The Government of the Churches of Christ
2. Unto which add, Secondly, That God hath, both under the Old Testament, as also the New, made the bounding and setting the extent of Church Officers extensive power the subject of his own institution and designment, which confirms the truth of this point in the general.
1. First, in the Old Testament (which we have not now recourse to, as our Brethren use to have as an Instance, that the same particular extent of Government that was then, should be the Model of Christ's Institution under the New; we shall confute that largely afterwards.) This was the matter of Christ's Institution. As therefore under the Old, the several sorts of Officers were appointed, and also their limits of Jurisdiction, so now under the New, as Christ hath Instituted the kind of Officers and Elders, so he should set out the extent of their Jurisdiction: Especially since we suppose such Officers having such a Power (as our Brethren and we suppose) by Institution, it is therefore necessary, that it should be determined either by God or Man, what the extent of their Jurisdiction should be. We do not herein urge the Analogous like reason, of the Old Testament and the New, to raise up the like particular Rule and Institution, for the extent of Elders Power, now as then; but only as a proof of this general Maxim, that when we find the like subject of Institution in the New, the reason will hold, that as there was an Institution set for the bounds of the Intensive Power of Officers among them (as of the Order of Priests above Levites, &c.) and their several work accordingly designed, so the bounds of Jurisdiction and of Extensive Power, in the Government of that State and Church, were set out by the same hand also; so in like manner, Christ hath ordered things in the New Gospel Administration. They under the Old Testament had those that were their Elders of Cities and Towns, whose Power was bounded within their several Cities and Territories, and this set out by a Law. They were, in the case of Murder, to measure the Ground, and the Elders of that City unto which the Field a Man was killed in, was nearest, were to intermeddle in it. And they had their General Elders for the Nation or People, distinguished from the other, so that the extent of their Jurisdiction was general, proportioned to the extent of the Nation, who are therefore called the Elders of the People, in general, Luke 22. 66. and which were that Sanhedrin, and state of Elders at Jerusalem for the Nation, Acts 22. 5. and so distinguished from those they called Elders of a City, Ruth 4. 2. Judge. 9. 3. 2 Kin. 23. 8. And as in these Scriptures singly, so Ezra 10. 4. we have both mentioned with their Titles of distinction, Let the Elders of all the Congregations stand, and with them the Elders of every City, and the Judges thereof. The one had the whole Body of the Nation for their Jurisdiction; The other had only their several Cities. Thus also the bounds of Extensive Power, as well as Intensive, was set out by the Word of the Lord in the hand of Moses. The several charge of four sort of Levites, in the things of the Sanctuary, was divided amongst them, to have care of, and the limits of extensive power of Jurisdiction were fixed in the hands of four Men, over each of those Companies and Bodies of those Levites, as you have it, Numb. 13. 3. which were called Overseers over the rest, Numb. 11. 14, 22. The like might be shewn in the Order of Priesthood; There was the intensive power, which was equal among them all; And above the Levites (for order of Office) there was by Institution, in the High Priest (as Aaron) a further or intense power of Office, for some services above the rest: Which degree of intense power, was by the special call of God, Heb. 5. 4. And as of a power of intention, so of extension or jurisdiction, there was a settled appointment. There were set over several companies of Priests, Chief Priests that were in those several circuits Superior to them, Mat. 2. 4. and 27. 1. Acts 19. 4. 2 Chron. 36. 14. who were twenty four in number.
Secondly, In the New Testament, we find the several extent of Officers Power and Jurisdiction to have been matter of Institution. Our scope is not here to set out what the particular Limits are, for that belongeth to an after discussion. But all that we shall now produce, is but to confirm the point in the general.
1. We find differing extent of Officers Jurisdiction to have been, not only matter of Institution, but also to have, among other things, put a difference upon Officers, such as in imitation hereof, the Pope and the Bishops challenged in difference from ordinary Presbyters. This was one thing made an Apostle differ from an Evangelist, and an Evangelist from ordinary Pastors and Teachers; that an Apostle had the care of all Churches committed to him, whereas an ordinary Elder was designed to an actual care of a Church, as a Governor in a Family is of his House, 1 Tim. 3. 5. In the 1 Cor. 5. the Apostle strongly intimates the difference by a comparison, of his Power as an Apostle, and their's as Corinthians, and that this Power differed in extent; Do not ye (says he) judge them that are within? Namely, yourselves, and within your own body; What have I to do to judge them that are without? His main scope is to show, that in their proportion they had power to judge all within their jurisdiction, as he had in his; and that as his jurisdiction was in the extent of it, limited • o all within, that is, all Churches of Christ, in opposition to Heathen, and he had no power, he had nothing to do to judge them without, so theirs was also extended to all within themselves but no further. I that am an Apostle (says he) have a limited Jurisdiction in my kind, and you in yours, and as I am to do my duty in my Jurisdiction, so you in yours. And if the Apostle would not stretch himself beyond his line (as his own phrase is) of jurisdiction set out to him, then ordinary Elders much less are to go beyond their's.
2. The New Testament is express for it. The Holy Ghost hath appointed the extent of Elders jurisdiction over their own Flocks, and to extend to every Soul therein in particular, even over the whole Flock whereof they are Elders, and that as a whole Flock: Importing an entire body of persons committed to them. Therefore the extent of a like kind of power, any further, or over any other, ought much more to have a special Institution, which so far as it wanteth, and cannot produce and show the bounds for, from Institution, so far it is a nullity. Now we have an express Scripture concerning the Elders of the Church of Ephesus (whether it be Congregational or Presbyterial, or Diocesan, we do not now dispute, but shall afterwards try it out upon which the Institution falls) that they all and every of them had an extent of power by express commission given them, to that whole Flock; and that the Holy Ghost set them over that whole Flock, as in charge commended to them, Acts 20. 28. Take heed to yourselves, and to all the Flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers. Men had not chalkt out the limits of this Flock, nor set them out this their bounds of power and care over it, but the Holy Ghost made them Overseers, that is, constituted them, as Heb. 3. 2. it is said of Moses. And when 'tis said the Holy Ghost made them, it is not meant in respect of the personal call of those Elders, for ordinary Elders were not chosen by an immediate revelation of the Holy Ghost, as Paul, and Barnabas was, The Holy Ghost said, separate me Paul and Barnabas, Acts 13. 2. But so these Elders were not made here: The constitution, or making, or appointing, and instituting them, must therefore necessarily be meant of the Holy Ghost's appointing that office of Elders, in which they were, and that he specially was the Author by his Institution of that kind of designment of Elders, to an whole Flock as Elders, as their special charge, within which, to take care as Elders of all; and by virtue of which (they undertaking the charge) the Institution and Commission of the Holy Ghost fell upon them. As when a King hath granted a Charter to such or such Towns, to have such and such Rulers over each of those whole Towns, though the King put not in the Officers; yet because the Towns choose them, as authorised by his special Charter, ordering their choice, and designing their jurisdiction, it may in charge be given to them, that the King hath set them over this whole Town to govern it. And what is attributed to the Holy Ghost thus, respects not a prudential management only, but the Holy Ghost's Office being in a special manner to be the Author of that Word and those directions of Christ, by which the Apostles did give forth the pattern of ordering and framing Churches to these Ephesians, and other Churches; therefore it is peculiarly appropriated to him to be the Author of all such constitutions Ecclesiastical, and this by so peculiar a prerogative, as is as proper to him, as to Redeem is to the Son. And therefore Man may no more assume to set up a new kind of Officers, or appoint them the bounds of their jurisdiction in the Church, than he can Redeem us. And therefore as to the Work of the Holy Ghost to the Church herein, mention is made of it, parallel with Christ's Redemption, in those Words, Take heed to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased by his own blood. And one special thing, which is attributed to the Holy Ghost (as an Instituter and ordainer of matters in the Church, and for which we cite this place) is, as to constitute the Office of Elders, and the form of Government, that all should take care in common, (for Elders, not Elder, are mentioned) so to fix also, the extent of their care, charge, and commission, to all that Flock, the Church of Ephesus, whereof they are said to be Elders, ver. 17. It is his Institution that Elders should take care according to the extent of their relation, to a particular Flock, as their whole Flock committed to them: And by virtue of this his ordination, had they the full power of Elders unto this Flock. So as that such an office of Elders, (not one Elder only) that such a flock, as an whole flock, should stand in relation to these Elders in common, as the seat of their care and jurisdiction; all this was the ordination of the Holy Ghost. And if so, then the extent of jurisdiction over such a flock is instituted, as well as the Office. Therefore if these all or any company of more Elders, will challenge a new and further extent of jurisdiction, than to such a flock as Ephesus was, they must show the like commission for that extent from the Holy Ghost; for it was by a special commission from the Holy Ghost, they had power of jurisdiction to this Flock. And by the same reason that their commission over this flock was by the Holy Ghost, by the same reason they must show the like new commission, for a larger from the same Holy Ghost. We will only add this, that in cases of this nature a negative argument holds; For when extent of Power depends upon a superior appointment and designment, no further power, than that affirmatively declares and extends the commission, can be extended but with a nullity, yea, and with the greatest danger; and so unless the Holy Ghost declares affirmatively the extent of Elders power as Elders, in a Body united (as here he doth) over a larger company of Churches, as the seat of their jurisdiction, all the Elders in the World met together cannot, nor may not challenge it. A defect of commission affirmative is exclusive in this case. Yea farther in that he mentions this Flock, as that whole Flock they had commission over, he thereby speaks exclusively of any other, that as Elders in a Body they were to exercise authority in. As in the like case, if a King gave a Charter to a Mayor and Company of Aldermen, to rule such a Company or Body of Men in a Corporation as an whole Body, they were set over, and it manifestly imported, not only that the extent of there power therein, being by his Charter therefore they must not exercise it as such a company out of the confines thereof, without the like Charter renewed; but also on the contrary, he who is the founder of their Power, and of whom they hold it, in his Charter, makes that company committed to them, to be all, or the whole flock committed to their charge. This evidently argues, that his Charter sets bounds to them, restraining them from taking on them to exercise their Juridical Power elsewhere. So far is it from what the Presbyterial Principles hold forth, that in an analogous way, they may make new extentions of Jurisdictions, and in the same form model them.
3. Add to this that the Holy Ghost hath been pleased to set limits and bounds of Power to several ordinary Officers in the same Church, wherein they are, in respect of a continual charge and service, ordinary standing Officers, and where all of them are in a joint and common commission for the Government thereof. And look what distinction there is in their Offices, and what is proper to each Office by his appointment, his command is answerably, that the one should not, by assuming to exercise the part of another, intrench upon the Office of another; so, that he who is a Ruling Elder, should not take on him to Teach as an ordinary Pastor, no not in the Church where he bears the office of an Elder, But let him that Teacheth, attend on Teaching, he that Exhorteth, on Exhortation, he that Ruleth, on Ruling, Rom. 12. 6. Now if Christ hath so set these bounds in the same Church and Body, as for any to usurp the others office, is that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or taking on him above his proportion, (which he condemns, ver. 3. and prefaceth that general Rule, with special aim to keep each in their due bounds and station) then much more, or at least as much, hath his care extended to set down the bounds of Extensive Power, which they might know, that as in the same Church the Officers might not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so the Elders of other Churches ought not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , intermeddle as Bishops in another's Jurisdiction, (to use the Apostle's Allusion) nor stretch themselves beyond their Line, as the Apostle would not. Thus I have proved, that the extent of Elders Jurisdiction is to be fetched from an Institution▪
What is next to be demonstrated is, That the constituting and setting out the measure and extent of that Church, which is to be the Seat of Government, is also matter of Divine Order, and so to be fetched from an Institution.
The Popish and Episcopal Divines, have appropriated that word, Order, unto the constituting a Church Officer, and unto his Ministry, whether Bishop or Presbyter, &c. This, in their phrase, they called being in Orders, which in the thing carried this with it, viz. Their being of such Orders or Kinds of Offices, as Christ had by his Order appointed. But surely they narrowed the signification of it too much, for it may be extended to all Institutions whatever, and among other, to this of Church-state, and the constitution thereof, according to an Order set by Christ.
For, 1. In that order of the Church of the Colossians, in which the Apostle rejoiced, the right constitution and formation of their Church-state must needs be a main part intended Order (says Bishop Davenant) denotes their coadunation into one Body, namely, such as in an Army useth to be, and so respects the whole Body itself, as united and consenting together, and so made the seat of Order. Now as the disposement and appointment of the Bulk and Body of the Army itself, and the form, the extent, the Wings thereof, is a matter of as much order, and as essential, as to appoint what Officers shall be over it, or what discipline in it: So 'tis here, and the order of this body of the Church itself, must be by some hand, either Human or Divine, and sure, it was a Divine Order the Apostle here rejoiced in, as we have before shown. And this will appear,
For 1. If we consider the moment of this their Church constitution and formation, we shall find it was meet and necessary, that the Lord Jesus himself should appoint it; For this is the form, which the efficient always gives, as well as the matter. As in natural Bodies, the Form constitutes them, as well as matter, so in all bodies that are the Seat of Government, their orderly frame and form, wherein they are united according to a Law or Fundamental custom, constitutes them such (that is, as they are Politick Bodies) as much as being Men of such a function or qualification and rank. Yea (as was said before) since a judicial Power of Government, depends as much upon a formality of Order, as it doth upon a material qualification of persons, hence therefore it is as necessary (as was shown by many instances) that Jesus Christ should design out, and constitute, and authorize the form and order, and the bounds of his Church, as that he should determine the qualification of the persons or functions to whom the power is committed. For acts of Government, being to have his Blessing in a peculiar manner, to accompany them with a Spiritual efficacy, as well as Acts of Worship, it is as necessary for him to appoint the Form or Orders of that Body, in which he would accompany them with that efficacy, as it is to assign out the material subject of Persons and Functions that are to execute it; And this our Brethren assent to, making it as necessary for Christ to Institute the form of Government, namely, an Aristocracy of Elders, as to appoint the Function or the Persons, namely, Elders themselves. For it may fall out, and often doth, that for the matter hereof, the Members of a Church, are not such, in respect of their lives and qualifications personal, as should be in the Members of a Church, and yet because they take on them to be a Church, professing the Name of Christ, and Public Worship, &c. hence Ministerially they are a true Church, as truly as an Ungodly Profane Minister is a true Minister, not in respect of his personal qualifications, but as his office is an Ordinance which he bears, and whence it is that all his Administrations, while in that office, are not null nor to be reiterated. The like is to be said of the Church itself, whereof he is a Minister, it subserves Ministerially as a Church to God, rightly to have Baptism and other Ordinances of Christian Communion Administred in it, so as those Ordinances are not null, though Administred among such as are generally corrupt and not fit matter to be a Church. That therefore these Ordinances come to be rightly and lawfully Administred, in this Church as a Church, must be by virtue of Christ's Institution and Charter, that hath made such and such a company of Men, so and so meeting for such ends and purposes, to be a Ministerial Church to him, and to be that great Ordinance, which is the Seat of all other Ordinances.
2. It is no less than the Seat, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the grand Repository as of Truth (as 1 Tim. 3. 15.) so of Government and Worship, and so it is the next receptive of all the Promises that are made to accompany the Ordinances Administred therein. We say it is the Seat as of Truth, so of Government and Worship; For by comparing the 5th and 14th verses with that 15th, we shall find that the Church of God is the same with that House of God, mentioned ver. 14. and likewise ver. 5. If a Man know not how to Rule his own House well, how shall he take care of the Church of God? A Church, that is the subject of Government, as compared to an House, wherein the Governor of a Family Ruleth. And it cannot be intended of the Church Universal, though universally, or rather indefinitely expressed (namely, for any or for all the particular Churches that are by God's appointment, the Subjects of Government, of an Elders Care and Rule, as a Family, (to which it is here set in comparison) is of an Ocumenick or Household Government) for the Church there spo-of, is such a Church as ordinary Ministers take an actual special care of, like as he that is a Master of a Family doth of his own House more than all other. And this kind of Church to which the proper Care and Rule of Elders is limited, as it is the subject of Government, so it is the Seat of Truth, where by God's Ordinance it is held forth with a promise to preserve it among them, and to provide, that it shall be sown in the Hearts of the People of God, in that great Ordinance of Preaching by Pastors, which are God's own Institution, and accordingly Gifts are preserved and continued. As, if the Officers, the Laws and Statutes by which a College or Town is governed, be by Charter, the Incorporation itself is such much more: So now if the Church be the Seat of Officers, then truly if God Instituteth the Officers themselves to feed the Flock, the Flock, over whom they are set, is appointed and ordained much more, and to it, as to an Ordinance of his setting up, the promise of preserving Truth is made. And if it be the Seat of all Ordinances (As the Apostle says, 1 Cor. 7. 17. I ordain in all the Churches) then the Churches themselves which are in this respect the Ordinance of these Ordinances, where he reposeth and betrusts them, and in which he blesseth them, is much more Christ's Ordinance.
Yea, 3. Whereas if either of these two, the bounds of Elders Jurisdiction, or the Churches over which they are Elders, are to be fetched from Divine Right, it necessarily argues both, yet of the two, the Institution of the bounds doth mainly and principally fall upon Church, primarily upon Church, and but secondarily upon the extent of Presbyteries. That of Church is the more fundamental measure of the division of Jurisdiction, and that of Presbyteries proportioned thereunto. Thus when it is said, The Apostles ordained Elders, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in every Church, or Church by Church, 'tis not said that Churches were made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to the mould or cast of Presbyters, but Elders were assigned according to the mould, measure or latitude of Churches, and so the several bounds of Church power is limited by the distinction of Church. Thus the style of the Scripture runs, and Churches were settled and not Presbyteries; And the distinction was not then taken from the names of Classes and Presbyteries, Provincial and National Assemblies, &c. And in Rev. 11. (where John takes the measuring Reed in his Hand) what is the subject that Reed is applied to, and whereof the Measure is taken? It is the Temple, the Church, and not Presbyteries or Elderships; Therefore also Mat. 18. the style runs thus, Go tell the Church, which if it should be granted to be meant of the Elders, in our Brethren's sense, yet of Elders in relation to a Church, and in that respect so styled, as they are relatively the representation of some Church, within which their Jurisdiction is bounded. So that if there be any Institution that limits the bounds of their Power, it must necessarily fall upon the bound of Church first. Again, our Brethren's reasonings doth confirm this, for the chief weight of their Arguments for the extent of the Power of Elders over many Churches, in those instances of Jerusalem Ephesus, &c. is taken from hence, that many Congregations are called one Church, and so, from the extent of Elderships and Elders, Power is derived, and measured thereby: And the chief Power, that is exercised, is to cast out of the Church, i. e. to judge them within their circuit.
To conclude; If either of these, the Jurisdiction of Elders, or the measure of Churches are to be fetched from Institution, or set thereby, then both are to be so. The reason of this consequence is clear from this (which was but intimated afore) that all power in Governors or any other company of Men what ever, must have a Territory, a Precinct, a seat in which, and among whom to exercise their power, and accordingly the extent or limits of that seat, is the true measure of the extent of these Governors Power and Jurisdiction, the one being resolved into the other. If the one be Divine, the other is also; yea so as although the Holy Ghost should not have expressly and directly set down both, yet having done either, it is sufficient, for the one follows upon the other, and so conquently (as was said) if either be of Divine Institution, they both are so. Now the reason of this consequence is clear, not only from common reason in its parallel of all Jurisdictions else (wherein the measure of the Officers extent of Power, is resolved into the measure of the Bodies of Men knit together in one, to such or such an extent, whether taken from place, or whatever else is made the boundary.) But further it may be particularly demonstrated, that this Ecclesiastical Government is according to the order of the New Testament. For suppose the power of Government, whether in whole or in part, be in a company of Elders, yet it is not given them simply as Elders to their Persons, no nor simply as a Presbytery abstractedly considered (that is, as a company of Elders merely as such, continuing as they please over these and these Churches, or as few as they will) but what ever Jurisdiction is in them, is given in relation to a Seat; so as the division and partition of Elderships and Presbyteries, &c. and their extent and compass, ariseth from the partition and division of Churches, and the extent thereof. And although what these due Limits of either are, is to be afterwards considered; yet these General do argue, that such are to be found set out by the Holy Ghost.
CHAP. XII.
That it is the Prerogative of Christ's Power and Wisdom, to determine the due limits of Churches, and the boundaries of the Elder's power.
THE Prerogative of Christ, the Institutour, is as much seen in assigning a due extent of power to Elders; and in measuring out the just bounds, wherein their Authority is to be exercised, as in anything which he hath instituted.
1. Christ useth his great Prerogative in setting out, and in constituting and bounding of the Church, that shall be the Seat of Government, which is his House.
