don't intend that this exposition be unduly lengthy this afternoon. Section 1, for the better government and further edification of the Church there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called Synods and Councils. Now, as I mentioned to you in my introduction, it's the view of many Christians today what difference does it make how the Church is governed anyway? We have, for instance, they will tell you, Episcopalians. We have Independents. And by the way, our brethren in the Baptist churches, in Reformed Baptist churches, are in essence, in terms of church government, Independents. And then we have ourselves as Presbyterians. So you have Episcopalians, you have Independency, and you have Presbyterian Church Government. Those are the three forms of Church Government that have arisen within the Protestant Church. Now there are great differences between the three, and I need to mention these briefly before coming to the main point. For instance, under independency, sometimes called congregationalism, or, as I've mentioned, our brothers in the Baptist fellowships are also congregational or independent, they believe that each congregation is, as the word describes, independent of the next, they are independent of any other control. If you do have a gathering together of these churches, they call themselves normally an association, never a council or a synod, because that would imply that there is a higher authority above the local congregation. In independency there is no higher authority. Everything is transacted at the local congregational level. If a minister needs to be ordained, he's normally ordained in a local congregation. If he's installed, he's installed normally by the local officers, although others may be asked politely to associate with that installation or ordination, but it's not done by a higher court or authority. And likewise, discipline is exercised within the local congregation, there can be no appeal to a higher council or synod such as occurred in Acts chapter 15. Now that is in essence the principle of independentism or congregationalism or even Baptist church government. Episcopalianism of course is a hierarchical form of government where the authority rests not in councils or synods or even in the local congregation so much as it rests in a hierarchy of offices. Bishops, Archbishops, and of course in the Roman Catholic Church the highest authority is the Pope himself. It is a hierarchical government based on the erroneous doctrine of course of apostolic succession, that bishops are indeed in succession to the apostles of the New Testament. Now the third form of government which we have embraced is Presbyterianism and we do recognize a large autonomy for the local congregation and normally the higher courts, presbyteries and synods will not interfere in the affairs of a local congregation unless invited to do so for specific reasons but above the local congregation, as many of you know, the local session and elders, is a presbytery, the gathering together of Presbyterian churches, which normally are empowered to ordain ministers upon examination, to license students for the ministry, to conduct matters of discipline that cannot be solved in a local congregation, to act as appeal courts, I'll be saying a little more about this a little later on this afternoon and so forth. So you have Presbyteries and then above them very often Synods, which again is a gathering together of several presbyteries into a church council and then above that altogether a general assembly of the church that normally meets in our day once a year and where representatives of every presbyterian church are normally entitled to go in terms of a minister, an elder or elders from each congregation that is represented. So those are very significant differences between Congregationalism, Episcopalianism and Presbyterianism. And the point that I am making in sharing this with you is that both the independent form of government and the Episcopalian form of government disagrees with this chapter. It disagrees with section 1 of this chapter and much else that is taught here as well. Congregational churches do not believe in the authority of synods and church councils. Episcopalian church government doesn't see the need for it. Only the Presbyterians, I think, have rightly discerned the teaching of Scripture and put that teaching into practice in terms of their form of church government. now, coming back to Acts 15 let me just remind you again that the Jerusalem Council was not advisory it was authoritative and final it handed down instruction and decrees now this is very interesting because it met during the apostles' lifetime the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ who were given the gift of writing infallible scripture for the instruction of the church but they didn't decide this issue that had arisen in Acts 15 it's the apostles and elders of the churches together that decided the issue so that even in the apostles' lifetime there was a place for church councils and synagogues there and the other thing we need to remember about Acts 15 is that here is a case of a local congregation that was not allowed to determine the issue of church membership this important issue is circumcision necessary for me to be a Christian or not necessary for me to be a Christian? the local congregation in Antioch was not to determine in a final sense, the answer to that question so it shows us that there are issues which arise which are beyond the authority of a local congregation to settle and an authoritative decision needs to be made scripturally by a higher church and court local congregations cannot discharge all the functions assigned to the church. Now you see, with great respect to our independent brethren who are Reformed Baptists or Baptists, we do have to say that we believe that this is the scriptural teaching and the scriptural example. I think they're absolutely right in emphasizing a good deal of autonomy in a local congregation. But it seems to us it is not an absolute autonomy. and this is very important. Now, the only other thing I want to say about section 1 before leaving it is that, of course, this isn't the only reference in the New Testament to a church council. In 1 Timothy 4, verse 14, you may remember the account of Timothy's ordination by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Again, a very clear indication that there was a form of church government in the New Testament that we would call today Presbyterianism. Obviously, too, in Jerusalem, for instance, there were many congregations ministered to by the Apostles, and it does seem clear and logical that they would have been under some form of Presbyterial government, that's how the diaconate came into being. when the apostles in Acts 6 said we cannot leave the ministry of the word of God and prayer in order to serve tables they were all ministering, obviously in Jerusalem to the growing number of congregations and it does imply some form of government that we would see to be Presbyterian government now I don't need to remind you too that in later church history great church councils met and did sterling work The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD settled the nature of the person of Christ. The Council of Chalcedon in 425 AD dealt with the matter of the Holy Spirit and so forth. The only other thing I