1. In all Civil Government (and if there be a Covernment Spiritual derived from Christ, this Parallel will hold) the Stamp of Royal and Supreme Authority (which is the Fountain of Government) is seen and exercised in nothing, more than in the grant of privileges unto a company of Men, dwelling together to incorporate for Government, as also in setting the Bounds and Limits of such a Jurisdiction; and this is fundamental to all the rest; And answerably speaks the Scriptures. Thus in Heb. 3. 3, 4, 5. the Prerogative of Christ, above Moses, is argued from this, as the Highest Branch of it, that Christ was he that Built the very House itself; and therefore answerably, this is for the Honor of Christ. If a King had an infinite number of Subjects scattered over all the World, which could not be governed in the whole or lump, but by parts, distinguished and formed up into several Bodies knit together, were it not his Prerogative as much, yea, more, to appoint out the several Provinces or Territories, and the bounds thereof, which he would have Governed exactly, as to appoint the kind of Officers, or Acts of Government? Surely 'tis more. Therefore the Founders and Disposers of the Bounds of Commonwealths at first, have been esteemed Great, and more Renowned, than those that gave Laws, or Established the several kinds of Officers. It cannot be denied, but that there must be a Commission from Christ, to empower a company of Saints (that live in a Neighbourhood together as Saints) to become a Church to Christ, not in a Mystical Relation only (for that they are as Saints, though they become not a Seat of public Worship, and of an orderly Government here on Earth) but further to become a Subject of public Worship; and also to enjoy a Government among them. As the things themselves thus enjoyed are such, as nothing more concerns God's Glory in this World; and the good and benefit of the Saints, so their becoming a Church (which is the foundation of this; and unto which, as such the privilege of these is vouchsafed) is as great a favor and privilege, as could be bestowed on them; which therefore must needs hold as much upon a free Gift and Charter of Christ, the Head and Lord of his Church, as any other thing can be supposed to do. A Gift and Favor it is, over and above their being Saints and Members of the Church Mystical, Electively bestowed, for such they might have been, and yet never have been ordered so to meet. As to be a Minister to the Church, it is a favor beyond a Man's being a Saint, or having Gifts, and none is to take that Honor to himself; but he that is called of God, and hath a Charter from him, for the kind of Ministry designed, (and therefore Paul makes that great Character of himself, from God's putting him into the Ministry) so for a company of Saints to take on them, the Title and Honor of a Church, and an whole Church (as every particular Seat of Worship and Government doth) which is the Title of the whole Universal Body of Christ, yea, to take on them the Relation of a Body, an whole Body to Christ; this must be by a special Charter and Warrant, what ever company of Men there be that do it. None can give that Title of Church, unless Christ hath given it, as none can take the Title of being a City in a Kingdom, or of being a privileged place, but by Charter. If none can take on him the Dignity of an Earl, or of a Viscount, or of any Officer of State, so no company of People can of themselves, presume to be a City, but by special Charter; much less to be a Seat of Government, whereby they become not simply a company, but a Body politick. Church, in this Sense, is an Authoritative Word, and such Authority ariseth not from place, or any External Circumstance, no nor from meeting; but from a Charter that adds Authority, and above such considerations, unto such a company.
2. That it should belong to the Prerogative of Christ, to determine the bounds of Elder's Jurisdiction, as much as to appoint the Elders or kinds of Officers themselves, evidently appears by it's Parallel. When any Officers derive their Governing Power, from a Supreme State; it concerns the Honor and Prerogative of that State, to define the extent of the Division of their Jurisdiction, as much as the kind of Officers. If therefore it be universally found, to be the Wisdom of all Supreme Powers, with one consent to judge and account this bounding as justly to concern their Prerogative; shall we think that Christ hath been less jealous and careful of his Honor herein? Surely either there is no Government at all defined by him, and no sort or kind of Officers set and distinguished by him (but all is alike, left to Human Prudence, as in Civil Government, all these things alike are) or it must be acknowledged, that the one concerns the Honor and Prerogative of Christ to Determine, as well as the other.
I know it may be said, that though it is necessary; yet it must be safely left to the Law of Nature, and to the Rulers of Prudence, for Men to appoint it; and that yet however the partition or measure of Church's and Officer's extent is Divine, because God hath appointed that to be the measure; which Men in their Prudence shall think good to appoint. But this is indeed, to make both the extent of Officer's Government, and the measure of the Churches, and the Seat thereof to be both Human, even as the extent of the Power and Office of Civil Magistrates is; and is called, 1 Pet. 2. 13. And Magistracy is called an Ordinance of Man; because the extent of it is left to Men to appoint, as they shall think meet. And yet, if God had either set the bounds and extent of Officers Jurisdiction, or of Commonwealths, (which are both considerable) then had both been of Divine Institution; but since neither of them are so set, they are Human, although in the General, God hath commanded that Magistrates shall have that measure of power, which Men and Commonwealths shall give them.
I will add one thing more, to strengthen Christ's Prerogative in this case, that Spiritual Reason suited to the Nature of the thing itself, falls in to prove both the bounding the Elder's power; and the bounds of Churches, as the Seat of Government.
1. I argue from the Rise of the call of Elders. For though it were true, as some say, that all Saints as Saints, or as they are Mystical Members of the Church Universal, have a full and immediate right, (without any further Relation of Order and Union to a particular Church) ipso facto, to enjoy all Ordinances; yet take Elders or Ministers, and Church Governors as such; and they cannot be supposed to have it simply as Members of the Church Catholic, nor have they it from their having Gifts. The Law of Nature they cannot plead, why they should have that power, rather than other Persons in the Church; and Christ's Charter immediately they have, not as naming their Persons. From whence then must it be, that they have their power as Elders, but from an Instituted Relation? This must be then some other instituted Right and Privilege given them. They are given to the Church, and so their Rise must be from their Relation to a Church; and by the same Reason, the extent of the Jurisdiction of their Office, must depend upon the like; for what else should give them power over these, or these Churches, and not others? As it is asserted by some, that the power is given to Saints, yet not to Saints, but as formed up into Bodies; so those that will say, it is given to Elders, must at least acknowledge it is given to Elders, as knit into Bodies, and set over such formed Bodies. So as their Jurisdiction doth depend upon a Relation to, and a rise of call, either from that Body, or at least into that Body. Which is more evident upon this further Reason, than that forementioned will reach to. Because God makes not Elders, immediately by his providential converting and working on them, for so he makes Saints; and yet he gives not (say our Brethren) the power to them, but as united into an orderly Body by Institution, in which they exercise each to other. And the case of Elder's power, is more depending upon an Order and Institution; because they are called to be Elders by a Designation of Men. Their being Elders, at least, is in order to a relation, and not by a providential immediate working on them, or from God's giving them gifts; or by an immediate call, as the Apostles were chosen, afore God erected his Church, to that end to erect it. There must be formed Bodies, to give a Rise to their call, by designing and accepting them; and there must be a relation to those formed Bodies, which they are set over; which must be set out by Divine Appointment, which alone maketh Elders, and gives them their power; and so the Rise of their call and their jurisdiction, is commensurable.
2. I argue from the necessity of the thing itself. Necessary it was, that the extensive power of Elders, should be determined (as well as the intensive) either by God or Man. If by God, we have what is desired. If by Man, either by the Civil Magistrates (and they were not Christians, for above Three Hundred years after Christ) or by the Elders themselves, and the Churches, as they should agree it. Now see the inconvenience to leave this part of extensive power, to be determined by Men; especially by the Elders themselves, whilst Christ should take on him to determine only the other. Of all sort of power, Church power is that wherein, when Men have any part, or any pretence to it, they are more apt to be ambitious of extending it, than any other: Witness the Ambition of the Prelates, and the Usurpation of the Pope, &c. And they are as apt to usurp an undue power in the extension of Jurisdiction, as well as unlawful intensive Authority, as we have seen in Popes and Bishops: The latter have assumed an undue extensive power, over whole Dioceses, Archbishops over Provinces, and Primates over Nations; and Popes have Usurped such a power over the Universal Church. This too large power they have all challenged, as well as too much intensive power, by which the Bishops appropriate Ordination to themselves, which Presbyteries (say they) may not do; and the Popes lay a claim to Infallibility, &c. Now our Presbyterian Brethren, quarrel at that power in Bishops, and the Bishops oppose that Universal extensive power in the Popes. Now the Pope challengeth this intensive power of Infallibility, but upon this right, that having such Universal Extensive power, as the Apostles had; therefore God hath enabled him (as in that case he did the Apostles) with an Infallibility, suitable to that large extent of power; and therefore he began his Usurpation, with the pretence only at first, to an Universal Power for extent, in his Title of Universal Bishop; and that brought on the other, and crept up with it, and is supported by it, as the Ivy is by the Elm. Thus Alexander the Great, being Lord of all the World in his own Opinion, flattered himself into the conceit of Divinity, and of being a God, as annexed to that Crown Universal. So that Men are as apt to err this way, as the other, and as dangerously in the consequence. It was therefore as necessary, that Christ should set bounds to the Usurpation of Men (who were to be trusted with Church-power) as to anything else, it was necessary to prevent the claim of any one (as of Bishops) to determine the form of Government in the Church, not to be Monarchical; it was necessary to prevent impertinent intermeddling in Officers, to set the proper bounds of each several Officer. It was necessary to prevent a Lording over the Flock, by setting down the Acts of Government, proper to Elders. And so that a stretching themselves beyond their Line, and an intermeddling Authoritatively in Churches, not in their Jurisdiction might be prevented, it was needful be set down by certain Limits, the Territory of Church Government, seeing as true a Tyranny and Lording, might equally arise over the Church, by an undue extent of Jurisdiction, as by the exercise of unlawful and new invented Acts of Church Power. And all this was the rather necessary, because that if it had been left to common Rules (as other things of outward order are) and by Human Prudence to be shared and divided, the Clergy themselves, and Elders of Churches, were like to Arrogate the Determination hereof, (as in all Ages, they have done) and if they themselves were to be the allotters of it; they would be sure to look to their share, and that Wisdom (they would have it left to) would be sure to cast it so, and mould the frame of the power of Jurisdiction, into such an Order, as should advance and set up their power over all the Churches. And herein the whole Multitude of Elders and the Clergy, are as apt (yea, more apt) to be tempted, as a few Prelates that usurp it singly, because the Dominion extends to the totum genus the whole kind of them. Meet therefore it was, that the Lord Jesus himself should fix this, and determine it as much as anything else that he hath done.
Then 3. As to the bounding the Churches or Bodies of Saints and Elders, that should be the Seat of Church Power, it agrees with all reason, that Christ should keep this to him, as a part of his Prerogative; and that it should depend on his Supreme Authority. It cannot be denied, but that (as was said) for a company of Saints to be a distinct fixed Church within themselves, and so to be the Seat of either the Ordinances for Worship or Government, is a superadded privilege to their being Saints. If Pastors and Teachers be Ordinances, and the gift of Christ, Ephes. 4. then to be Churches, and the Privileges thereof, in and by means of which, the Saints come to have a propriety in these; and a special relation unto these, is a gift also, and so dependeth electively upon God's Will; and so is the Subject of Institution, as well as any other thing. And these Churches of Saints, are not only the object of Government, and in that respect the Seat of it; but the privilege of Government, the endowment thereof is in a special manner conferred on the Churches, who are the Seat of it; and thereunto is the grant primarily made, and unto them the benefit redounds. Thus in Civil Bodies, that are the Seat of Government, the Privilege and Charter of having a Government, respects the whole community itself principally, and not the Officers; and therefore it is called the Corporation's, the Town's, or the City's Charter; and not the Mayors and Aldermen. As therefore the main Institution or Charter, falls on the Seat itself; and so upon the Officers, and the power in them for them; and indeed on both, by one and the same Appointment: So answerably the Scripture Style runs still upon the Church, taking in the whole community of Elders and People (So I ordain in the Churches, &c. says the Apostle) because that is the Seat, the Subject of the Privilege; and so of that Institution, that bestows and endows it. Yea, and therefore the promise of Christ's Blessing and Presence, is made to the Church, that is the Seat of Government I will be present says Christ, in the midst of you, &c. which if it should be Interpreted of a company of Elders; yet it must be as relating to a Church, that is their Seat; and to which they have a special Relation, and so by virtue of the promise made to the Church itself, Christ walks in the midst of the Candlesticks, which are the Churches. And the efficacy of this Government and Censures therein, depends upon a special blessing; and the promise of a special Blessing, is always the companion of his own Institution. As no Acts of Government, but such as are instituted, have the ordinary promise of Blessing, nor in the Hands of any other than such as Christ hath given the power unto, so all is confined too within that Seat, or extent of Jurisdiction he hath appointed; and upon this ground, he is specially present with those Officers, and those Acts in relation; and in a respect to that Body or Church, whose Elders they are, and to whom the promise is principally made, and upon whom the Privilege and Institution chiefly falls. In this respect then, it must also as much belong to his Power and Prerogative, to set out some Bounds and Limits of these Churches, as to Institute and Appoint, that there should be Churches that should have such a privilege. And the reason is, because the Greatness and Worth of the Privilege, doth more or less depend upon the ordering the extent and bounds of that Church; and will accordingly more or less, redound to the good and benefit of the Saints therein, as these are set and ordered. And therefore it was fit that the Saints should owe this to none but the Wisdom of Christ himself; yea, nothing concerns the substance of the privilege more; and therefore if the privilege itself be from Christ, then this also. Take any incorporate Body, if it be a privilege to any such Body, to have Officers and certain Acts of Government appointed for and over them, then it is as much so too, to have also a circumscription of Jurisdiction among themselves, as they are incorporate. Yea, their privilege and the benefit of it, depends so much upon it; that according to the ordering thereof, it is rendered greater or lesser, or perhaps made as good as void; so that all depends upon the set Determination of it, and had need therefore to be set out by the Founder, as distinctly as anything else. The benefit of all privileges, depends upon bounds of enclosure, which if left common, the privilege is impaired. The privilege of such a Body lies, that inclusively they should have such a Government and Officers within themselves; and also exclusively be free in such and such cases, from the Jurisdiction of others, and if there be not something of either of these, there is no benefit or privilege in having such a Government or Officers; and yet neither of them can be accomplisht, unless the extent of the Seat of Government itself, and Jurisdiction thereof, be set out and determined. And if so much of the privilege depends hereon, (as apparently it doth) should not he appoint, and set out the Limits of these Bodies, who is the Author, Giver, and Bestower of the Privilege itself; to whom these Societies should wholly owe it, and not to the Discretion of others; and who also takes on him as his peculiar, to appoint both the Acts of Government, and Affairs for it, and form of Government they should be Ruled by, the one being of as much consequence, as the other. Thus the proportion of the greatness of the privilege and benefit of Government, so much depending on it, it is meet, yea, necessary that he that is the Author of this Government, should define and fix it.
4. I shall further add another thing, which depends upon the former, that the Efficacy of all Ecclesiastical Power and Censures, and the Efficacy of them depending on so Supernatural a Blessing, to subject the Conscience unto those Censures (against which Men's Consciences are apt to be as obstinate and rebellious, as to any kind of punishment inflicted by Men) if it was as necessary that Christ himself should set out the bounds of Jurisdiction, within the compass of which, Men were to be subject to those whom he betrusted with the Government, as to appoint any of those other things forementioned. For Men were like to quarrel at nothing more, than the right of power in those that executed it; and nothing was more liable to exception, than is this. They still might say, what have you to do to Judge me; unless you can show from Christ, I am in the way of your Jurisdiction? Yea, how else also should it be known to whom it belonged, and over whom to execute these Censures; and who were in fault, if they were not Executed? The Apostle therefore stirs up the Corinthians to it, as a Duty belonging to them; and convinceth them of their sin (on whom it lay, and on none else) that they neglected to censure that offender, who was within their Jurisdiction, do not ye Judge them that are within? says he, 1 Cor. 5. 12. And so far as the Sword of the Spirit is not managed by that Hand, where Christ hath placed it, it will be naked. And if so much of the Blessing depends upon other things of as small moment, as upon the True Form of Government, that Christ hath appointed, that is, to be Administred by the many (as Paul speaks) and not by one Man, a Bishop, and by Men in Office, and not the People only, though many (as our Brethren will say, in so much as for want of these, some of them do account the Act Null and Void, and to have been weakened, and as a wooden Dagger) Surely of these Censures, it may as well be imagined, they might receive a proportionable strength from the Addition of the like Institution of the extent of Jurisdiction, over those that should be within the reach of them, these being Acts of the power of Jurisdiction, as they have been commonly called in distinction from those other of Doctrine, and the Sacraments. Sure we are that Paul seems to put as much of the promise of the power to accompany it upon this, that the Incestuous Corinthian, was within the Jurisdiction of the Church of Corinth; and so had the promise of Christ's power, to accompany that ordinance to that Man, as upon anything else. For Christ still blesseth his own ordinance, when in that right hand he hath placed it, and it may well be thought one, if not the main reason, why the edge of this Sword hath been found so blunt and dull (as Laure • tius Andreas observes) that there hath been more power in one Excommunication in the Primitive Times, than in all since, though backed with the Civil Sword, because it hath been in them, that have not had the right of Jurisdiction to execute it; that whereas Tertullian says, it was in their Congregations, Tanquam fulmen, as a Thunderbolt, it hath been, Brutum fulmen, to us a Thunderbolt of no force, Nulla Major nullitas quam defectus juris, nec Major defectus quam Jurisdictionis; There is no greater Nullity, than a Deficiency of Right, nor a greater Defect, than that of Jurisdiction.
In the Conclusion of the whole, I infer, from this Assertion are chiefly these Corollaries.
1. That our Brethren of the Presbyterian way, if they would prove and establish their several Orders and Classical, &c. Assemblies, they must show us Institution for them.
2. And in this Agitation, let those, that can produce out of the New Testament, the Truest, Genuine, Natural Evidences of the bounds of an Instituted Church, as the Seat of Officers and Government, carry it.
3. That an Instituted Church, according to the true and lawful Bounds thereof, being the Seat of the Privilege, all power of Elders and Officers is to be drawn down thereto, in the exercise thereof; and in case of Defect, Elders are to be chosen to such a Church, and not that Church taken in to other Elders; and also all Acts of Jurisdiction, are to be exercised therein.
The Government OF THE Churches of Christ.
BOOK III.
Particular Congregations, having a sufficient number of Elders and Officers, are completely enabled for all Acts of Government, and Excommunication itself, within themselves, as well as for Worship.
CHAP. I.
That a Particular Congregation of Saints, having a sufficient number of Elders, is a complete Subject of Church Power and Government, proved, 1. From the Power which they have to Examine, and Admit Members. 2. From their Power of Suspending from the Sacrament. 3. From their being a perfect Political Church.
THis is agreed upon by all hands that some particular Church is such a Politick Body, as hath entire power to cast out by Excommunication; and a casting out of that particular Body, Is consequently a casting out of all the rest, by the Law of Communion of Churches, whether implicit, (one Church reverencing the judgment of another, till they see apparent cause to the contrary) or explicit by virtue of that their Association. Now the Question is, what particular Body or Church it is, whether a fixed Congregation (whereof a Man is a constant Member) when it hath a sufficiency of Elders over it, or a Presbytery of many Congregations?
Proposition, One single Congregation of Saints, having a sufficient number of Elders, and Officers, is an entire Seat of all Acts of Government, and of Excommunication itself, as well as of Worship. The truth of this Proposition will appear, if we consider the following Arguments.
Arg. I. If such a Church with the Elders are sufficient to Try and Examine, and so Admit ordinary Members, without the help of other Churches, then it is sufficient to cast them out. For,
1. The one is an affirmative act, the other a negative act, but both are acts of the Keys only turning several ways, the one opening the other shutting; the one is but judging initial Repentance, the other is a judging of occasional Repentance for a gross Sin. And there is as much reason you should require as evident signs of Repentance from the state of Nature, as you do in case of scandal. For as to men grown up, till they show Repentance, there is this prejudice against them, that they are Children of Wrath by nature even as well as others.
2. The not admitting of Men to Church Ordinances, and not receiving them, is an act of as great moment to Men's Persons, as to be cast out. If then Churches be betrusted with the one, why should not they be betrusted with the other?
3. If Excommunication were more to the Man Excommunicated, than a not Receiving by way of Admission, yet Christ's Honor is as much concerned in what Members are taken in and owned for his Body, as in what are cast out.
4. In all Common-wealths, to Enfranchise and to cut off belong to the same Power, yea to Enfranchise doth more appertain to it. For Parliaments only do Enfranchise Strangers, but yet lower Courts do cut Men off by Death, according to the Law. And it holds in all Bodies else, for in Families, they have power to take in Servants, and power to cast out, and in Colleges to Admit and to Expell.
Object. But it will be objected, that to Excommunicate a Man, is to cast him out of all Churches, and therefore it is the greater Act.
Answ. 1. That simply alone doth not make it greater; for a Man is cast out of all Churches, not formally but only consequently, because the Churches have and hold communion one with another. Let the proportion be held between Admission and Excommunication in this, and they will be parallels; For if you will say that all Churches about have an interest, because they are to reject a Man, that is Excommunicated; so they have an interest also in Admission, to Receive him also, if he be admitted, and they cast a reflection up that Church he is of, if they Receive him not by virtue of his Fellowship.
Answ. 2. A Man in being so admitted into a particular Church, by virtue of that Fellowship, he is received occasionally into communion with any other Church.
Arg. II. If a single Congregation may Suspend from the Sacrament, without consulting others, then they may Excommunicate. This is evident,
1. From Presbyterial Principles, for those that hold Excommunication to be but a casting one off from Communion with the Church, and not to include a further thing, viz. a formal delivering him unto Satan, do make but a very small difference between Suspension and Excommunication. A Man Excommunicated they will admit to Hear, and therefore his being cast out of the communion of the Church, is but a depriving him of the communion of the Lord's Supper, and that is also done by Suspension: Only the one is but a Suspension from a few acts, this from many; but both are till he repents.
If it be said that the consequent of Excommunication, is to avoid civil converse, which is more than Suspension. We reply, that even so it is in Suspension also; for there is to be a withdrawing from a Brother, that walks inordinately before he is Excommunicated, 2 Thes. 3. 6. Yea, because a private Brother ought to withdraw converse with such an one, it is made a ground of Suspension from the Lord's Supper by the Church, that the Church should withdraw communion with him, and so Suspend him.
Arg. 3. Add to this, That they who are a Politick Church, having a sufficient Presbytery and Eldership, have a power to do all acts of a Church, and therefore to Excommunicate. But such a Congregation is a Politick Church, and have a sufficient Presbytery and Eldership.
1. They are a Politick Church, and the least Church hath thus much power, that he that hears it not, let him be as an Heathen and a Publican, and the greatest hath no more. All the Churches in the World may add Advice in difficult cases, and a reverential Authority, but they cannot add Power, for that Christ hath given to a Church as it is a Church. The Presbyterial Divines themselves do argue the Power of Excommunication in a Presbytery, because it is a Church; only they say a Congregation is an imperfect Church. Whereas there is not one Scripture in the New Testament that doth so much as call a Presbytery, over many Congregations, a Church or if it did, there is then a greater thing to be proved (namely, this distinction which the Scripture hath not made) that a Congregation having an Eldership, is an incomplete Church Politick, and the other complete. All Churches may be imperfect in respect of Moral Power, in some cases, wherein they need advice, and so a Presbyterial Church may be imperfect, and may run into error, and so may a Provincial, so may a National, so may a General Council. And if the imperfection of a Church should lie in this, that it is subject to another Church, and accountable thereunto (according to Presbyterial Principles) then also a Provincial and a National Church were imperfect, and by that rule they also should not Excommunicate. But in a word, the imperfection of a Congregational Church must lie, either in respect of what they are as a Church, or in respect of their Eldership.
1. Their imperfection doth not lie in their being a Church, for they have more of Church than any classical Meeting of Elders hath, because they have both People and Elders also, and so partake of both sorts, which the other doth not. And the Assembly have in their vote acknowledged, Mat. 18. to intend a particular Church, and the Eldership thereof to be a Church, although they do not acknowledge it only to be a Church, and our Reformed Writers call Congregations, Ecclesiae primae, the first Churches
2. Neither doth their imperfection lie in their Eldership, as being insufficient, for if so, then either Elders are not an Eldership unto them for acts of Government; or they are not a sufficient Eldership for all acts of Governments. But
1. They are an Eldership or Presbytery unto them for acts of Government. For where there are more Elders than one united in common, for acts of Government, there they are an Eldership or a Presbytery, but so there are here. This is evident in the instance of Jerusalem, brought by the Assembly themselves, for they therefore prove Presbyterial Government, over many Congregations, because those Elders met for acts of Government, and that those many Congregations were one Church to those Elders. Now in a particular Congregation, where there are more Elders than one, there is one Church, and there are likewise the Elders thereof, meeting (say we) with that Church for Acts of Government, and that may meet apart (say they) for some Acts of Government. Of a Bishop it is said, (1 Tim. 3. 5. If he do not Rule his own house well, how shall he take care of the Church of God? That is to rule it, as the answering of one phrase to the other imports. And surely, if, by Bishop there, be meant a particular Elder, having relation unto a particular Congregation, Ruling in that Congregation is there intended, and to suppose that the House of God, that he is to take care of and to rule, is many Congregations, as met in a Classes, is too hard a supposition, especially seeing the Argument is taken from ruling his Family, and he is placed in a Congregation; and if the Congregation should not be meant here, by the House of God, the comparison went per saltum, by too wide a Leap.
2. As the Name Church, is applied to the House of Meeting in our Language to this day, so this is an Argument that Congregational Meetings are Churches, and so the Name Rector, which imports Ruling, continues also to this day. Presbyters
In the classical Government, if they admonish not personally only, i. e. each Minister apart, but as a body in common then they meet for Acts of Government, and that in common, as united: And if there be no admonition in common, wherein they all join, as an act of authority of the whole, then such admonitions proceed from the Minister alone, that doth admonish, and the other Elders therein are but as Cyphers. Now therefore when there is Elders, and these Elder united in acts in common, and those acts are acts of Government, there must needs be an Eldership. And this the Reformed Churches do acknowledge, and the Commissioners of Scotland, in there papers, do own this to be an Eldership. The Reformed Churches, in France, call it a Presbytery; and the meeting of the Elders over many Congregations, that they call the Classis. And what doth make a Classical Eldership to be a Presbytery; but that materially there are Elders, that have relation to those Congregations, and that formally they are united for Acts in Common?
2. It is as evidently true, that they are a sufficient Presbytery. Its true indeed, (as was said afore, no one is sufficient for any of these things? And thus for moral imperfections, power might be taken from the Apostles themselves, who acknowledge this imperfection of themselves; but they have a political sufficiency.
For 1. If it be said that the insufficiency lies in the fewness of the number, and that in a Classical Presbytery, there are more; on answer to that, the Rule saith, Elders of the Church, and so speaks of them indefinitely; and our Savior Christ saith, in Mat. 18. Where two or three are gathered, which the Presbyterial Divines do Interpret of the Elders. In Acts 13. 1. there are three Elders mentioned at Antioch, and that they ordained two Apostles, Barnabas and Paul, who (say our Brethren) acted as ordinary Elders, when joined together in the same Act, and yet they ordained also, Acts 14. 23. Thus the Church of Colossae, had two Ministers, Epaphras and Archippus, and yet that Church was complete, Col. 2. 10. And they were but one Congregation; for they were Pastors to them, who is a Faithful Minister to you, (saith he) and that in respect of Teaching; for (he saith) they had heard it from him, Col. 4. And when the Scripture hath not put the sufficiency upon a number, why, if there be but two, should they be excluded? And then too it may fall out, that as many Elders are in one Congregation, as in some Classes. It will not be denied by our Brethren, that two Churches may associate, and make a Classis; and one Congregation may have as many Elders, as these two smaller ones, that do associate. And assuredly their sufficiency doth not lie, that they have relation unto many Congregations; for that this should have the influence into their sufficiency, is hard to be supposed; besides that this is but a secondary Relation, for the primary Relation is to their own several Churches, insomuch, as it was sometimes affirmed by our Brethren, that they were not Elders to all those several Congregations associated, but an Eldership only. And that is but an extrinsical relation neither, whereas that relation, they have to their own, is more intrinsical; because they are chosen by them, and because they personally watch over them, and are fixed amongst them, whereas this is but raised by a mere Association. And therefore this relation that they are Elders over, many Congregations can add nothing to their sufficiency.
2. Or else Secondly, their insufficiency is supposed to lie, in not having all sort of Elders, in this Congregational Eldership, both a Pastor, Teacher, and Ruling Elder. But if so, then a Classical Eldership may be imperfect too; for in some of these, one that hath the Office of a Teacher or a Doctor, may be, is often found wanting; or what if all Ruling Elders were wanting, and only Pastors met, were this an imperfect Eldership? And if all sorts and kinds of Elders, were necessary to make up the sufficiency of an Eldership or Presbytery Classical; then it were first necessary that every Congregation should have all these sorts of Elders; for a Classis cannot oblige the Congregations under them, that some should have a Teacher, others a Ruling Elder, others a Pastor, to make up all sorts among them; and besides the first relation of all Officers, being unto particular Congregations, as being primarily ordained for them (for none is an Officer simply, made for a Classical Church) therefore the Seat of all these sorts of Officers, is Congregations: And so if that the Classis have all, it is because the Congregations have all first; and if the Classes be bound to have all to make theirs sufficient, the Congregations also are bound to have all to make theirs sufficient.
3. Or else thirdly they are supposed Deficient, because they want Ability.
But 1. If they are Elders of the Church Universal (as some of our Brethren affirm) and of all the World; and accordingly fit for any work of Elders, as their Office is, it were strange that a company of them in a Congregation, two or three, or more, should not be fit for all the business in that Congregation.
But 2. Their inability must lie either in want of skill, or want of power. If in want of skill, it must be either skill to discern the proof of the Fact, for which Men are to be excommunicated; and if so, then they are unable to Admonish also; for they should not Admonish, but upon proof of the fact; and to disable a Congregation, People and Elders, to do that, which any Jury of a few Men use to do, ordinarily in point of Life and Death, is very hard. Or else their want of skill must lie in discerning, whether the sin be a sin of that Nature, that it deserves Excommunication for the matter of Fact, if it be not repented of; but they cannot be supposed to want skil in that, for then they cannot likewise suspend from the Sacrament, for they are to suspend but for such sins, as, if not repented of, would deserve Excommunication. Or else they must want skill to judge of Repentance, or the want of it; but surely if a Brother may be able to Judge of the Repentance of a Brother, in case of a flagitious sin (which in public he should be Excommunicated for, if he Repented not) then a Church and these Elders, may be able to Judge of his Repentance of Public sins. Yea, if a particular Eldership (according to Presbyterial principles) do find that the Man Repenteth upon their Admonition, though the sin be gross and heinous, they may forbear to bring him to the Classis, and receive him again, or else their Admonitions are in vain; and all must be brought however to the Classis. And if they may Judge of his Repentance, so as to prevent Excommunication, then they may as well judge of his Repentance, or of his Obstinacy, when he is to be Excommunicated.
If it be said that the fault may be so Atrocious, that they cannot so well judge of his Repentance; the Answer is,
- 1. Then all such sins should be brought immediately to the Classical Presbytery, and not to the particular Eldership at all; for them to Admonish, or to deal with him in order to Repentance.
- 2. The more Heinous the Fault is, the more apparent it is; and therefore the better they may judge of it, and the easier an Excommunication should be for it.
Or 2. Their Insufficiency must be supposed to lie in want of power.
But 1. If they be a Presbytery in a Church, they must needs have Power and Authority to do all that a Presbytery is ordered for, or is ascribed to it. A Presbytery and Presbyterial Acts, are Relative and Mutual.
2. All Christ's Ordinances and Means, are sufficient unto his end. As a Minister, if he be a True and Lawful Minister, hath sufficiency both of Gifts and Power, to do what belongeth unto him as a Minister; as to Acts of all sorts, and the least, as well as the greatest: So if Christ do Ordain a Presbytery, to Govern as a Presbytery, it is a perfect means for all Presbyterial Acts; for God's Appointments are perfect, and God's means for Government, are as complete as his other means of Preaching and the Sacraments. A Presbytery, if it be a Presbytery, is as perfect, as a Presbytery, as a particular Minister, is as a Minister. A Minister, is a complete Minister, not to Preach only, but to Baptize; not to Baptize only, but to Administer the Lord's Supper; not to Preach one part of the Council of God, but all; not to Administer the Bread only, but the Cup; and if he is the Minister of one Sacrament, then also of another; for there are no such Ministers as the Bishops, Deacons. Now look what a Minister is in his kind, that Elders are in their kind, and if they have power to Admonish, then power to Excommunicate.
3. If they be fit for one Act of Government, then for all Acts, of all sorts and kinds (for of them we speak now) we do not say in all cases; for a case may be too difficult for them, and then they seek Advice, but we speak of the kinds. If they be able, they have the power, in one as well as the other, which is proved.
1. Because our Presbyterian Brethren's own Arguments, do run from instances of one part of Government, to all. They cannot give Instances of all Acts of Government done by those, that they suppose to be Classical Churches; but they argue from some few, and those less than Excommunication, as in the instance of the Church of Jerusalem, they argue from the less, from having received Alms, that they meant to prevent a Scandal. Yea, they argue that because the Synod in Acts 15. might with an Authority Doctrinal declare, that therefore they might Excommunicate. So we argue, if a Congregational Presbytery may do all these, then they may Excommunicate; and it is their right to do it. Our Presbyterian Brethren, can give no instance of any one that did all; and until they have an Instance, that Classical Churches did all these, it may still be said, that Classical Churches be imperfect; and how then shall they or we, know what is a perfect Presbytery, and what is not? To give them power to Admonish, to Suspend from the Sacrament, and not to Excommunicate, is to make them imperfect. If then they are furnished with power, they must likewise have Ability, for what Christ gives power to do, to that he gives ability sufficient.
If it should be said, that Congregational Elders do but Govern in foro interno, I answer 1. That's the same that the Bishops allowed, only unto Pastor of Congregations, affirming themselves had only the external Judicature. Then 2. They rule more than in foro interno, for they set up an outward Judicature in a Church of Elders, united in common, even while they Admonish in common, and suspend from the Sacrament in common.
So that to conclude this Argument, to say that they are insufficient for Ability and Power; it is 1. A wrong to Christ, in Reproaching his means, as insufficient to his ends. It is 2. A wrong to the Presbytery itself; it is enough to take away the power from them; but to take away a Man's power and his Estate, and make him a Ward under pretence, that he is not able to manage it, or hath no power to do it, is the greatest wrong that can be. 3. If some Elders and Congregations be found insufficient, then they are insufficient to be Elders, put them out, or let them only be Wards, shall the Law be general for their sakes? 4. If you ask what is a sufficient Eldership? We ask you what is an insufficient? And wherein insufficiency lieth? And let not Churches be kept imperfect (when it is their due to have a sufficient Eldership) that under the pretence of that, the necessity of Presbyterial Government may appear. But as in case of Separation, the Assembly hath affirmed, that if there be a want of officers, or the like, it is required that there be a supply, and that there be not a Separation; so in Congregations, let there be a sufficient Eldership, let there be a supply, let not the power be taken away. For thus the Bishops took away Ruling Elders, and did leave but one Pastor in a Congregation, that so they might have the better pretence to govern, and to do all themselves.
CHAP. II.
The fourth and fifth and sixth Arguments, to prove a single Congregation, to be a complete Subject of Ecclesiastical power, drawn 1. From being a Body of Christ completely ordained, 2. Because Worship and Government are Commensurate. 3. From the Nature of Excommunication.
Arg. 4. THEY, that are a Body organized with all the Members, have all the privileges of a Body; but a Church having a company of Elders, especially if of all sorts, is a body to Christ, and completely organized. The completeness of the Natural body, lies not in the multitude of Members, but in having all. And that such a body thus complete, should not have all power that a body can be supposed to have over its Members, is very strange. And again; that power and liberty, which is to be given to every brother in his proportion, is to be given to every complete body of Christ, in the like proportion as it is a body. Now every brother hath power as a brother (and as it is his Duty) to withdraw from him he doth judge to walk inordinately, 2 Thess. 3. 5. And then everybody that is rightly organized, must therefore have power as a Body, to a suitable proportion, to cut off any rotten Member; and if it can heal itself, to do it of itself, the Law of Nature will teach it, as it is a Body so to do. That is not a sound Body, that hath not strength to purge out it's own Excrements. All Bodies and Societies of Men, have power still within themselves, to cast out any who are Destructive to the Society, so Families have, (every lump purgeth out its own Leaven) and every particular Company in a Greater City, have that power so far as their own company reacheth.
The power which the Synagogues had and exercised, Congregations surely may have now. The Sanhedrin might give the Law in the Abstract directing, who and what kind of Persons were to be cast out, and for what; but they meddled not with the particular Sentence, and applying of it to any Man; nor did the Towns and Cities that judged in their Gates. Neither were the Synagogues bound to advise, but only when the case was difficult, which is clearly by this; that the Jews had Synagogues in all the Cities of the Gentiles, dispersed up and down the World, and had their several Rulers in them; and they were not bound to come up to Jerusalem, to the Sanhedrin. These Synagogues, though they could not cast out of the Temple, yet cast out of themselves they might; and therefore a Man was cast out of the Synagogue.
As we argue in the case of Baptism of Children, that God hath not straitened, but rather enlarged his Grace, and the Liberty and Promises thereof under the Gospel; so we do argue here, that the liberty of such Assemblies, (as the Synagogues were) which Christ hath now Instituted, must have all the privileges they had, and so much the more, by how much, that the Assemblies of the Saints now are more Noble, than Synagogues were then; they being called a Temple, the House of God, a Holy Nation, and a Royal Priesthood; and upon every Assembly, under the Gospel, God Creating a Cloud and a Pillar of Fire, these have all the promises and privileges, that the Temple and the Nation of the Jews had, therefore surely as much as the Synagogues. The Prophet Jerem. 3. 16. makes the privilege of every Church, under the Gospel, to be as great as that of the Temple at Jerusalem, where the Ark was, the place where God did choose for the Sanhedrin to sit in, and to govern that Nation. In those days, (saith he, speaking of the times of the Gospel) they shall say no more the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord (which therefore must needs be meant of the times of the Gospel; for the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, was the chiefest privilege, under the Law, till Christ) neither shall it come into mind, neither shall they remember it, neither shall they visit it, neither shall that be done anymore; But instead thereof, he takes one of a City, and one of a Family, and brings them to Zion, takes not the Nation, but Selects some out of the Nation; and gives them Pastors according to his own Heart, as a greater privilege than that of rhe Ark, and therefore it is meant of Congregational Assemblies; for to them Pastors are fixedly and properly given to feed them with Knowledge and Understanding. And if that every Congregation enjoyeth a greater privilege than the Ark of the Lord, in having such Pastors; then surely it should also be governed by them, as the Synagogues also were by their Rulers, who were called Rulers of the Synagogue, not of the Synagogues; for each Synagogue had more Rulers than one, for the Government of them, as they were a Synagogue, Mar. 5. 22.
Arg. 5. If the Seat of Worship and Government be commensurable, and of equal extent: Then a single Congregation, as it is the Seat of Worship, so of Government. Now for Worship, none else do meet but Congregations; and if the Temple, Altar, and Worshippers, be measured by the same line, Rev. 11. the power that is in the Temple, is likewise so measured. If Altar and Judicature, be of like extent also (as they are, since the end of Discipline is to keep Worship pure) then where the constant Worship is, there should be constant Discipline, especially if Excommunication be a part of Worship, as was said afore, as well as Admonitions are: It cannot be otherwise, but that the proceedings of the whole Discipline, Admonitions, and all, should be before the whole Church, which is as well to be edified by it, as by Preaching; and therefore particular Congregations are to be the Seat of it: Thus we shown before, that the main end of a Church was Worship, and that Discipline was the Appendix thereunto, to keep the Worship pure; and that so Christ under the Gospel, had made the bounds of a Church, to be measured by that of Worship, Rev. 11. 1. Measure the Temple and the Altar, and the Worshippers; and so all that belongs unto it. And this Worship and Government for the State of it, are of equal extent, commensurable one to the other, which is made out by this; that all sorts of Churches that ever were, had Worship and Government of equal extent. Before the Law, when there was a Church in the House, and it went in a Family-way, as the Worship was in the Family, so the Disciple was in that Family; and Excommunication was a casting out of that Family; so in Adam's Family, it is said of Gain, that he fled from the presence of the Lord, that is, from his Father's House. When as God did make a Nation a Church, the Church of the Jews (as 'tis called, Acts 7.) in the Wilderness, they did set all their Tents about the Tabernacle, and so, as one Church, they saw the Sacrifices. And when they were at Jerusalem, they had answerably a National Worship, they had Ordinances, as they were a National Church; therefore the Sanhedrin was to sit in the place that God should choose, to be there for Government, as well as he appointed the Sacrifices to be there. And for that Moral Worship in the Synagogues, so far forth, as they were the Seat of Worship, Prayer, and reading the Word, &c. so they had also casting out of the Synagogues: And although the Sanhedrin might make Laws, for what sins to do it; yet the exercise of it was by the proper Rulers, who are called therefore Rulers of the Synagogues. It is therefore Baines, his Argument against Diocesan Churches, that there could be no such Churches, because there was no public Ordinances of Worship, as was in the National Churches of the Jews, unto which the Males came. And yet the Episcopal Government kept up this principle, for as they had a Diocesan Government, so they had a Cathedral Worship in the same place, as in a Mother Church, like that Representative Worship of Sacrifices in Jerusalem; and they had set meetings at them, to which all came up; and therefore their principles, in this, was better than this of the Presbyteries, for they had a Worship and a Government, that was commensurable.
Object. 1. The performing of Acts of Worship by a Minister, belongs to the power of Order; but the power of Jurisdiction is a further thing. A Minister may Administer the Sacrament, and perform a work of Order alone; but he cannot Govern alone, but he must be joined with others; and therefore Worship and Government are not commensurable.
Answ. The question is not of the power, but of the extent of the State both of Worship and Government. He that is a Minister, and can alone perform an Act of public Worship, yet he must do it in a public Congregation; and so although it be done alone by his person, yet not beyond the extent of a Congregation, but still according to the limits and bounds of it. Now the Seat of Government, and the extent thereof, is commensurable to the Seat of Worship; so as although he cannot perform an Act of Government alone in the Congregation, but with others; yet still those others are but to be those, who belong to that Congregation, whereto he is a Minister, or an Elder for performing Acts of Worship.
Object. 2. The Apostles had a Latitude of power over all sort of Churches, and therefore the extent of Worship, and the power of Government, are not commensurable.
Answ. Although the Apostles had, in their Persons, power of Government over all Churches; yet still they exercised that power (for acts of censure) but when they were, in any of those Congregations, not in a consistory out of those Churches, but as personally present in the Churches. And therefore the Apostle saith, When I come, I will do so and so; and shall I come with a Rod? 1 Cor. 4. 19, 20, 21. And when they came to any particular Church, it was an Apostolic privilege proper to them, which is not communicable to other Elders, they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fellow-Elders, (as Peter's Phrase is, 1 Pet. 5.) in everyone of those Churches; and did for that time concur in the Government of that Church, though with the interest of an Apostle. So as still de facto, the exercise of all their Government, was in a Congregation; and as they Administred not the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper alone, or out of Churches, so nor did they Excommunicate, but as joined with a particular Church; nor did they choose Officers or Elders, but as present with Churches, whom these were to be Officers to. They might give Doctrinal Directions to Churches, concerning Government, in which they were infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost; but acts of Government, they performed not, but in the Churches themselves, and as concreted and becoming one with that particular Church; and therefore the Churches remained as distinct Churches, notwithstanding they were under Apostolical Government; and many Churches are nowhere called one Church, because under an Apostle.