would say is this, that from Acts 15 it's always seemed to me that synods and councils should be a periodic assembly, not a standing assembly. not a permanent organisation. And you know, brothers and sisters, one of the great problems with modern Presbyterianism, especially in the more liberal Presbyterian denominations, is that because the General Assemblies have established permanent committees, and permanent this and that, it has been overtaken by appalling bureaucracy. And it has brought, in my opinion, the Presbyterian form of government under severe criticism. It is a periodic assembly of these church courts, when issues arise that demand their meeting together, rather than a standing, permanent organisation. Now, we come to Section 2, and I'm very brief on this. As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers and other fit persons to consult and advise, with about matters of religion, so it magistrates the open enemies to the church, the ministers of Christ, of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they with other fit persons, upon delegation from their churches, may meet together in such assemblies." Now this section has been completely omitted from American editions of the Westminster Confession of Faith, even in Presbyterian churches that hold the Confession as their subordinate standard here in the United States, this section has been completely omitted. Why? Because the American churches have taken the view that too much authority was being given to the state. They thus say their magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers to consult and advise about matters of religion. and American Presbyterians have held up their hands in horror, and said, how can we have the state interfering in the government of the church? Now, I believe, and our denomination believes, that this has been a totally unwarranted reaction, and that the original section should be kept in as it is in Scottish edition, as we are doing this afternoon. Too much authority is not being given to the state. now why do I say that? because in all our studies of the Confession so far we have seen again and again how the independence of the Church from state control has been safeguarded over and over and over even in our last study on Church discipline it was made clear that the Church has sole authority in its own government and its own decisions How can this section of this chapter be out of harmony with everything else that has gone before? And it simply cannot be. The other thing I would say about it is that what is in mind here is a Christian civil magistrate. You see, a non-Christian civil magistrate would never think of the need of calling a synod of ministers to consult and advise with about matters of religion. but if Christ is as he is, the King and Head of the Church then the civil government is under his authority and it is perfectly competent and I believe the divines were correct here for a Christian civil magistrate if he deemed it necessary to ask for a synod to meet and you notice it's to consult and advise he's not going to make the decisions, he wouldn't be allowed to make the decisions in a reformed and biblical church. And so I see a real place for this section to be included here. After all, if we don't believe that, then the very calling of the Westminster Assembly was out of order. It was summoned by an ordinance of the English Parliament. and the beautiful work that it did in those four or five years is still before us and valued by us today it was summoned by the civil authority but as I've already indicated the divines would not allow the civil authority to dictate to the church what was its constitution, government or order now what is interesting is that the Church of Scotland when it adopted the Westminster Confession in the late 1640s declared that it understood this section as applying, and I quote, "...only to churches not settled or constituted in point of government." And that makes it doubly clear that in no way was the civil authority to determine for decisions made by synods or councils. The Church of Scotland said that normally a civil magistrate then would not call for synods and councils because the church has its own right to do this but only in the cases of churches not settled or constituted in points of government would a Christian magistrate normally see the need to do this. Well, I simply make that point to you. I think it's a very important section of the Confession, and I do regret that American Presbyterianism has, I think, mistakenly seen alarm in Section 2. Now we come to Section 3. It belongeth to synods and councils ministerially to determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience, to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God and government of His Church, to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same, which decrees and determinations, if consonant, that is agreeable, to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, that is the Word of God, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in His Word. Now this deals with the duties of synods and councils. Why are they called? Why are they there? And we should note that this section was framed, obviously, to counteract the teaching of the independents at the time of the Westminster Assembly, who, as I explained to you, did not believe in any higher court other than the local congregations. So, the duties of synods and councils are set out here. Now, you notice there are three or four of them mentioned, I'm just going to touch on them ministerially to determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience. We have biblical example for that, dear friends. Acts chapter 15, the issue of another gospel being preached, another way of salvation. by circumcision, or by grace alone, through faith alone, the Council of Jerusalem met to determine controversies of faith. So at Nicaea, so at the Council of Chalcedon, so in Reformation times some of the great Reformed councils too, for instance the Synod of Dort in 1618 refuted the Arminian heresy which is still so current sadly among many churches today. Now you notice the word ministerially is very important ministerially to determine. In other words a church council does not have final authority in itself as a Synod of Council. It must minister the Word of God, apply the Word of God to the settling of controversies of the faith, to faithfully declare the mind of God in Scripture, has no final authority in itself, and only in so far as those decisions are in accord with Scripture are they binding on the Church. Second date is to set down rules for the better ordering of public worship and government, Now that's very interesting, and obviously that's within the power of a church council. Not, you notice, to introduce new elements or requirements in the public worship or the government of the church, but to harmonize public worship and church governance with scripture. Again, that's very, very clear, isn't it? And then the third great purpose of synods and councils is to receive complaints with mal-administration and with authority to determine these and so forth. And I think this is a wonderful safeguard for biblical justice. I think what our brethren miss, if I may say so lovingly, in congregational type of situations in independency is the right to appeal to a higher court for the settlement