Arg. 6. That a single Congregation, with it's Elders, is an entire Seat of Government, is proved from the Nature of Excommunication itself.
1. Excommunication relateth to Communion, and Communion with Churches is either fixed, and in a constant way, or occasional. To throw a Man out of occasional Communion, is not Excommunication, it is but a secondary act, that supposeth first to throw him out of a fixed Communion. It is but Non-communion, or denial of Communion, and keeping of him out of it, as all other remote Churches may do. And the Execution of the act, is from the power of Christ; and that promise which he hath made, I will be in the midst among you, when thus gathered together, Mat. 18. 20. whereas the way of Presbytery classical Excommunication, is as if the congregation was gathered in the Name of the Pretbyters, and with their power; and that they could promise to be in the midst among them. Excommunication therefore, formally and properly is a casting him out of a fixed Communion; therefore that Church, which actually doth hold a fixed communion with him, hath that power, and to them properly must belong the casting of him out. Do not ye judge them that are within, saith the Apostle? 1 Cor. 5. 12. And so far as any were Within to them, so far they had Power over them. Now to that particular Congregation, whereof a Man is a Member, a Man is so Within, in respect of a fixed communion as to no Church else in the World; there is therefore a Power of throwing of him out, belonging to them, which belongs to no Church, nor unto all the Churches in the World. Other Churches can but throw him out of an occasional communion as he shall come to them, and therefore answerably, their throwing of him out must be but occasionally, as he shall at any time offer to come to them. Hence therefore the formal act of Excommunication must needs be proper unto them, whom he holdeth a fixed communion with. Add to this, that other Churches can throw him out, but of that communion which he holds with them, and the communion ordinarily, he holds with them, is but as being a Member of a Church associated with them (supposing such an association) and as far as their interest goes, so far their power may go, they may throw him out of their association, but no further. But Excommunication is a throwing of a Man out of a fixed communion of all Ordinances for Worship, now such a communion he holds not with other Churches. They may indeed throw him out of their own Within, which is, for the fixed part of it, but a matter of association for Government; but the Congregations, Within, are in respect of ordinary communion in Worship. Now answerable unto their Interest is their Power; and therefore Excommunication is to take him from the midst of them (from among you, 1 Cor. 5. 13.) with whom he did use to Worship. The very import of the word Excommunication is Excommuni caetu, the formal and direct act therefore of Excommunication is to throw him out of that fixed communion, which he had. It is a casting out of all other Churches consequently, yea out of the visible Catholic Church consequently, but formally it is only out of that particular Church whereof he is a Member. Other Churches, by virtue of their communion together, may ratify it by approving it, but that Church, which the act properly concerns in the formality of it▪ is a particular Church whereof he is a Member, and therefore answerably the formal power must lie there. And although this Government of Christ hath been never so much corrupted by a power set over Congregations, yet still the act of Excommunication (or at least the execution) hath been performed in the particular Churches whereof a Man is a Member.
2. Where and by whom that act is done, that excommunicateth a Man, there the power and the main of the power must lie, (for the substance of the act) and there alone. But in particular Congregations, and by the Elders of the People thereof, that act alone is done, by which a Man actually is cut off from communion with all other Churches, and whereby he is excommunicated; Therefore that particular Congregation is the only, or at least the main substantial subject of that power, whereby a Man is excommunicated. We have an instance in the Church of Corinth, when the Apostle directs them to deliver that Man unto Satan, when they were met together. Whether the Man was excommunicated, or no, it matters not, however the direction was given, and the direction falls upon the very act itself, when and where it was actually to be executed and done, and in them it puts the power; When ye are met together in the Name, and with the Power of the Lord Jesus, deliver such a Man to Satan, 1 Cor. 5. 4, 5. There's the Act, and there's the Power, all meet together, and he speaks of the ultimate act of Excommunication; and where, and in what Meeting that is to be done amongst them, there the power resideth.
1. In all Spiritual Ordinances, the power is inseparable from the act: And therefore to make the power whereby a Man is excommunicated to lie in one Assembly, and the act of excommunication to be performed in another, is to divide what Christ hath put together. He that baptizeth hath the power of baptizing, and he that preacheth of preaching, and so those that actually excommunicate of excommunication, and the act is more than the sentence. If therefore they have the greater committed to them; they must needs have the less. And,
2. Whom Jesus Christ betrusteth with the act, he must betrust them the power, because his power, whereof their's is but the execution, doth accompany their act, and therefore Paul saith, when you are met with the Power of the Lord Jesus, give such an one unto Satan. It is not as in Civil cases, there the power lies in the Sentence, but here in the Execution. And indeed the ultimate Sentence lies in the Execution, and is all one with it, when in the presence of all the Church it is said, We deliver this Man to Satan. And therefore,
3. In Scripture the Power is expressed by the Act. Paul saith, Whom I did deliver unto Satan; and so ordination is called the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery. The Power of the Presbytery is expressly their act; and therefore where the Act lies, the Power must lie.
Now we ask this Question, Whether a Man be actually Excommunicated and delivered up unto Satan, until he is so delivered up at a Meeting of that particular Church whereof he is a Member, Elders and People being present? We are not now inquiring what proceedings are to go before, preparatory hereunto; but this is that we contend for, that where the Act is done which ultimately Excommunicates him, there the substance of the Power lies.
Whereas it may be answered, that the Execution is in the Congregation, but the Sentence is in the Presbytery; as in Civil Courts it is where the Man is Sentenced by the Judges, but actually Executed by the Sheriffs. We reply,
1. That Instances of Civil proceedings will not hold here. For the Sentence by the Judge is that authoritative Act, as by him that hath the Power in Law to cut the Man off; but to Execute the Man, to put him to Death, that's an act of Nature which any Man can do, though he, that doth it, is to do it lawfully, by virtue of the Sentence; but the Act, whereby the Man is in Law killed, is the Sentence, and therefore he is from that time Civiliter Mortuus, dead in Law. But so it is not in this Spiritual act of binding of Sin, and of delivering unto Satan; there must be a power, and an authority that is in the persons that doth accompany them, and that as met together. And the Execution of the Act is from the Power of Christ, and that promise which he hath made, I will be in the midst among you, when thus gathered together, Mat. 18. 20. Whereas the way of Presbyterial Classical Excommunication, is as if the Congregation was gathered in the name of the Presbyters, and with their Power, and that they could promise to be in the midst among them. And however there may be, many preparatory acts unto it, yet the thing is not done till it be done, by them that have the Power. And therefore if the Classical Presbytery will challenge it, they must all be present, but if the Congregation must do it, it is an evident argument that the power lies there.
2. If the Classical Presbytery had the power hereof, then when they do Sentence him to be Excommunicated, they ought actually to Excommunicate him, and complete it, for to say that the power should be in them and not the act, when as those that do the act are to meet and gather together in the power of the Lord Jesus, is very inconsistent. If they do not actually Excommunicate, what they do must be only a doctrinal direction, that the Man deserveth to be Excommunicated, such as the Apostle put forth in case of neglect, when he gave his judgment, I have judged already (saith he, 1 Cor. 5.) Let such a one be delivered unto Satan, &c. But he acknowledgeth the power to be in them, for saith he Do not ye judge them that are within? And therefore he saith not, I have delivered him, but that he be delivered. And it is in this as in case, suppose of Baptism, that a Minister had neglected his duty to Baptize one, and the Apostle had sent to him, to Baptize him, and given his Sentence, such a one should be Baptized, and should further press it, do not you Baptize such and such a one, do not you use to do it? So he speaks here, Do not ye judge them that are within? Do you not use to do it? Now as in this case, the question will be whether the power of Baptizing lay in the Apostle or in the Minister, that upon this doth Baptize? Certainly in the Minister, and he doth that by an immediate commission from Christ. For he that doth the substance of the Act, in him the power lies; though he may be directed in a case of neglect by an Apostle when alive. And so now though' a particular Congregation in case of a neglect may be called upon, and urged by other Churches, yet still in the one case as in the other, in them the Power lies by whom the substance of the Act is done. Neither yet do we hereby intend to give that power to a Classical Presbytery that the Apostle had over Corinth, but only we allege it thus far, that though the Apostle had Power to command now when absent, and if he had been present, had power to have concurred with them in the very act, that yet still the power lay in them, without the Apostle, to have proceeded, by whom the Act was to be done according to the Apostle's direction.
3. According to Presbyterial practices, it is evident that the power is not in them, but in the Congregation; for after that they have Sentenced a Man to be Excommunicated, and it is to be supposed, that his sin is ripe for Excommunication; and that he is obstinate enough, to be now Excommunicated, then it should be presently acted and done, if the power were in them. But they stay the Execution of it, in the particular Congregation, for three days; they give him three Admonitions more, and the People are to pray for him; and so they do manifestly, de facto, hereby put the ultimate judgment of his impenitence into the Congregation, and the ultimate act of Execution also. For if the Man did Repent, they were not to Excommunicate him; and because they judge him to continue impenitent, they do Excommunicate him, according to the Presbyterial practices.
If it be answered, as it is by some, that the Sentence, by virtue of which he standeth Excommunicated, is that of the Classical Presbytery, and that the Elders of the Congregation, are but the Praecones, they do not exercise the substance of the Act, only declare and publish it: Then we reply.
1. That here is more than a promulgation, not only because it is not presently done; but because other means of Admonitions, as Ordinances of Christ are applied to him, to bring him to Repentance; and if so, it is apparent, that when the Classical Presbytery Intended him to Excommunication, that he was then not fit for Excommunication; for why should these Authoritative Admonitions of his own Elders come afterwards? They may as well continue their Admonitions, publicly after his Excommunication. Now if his sin were not fit for excommunication, so as they might take it upon their Consciences, he ought not now to be excommunicated, then by virtue of their Sentence, he is not excommunicated, when he is excommunicated; for they Sentenced him, when his sin was not ripe for it. So that according to their own practices, they make the Presbyterie's act to be but a Doctrinal discernment, that in such a case, if he continues thus and thus obstinate, he is to be excommunicated. But
2. That, which the Elders in the Congregation do, is more than to be Praecones of the Sentence of the Presbytery; and their delivering of him to Satan, actually, is more than a publishing, not only because they do Authoritatively as Elders, Admonish him after the Presbyterie's Sentence (and if they do Authoritatively Admonish him, certainly they do Authoritatively also excommunicate him after their Admonitions, if he continues impenitent) but also because when it is done, they call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus; and they do it in the Name, and with the power of the Lord Jesus. If it were a mere promulgation, there needed no invocation, as an act of theirs.
3. Again, if the Form of the Sentence, whereby the Elders of the Congregation do excommunicate him, be considered, do not they say; We, in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and with his power, deliver thee to Satan to excommunicate thee. Yea, were not that Congregation in Corinth, to do so, which the Man belonged unto? Whereas if the Classical Presbytery had the power, and these were only the publishers; then the Classical Presbytery were only to use those words, because the power was in them; and the Ministers were only to declare, that such an one was excommunicated by them, in the Name of the Lord Jesus. And if so, then all the Eldership of a Congregation are to the Classis, but even as Curates are to the Bishops: And indeed, the Bishop's principles are more consonant to themselves, than this; for they say, that the act of excommunication is done, and absolved, and perfected in their Courts; and that the Curate doth only promulge it (as their manner is) but that the Man is indeed excommunicated by the Bishop. But here there is a pretence of leaving the substance of the act, to be formally done and executed by the Elders of the Congregation; and yet a denial, that a power to do it lies in them; and the power to do it, assumed to be in them, who yet profess they do not actually excommunicate.
4. If they were only Praecones, then any Man may do it, as well as the Elders of his own Church.
If it be objected, that, in a Congregation itself, when it is done, it is done by one Man that pronounceth it, the Pastor of the place, or the like.
The answer is 1. That as in Prayer, when the Pastor is the Mouth of all the People unto God, he is but the Mouth of those People that are present, and do join with him; and it is their act, and not the act of Men absent: So it is here, in this act he is the Mouth of the Elders, and the whole Congregation as present, as of God to throw this Man out: But to make the Elders of the Congregation, and the whole Congregation, to be but the publishers of what the Presbytery hath done, when they were absent, this is indeed to make them mere publishers, which any Man may do, yea, they themselves may do it, by fixing it upon the Church Door.
CHAP. III.
The seventh Argument, to prove that a single Congregation, is the entire seat of Church-power, because thus there appears a Harmony in all •• e Ecclesiastical Administrations.
Argu. AS we proved, that the constitution falls upon particular Churches, by showing how naturally all things fall out in that way; and what distortions are in the other: So for the confirmation of the complete power of particular Churches, for matter of Government, we shall now proceed in the like way of Argument. For the upholding of the Subordinations of Congregational and Classical Assemblies; and of many Congregations, being under one common Presbytery, made up of the Elders fixed to several Congregations, the Presbyterial Divines are forced to invent multitude of distinctions and divisions, thereby to uphold their principles. They are forced to make one Church for Worship, and another Church merely for Discipline, a Church Real, which is of the Saints, the Body of the Faithful, that are a Church to Christ; and a Church Representative in their Elders, meeting in a Classical Assembly: A Church incomplete and imperfect (such they make Congregations:) A Church perfect and complete for Government, (such they make a Classical Presbytery) yea, indeed as was observed before, they must make three sorts of Churches, to make up one. 1. A Church of the Faithful (for so the Brethren are called, in distinction from the Elders) 2. The Eldership of each Congregation, a Representative Church thereof; and 3. A Church Classical, the Elders of all those Congregations assembled in one. They must also be put upon finding out a double Presbytery, for ordering of Government; one Congregational, the other Classical; when yet they are not able to give one note or character of such distinction in the Scriptures. Yea further, to answer our Arguments, they have been fain to say, that the Elders of particular Congregations have the relation of Elders, in Sensu diviso, to each Congregation; but the Relation only of an Eldership, in sensu conjuncto, as met in a Classical Presbytery, to all and each of these Congregations. And then also they must find out distinctions of the difference of Duties, what the Elders owe to a particular Church; and what to all the Congregations in common. They must also make the same persons, to be Preaching Elders in the exercise of their Office, to their particular Congregations; and Ruling Elders also in the exercise of their Office, to all the rest. And yet are not able to make any Foot-steps of any such distinction, or of any such boundary of Duties. And as the Reformed Churches, would not have made that distinction of those several sorts of Elders, under the New Testament, had they not had distinct and peculiar characters of some, that ruled, of others that especially labored in the Word and Doctrine, Rom. 12. 8. He that Ruleth, let him wait on Ruling, he that Exhorteth on Exhortation, he that Teacheth, on Teaching. And unless they had found these Foot-steps of Distinction, bounding their several Offices, they would never have invented these several sorts of Elders; nor could they be able to maintain these several sorts without them. So if there cannot be found like warrant, for all the Presbyterian distinctions, can they be able to say, that Jesus Christ hath made these several sorts of Churches, and these various Reflections of Elders, and their Duties, &c. And thus whilst to them, there are many Bodies, and many Churches; and Lord's many, and Presbyteries many; our way is single, natural, uniform, and to us there is but one Church, one Presbytery, having mutual relation one unto another. One Church for the Seat of Worship, the same Church for the Seat of Discipline; and hereby all these groundless Distinctions are in a few words taken away.
Now as in the point of Institution of Congregational Churches, this uniformity is a confirmation to us, and the contrary is an evidence of the falseness of the constitution of the other: So when the point of power cometh to be disputed, what shall belong to each Congregation, the observation of the like uniformity in ours, and distortion in theirs, confirmeth us that the power is completely and entirely in each Congregation, having a particular Eldership of itself. As before they are put to distinguish, so now in this to part and divide the power between the Congregations, and these Classical Presbyteries; and that for ordinary Government. Their being out of the right way, produceth manifold distortions, their Administrations of the Discipline, differing from the Rules and Practices held forth by Christ, and his Apostles in their Epistles, unto which the placing the power wholly and entirely, and completely, in a particular Congregation, falleth uniform and suitable.
Presbyterial Divines, finding that particular Congregations were Churches, and that as such they are intended, in Mat. 18. Tell the Church, for shame they could not take all power from them, but they must allot them some; because they were a Church: And yet because they could not uphold the constant and ordinary intermeddling (and that not by way of Appeal) of a classical Presbytery, which did challenge it's primary cognizance, and right in Excommunication, as well as the Congregations, however therefore they divided the power, and they put part of the power in one, and part in the other. They put the Sentence of Excommunication in a classical Church, and the Execution of it in the Congregational; and so indeed they do make two sort of Governments ordinary, for one and the same suit or cause or matter, and person to be proceeded against. The particular Eldership of the Congregation proceedeth so far, as to admonish, and to suspend from the Sacrament; and then when the Man is obstinate, the classical Congregation saith; bring him to us, ere you presume to Excommunicate him, that we may admonish him again, and so he may be found further obstinate; and then for the Execution, carry him down again to the Congregation, and let him be admonished, before all by the Elders thereof, and then again if obstinate Excommunicate him. Surely if to complete Excommunication, there had been such divided proceedings in, Mat. 18. Jesus Christ would have said, Go tell the Churches, and not the Church▪ for it cannot be denied, but that these are distinct Churches, the Congregational and Presbyterial. Whereas to us, as there is but one Congregation and Presbytery, so but one complete and entire Government, whereof that congregation is the Seat. And however the knowledge of the matter may be first given to the Elders, and by way of preparatory cognizance, they may consider of it, (to cut off accusations impertinent, and apparently defective) yet therein they proceed not by Authority; but all that they do in an authoritative way, is done before the whole Congregation, to the edification of all; and so there is but one sort of public proceeding, whereas our Presbyterian Brethren have many.
Now to Demonstrate the Distortions of Administrations in their way, and the Nullity of founding any such divisions and parting of Government and Proceedings, we present these considerations.
1. According to their own principles and practices, this division of power, and proceeding, to complete an act of Government and Excommunication, is not paralleled with, or uniform to the power and the proceedings, in those other Subordinances of Churches or Assemblies, which they would have erected for Government. It is known, that they make five several Subordinations. 1. Oecumenical. 2. National. 3. Provincial. 4. Classical. 5. Congregational. And all these are built but upon this one ground (the same that a Congregation puts in for) that they are all Churches; only the greater still having power over the lesser, as is affirmed, they are cast into these Subordinations. Now then let but the same be granted to Congregations in this its lowred condition; let it but have the same proportion of Subordination to itself, in comparison of classical, that the rest have one to another; let all these contignations, that consist of lower and upper Rooms, be but uniform in this Model; and then, until a Congregation doth miscarry in its Excommunication, it must needs have all the power within itself. For Classical and Provincial, which are the two next Subordinations, each to other, Provincial and National, do not divide a power of proceeding, to complete one act of Government between them; (so as the Classical should have one part, and the Provincial another; or the Provincial one part, and the National another; and so as after the lower hath performed his part, it should be brought to a higher, to complete the Sentence) but each of them have an entire and complete power, to perfect what they take in hand to Excommunication; and matters are carried from one to another, but only by way of Appeal, and that too after they have completed the Sentence and Execution; having full power to Excommunicate within themselves. Why then should the Congregational in its Conjunction and Subordination, to and with a Classical Presbytery, be more injured, than all the rest? Why should the Classical alone put in to divide the Lands with them, and go half, and the greater half; and not suffer the Congregational to perfect, and complete the Sentence of Excommunication, as well as any of the other; and so all to be brought (if at all) only by way of Appeal to them? Whereas now all is brought to the classical Presbytery, from the Congregational, in a way of imperfection and deficiency of power, to complete the Sentence. And this is the greater injury, in as much that one of the great Arguments, that (until of late, and of late also) hath been pleaded for the power of classical Presbyteries, and so of Synods, is but from the analogy of the Congregation's Right, that what power they have over a Brother, a Classis should have over a Congregation (as in our Kingdom, the Plea of Inheritance of the Eldest Son of a Yeoman, is the same with that of Nobles and Gentry; yea, and in the Throne itself) But why alone should the poor Congregations be made Copy-Holders, when all the rest are free and entire in their own acts of Judicature.
2. Our Presbyterian Brethren by this, makes two Courts of Judicature for one and the same cause; which is not ordinarily found amongst Men. It's true indeed, in Human Courts, the lower have only lesser matters or faults committed to them, Debts of such a value; and Higher Courts have those that are of an Higher Nature, or a greater value. But look what matters are committed to them, they are able to pass a final and complete Sentence upon them, and have power to execute it, if an Appeal be not made; and if once a Suit be put in, they have power to end it, else it is no Court. But here now the Congregational Elders, are allowed to intermeddle, and have Authority in all Causes, even those that are the greatest, and the most Heinous sins that deserve excommunication, without any controversy and difficulty; but then they are allowed to proceed but so far in it, and then to bring it to the Classical Assembly for Sentence, where all must be heard over again, ere they can proceed to a Sentence; and then it is brought to the People, and there it is acted over again. And thus as they make two sort of Churches, one for Discipline, and another for Government, and part the Seat of Government and Discipline; so for to complete an act of one and the same Discipline, they make two several Courts; and that not by parting them, by distribution of causes of less and of greater moment only; but of acts of Judicature. And whereas the Classis pretends, that it's the perfect and complete Church, and the Congregational imperfect; according to these practices, it makes nothing more perfect, than the Congregational doth, as the Law did not; but when the case is brought to this same perfect Church, yet it is forced to send the party down again to the Congregational (which is the imperfect Church) there to have the Sentence completed.
3. Whereas the Apostles, in their Rules for Public Admonitions, do make them to be two or three, Tit. 3. 10. An heretic, after one or two Admonitions reject as obstinate: This way of proceeding makes three sort of public Admonitions, to the number of six or seven. It makes three obstinacies, and three public Sentences against a Man that is excommunicated. First he is admonished by a particular Eldership (and we would know whether those be not public Admonitions, yea or no, such as the Apostle intendeth; which is done by a public Court, to which we presume they will say, that all the People may come, and in that respect it is to be accounted public, or if not; yet that, which is done by public Persons, in a public Judicature, is public Admonition) Then before they bring him to the Classis, they must judge and censure him as obstinate, and that by a Major vote, or he is not further to be brought (and we believe they will not censure him to be obstinate, unless he hath had one or two Admonitions, and that by them) there's the first obstinacy. Then he is brought before the Classical Presbytery, who are to Sentence him to be excommunicated (which we believe they will not do, unless they also also have by Admonitions, tried whether he hath been obstinate and impenitent, or no, upon those means which they are to use also, which is Admonition) then he is brought before the Congregation, there he is Admonished again over and over. And is it for the good of the Man, or is it for the satisfaction of the People, that they may see him obstinate, that he hath so good Admonitions given him? It cannot be merely for the satisfaction of his obstinacy, unless these Admonitions can be supposed fit to work upon him. And then again in the third place, he is to be judged obstinate after all those, or else he is not to be excommunicated; for if he Repented after all these, they are to forbear. And we may add, that they must needs make a judging of as many Repentances for his Absolution; and the judging of his Repentance must be a personal experience. Thus they multiply public proceedings, beyond the Rule, whereas the proportion of Christ's patience seems to be set.
4. How doth the dividing of things thus retard their proceedings, in case of open and manifest Scandals? How must needs so many removes rather harden the Man, than soften him, and instead of being a means of doing him good, be a vexation to him? The pretence is, that hereby Scandal is avoided, if the party Repents; but the Truth is, this enlargeth it; for either the Scandal is a thing commonly known in the Congregation of the People, and then it is best to have it examined and cleared, and that before them presently, if it may be, either by his Repentance afore them, that they may be Witnesses thereof, or by his appearing innocent. If it be not known commonly and ordinarily abroad, it is more Scandal to have it brought to strangers, than to have it to be kept in his own Church: especially if that those, of all the Churches (who are interested in what the Elders of the Classical Presbytery do) or any of them may be present at pleasure.
5. This Presbyterian way of Excommunication, causeth ordinances to be misplaced, a less effectual, after a more effectual; for those Admonitions by his own Elders before the Congregation, being the last (according to order of Nature, in all Remedies, according to Christ's order and degrees of proceeding, in Mat. 18. and according to God's order in his dealing with us) must be supposed more powerfully effectual, than the first: And yet if the power of Sentencing the Man be in the Classical Presbytery, by virtue of which he is excommunicated; that must be supposed to be more effectual, to bring him to Repentance. And then also they let their Classical Admonitions be the last, before excommunication, whereas if those before the Congregation be acknowledged to be the more effectual, then where the more effectual Admonitions, according to the ordinance of Christ, are supposed to lie in order to excommunication, there the power of excommunication must be supposed to lie also.
6. A 6th Distortion is, the deformity that is occasioned by putting an interest into those two sort of Churches, Congregational and Classical, in the point of excommunication, and dividing the power between them; one for the Sentence, the other for the Execution. Which will appear from that interest the People have, comensurable with the power that the Elders are to have. We speak not now of joining in the Sentence of Excommunication, and of suffrage in the Judgment, which will make a distinct argument, and is as strong as any of the rest, for power of excommunication to be proper and peculiar to a Congregational Church, and to prove that what ever other power Classical Presbyteries or Synods pretend to; yet of all other, they can claim no interest in this; because in them, there is wanting one sort or kind of Judges, into whose Hands God hath put the power. But suppose for the present, that the whole People have but an interest of presence only, at the Admonitions that are to be given to the party afore excommunication, and at the act of excommunication itself; and give them but the lowest kind of consent that may be, a Tacit consent, when the act is to be done; yet allow them to be present, that thereby such a Tacit consent may be held forth, and that they may be edified thereby; and that by mourning, over the party, his Heart may be broken, and the more wrought upon; and their Consciences may be satisfied in the justness of his excommunication; because that they are to join in the execution of it, and not so much as to eat with him afterwards. Now this interest, both Presbyterian principles and Preachers, do give and allow unto the People of that particular Church, whereto he doth belong▪ Yea the Papists themselves, who do hold, that what is done, in the Congregation, is but the promulgation of the excommunication, already completed in the Bishop's consistory; yet give so much to the people, to that particular Congregation, whereof he is a Member, that there should be a promulgation. See the Rhemist's notes on 1 Cor. 5. But Presbyterian principles do give more; for they will not excommunicate, if the People be against it; yea, a whole National Assembly, if they should determine it, would yet stop the execution, if the people be against it. And therefore we argued afore, from dividing Discipline itself, and from the Sentence of excommunication, being given to the Presbyterian Classes, and the execution unto the Elders in the Congregations, so we shall now argue from the Deformity or Distortion, that is between the power given to the Elders of those Churches, as one Church, compared with the interest of the people of these Churches, considered as one Church also.
The interest, that these Classical Elders come to have together, with the Elders of the Congregation in the Sentence, must be, because that they are Elders of all those Congregations, as of one Church. For the strength of the argument, that is alleged by the Presbyterial Divines, for such a Classical Eldership, is, that many Congregations make one Church, whereof these Elders, in common, are the Representation; and when they pronounce the Sentence of excommunication, as Elders of all those Congregations, as one Church, which they are an Eldership unto; and by that one individual act of theirs, the Man is authoritatively and (so far as concerns the interest of Elders) in a special manner excommunicated out of all those Congregations, whereto they are an Eldership, as well as out of his own (so far as the Sentence goes) in such a special manner, as belongeth not to the next Churches of the Presbyteries about, but by virtue of that forementioned special relation. And this common Eldership, in this Sentence of theirs, must either have the relation of an Eldership, only to that particular Church, whereof this Man is a Member; so as that particular Church, and that common Eldership make up the adequate Relation of Church and Eldership, in and for this their Act, or this Eldership hath a relation to all the Congregations. If the first be asserted, then there would be so many several Relations of Elderships and Churches, as there are Churches, upon occasion. For this common Eldership, and this particular Church, would be one Church in this act for this time, and for this Man's excommunication; and they would be another Church at another time, in relation to another Man's excommunication, in another particular Church, which were observed. And if they act in this act, as a common Eldership to all the Congregations, as one Church; then the Sentence doth formally cast the Man (so far as the Sentence goes) out of all those Churches, as well as out of his own; and by one single entire individual act, they do as Elders to this Church, excommunicate him formally out of these Churches, and but virtually only, and consequently out of all other Churches, belonging to other Presbyteries, as out of the Universal itself. And so far as the power of the Sentence reacheth in this common classical Presbytery, he is afterward cast out executively in that particular Church, whereof he is more especially a Member, by the same way of Authority, by which he is cast out of that one Church, whereto he doth belong. For these classical Elders, being in their Vote a Church Representative, they Represent that Church, whereof the Man is a Member, as making one with all the rest of the Churches.
Now then, make these three things proportionable. 1. Make this interest of the people of all these Churches, in their kind and relation, proportionable to the interest of the Elders to all these Churches, in their kind and relation, these making one Church and they being but a common Eldership, because these are one Church. And 2. Make the interest of execution, but answerable to the interest of Sentence. Yea 3. Make the interest of the Elders of that particular Church, whereof the Person is a Member, but answerable to the interest of the People of that particular Church, whereof he is a Member; and there will appear so great a Distortion in the Presbyterian Government, thus sharing with the Congregational, as will confute and overthrow it; and such an uniform in the Congregational, as will establish it.
1. As for the first, there is all the reason in the World, that if these classical Elders do lay the pretence to their common Power and Authority, because these Churches are one Church (and they are all one Church in respect of the People, as well as of all the Elders) if this be the Foundation of their Plea, if it ariseth from this Relation and Respect; then look what interest the Elders, as Elders, can pretend to, as one Church, being one Church Representative; that individual and like interest, must the People, that are one Church, also lay claim to; for there is a disproportion, a great and a manifest Disproportion, in giving that to the Elders, as Elders of a Church, that is not given to the people, according to their proportion, as a Church. As then by these Elders, in common, the Sentence of Excommunication goes forth, and the Man is Admonished by them as Elders, to bring him to Repentance; and this is a common act of that whole Eldership, making a Church to all these Churches; so the People must be present at these, or some other Admonitions of the person (and that both for their edification, and for to work Repentance in the party) that their Tacite consent, by presence, might be given; and that they (seeing they are to execute it) might be satisfied in his being cast out. If indeed the People had, as a Church, no interest at all, then we acknowledge this Argument would wholly fail; and these Elders must have the whole fall, and entire power to give Sentence, to Execute, to Admonish, and all were to be done there, in the classical Assembly, and nowhere else; but the whole business would be there completed.
1. If it be said first, that the power of Sentencing, and so of the act of excommunication, is performed in this common Presbytery, and that what is done in the particular Congregation, whereunto he belongeth, is but the promulgation of it?
Besides what was said against that before, this further here may be added; that the interest which the people have, is not merely to have it promulgated before them, but that they may be edified, and that they knowing the party, he having lived amongst them, may mourn over him; yea, and bewail that such a Scandal is fallen amongst them, whereby their Ordinances and Communion, was in danger of being Defiled, &c. and that the Man hereby may be wrought upon; yea, and it is necessary, that the Man be brought afore that Church, where he is personally to be excommunicated. Now all this is more still, than bare promulgation of the Sentence; for that might be done, whether he were present or absent. Yet still, if there be an interest of promulgation, let it be in all the Churches; and all these Churches, as met in one common Church, as the Elders themselves are. Or if there be an interest of being edified by the Admonitions, let it be in all the Churches. But how can this be? If in each Congregation apart, how will your Admonitions be more multiplied, that were multiplied enow afore? And if in common, how can they meet, as Presbyteries are cast? Or when did they ever?
2. If secondly it be said, that it is promulgated in that fixed Church, whereto he doth belong, in regard they have a special primary interest; because usually he receiveth the Sacrament there; we shall speak to that under the third particular, by and by. Only for the present, consider that if the interest of People and Elders be made up proportionably, so as that Church hath a primary interest in the Person, because he hath a fixed Communion in the Sacrament with them, which, if he there partake, would be ordinarily defiled; and other Churches have but a secondary and remote interest, as the Genus hath to the individum, whereas this particular Congregation, is as the Species to this individum: Then let the Elders of the classical Presbytery, (be to make things commensurable) acknowledging to have a remote and secondary interest also in their power, to sentence him; and so let him come to them, but at second hand. Or to make the comensurableness yet nearer, as in the matter of promulgation, the People of all the other Churches, have but a promulgation at second hand, by hearsay; and have no interest of presence at all; so answerably let these Elders of other Churches, have but the like share in that power, and the controversy is at an end; for then as it is not at all promulgated in other Churches, so the Man would not be at all sentenced in the Classical Presbyteries. But if they challenge the primary interest, and that the power, by which he is sentenced, belongeth unto them; then let the People of all those Churches, be acknowledged to have the like primary interest of promulgation also; because that they are the greater number in comparison of the Church, whereof he is a Member; that being but a part, the other the whole; and therefore the Congregation must have the lesser principal interest therein.
2. And Secondly, If that the act of excommunication, that is done in his particular Church, is the formal act of excommunication, by which actually he standeth excommunicated, and delivered up to Satan, and not until then; let but this act of execution, be but commensurable to the sentence; and then as the sentence was denounced by those classical Elders, as making Elders to all those Congregations, as one Church, so also should the execution be; and so the Man must be actually excommunicated, over and over, as often as there are many particular Churches, to that Presbytery.
3. And thirdly; If the interest of the Elders of that Church, make an Eldership to that Congregation, and be made commensurable with the interest of the Congregation, the one as Elders, the other as People; Then first, as this Church hath the primary and the fixed interest, and such a peculiar interest, as all the Churches about him have not, viz. An interest of Communion, suitable to his casting out; as he had a fixed Communion with them, it is therefore a fixed casting out, which is properly the act of excommunication; and for these Reasons, their consent is so required, as of none of all the Churches about, and their satisfaction to be sought, so as of none of all the Churches about. Now then answerably, let the Eldership of this particular Church, have but a like power of an Eldership in their Relation to them, as a Church; and then the People's interest being consent, where consent only is required; and the Elders interest being Authority, and the sentence, it will follow, that, as the liberty of consenting is only in this Congregation, so that the Authority of sentencing should only be in these Elders. And as other Churches do but declare their offense, if things have not been rightly Administred, so the Elders of other Churches should do no more. At leastwise as the consent of this people is actually required, which is not of all the other Churches, and as without which, because of their interest, the classical Congregation will forbear the execution of excommunication; yea, a whole National Assembly will: So then let the Elders of this Congregation, when they meet in this classical Presbytery, have but the like privilege; that if they do dissent, and think the Man is not to be sentenced, or be excommunicated, the whole classical Presbytery, should not have power to proceed to sentence. For will not you give as much to the Elders in Government, as Elders of that Church, as to the people? Will you prefer the interest of the people, which is otherwise laid so low, before the interest of the Elders, that are over them in the Lord? And if that the Elders of that Church should have this Prerogative, in the classical Presbytery, the power thereof would soon come to nothing, without disputing against it. And in this case, these classical Elders are not a Presbytery in common, but the Pastor, or Eldership of the particular Congregation, would have some kind of Episcopal power in this Presbytery, having a Negative among them. Or suppose that the Elders of his own Congregation deny to promulge the sentence, and actually to excommunicate the Man, will you not give them the Ministerial interest of Elders, in the execution of the sentence of excommunication, as the Elders in common had in the sentence? Or will you send other Elders to do it? If so, then they in that act are an Eldership to them only.
CHAP. IV.
The eighth, ninth and tenth Argument, to prove a Congregational Church, to be the due subject of Ecclesiastical Power; because Admonitions are to be given, and Excommunication to be Administred in the presence of such a Church.
Argu. 8. IF further, the presence of the people in the Church, is to be the Seat of all Authoritative Admonitions, that go before the sentence of excommunication made by the Elders, to them that are accused of public sin and scandal, for their edification, and if the act of excommunication is to be (as was granted) afore them; then the Seat of the power of excommunication is not in classical Elders, by Christ's Ordination, but in Elders that are Elders of a particular Congregation. The Reason of the consequence is clear, because the party is to be sentenced to be excommunicated, upon his being judged obstinate; and he is to be judged obstinate after Admonitions: That therefore, which is the Seat or Place in which these Admonitions are to be given, is also to be the Seat of the Judgment of his obstinacy, and of the sentence thereupon. It were strange, that the Admonitions and other proceedings, that make way, should be public, and the Judgment and Sentence should be private. It is so in no public Courts. And if the particular Congregation be the Seat of the Antecedent Acts, the Admonitions, and of the consequent Act, the Act of excommunication itself; it were as strange, that only that immediate Act of the sentence, should be privately done by the classical Elders, and not afore the people. Besides, that the classical Elders are not to sentence, is evident by this; because those that have the power to Admonish, surely they must have the power to Sentence: And therefore if the classical Elders cannot, nor do not come to perform the acts of Admonition before the people; then they cannot be those that, according to the Scriptures, have interest in the sentence as Elders. Neither can they be that Church which our Savior Christ speaks of Mat. 18. because that the Admonitions of that Church, are expressed, as liable to be neglected, and therefore they must be supposed present at the Admonitions. And as the Apostle too commends it as an ordinance, that the Admonition should be before the people, 1 Tim. 5. 20. So classical Elders cannot be present.
Now to prove, that particular Congregations, are the Seat of public Admonitions, there is that place in, 1 Tim. 5. 20. which gives evidence, Them that sin (saith he) Rebuke before all, that others also may fear. It is evident here, that he doth give a direction to Timothy, concerning Church proceedings, and keeping of a Spiritual Court; and therefore in the verse before, gives directions about receiving an Accusation, and how that Accusation must be proved, by two or three Witnesses; and he speaks of all such public Admonitions or Rebukes, as are to follow upon the receipt of the Accusation, when it is made evident by Witnesses; and of such admonitions likewise, as are in order to excommunication, and for such sins as will deserve excommunication, if Men be obstinate (for if for any other sins, then certainly for those) and it is of sins, in case of public scandal, which are the subject of excommunication; therefore he saith, Them that sin, Rebuke afore all, then when a Man's sin is public, and comes to be taken notice of afore all. Now he speaks to Timothy, that was an Evangelist, and under him to all Church-Officers, to the end of the World, when Evangelists (who were extraordinary Ministers) should be removed: And as other directions, that are given to him, do concern the Eldership of Congregations in after Ages, so also this, to teach them how to behave themselves in the House of God. Now with the same breath that he doth give them power and warrant to Rebuke, when accusations are brought orderly to them, he withal directs (and his directions fall chiefly thereon) where these Rebukes should be, not privately, but afore all, and what all? Not afore all that are their Elders only, for they are to rebuke them afore all, that all may fear, surely therefore it is intended for the benefit, not only of the Elders, but of all the people.
If it be said, that this place is to be understood, but as that of the Old Law, when a Malefactor was to be put to Death, it was, that all might hear and fear; and so these admonitions may be given privately in the Consistory, and yet all may hear of it, and fear: The answer is, that there is this difference between executing of corporal punishment, and giving of spiritual admonitions; that the Terror of spiritual admonition, doth not lie in the hearsay, but it works by the people's personal hearing of it; and it is ordained so to do. The power of that ordinance (as of Preaching) lies in personal hearing, and as Faith cometh by hearing, so this fear must come by hearing also; otherwise it were all one, as to say, such a Man Preached a comfortable Sermon, that all might be comforted; or he Preached the Law, that all might be Terrified; and yet should mean, that all those, that were at the Sermon, should have comfort in it, or be Terrified by it. Therefore as those, that are wrought upon to fear, must be wrought upon by the admonitions, so it must be by being personally present, and hearing of them.
If it be said, that it is, in a classical Assembly, done in a place so public, and in a Court so open, where all may come if they please: We reply, that the Apostle doth not only say, that it should be done in a place where all do come; but he lays it as a Duty upon Timothy, to do it in a place where all may come; for otherwise, one of the great ends of admonition is lost, he bids him Rebuke them, that fin, afore all. That all may fear. If therefore our Presbyterian Brethren will attain the end of their admonitions (that all may fear) it; must be done where all do use to meet; and if so, then either their classical Elders must come and meet in the particular Congregations, or the particular Congregations must come to them, and so all the company of people of the classical Church must meet, Women, as well as Men; for they are capable of that particular part of edification, of fearing, and why should they be excluded the benefit of it? And whether the proceedings to excommunication according to our way, which is for the party to have his own Elders, before his own people, judicially to examine the fact, and to give public Admonitions, edged with all sorts of Scripture, to bring him to Repentance; and if he remain obstinate in the view of all, then for him to be excommunicated; or if he Repents, to have that Repentance appear upon the place afore all (which all suit best, and fall in with the Congregational way) whether that this doth not agree more with right Reason, and all the ends than can be supposed of Examination, Admonitions, and Excommunication, either to work upon the party, or to work upon others, or for the fairness and equity of the proceedings, rather than the way of the Classical Presbytery, let any Rational Man Judge.
For what hath been said of examination and admonition, and the ends of them, or any other end that the Scripture holds forth therein (that go before, or accompany excommunication) they are better attained in this Congregational Government, than in the other.
As 1. For the examination of the person, that the evidence of the fact, in a judiciary way, should be before his own People, and by his own Elders, is every way most equal; because that they are to join in the casting of him out, and in the execution of the sentence afterwards, and are therefore to be satisfied of the justness of his being cast out: And there is that proper Communion, they have held with him, viz. a fixed Communion, which no Church else on Earth can pretent to. And if the Pcople must be satisfied at any time, if after the Sentence by hearsay, and by relation (as the Presbyterians themselves acknowledge) it will much more satisfy them before, when they hear the Person himself examined, and all that he can say. And if that be true of Cyprian, Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari debet, that which concerns all, the whole common, it should be handled and transacted by all; and if that were not true, yet surely this, that what concerns all, should be handled afore all.
The like 2. Holds for those public Admonitions, that are to be given, wherein also the people have an interest, that they may be edified thereby, as well as by Preaching; for what is Discipline or public Admonitions, but a public Application of the Truths of the Word of God, to the Conscience of a scandalous sinner, to warn others, and to bring him unto Repentance? So as indeed acts of Discipline, Admonitions, are the most pastoral Sermon; and so are a part of the Worship of God, which therefore the people of his own Church, must have a peculiar interest in, as they have in other Sermons.
3. If it be looked at, that the Man is to be shamed, as a means to bring him to Repentance, as in 2 Thess. 3. 14. To have all these Examinations and Admonitions, and to have all Transacted, that concerns a scandalous sin, before the whole Church, tendeth more to this. Neither can he be thought obstinate, until such time as he hath this means (which we see God hath Sanctified) in a Spiritual way applied to him. In a word, for the whole, we say, as Baines long since said (and it hath a reason in it, therefore we quote it) That when censure it the most sharp Spiritual Medicine, it were ill with our Church, if he (speaking of their Pastor) who is Resident always amongst them, as the Spiritual Physician should not have the power of Administring it. That which he saith of the Pastor, to whom he gives the chief stroke in it, we say of all the Elders of a Congregation, that are continually a Resident with it.