of an issue. If it cannot be settled satisfactorily at the local level, in Presbyterianism we have the right of appeal to a higher court. Normally the Presbyterian, if necessary, is going right up to the General Assembly itself. so that there is a greater safeguard that biblical justice will finally be rendered. It's taken out of a local court where there may be prejudice on one side or another, put into a presbytery where there is much less likelihood of bias, and therefore the result of a fairer verdict or acquittal, and if necessary, the General Assembly itself. Now we are reminded at the end of Section 3, you notice, that where these decisions are consonant with the Word of God, agreeable to it, where they're biblical, they're to be received with reverence and submission because they reflect the mind of God in Scripture and we are reminded because synods and councils are an ordinance of God they're not a creation of the human mind as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word it would have been completely incompetent for the church in Antioch when they received Paul and Barnabas back from the council of Jerusalem to say, we're going to ignore what the council has decided. It was not advice, it was very clearly an injunction laid down by the authority of a court of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now let me say this, that if a church council were to prescribe and lay upon an individual or a congregation something that was not consonant with Scripture, not agreeable to it, it's the duty of that Christian or that congregation to ignore that injunction and take whatever penalty might be imposed by the Council of the Synod, because it is not in accord with Scripture. Now you have an instance of that, as many of you know, in the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in the 1930s, when Gresham Machen, a very well-known name, was in fact excommunicated from the Presbyterian Church, and it led finally to the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. he was required to do something that violated scripture and he rightly resisted the authority of the church, because it was not being exercised ministerially. We come then to section 4, all synods or councils since the apostles' time, whether general or particular, may err, many have erred, therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as an help in both. very straightforward section we are reminded that all councils, that is to say post-apostolic councils may err and some have erred this is particularly true, isn't it, in the Roman Catholic Church church councils that have been Roman Catholic councils outstanding examples of error one of those councils has taught papal infallibility another has taught the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary that she was conceived without sin even in the 1950s, can you believe it, in modern times a Roman Catholic Church council taught the new doctrine of the assumption of Mary that she went to heaven without dying when there is no scriptural evidence whatsoever for that teaching and we need to be reminded that it is necessary to believe all of these things if you are a Roman Catholic member of the church otherwise you cannot be saved so this is a very timely warning that church councils are not authoritative in themselves, they are not infallible and so the decrees of councils and the findings of synods must never be the supreme standard of the Christian's faith and life they are subordinate, they are subject to scripture, they are designed to be a help and must be tested by scripture finally, and we finish section 5, synods and councils are to handle or conclude nothing but that which is ecclesiastical and are not to intermeddle the civil affairs which concern the Commonwealth unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary or by way of advice for satisfaction of conscience if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate. It's a necessary safeguard. You know, we're living in days of such open detention and apostasy that this section has very frequently been abused by modern and mostly liberal Presbyterian churches and denominations in my experience in a long ministry you can expect almost anything from liberal church courts interfering in matters for which they have no authority to intervene involvement in areas, in other words, that are not ecclesiastical. You only need to think of the National Council of Churches, which is not Presbyterian, and its many pronouncements on many civil and political matters, on which the Church has no right whatever to pronounce. Nevertheless, we need to remember, in the light of this final section here, the Church has a duty to speak out on any matter involving the Word of God and the Law of God and this does give the Church quite a wide remit in the decadent days in which we are living for instance, it would not be an unlawful meddling in civil affairs for the Church to speak out on the sanctity of life and against abortion or the sanctity of the Sabbath day and its desecration more and more in the ungodly society in which we live or the sanctity of marriage that is being so steadily undermined or the moral disorders in the state and the religious disorders and it wouldn't even be out of place for the church to pronounce on an unjust, aggressive war undertaken by the nation in which we live if moral principles are involved derived from God's Word and Law. In fact, there is a duty for the Church to cry out that these things are sinful and wrong and will bring down the judgment of God upon the nation. The Church must proclaim to the State what God has commanded and what he requires, but not unnecessarily meddle in simply political matters. That's very wise advice, isn't it? And very applicable to the day in which we live. Finally, you notice there this reference to advice for satisfaction of conscience. Isn't that interesting? What different days we live in now What modern government, I ask you, in the Western world would ask the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, what views do you have on this matter? What government would do that in our age? You know, the time was, not so long ago, that the Church only needed to make a statement and that was enough for the government to pay heed. we're living, aren't we, in very, very different days. Well, there is the great subject of synods and councils and church government, and in conclusion I remind you that the New Testament doesn't leave churches free to adopt just any form of church government that they think is expedient. Very definite instructions are given in the New Testament. and when these instructions are obediently followed, Biblical truth is safeguarded, God's people richly blessed and governed, and the Church's testimony to the world becomes more and more a shining light. We need this chapter on Synods and Councils. Let's bow in prayer. Our Father in Heaven, we thank Thee once more for the passage of Thy Word that we have thought about in Acts chapter 15 and its relation to this whole subject of church government. May we, O Lord, rejoice more and more to see in our day the church returning to a biblical form of government rightly related to itself and also to the civil rule around it. that this may indeed be the blessing that it is designed to be in thy word for all of the people of God. This we ask in Christ's name.