If it be said, that afore he is put to this public shame, before the Congregation, he should be Authoritatively Admonished by the Eldership, to see first how that would work: We Reply,
1. That either his sin is notoriously known to the whole Congregation already; Res famosa, as was the case of the Incestuous Corinthian; and then it is fit it should be brought instantly to the Congregation, that he may be shamed. Neither is it to any end, that the Elders should deal in the case privately with him; but as the Scandal is public, the Admonition should be public also, even from the first. Or suppose his sin be more private, then, if the private means, which Christ hath appointed, hath not been used by those that bring the Accusation, as telling it first to himself, and exhorting him to Repentance; and if that could not gain him, then taking two or three, or more, who also have dealt with him, and yet could not bring him to Repentance; in this case also the Elders are not to meddle in it, before the Church, till such time as those means have been used, for no man's sin is to be brought to them, till he hath past thorough those ways and means, which Christ hath appointed; which being done, then indeed the Elders may Admonish him, having thus the cognizance of it; but yet therein, they are not to deal as an Eldership, in a judiciary way; but as those two or three Brethren, who are to be called to Admonish him, should proceed. Though even such Admonitions from Elders, would perhaps have more Authority, in respect of their Relation, than those of private Brethren. But in case that a Man hath past through all these means, and still is obstinate and impenitent, and hath stood out Christ's proceedings; now it is the Man's own fault, that his sin should thus be brought to light, and now nothing will cure him, but the shame of it, by public Admonitions before all.
Answ. 2. If (for the tenderness of his shame) he is first to be dealt withal by the Elders, before he be brought to the Congregation; yet not by the classical Elders, who are strangers to him. Who if they keep an open Court, as they ought to do (as all other Courts are) whither any one may come; then if not, the shame of his sin, yet the Dishonor of it will be greater this way, than the other; whilst it is kept within the compass of his own Church, and of these who are his Brethren, and have known his Converse, and have known also his Graces. And that shame, he shall have thus before Strangers, will be a means to harden him, whereas the shame, that he shall have before his own People, will work more kindly, and be a means to melt him.
Answ. 3. The presence of his own People, in all these proceedings, when he is thus convicted of the Sin, when he is thus Admonished, and upon obstinacy, cometh to be excommunicated, serveth to a further double end, both as it respects themselves (so as no Church else, nor no Elders else whatsoever) and as it respects the Person also, and his good. For it respects the Congregation themselves, both by virtue of that special Relation to, and Communion they have with him, as one Body to Christ; and therefore they are to Sympathize with him, to be humbled together with him, for his sin, to bemoan and bewail him, and themselves; that such a punishment, even as to them, should befall them, by such a sin falling out amongst them. You are puffed up, (saith the Apostle) you have not Mourned, 1 Cor. 5. 2. That Law is to take hold on them, in respect of this proper near relation, which Paul giveth, 1 Cor. 12. 26. If one Member suffer all the Members suffer with it, or if one Member be Honoured, all the Members rejoice with it; Now ye are the Body of Christ, and Members in particular; that is, the Church of Corinth, being a particular Body, have a more special Relation one unto another, more than to any other Churches. And this mourning and the like, it is to show themselves clear of that matter, which otherwise would be a sin of that Body; and as, in all other Relations, Members of a Nation, mourn for the sins of a Nation, Members of a Family, for the sins of a Family; so especially in this nearest special Relation of all other, each Member is to mourn, and sorrow for the sins of a Member, as if it were the whole's; because a Dishonor is thereby reflected also upon the whole, and an anger of God expressed against the whole; for even Church sins make God to be angry with particular Persons. As for that sin about the Sacrament, in the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 11. particular Persons were visited, for this cause, some are weak and sick, &c. therefore (saith he) Judge yourselves, that you be not Judged. It is therefore necessary, when a Man's sin is ripe for public Admonitions, that his own People should know it; and therefore that all these Admonitions should be afore his own, that the height and aggravation of the sin thus set open before his Conscience, to make him Repent, should be set open also before theirs, for all those ends afore mentioned. And to think that the Elders of a Classical Church, should Representatively mourn for all the rest, or that, whereas the cause of mourning is nearness of Relation, that they should mourn as his own would do, cannot be supposed. And then 2. If it respects working upon the Man, if that be the end of this bewailing, and of this mourning, to break his Heart, to have his own Congregation thus mourning, who have thus known him, and with whom he hath communicated, and to see their Hearts broken for his sin, when they have not sinned, only are of the same Body with him; this must needs be an ordinance much more effectual to work upon him, than if he were brought afore all the National Councils in the World, who are taught with his sin but remotely, as the Body of a National Church must needs be very remote to a provincial Church, and this also remote in its proportion to a Classical.
Now we find that the proceedings thus, to excommunication, are expressed to us by the very Phrase, bewailing, I am afraid, (saith the Apostle) that when I come, I shall bewail some of you; that is, I shall be enforced as to Admonish you, so to proceed further; and so in 1 Cor. 5. 2. You have not Mourned, that, he that hath done this Deed, may be taken from among you. To bring him before National and Classical Assemblies, and the like, may work in a civil way more upon him; but, in a spiritual way, this is a means much more suited.
Lastly, for the act of excommunication itself, that then the People should be present, we need not contend for; because it is granted. And assuredly, if that they are to be present, that they may mourn and wail, when any is thus cast out, their presence is much more required afore, because their wailing and bemoaning of him then, might have been a means to prevent what befalls him.
Argu. 9. But if besides all these interests it be found, that the People of his own Congregation, have a joint interest to judge; and that by way of Suffrage, and concur in the Sentence with the Elders, in the throwing of him out: Or have such an interest with Judgment, and cutting off a Member, that a Jury have, joined with the Bench of Justices and Judges, and that they are to judge of the Fact, and of his obstinacy, and the like; why then, it will clearly follow, that the power of excommunication must be in every Congregation of People and Elders: And thus to have the Man judged, both by the one, and the other, is the fairest Law in the World. And we account it even the glory of one Nation, that no Man's life is subjected to the judgment of all the Judges of the Kingdom, but that he must be Tryed by his Peers, per pares. That we shall speak when we come to that Head, that the People are to have a concurring interest with the Elders.
Argu. 10. If no Elders are to set up a consistory for ordinary Government, but in the presence, and before the Church; then the power of all acts of Government must lie within the Body of a Congregational Church. Because there are no other ordinary constant Church meetings of the Body of the People, but only by Congregations; for all such Meetings are to be of as many, as can meet in one place; and all are interested in it for the present, one, as well as another.
CHAP. V.
The eleventh and twelfth Arguments, proving single Congregations enabled to exert all Acts of Church-power. That such Churches there were in the first Ages of Christianity. That the Apostles planted such Churches, that had the entire power within themselves.
Argu. 11. THere were in the first Ages of Christianity, Bishops in Churches and Villages. And in the sense of the Ages, in which this was, it was all one as to have an entire Government in a Church, in a Village; for the entire Government was in the Hands of their Bishops, in those times, such a Government as is now claimed by the Presbytery. Therefore from the practice of the primitive times, it is evident that one single Congregation, with its Elders, is a complete Seat of Government, as well as Worship.
Argu. 12. The Churches in the first planting of them by the Apostles, were in all places Congregational Churches. Those, in smaller Cities, may well be supposed to have been always such. Those in the great Cities, were at first such: Of Philippi it is said, that in the beginning of the Gospel, it was a Church, and it was so called, Ph. 1. 4, 15. and it was a Church that had Bishops and Deacons, chap. 1. 1. who Communicated to Paul, by way of giving and receiving. In a manner, all sides have acknowledged this, even the Bishops themselves. Jerusalem itself at first, was but one Congregation; and other greater Cities also, were no more; for can we imagine that the Apostles should stay forming up Churches, till such time as they should multiply to so many, as to make many Congregations under classical Churches? So this is not supposable, because that the Apostles were to go over the World, and could not everywhere stay so long; they therefore staid, till there were a sufficient number to make up a Church, and Elders over them. And to be sure, the first Church of all, had a sufficient Eldership, for they had the eleven Apostles. And for them all to be Officers, to so small a number at the first, is infinitely less disproportionable to them, than for our Great Lord and Master to serve and minister (as himself was pleased at his last Supper, to Term it) the Sacrament of Bread and Wine, unto Eleven Apostles; and then to Preach a long Sermon unto these Eleven, whom he had taken care of. And at the first, when they were so few, as they continued in prayer together, Acts 1. it is to be supposed, they had the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and so were a Church, seeing they had received it with our Lord and Savior, with commission for him to do the like. And this Congregational Church at first, having these Apostles over them, who (as our Brethren say) acted the part of ordinary Elders, must needs be supposed to be as sufficient for a Presbytery, as afterwards their acts can be supposed to be, when they multiplied to more Congregations (as our Brethren affirm) And if we could give no instance of any act of Government they did; yet it is certain, that the same power with which they did acts of Government, afterward as such a Presbytery, they had then at first; for they acted but out of that power afterward, which they had afore. And so in all those other Churches, when they were single Congregations, having Elders set over them, the like must be supposed. And when there was thus Congregational Churches, having Elders over them, they had the right, and they had the power to exercise all acts of Government within themselves, or else when the Apostles left them, and commended them to the grace of God, having set Elders over them; they had not been left to a sufficient means, to take away offenses, and to purge out scandals, and to keep the Worship pure, and to preserve themselves for Succession.
And if they had this Right and Power, they must have it by virtue of that Institution, Matth. 18. Here then, de facto, Congregational Churches were invested with a complete power. And so according to that Maxim, primum, in quolibet genere, est Mensura reliquorum, the first in every kind, is the measure of the rest we have to plead, that the first Churches in existence with that power we contend for, were such Congregational Churches which we assert.
We further add, that suppose that these Churches came to be multiplied, or to have Neighbor Churches near them, what became of that Power and Right, which as Congregations having Elders in them, and as a Church to Christ, they were invested with? How should this power come to be taken away, or they come to loose it, and be Transferred unto an Associated Presbytery, of many Congregations? If upon this Association, there had been a new power, yet the old former power must be supposed to stand still entire, or else they loose it (as the Cities in Germany, before they were united into that Emperial Body, had entire privileges within themselves; and that, they retain still notwithstanding their Union, only their Association was for Appeals, and cases of common concernment) and as the multiplication was accidental, so a new accidental power might come over them, which they had not afore, if they should miscarry in that they had afore; therefore that power, that was first in them, is never to be taken from them. It is true indeed, before their multiplication this must be said, they were Independent Churches, in that gross sense, which is imposed upon us; that is, they were accountable unto none; why? Because there were none near them, to be accountable unto. But that was not a privilege Essential, but Accidental, not positive, but because there was no other near existent. And yet not so neither; for if there were any in the World, they should have Appealed unto them. And suppose a Congregational Church, alone by itself, can be supposed to have an accidental Independency private (which in this respect, is a Negative privilege, rather than a positive) yet still that positive power, which they were entirely invested withal within themselves, for positive acts of Government, that was not invested on them, because there were no other Churches; but because they were a Church of themselves. And this power, if once they had it, is not, by Multiplication of Churches, to be taken away from them; the Multiplication is but accidental, but the Form, they were cast into at first, is the essential Form that constituted them a Church, and a politick Body.
2. When these Churches were multiplied, and (as our Brethren would have it) continued many Congregations, under one Presbytery, of the Elders of each of these Churches thus multiplied: Either that first Church and their Elders (which still remain fixed Elders unto them) have all the power and privilege they had afore, or not, in this New Government to come upon their multiplication and association: If they have the same power and privilege, then this proposition standeth good; only the question then will be, what power over them (their own remaining thus entire) in a way of dependency any other Church can have, which we must afterterwards speak to. If upon this association, this particular Congregation have not the power it had afore entire within itself, then the Form of the Government first constituted, is clean altered, and clearly a New Form of Government is set up; and that both in respect of the Right of the People, and the Right of the Elders in that Congregation. If the People had any interest of presence or of suffrage (which we contend for) at the Sentence of Excommunication, and the Examination of things; by virtue of this new Association, that interest is taken from them; and removed up into the Classical meetings of the Elders, and into a Government that is merely Aristocratical. And look as in a Government consisting both of People and Rulers, and the interest of both, or including in it privileges that the one hath, as well as the other, (though the one in a lower degree) if the one becomes merely Aristocratical, we count that Government changed, and it will be a new Form of Government; so it would be here. Nor 2dly, Is it true, that because the Government (as our Brethren affirm) is in the Rulers only; therefore it may be enlarged, and dispersed to other Rulers of other Congregations, taken in with them; and the People not wronged of their Right. For first, if the Charter of a People, of a Corporation or Body should be, that they should be Ruled by their own Elders (whom themselves chose, as a Corporation) by their own Mayor, Recorder, and Aldermen, yet it were a new Form of Government, for them to come under two or three Mayors, Recorders, and Aldermen, of other Incorporate Towns, and they would account it so; And 2. The Rulers would think so too; As if there were a Family, the Master whereof had entire Government within itself; and there were Families increased, and they all joined in a Combination, to Rule all those Families in common, and that in such things, wherein before he Ruled alone; surely this would be counted a new Form of Government; how else doth Economics differ from Politicks? Would not Colleges think so, though Associated into an University? If the Colleges should have those privileges of choosing Master-Fellows, Scollars, of Admitting, of Expelling, invested into other Hands, if all the Jurisdiction which they had when alone, or if any great part of it, should be exercised in common for them, when other Colleges are built; because they become an University, they would account this a Dispriviledging of them. So it would be here in this case of Churches.
CHAP. VI.
Some Exceptions made against the last Argument, as not Conclusive removed, how we are to consider the Churches, as at first planted by the Apostles as patterns, and Examples to us.
TO this Argument, there are many Exceptions, which I shall consider.
1. It is excepted, That the first Churches, though but single Congregations, having Elders in them, which did or might exercise all Church-Acts, cannot yet be drawn into an ordinary pattern; because the first must, out of a necessity, do that which afterwards when multiplied single Congregations, that can Associate, may not do. Even as though Cain at first Marryed his Sister, yet that is no Warrant for us, now to do the like, when Men and Women are multiplied; so neither can the Instance of the Church of Jerusalem, or any other first Churches, be the pattern to Warrant single Churches now multiplied, to do that which they then did.
Answ. 1. The Apostles did not stay in places, till there were a sufficiency to set up a Church, but if that a Presbyterian Government, over many Congregations, had been the Rule of Christ; and that they must of necessity have been set up; they would have rather staid, or sent an Evangelist to Convert so many, as to make up a sufficient Presbytery for a classical Church. If Adam could, with his Breath, have made Men and Women, though he had staid a while, Cain should not have Marryed his Sister. And therefore, if that, by the Ordination of Christ, a Presbyterial Church were the first Church; God would have staid, and the Apostles would have staid, as God staid giving the Ark, and the Tabernacle, and the Law of the Government of a National Church, till such time as the Jews became so many, as to rise to a Nation.
Answ. 2. It lies upon those, that affirm it, to prove that the endowing single Congregations at first with an entire power, was an act of necessity, and not voluntary, and as it should stand in all Ages. Had a Presbyterian Church Government been according to Christ's Institution, the Apostles would have Taught Christians to remove out of the places, where they could not make up Presbyterian Churches, and to go into Cities, where they might make them, that so Churches might be set up in their fullness at first.
Answ. 3. The power of a single Congregation, to have acted as a Presbytery at the first, was not grounded on a case of necessity (because there were no other Churches existing, to associate with, and so was accidental to them) but this one alone Congregation, was essentially and innately and entirely complete in itself, and within itself, as much as when afterward there were many. To say the power of Eleven Apostles, as combined, was defective; because but over one Congregation, and but out of an extraordinary necessity, would be the greatest Derogation in the World. And if there could be a supposition, that there had been other Churches existing, or coming to Jerusalem, this Presbytery of the first Church had not been bound to associate, as not having sufficient power within itself. To affirm these things of this first Presbytery of the Eleven Apostles (as our Brethren suppose it, and it is the main foundation of their case) to have been defective, and their power (now because over one Congregation) to have been founded on an extraordinary necessity only, as for Cain to Marry his Sister, in a way below the Warrant, as of the ordinary Rule: Thus first to cast them (in this Example) into the condition of ordinary Presbyters, to make it an argument for the Presbytery; and then to cast their power at first, below the power of an ordinary Classis, and to make it then to be dependent on a providential necessity; how Derogatory is it to that Transcendent power of such Officers? So then, if they are to be looked upon, at all, as the pattern of an ordinary Presbytery; then as such now, when over but one Congregation, as much as if they had been over many. For to say, they were but as extraordinary Persons, when over but one Congregation; and afterwards an ordinary College of Presbyters, when many, is too incoherent, and inconsistent with itself, to be affirmed. And then what is the reason that this first existence of an Eldership over one Congregation, should not be as ordinary a pattern to Warrant, as full and sufficient a Presbytery in one Congregation, as it is for the supposed Presbyterial Government over many? So that if it were ordinary, it serves as much for us, as them, and indeed for us first; because that this, as one Congregation, existed first; and they were as much an ordinary Presbytery at first, as at last, and endowed with the same sufficiency of inherent power. And if it were extraordinary, the instance will not serve them at all, first nor last, for a ground of Presbyterial Government. And surely if this Church at Jerusalem, had so many Teachers besides Apostles, as is pretended, when these Congregations came to be Multiplied (as is supposed) and divided, here was (if ever) enough to have made several sufficient Presbyteries, to these several Congregations; and the Association of many Congregations into one can have place but in case of Defect, not of Sufficiency.
2. It is excepted, that we are not to consider Churches, as they were when the Apostles first began, but as they were, when the Apostles left them; and that Ordo intendentis is one thing, and Ordo generantis is another. Thus Nature first makes but a Child, which afterward grows up to a Man.
Answ. 1. As to the first, we argue the Example of those Churches, which the Apostles left, and, when they left them, commended them to the Grace of God, as in Acts 14. when they had chosen them Elders, as having sufficient means to support themselves. And (as Baines argues against Bishops, and their Government over Churches) those whom the Apostles placed as chief, in the first constituting of Churches, and left as their Successors in their last farewell, which they gave to the Churches; they had not, nor were to have any Superior unto them in the Churches, as is evident in the instance of Ephesus, Acts 20. 28. & 1 Pet. 5. 2. So say we, that those whom the Apostles left, having placed Elders over them, and left as their Successors at their last farewell, commending them to the Grace of God, and so constituted, without mentioning of Association for Government, with other Churches; they, by Apostolical Warrant, were not to enter into such Associations, for matter of Government and Jurisdiction.
Answ. 2. As to that other part of the Exception, we reply, that certainly those Churches that the Apostles did thus leave, and the power in them, and the Presbyteries thereof, to do all Church-acts as a Presbytery now at first, were as perfect Churches the first Day (as Adam was a perfect Man, when first Created) as afterwards they could be supposed to be. If Nature at first do beget a perfect Child, with all the parts, it may indeed grow in Stature; but all the Natural parts it hath when a Man, it hath when a Child; and though it may grow in Stature, it doth not grow in perfection, nor is defective of any of its Natural powers, when a Child; but all exercise their Natural Functions, when a Child, as truly as when a Man. And beside, join a Thousand Children together, they will not make one Man.
3. It is expected, that although no Churches may give away their Right, yet they may join with them, that will Corroborate their Right: So if the Congregation, that had a Presbytery afore, be multiplied into another Congregation, it retains the same Presbytery, and is one Church still.
Answ. 1. Either it is at their liberty to Retain their proper Presbytery, proper to themselves; and the other Congregation goes from them to have anew, or not. If it be at liberty, then Jesus Christ hath Instituted two Forms of Government, made two several Seats or Subjects of entire Church-power, for Men Arbitrarily to cast themselves into, which they please. This is to make two ordinary Patterns, of two sorts of Church-Government, one of a single Congregation, the other of the Presbyterial over many; and to Warrant the sufficiency and completeness of either, when either of them have a sufficient Presbytery. But that Christ should leave the Government of his Church so indefinite, cannot be imagined; not only because it is impossible, that one of them should not be better than the other, but (also as hath been said before) in respect to the Congregations themselves; because the one makes a vast difference from the other, in the point of fixedness and unfixedness of Officers; and further, because one would destroy the other. For allow but this Principle, that all Congregations that may have a sufficient Presbytery, may retain the Right and whole Government within themselves, as the first Subjects of it, as agreeing with the Pattern, and what Church will subject itself to the Presbyterial Government? And that this is not indifferent to all our Judgments, the Contentions on all hands do Testifie. If it be Arbitrary, then it would have been unlawful for any Congregation in the Primitive Times, to have Retained the Right that was first settled upon them; and to have in exercise all power within themselves as whole, as when Churches did multiply. If it be given as a liberty by Christ; voluntary Subjection is not to take it away, and that Form of Government, which it doth give up its right to, being a new change of Government (as was said afore) there must be as much an Institution for it, as there was for that Right it had afore. It is impossible there should be two Rights to the same thing, whereof the one is incompatible with the other; for if the Congregations can claim it as its Rights, then the Presbytery cannot; for that both should exercise it, is impossible. There may be differing interests of power, in the same politick Body, but that one and the same, while power should be in one, and also in a greater, and in another, cannot be imagined.
Answ. 2. To the second part of the Exception, viz. that it is a strengthening of the power of Congregations, and not a taking of it away, it being an intrinsical Government, We Reply. 1. That of all other Answers, we wonder at that; for if a Master of a Family, that Ruled as a Master afore, should have his power, in governing of his Family, committed into the Hands of other Masters of Families, together with himself; would he account this a strengthening of his power, as he is a Master of a Family, or a loosing of it? Masters of Colleges would judge it a taking away of their power, not a strong thing of it, for by this they lost it as Masters. And 2. If that all these do Rule in common, and so the Major Vote of them, in common, carries it, multitude of cases will fall out (whereto though' he gives a Negative) that shall be carried by the Major Vote, so as he utterly looseth his power, it being thus swallowed up by the greater number, how is this a strengthening of it then? And in this case, is it not an extrinsical power to that Congregation, which▪ overrules it, as well as in the case of Bishops; when as the Votes of their own Officers that are proper to them, and fixed to them, whom they have chosen to watch over them, shall not carry matters that belong unto them, as afore they did. 3. The strengthening of Church's power, lies in countenancing of what Churches have done, after they have done it, out of an Honor to them, and not lightly to hear Appeals from them; but it is not confirmed, by taking the power out of their Hands, and doing their acts for them Thus Kingdoms, in a League, strengthen each other's acts, when as they do not Foster Traitors, against each other; but if they should mingle powers in common, this were to destroy their power and right, as they be politick Bodies.
If it be said, it makes Churches equal still: It is granted that it's true, it makes Churches in a like condition indeed; but how? Not in the privileges of Churches, it makes them in like condition of Subjection, but not of freedom, as they are Churches, or incorporate Bodies to judge within themselves. As if Incorporate Towns should have their privilege of Life and Death, within themselves, given up to a Combination of many Incorporate Towns together, they were pares indeed, compeers, and here is an equality they are brought unto in this condition, but what equity there were in it, we see not.
That I may conclude, if, when Congregations were thus multiplied, a Congregation that before had the Government entire in itself, being invested with it, began anew to Associate with others for Government: Either the Classical Elders Associated, have taken up the whole Government and Jurisdiction, and left to that Congregation and Elders, which once were invested with it, no part of it (which once they had proper to them afore) but as this exercised in common; or else there is a parting and a dividing of that power, and acts of Government they had afore. If all be taken away, let that be affirmed and practiced, and a Warrant for it shown, let the classical Presbytery choose, and ordain their Deacons, let them Suspend from the Sacrament, let them only Admonish, let them admit their Members, let them choose their Elders, let them do all. If they part it, either it must be Arbitrarily, as themselves please, (we will retain this, and you shall have that) and if so, then they Arbitrarily part with that which was once given them by Jesus Christ; or else they part with all by a Rule, and a Command from God, putting the bounds between what the one shall have, and what the other shall have; let these bounds then be shewn, or any instances, in the Primitive Churches, be assigned of such alterations when Churches were multiplied, which in this case is necessary. This will breed also a great alteration and change, in the constitution of these Congregations themselves, and their Relations to their Officers, as is obvious to any one who considers it.
CHAP. VII.
Two Queries Resolved, 1. When a Church hath but one Elder, or none at all, whether it retains its power. 2. Whether a particular Congregation having complete power in itself, may oblige itself, in a constant way, to ask Advice and Direction from a Consistory of Presbyteries. Resolved in the Negative, and proved by several Reasons.
I shall now Resolve some Queries that may be put, and in answering them, shall farther clear up my Assertion, which I have Demonstrated by so many Arguments.
Quest. 1. Suppose a Church have but one Elder? Yea, suppose it have no Elders at all? What is become of its power then?
Answ. 1. Yet that Church whereof there is but one Elder, being the Seat of this Government, it is in this Politick Body, as in the Natural Body. A Man (according to the Law of Nature) hath two Hands; but if one be cut off, or that he wants one, then he useth that one Hand, for which both were used afore. In this case, Vis recurret in proximum membrum, The entire Vigour, will return into the next Member; And this is properly a case of necessity, and not that other case which our Brethren would have, that one Congregation being alone, should therefore have the Government within itself of necessity, which it must part withal, according to the ordinary Rule, when more Congregations are multiplied.
Answ. 2. The power of Government, being the Right of that Church, and not of other Churches over it; they are to choose more Officers, and they have a right so to do; and so thereby to preserve the right within themselves, rather than to borrow an Eye or a Hand from other Churches. We may say in this case, as our Brethren have said in the case of not separating from a Church rightly constituted, though' it want an Officer or Officers. They say, that none ought in that case to separate, but it is to be required, that Officers be chosen and supplied, so say we in this case. It is in this case, as it is in that of small Corporations, which although they are decayed, yet they are Corporations still; and they do not loose their privileges, and they do not therefore come under other Corporations to Govern them; but they are enabled themselves, to choose who they are that shall Govern them.
Answ. 3. Their having, or not having Officers, doth not take away their Right; but only it takes away the exercise, until such time as they have Officers. And their not having Officers, it doth not put the right into other Congregations, and the Elders thereof. The Right, in Elders, doth not lie in their being Elders, but in having a relation unto this Congregation, and in being their Elders.
Answ. 4. Suppose when a Congregation doth want a sufficiency of Officers, and so it be disenabled to act according to its Right; yet its case is but as the case of a Ward, who, though he is not able to manage his own Estate, yet this doth not put him by his Right; and those, that have the Wardship for the present, have not the right, they have but quasi jus; And if a Congregation useth Foreign Elders, Elders can have a charge in it; but until such time as the Congregation be able to have Officers of itself. And therefore if, in cases of Defect, Congregations should be associated; and by virtue of their association, make use of other Elders; yet they are not to be kept in that Defect, they ought, and they may purchase to themselves such an Eldership, and so exercise their own Right. The Churches of Christ, are not to be kept under Age and Wardship. Yea, ye ought to reform so, as the Churches should be reduced to this, and have their Rights. The Bishops, because they would Rule the Churches, in ancient time, made Canons, that there should be but one Minister in a Church, and they took away the power of ruling Elders, and so did destroy the Presbytery in every Church, that so in this Defect, there might be a color for their Government. Whatever inconveniences therefore may be pretended, or whatever is the present State of things, nothing ought to prejudice the Rights of Churches; but all Congregations should have liberty to procure themselves a sufficient Eldership, so to have the Government within themselves.
Again, Suppose that such Congregations, as having a Defect of Elders, should subject themselves to a Classical Presbytery for Government, until they had a sufficient Eldership of their own: Suppose (I say) that this should be the more ordinary condition, of the most Congregations in this Kingdom; yet those Congregations, that have a sufficient Eldership, are not, for uniformity's sake with them, to subject themselves thereto. For uniformity, with what the Holy Ghost in the Word holds forth as perfect, is rather to be held by those Congregations, who are made thus complete, than for uniformity's sake, to subject themselves to the condition of those that are imperfect, that all may be alike, although that hath been the way of uniformity, that hath been urged amongst us; that because all Ministers cannot pray out of their own Gifts, that therefore for uniformity's sake, there should be Forms of Prayer for all Ministers to use, even those that God hath enabled with sufficiency of Abilities, and Gifts to pray. It is in this case, as in the bringing up of fashions, many fashions being brought up by those that had infirmities, on purpose to cover them; they, who had infirmities, must be obliged to them, because they are in fashion, and brought up by some great ones.
Congregational Presbyteries, they are the Natural Presbyteries, those others, they are but as Step dames, Secondaries; they are but Compounds, and Decompounds of the several Presbyteries, of Presbyterial Churches.
And what though a Congregation with Elders, they are yet a Church to our Judgments, and are so to be acknowledged, as the Church in the Canticles was a Sister, though she wanted Breasts. If Congregations be small, and want sufficiency of Elders; they should be united many of them together to one Church, that they may have a full Eldership, and put themselves (though to some conveniences) to come together to Worship, for so, in the Primitive times, we find that Christians did often come out of Villages to their Cities, to Worship on the Lord's Day; and sometimes removed out of the Villages, into the Cities, that they might have Ordinances.
Quest. 2. But suppose that Congregations, having a sufficient Eldership, have also both Power and Ability, and right to act within themselves; yet in a constant way, may they not ask Advice and Counsel, and oblige themselves so to do; and before they proceed to Excommunication against their Members, if they be obstinate, bring them to the Classical Presbytery, as to a further means, there to be Admonished; and to have the Sentence of Excommunication there discerned by them?
Answ. 1. All communion with Classical Presbyteries (which we rather look upon as Synods, than Presbyteries) that we may lawfully hold, we will hold; and all such Communion we do account lawful, as is for such ends and purposes, for which they are ordained unto by Christ. But what is beyond the ground of erecting such Associations, or of calling such Synods, and the use and end of them, that will be to put an unlawful power into them; for every Ordinance, or Institution of God, is commensurable to the ground upon which it is founded. So as suppose for the present, that God had appointed Synods to be held on some occasions, in case of Mal-Administrations in Congregations; and in that case, had endowed Synods with the same power over Churches, that Congregations have over their own Members; yet because they had this power in this case, and upon this ground, it would not draw on an obligation in the Churches Congregational, constantly to advise with them so; and to bring their Members to be Admonished by them, afore they proceed to censure. So as such advice, as this, is not a case of Appeals; which always supposeth a Sentence past in inferior Courts already; But it is a laying the Congregation yet lower; for it is a Suspending the exertion of that primary and first right, which they had, until such time as they have advised with another, supposed more sufficient and able Eldership.
It is with us in this particular respect, unto the Presbyteries, as it was with those that were moderate Separatists, in respect of their Communion with the Ministry of England, although we, in other cases, give more to these Presbyteries, than they would do to such a Ministry. Many of them, as Mr. Robinson and others, could communicate with the Ministry of England, in Hearing, and in Praying; because in these actions, they were not necessarily, or only to be considered as Ministers, by all them that should communicate with them; there being other grounds say they, upon which they might Preach and Pray; and therefore although there was an unlawful relation or respect, which they pretend to Preach upon; namely, that they were Ministers; yet because there was another ground, upon which (suppose there had been no Ministers) they might have Preached; hence therefore they did, and could communicate with them in these Ordinances, so far as that other ground would bear them out. But if it came unto any act, wherein they should properly show themselves to be Ministers, in these they did abstain, and could not partake with them; for thereby (according to their Principles) they might have acknowledged them to be such, which they thought they were not, and to have that Authority, which they thought they had not. Therefore if it came to the receiving of the Sacrament, because this is a Ministerial act; they therefore would not communicate with them, no not for one moment. So also as touching classical Presbyteries, we can, and shall willingly communicate with them, in all such things wherein we think there is a ground for their Erection; and so far as there is such a ground, we can Preach among them, and hear them Preach, where a company of Elders might resolve cases of Conscience, we can pray with them; yea, and have recourse to them for Advice in cases of difficulty, being the Elders of other Churches, and able to Resolve such cases. And this we can do, although we conceive that they are erected to a further end, and invested with a further power, which is to us unlawful: But wherein there is a proper acknowledgment of such a power, or that the former right of Congregations mentioned shall be prejudiced, and the Power and Ability, that Jesus Christ hath put in them, impaired we cannot do any act that shall join with them herein. We cannot do it, no, not for one Moment, much less for a constancy. And the Reasons why we Judge Congregations should not do all this, Namely, Advise constantly, bring their obstinate Members to be Admonished by the Presbytery, nor require their Sentence, ere they proceed to Excommunicate, are these.
Reason 1. If it were no more but to advise, that liberty is not to be taken from a Body of Christ, enabled by him to act within itself, and purchased by him; which is not to be taken from a Man, by a State or Common-wealth; because the Law of Nature hath bestowed it upon him. That liberty is not to be taken from a Church in its right, which the Law of Christ gives it; that is not to be taken from a Man in his right, which the Law of Nature giveth him. In all actions that a Man is the guide of himself in, he is not bound to seek advice, much less, that there should be a standing Court erected for Men to come into. And in all the other rights that a Man hath, as he is a Ruler or Governor of any Society? as suppose he be a Master of a Family, in which he hath a right by the Law of Nature, it would be an infringement of his Liberty, if in those acts, that belong unto him as a Master, he should be bound to advise with others, as for the putting away of a Servant, &c. To direct him indeed, in what cases he should ask advice, the exigence and necessity of the thing is the ground and foundation of it; but out of those cases, it is an impairing of his liberty. Wherein he thinks there is a danger of miscarrying, and wherein he himself wants light, therein he is to ask advice, because there is a ground for it; and yet therein a Man is at liberty, of whom, or with whom he will advise; and to take that away, were to take away from the privilege of a Man, if Men are to preserve their Native Privileges, Churches are much more to stand fast in the liberty Christ hath purchased for them, Gal. 5. 1.
Reason 2. That which the Cities of Judah, having Power and Jurisdiction within themselves, were not obliged to do, nor were to oblige themselves to do, (although they had a Sanhedrin, a set Court set over them by God, for advice in cases Difficult, and when it was too hard for them to Judge) that the Churches now under the Gospel, having the like privileges of power within themselves, with a promise of God to be amongst them, are not to do, nor are others to usurp it: For in cases not Difficult, it had been an usurpation of an unlawful power in the Sanhedrin to require, they should ask their advice; and it had been a Diminishing of that right and questioning of that promise of God's being with them in Judgment, to have gone still and advised, in cases clear, especially to have always depended upon an autoritative Sentence of Judgment, required of them to be pronounced by the Sanhedrin, before that they proceeded; and without which, theirs should not have been valid.
Reason 3. A constancy of seeking advice, and to be bound to it, doth in itself arise unto a Subjection to Authority; thus it is Subjection in a Child, to be bound to advise with his Parents in all actions of moment (whether they be clear to himself or not) as disposing of himself in Marriage, and the like; and it is an acknowledgment of an Authority. Yea, to be bound thus always to advise with, and not to proceed without the Sentence of a classical Presbytery, in Judgment, is of greater Authority in some respect; and is more than for them to have a coercive Authority over other Congregations, in case they proceed amiss. It is a further limiting of them, thus to tie them up, that they should not exercise Government without them. For Magistrates may Coerce the Churches, if they do amiss; when yet they will not oblige Ministers always to advise with them, and have their Sentence afore they proceed. For one Minister to depend thus on another, for the exercise of his calling, is more than to be subject to the censure of another, if he doth exercise his calling amiss. It is a greater sign of Servitude, to do what one doth by the Direction of another, than to be under Authority, that shall punish him if he do amiss: This latter is the case of a Subject, the other of a Servant. This especially is true, when as those, we should be bound to advise with, do claim and challenge an Authority, upon which it should be done (as those that are for the Presbyterial Government in a rigid way do.) It was one great ground, that the Antient Non-conformists went upon, against yielding to Ceremonies, that supposing they were things indifferent; yet to have things indifferent in the Worship of God, Determined one way, and Men obliged to practice one way, when as God himself had left them indifferent; this was to give away that liberty, which Jesus Christ had given us. Especially when as these, that urged them, pretended to have a Right and Power from Christ, to Determine things indifferent in the Worship of God; in that case to have submitted to them, had been to have acknowledged an unlawful power.
We will put this Parallel case, to be judged by their own Principles, that are for the Presbyterial Government. Suppose there were found one Man in a Presbytery, that is but an ordinary Minister for his Station, in a particular Congregation (and so he hath a right and lawful calling in the Ministry) and (as it is possible there may, and oftentimes it doth fall out to be) suppose that this Man hath more Abilities for Wisdom, Holiness, and all other Ministerial Gifts; than all the rest of that Presbytery, suppose such an one as Calvin, who was an ordinary Minister of Geneva, and an Elder in the Presbytery there. If now that Presbytery he liveth in, having a a right and an ability in themselves, as a Presbytery, to Judge and Determine in all cases that fall, within the Jurisdiction thereof, should oblige themselves not to proceed to Sentence without his advice, in a peculiar manner first asked, they would think it both a Blessing of their Authority, and a giving of too much Authority to that Man; much more if this obligation should lie upon other Presbyteries, whereof he is not a Member. This step (which was the first Episcopal Authority) the Presbyterians would think unlawful to allow unto such a Man; and in this point, they are so tender, as they will not yield so much as a constant Moderatorship, without any other power; and yet that there should be always one Moderator, in such an Assembly, is necessary, if there be an order kept up amongst them, as is in other Bodies. But now for a Congregation to advise with a Superior Presbytery, in a constant way, is not so much as necessary; for where there is no need of advice, it is not necessary. Let this case and the other, be Paralleled, and see whether there may not be the like said for Congregations, they having this right amongst themselves.
The constancy of asking advice upon all cases, though it were pretended to be but advice; yet the act itself, by reason of its constancy, would argue a Majority of Power and Rule, it would turn to such in them (at least in the issue) that already claim it; and so claim it, as that some of the Presbyterians pretend all the power to be in the classical Presbytery, and not in the Congregational; and that the Congregational Elders, in their act of Excommunication, are but the Deputies of the classical Presbyteries, and that they are Praecones, the Proclaimers only of the Sentence; but the Presbyterians are the Judges. That power that is already in one Kingdom, hath a jus divinum, and if set up in another, would pretend to it; and when the plurality of Men shall be once for it (for the Rigidity of that power) it will draw up all the power to itself. And a Churches yielding, from such Liberties and Privileges, is by God's usual Dispensation, the loss of them in the issue, To whom we yielded not, (saith the Apostle) no, not for an Hour, that the Truth of the Gospel might continue with you, Gal. 2. 5.
When the Court challenged (about the choice of Masters of Colleges) this as the privilege of the King, that the Party should at least be made known to him, the University stood upon their Privileges, that they might choose and admit, without giving notice to the Court; knowing that they should soon loose their power, if but so much were given up to a greater power over them. Had there been yielding but for a time, it would have endangered, in the issue and consequence, the very continuance of that Truth of the Gospel, which in that respect was professed by them. Periculosum est in rebus Divinis ut quis suo jure cedat ac potestate, Cyprian Epist. ad Jubaian de heret. Baptiz: And all those Arguments, which were brought against Bishops, as having a direct power over Ministers, will fall in here; for directive power is that, when the exercise of it is at the direction of another.
And farther, consider that, what will make the Church to be under Age, and to be a Child for Knowledge, and guided of itself, is unlawful; but always to ask advice, and to be bound so to do, is to bring the Church under Age, and so to be in Bondage (for to be under Age, and in Bondage, is all one, as in Gal. 1. 2, 3.) to be as well under these Tutors, as under Governors; under Tutors, whom they must advise withal; and under Governors, whose Authoritative Sentence must first be asked.
Reason 4. That which the Churches of the Primitive Times did, having a Right and an Ability to do it, and was a Duty lay upon them, to do of themselves, that should Congregational Churches, having a right to do now, do without having first Recourse for advice to Presbyteries. And what the Apostles, though set over Churches, and who were more able to advise, than all the Presbyteries now are, did not yet require of the Churches; but blamed them, if they neglected to proceed of themselves, that Presbyteries are not now to require of the Churches to do, which the Apostles did not. But for Churches then to advise with the Apostles or Evangelists, or extraordinary Officers, before they proceed to Excommunicate, was not then required; but it was their Duty to proceed of themselves, according to the power Christ had given them, without waiting for such advice This is clear in the case of the Church of Corinth (whether it were Congregational or Presbyterial, we dispute not now) because that this Church had a Right to Judge that Incestuous Corinthian; and the Fact was so evident, that advice they needed not (Do not ye Judge (saith the Apostle) them that are within? Doth it not belong to you) he blameth them, that they did it not. And as Chrysostom saith, he accuseth them, not that they did not certify him of it; but because they had not mourned, or thrown him out. The Apostle thus showing, that it ought to have been done without a Monitor, because of the Evidence of the Sin: And when they had neglected to do it, Paul doth not do it himself; but only as an Apostle Doctrinally declareth such an one to be Excommunicated by the Church he liveth in. He doth not require, that they should come unto him for his Sentence, before they did it; but he calleth upon them to do it themselves because they neglected it.
Reason 5. That which is to be supposed needless, that is not to be done in a constant way. To go ask advice, when there is no need of advice, is needless. The Sanhedrin was God's Ordinance in its place, but if the Cities should still have come up for advice needlessly, they would not have found a Blessing in it. And besides that which is an acknowledgment of the Deficiency of God's Ordinance, and God's Presence with his own Ordinance, that ought not to be done; but such a constant having recourse for advice, is acknowledgment of such an insufficiency; for if they do not want it, why should they be bound to ask it?
Reason 6. Let this obligation to advise with another Presbytery, and for them to approve, &c. ere that a Church (that hath Power and Ability from Christ) proceed to Excommunicate, be but Parallel'd with the obligation of a particular Minister or Pastor, for the works of his Office; which, by virtue of his Office, he is enabled, by Christ, to do singly, and alone; the Presbytery of a Congregation being (as was said) as perfect and as completely enabled, for all acts within itself, as a particular Minister can be supposed alone to be enabled to the works of his Office, (suppose Preaching, and the like) God's means being as perfect for Government, as they are for Preaching or Baptizing. Now then, as it would be a Derogation from the Gifts of Christ, and from the Office that Christ hath put a Man into; and a Dishonor to the Man that is a Minister, constantly to advise afore he performs any act of his calling; and be bound so to do, before he Preacheth a Sermon, or the like. The like Derogation would it be to a Church, and the Presbytery thereof, to be obliged to advised, for all their acts of Government, which they perform. And yet look what ground or occasion there will be, for a Man that is a Preacher, to advise with others of his Brethren, about what he is to Preach; the like will be acknowledged, and as far the one, as the other, in their several proportions, for a Congregational Church, and the Presbytery thereof, to advise with other Churches. If a Minister should be to Preach anything that is of great Difficulty, and like to be much gainsaid, and contradicted, anything that is of great Moment, or new, or uncouth; in that case he may do well to advise, afore he Preacheth, and have the Judgment of his Brethren. So if such a case of Government cometh, in any kind, that hath a great difficulty in it, wherein they are not clear what they shall do, or they, upon grounds, think that the way, they are to proceed, is like to be offensive and scandalous to the Churches, about them when done; in this case they may advise. Occasional advisings, so far as there is a ground for them, we deny not.
Reason 7. That which a classical Presbytery is not bound to do to a Provincial, nor a Provincial to a National Assembly; that upon the same grounds a Congregation (if it have a sufficient Presbytery) is not bound to do to a classical Presbytery. What ground can be alleged, why a classical Presbytery is not bound to advise with a Provincial Assembly, ere it proceeds to Excommunication, but this? That it is an Ordinance sufficient for those acts, within itself. If then a Congregation be by Christ enabled (he having given sufficiency of Power, and Gifts among them) to do all acts within itself. Why should this Church (which the promise of Christ's Presence, to be among them, is first made to) which is the Seat both of Worship and Government, be deprived of its privilege, when the others are not. Where Jesus Christ hath given Power, he hath given Gifts.
Reason 8. What is it they should advise thus constantly for, and about what should they depend upon the Sentence of a classical Presbytery? First, it is not out of want of Skill; for that must be either of the Jus, that is, that they are unskillful, to know the Rule, for what sins Men should be Excommunicated. Now in the constant cases that fall out in Congregations, for which Men should be Excommunicated, the Rule is known well enough; that Excommunication is for such and such gross sins as the Scripture holds forth, and as are Scandalous to all Christians; and if any new cases fall out, let them advise. And we acknowledge, that Synods may be of use to find out those Rules, and to hold them forth; But when once they are held forth and known, and commonly received, there needs no advice to know the matter of right, for which Men are to be Excommunicated. Or else it must be want of Skill, of judging the matter of Fact done; and for that they need not advise, for it is to be proved by Witnesses. A company of Elders, and a Congregation, may as well be able to judge of that, as all the Assemblies in the World; and may be thought as sufficient, and as faithful to judge, whether the Fact be fully proved and cleared by Witnesses, or no, or is it want of skill, in that Judging, what obstinacy and impenitency is. As for that (as I said before) they are entrusted to Judge of it; for if they will receive him upon his Repentance, without bringing him to the classis, they may; neither are they to bring him thither, till he is obstinate. Secondly; It is not to have Authority from the Sentence of that Synod, that advice is necessary. For that Authority, must either be an Authority of Reverence only, or a further power Political. There needs not a further Political power, to be judged by their Sentence; for if a Congregation, and the Presbytery thereof, should proceed to Excommunication, the party was as truly Excommunicated, and with as full a power from Christ, as if all the Synods in the World had ratified it. And therefore to add Authority, as Defective in the Congregation, to that end their Sentence is needless. And then when a Man is to be Excommunicated, he is to be Excommunicated by them; when it is done, it is done by them; and if a classis addeth not Authority, it should not take away this Authority, by obliging Men to advise, and to have their Sentence first. If of Reverence only, then it should be giving a respectful Deference to their Judgments, which in some cases is allowable.
Reason 9. Those Admonitions which the classical Presbytery are to give to the Person that is brought before them, by the Elders of his Congregation (they having themselves Admonished him, and he remained obstinate under their Admonitions) are either an Instituted Ordinance of Christ, Preparatory to Excommunication, to be further applied to him, over and above those given him by his own Congregation: Or they are to work in a way of Moral persuasion, and by the way Reverence, that the person hath of the classical Presbytery, more than of his own Congregation; that is, they either work politically, as an Institution of Christ upon him, or only Morally. For what is it, by which this Man's Conscience must be wrought upon, in these Superadded Admonitions of the classical Presbytery, having been obstinate under those of his own? It must either be vi materiae, by reason of the matter; and that they have a great Reverence in the Man's Conscience; or it must be by their being invested with an Authority from Christ. And if these Admonitions of the classical Presbytery be as an Institution Preparatory, they are to be reckoned Ordinances of the same Rank and Kind, with those which the Elders of his own Church hath given him; which Admonitions are not as if a company of Saints or Ministers should meet him occasionally, and Admonish him; (for he may have a Thousand such Admonitions, and yet his sin not be accounted ripe for Excommunication) but his sin is then ripe for Excommunication, when Admonitions Ministerially Administred, by such as Christ hath appointed, have been Administred to him, and he continues obstinate. So that Admonitions either may be said to have a persuasive power only, or else a Ministerial power by way of Institution; and so work on a Man by the Blessing of God upon them, and by virtue of the promise: And, in the want of either of them, a Man cannot be judged fit to be Excommunicated; because that Christ's means, appointed by him, have not been applied to him. So then every Admonition, in this way of Ordinance, is in order unto Excommunication, if the Person continues obstinate.
Now then first; if it be such a necessary Ordinance to be Administred by the classical Presbytery, afore such time as the party can be Excommunicated; Then 1. The Congregational Eldership, and the Admonitions thereof, is not a perfect Ordinance. And 2. It were not only a sin, for any Congregational Church to Excommunicate a Man, without bringing of him first to the classical Presbytery; but the Man also is not capable, till then, of being Excommunicated by his own Church; for it may be said, there wants an Ordinance to be applied to him, before he is to be Excommunicated; for all such Admonitions, that are a special Ordinance of Christ, as being preparatory to Excommunication, and in order thereunto, are not to be omitted. And let it be shewn, that Christ hath divided by his Institution, that some Admonitions should be in a Man's own Congregation, by his own Eldership, and others afterward to be by a classical Presbytery, before he is to be Excommunicated by his own Church. And also 3. If it were thus, then a Congregational Presbytery hath not sufficient power to Excommunicate a Man; for if he is, by virtue of an Institution, to be Admonished, also by a classical Presbytery, this Presbytery must, by Institution, have power also to give Sentence, without which, the Sentence of the Congregation were not sufficient; for that Church which hath power to Admonish publicly, in order to Excommunication, must necessarily have the power also to join in the Excommunication, or else the Excommunication is not valid.
But Secondly; If they be Admonitions only in a persuasive way, to a Man that is obstinate, to work upon him, as, and with a Reverence of the persons Admonishing, and to that end, he is brought to the classical Presbytery, to be Admonished, consider what will follow from it. 1. That those Ministers should rather be called out, which he in a peculiar manner most Reverenceth; they being the fittest Persons to give Admonitions, as John the Baptist was to Admonish Herod, because Herod Reverenced him (as the Text saith) and therefore to make an Admonition-Court, of a certain sort of persons, whom perhaps the Man knows not, this is to extend it beyond what the ground of a Reverence will always reach unto. And by this reason likewise, there might be someone man, of Eminent Gifts, set up to Admonish, which should move a greater Reverence in the Hearts of Men, more than half a Dozen Presbyteries. 2. If he be brought only upon this ground, to be thus Admonished by them; then a mere Moral Ordinance of less force, is preferred to a standing Instituted Ordinance, that, according to Christ's Institution, is of a greater: a Moral power is preferred to a political that is given by Christ, whereas on the other side, the means, that a Man's own Congregation hath used, being Instituted means, the Blessing of Christ depends upon it.
Its true, we grant that if a company of Saints, or a company of Ministers occasionally meet him, they might admonish him, and God may bless it; but when those means, that Christ hath appointed, hath past upon him, and he is not wrought upon by them, then for us to set up any other Court of a Company of Men, to bring him unto; which, by Christ's appointment, hath a power of a lesser kind (as if it is but a Moral Reverential power, it is no more) this is but a Secondary and remote power, in comparison of the former. It is but Perswasive, it is not Ministerial, and persuasive Admonitions were applied to him afore, and he was past them; he was Admonished by the Brother in private, he was Admonished by two or three more, which that Brother took to join with him; and therefore in a Congregation, Christ brings him to an Authoritative means, which himself hath in a public manner instituted; and to bring him then from these means, unto persuasive means again; this must needs fall short, and be blasted to this Man's Conscience, when the means, that Christ hath in a special manner instituted, had taken no place upon him; and this would also make Jesus Christ to proceed, from the greater to the lesser: Unless it be affirmed by those, who hold that the Congregations have a sufficient Presbytery for Excommunication, yet Christ's appointment is; that classical Presbyteries must always join with them, without which they are imperfect, which is indeed a condition. Thus there is the show of an ordinance set up, to the prejudice of the ordinance of Christ; whereas there should not be set up an Image to resemble any appointment of Christ; and if anything, put into the road of an ordinance, be in the stead of an ordinance, or preferred to an ordinance, it will grow flat, though of itself it be good, and, upon occasion, may be useful; as we acknowledge the admonitions of a classical Presbytery may be; but not in this case. We acknowledge that such an admonition, God may bless, as he may bless good conference; but if any would set up good conference, as a more efficacious ordinance than Preaching, when Preaching is the special ordinance, there would not be found that blessing in it.
If it be said, but may not all good means be used, to reclaim a Man that is obstinate, before he be proceeded against by Excommunication? And is it not good means, to be admonished by a company of Men Grave and Holy; and is not this better, than to be admonished only by those of a Man's own Congregation?
I answer 1. That the goodness of all means lies in the Blessing and Appointment of Christ; and if he have appointed means sufficient, as the admonitions of the Eldership of a particular Congregation is, then in a constant and set way, to have an admonition Court, to bring Men unto, further to be admonished, hath not a Warrant for it. If the Congregational Presbytery be a sufficient Presbytery; then they are a • sufficient means; and Cursed is he that addeth, as well as he that takes from Christ's Institution, he that will use more than Christ hath appointed, as well as he that will use less. In this case we may say, If they will not believe Moses and the Prophets, neither will they believe if one come from the Dead; because God had appointed Moses and the Prophets, to be a sufficient means. And thus in Physic also, to use more than is prescribed, is as dangerous as to use less. And further, if he is to be accounted obstinate, after the admonition of his own Congregation, so as to be Excommunicated (as if they be a sufficient means, he is to be so accounted) then as God cutteth Men off, when their sins are ripe, so the Church also doth.
Answ. 2. If all good means were to be set up, as instituted ordinances, then this Man should be brought to be admonished by the principal Assembly, before he is Excommunicated; yea, and before the National too (if you will set the bounds in a classical Presbytery; why had you not as good set them in a Congregational (if a Congregational be sufficient) where Christ hath set it?) For you may suppose still, that if he had the provincial Assemblie's admonition (Men of greater Authority and Reverence) it might prevent his Excommunication. And besides, if he may, after his Excommunication, appeal to them, why should he not be brought unto them before?
Reason 10. Add to this, that until the Delinquent hath been Admonished, before all the People of the Congregation, he hath not had all the means applied unto him, in his own Congregation, which Christ hath appointed to work Repentance in him: For the whole Church is not told of it, as Christ would have it; neither is he Rebuked before all, so that all may mourn and lament over him, to break his Heart. And surely, it is the right of every Congregation, and of every Member in it, to have all means used, that are sufficient within that Congregation, afore its Members are brought▪ before Strangers. Now if they are to be admonished by the classical Presbytery; after that they have been thus admonished twice or thrice, publicly in the Congregation, then, in that respect also, there is a proceeding from a greater, and more sufficient means unto a less sufficient: For the admonition of the classical Presbytery, though given by public Persons, yet it is given privately; whereas the means according to Christ's Order, is to go from more private, to more public, as a way of doing the person good. And the shame is more public afore the Congregation, than afore the Consistory; and therefore, according to the Presbyterial practices, they are admonished first by the classical Presbytery, and when they are found obstinate, there they have two or three admonitions publicly before the people, afore he is Excommunicated; which admonitions, if they are in order to Repentance, then they are more Efficacious, than what hath been done in the consistory of Elders, and therefore used last; and and if more Efficacious, why (according to the right of a Congregation, and according to the sufficiency of means in a Congregation) were they not used first, so as the person need not be brought, in order to his Repentance, before the classical Presbytery; because a more sufficient means hath already been used? So that in a word, they are carried unto the Presbytery, either afore or after they are admonished publicly in the Congregation; if afore, all good means have not been used in the Congregation; If after, you go from a more Efficacious means, unto a less Efficacious, even in that respect forementioned also.
Reason 11. When the Apostle saith, Tit. 3. 10. after one or two Admonitions, him that is an Heretic Reject, as condemned of himself, as much by those means, as by a Thousand; the admonitions he intendeth there, are those that are public, and given by them that have the power of Excommunicating. If he be admonished afore his own Congregation, and the Elders thereof, these are either such admonitions the Apostle there intendeth, or not; if they be, he is to be rejected, without being admonished by any other; for the Apostle's Rule plainly evidenceth, that there is but one kind of public power, by which the admonitions should be applied: And therefore if the classical Presbytery were that power, which should Reject and Excommunicate this Man, upon their two or three admonitions; then he is not to be brought down, to have admonitions again, afore the people in his own Congregation; but he is to be Rejected, without any further proceeding; so that if he be brought to the classical Presbytery, after he hath been admonished before the whole Congregation, the Apostle's rule is not observed, or if he be brought to the Congregation, after he hath been with those that have the public power, to admonish and cast him out; the Apostle's rule is not observed neither; and thus whereas God hath built one or two Altars, this would be to build seven.
Reason 12. That practice, which will breed distractions, and more inconveniences, ought not to be. But for a Congregation, that is supposed to have sufficient power in itself, to depend upon the classical Presbytery, for a Sentence first past, will breed greater inconveniences, than for them to proceed without them. For the first, if the Congregational Eldership be of one mind, that a Man ought to be Excommunicated, and the classical Presbytery is of another, the Congregational Eldership having sufficient power, and the Conscience of Duty lying upon them, they are to proceed notwithstanding; and so by rejecting the advice aforehand, of the classical Presbytery, they are brought to cast a greater contempt upon it, than if they had proceeded without their Sentence, and so as to give them an account. And as for the party, if he will refuse to go afore the classical Presbytery (his conscience judging, and that upon right grounds, that the Congregation hath sufficient power, to proceed against him) what Rules, in Scripture, will compel him to go to be admonished afore them? If he goes by an Appeal, that's after Sentence, and then the Congregation and he are parties; if he goes as complained of by the Congregation, by what rule can they constrain him to it?
CHAP. VIII.
Some Objections answered.
Object. 1. THat Excommunication is a matter of so great weight, to give a Man up unto Satan, to throw him out of the Communion of Saints, as that for the weight and greatness of the Sentence, it should be advised upon, by a further Eldership, by a greater company, than those of a Man's own Congregation.
Answ. 1. You greaten the ordinance of Excommunication, as the Papists did that of the Lord's Supper, preferring it before Preaching, and so magnified the Clergy, and the Priests that Consecrated the Sacrament, and also drew the people to the Worshipping of the Bread. Thus you also advance an undue power of the Clergy, combined in an Association of particular Congregations; and to take their power away, under pretence of the greatness of the ordinance committed to them.
Answ. 2. And yet, it is not so great and dreadful a Sentence, according to your own opinion, making it only to be a cutting off of a Church, and not to import a formal delivering up unto Satan. And
Answ. 3. If the Congregation, and the Eldership thereof, be sufficient for power and skill, and faithfulness; why, for the greatness of the Sentence, should there be a going out to other Churches, when Christ hath proportioned his means to his end? And what is there in the Execution of a Brother, that these may not be supposed to be sufficient for, and to be betrusted with? They are betrusted to Preach the word, every particular person is (whether it prove Error or Truth) till he do miscarry. They are betrusted to admit Members, to Suspend from the Sacrament? why not to Excommunicate? Yea, the Sentence, and the proof itself, depends upon two or three Witnesses by God's appointment, and they cast it; and this, though the matter were brought before all the Judges in the World; then why not, when the matter is brought afore two or three Officers, faithful Men, and a Congregation of Saints; why should not they be esteemed as faithful Judges, as others? If you commit to a Jury, and one Judge, a Recorder or a Lawyer in an Incorporate Town, though decayed, the power of Life and Death, and cutting a Man off from this life, which when it is done, cannot be remedied again; then why should you not betrust the power of cutting a Man off from the Church (if it be unto the Congregation, as being in this case the Judges and Jury) Especially, when as there may be a remedy? For he is not so cut off, but he may be restored.
Answ. 5. Wherein should the greatness of Excommunication lie, but in the matter for which a Man is Excommunicated? We Profess, it is not for niceties; but for sins against light, against the common principles of Nature, and Christianity; as the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 5. 3. He that hath so done this Deed. There must be a Scelus in it, that, if he goes on in it, will Damn his Soul; and therefore the Apostle calls that Corinthian, That wicked Person ver. 13. And for these things, the Congregation is as well able to judge, as all the Elders in the World. In the matter of sact, (as was said afore) a Jury of Twelve men, do judge of the Fact, when a man's Life is concerned; and by a parity of reason, a Congregation may judge of the matter of fact, for which a man is to be thrown out of the Church.
Object. 2. But Excommunication is, Res communis, a common concern, which other Neighbor Churches have an interest in, and in that respect, they are to have a joint concurrence in it aforehand.
Answ. 1. So it is likewise, to all the Churches in the World, more especially in the Nation, and the party may remove to any other part of the Kingdom; and so, then all the Kingdom should have a concurrence in the act aforehand as well, and then the whole Nation should be called.
Answ. 2. If the common interest of Churches should carry it, then it would follow, that because he is Excommunicated out of all the Churches of that Presbytery, all the Churches should be present at his Excommunication, as well as that particular Church he is a Member of.
Answ. 3. If Neighbourhood and common interest be insisted on, then the Churches of the next Presbytery (whereof many may be nearer to that Congregation, to which he is joined, than this classical Presbytery) should be present also; for the Man may go thither to be received, and therefore it is fit that they should have an interest aforehand too. There is no Reason to be given, why it should be Res communis, A common affair, to that classical Presbytery, more than to other Neighbor Churches, as to the thing itself, it can only be said, they have associated voluntarily: But then the ground of that Association must be considered.
Answ. 4. When a Man is cast out of one Church, he is cast out of all Churches; but not formally, but only consequently, and by virtue of communion of Churches, this common Law being among them, that no other Church should receive him, till he have given satisfaction to his own; and therefore answerably, it is not an antecedent cognizance afore, and by other Churches, that it is necessary, but only a consequent, as was the manner of the Primitive times, to send to Churches after, and to tell them, from such an one let us abstain, this being the Law among Churches; that if a Man be cast out of one Church, he is cast out of all; either all Churches must be called, one as well as another, or else some particular Church must be betrusted, and betrusted by Christ; and if so, why not his own Congregation, having a sufficient Eldership for Excommunication.
Answ. 5. In admission (as was urged afore) every particular Church is betrusted to admit Members; and, by virtue of the admission of Members into it, they are admitted to have communion in all Churches; and therefore, why should it not be entrusted for Excommunication also. It is no obstacle, that it is Res communis, A common Business; for the other is equally such, to all other Churches. We ask also, if that Suspension be not Res communis, A common concern also, insomuch, that until such time as he is Excommunicated, all Churches are to Suspend him from the Sacrament, after his own Church hath Suspended him? And if so, upon that ground, why should not all Churches be acquainted with his Suspension aforehand?
Answ. 6. The fifth Canon of the Council of Nice tells us, that Synods were therefore appointed amongst other ends, that all the Churches might know, who had been Excommunicated by a particular Bishop (as the manner was then) that all the rest might account him so, until he had given satisfaction. They were not therefore to be called aforehand, afore he was Excommunicated, on the pretence of a common interest.
Object. 3. But in the multitude of Counselors, there is strength.
Answ. 1. Let them have the use of Counselors only, and we deny it not. A Man will not go for Counsel, unless there be need; and in cases of need, we do acknowledge it.
Answ. 2. That Rule is the Rule of Nature; but we have a Rule for the sufficiency of the Eldership of a Congregation, with an Institution, and with a promise of Christ's presence, where two or three are gathered together. If this were founded upon mere Nature; then we would yield, that this Axiom might have place, and they might still take in more Counselors to them. But a Rule of Nature, will not set up an ordinance, though it may help to manage it; and it should not be set to weaken it, and disparage it, as this doth. Let us rest in God's ordinance, and rest in God's number, what he hath thought sufficient; and the conscience will rather be quieted, and wrought upon by subjection to an ordinance, than to a multitude. The promise is not to a company of more persons, as such; but the promise is made to the relation, to the constitution, and the blessing depends upon the promise; and to this purpose, God will be with two or three, as well as with three Thousand in an ordinary way. The Laws of England sets not up a multitude of Counselors, that is, of Lawyers, for the Judging of Life and Death; but it sets up a few Judges, who sometimes alone, sometimes two or three together, do Judge all Causes, when yet there are multitudes of Lawyers, and as good Lawyers as they, and as able to Counsel. If we all do rest satisfied in this Law, as the ordinance of the Kingdom, why should we not rest in the other, as the ordinance of Christ?
Answ. 3. If this alleged rule held, then classical Presbyteries should go to greater Synods; for there is a multitude of more Counselors. And then all the Churches should continually have had recourse to the Apostles, while they were alive, in all such Acts of Discipline; for any Apostle might have said, am not I Wiser? Send them unto me; yea, cannot I more effectually persuade? Therefore both take my advice, and come to me for my Sentence; bring them afore me, to be admonished. The Apostles indeed, when they were present in Churches, did join with the Elders and Officers of the Churches, in their Acts of Government; but they did not require (if absent) that the Churches should come to advise with them.
Object. 4. But may not this be done for peace sake, whenas this will compound all, and accommodate the differences amongst us?
Answ. 4. It is in the case of Peace, as in the case of Scandal. If a Brother be offended, and the thing be indifferent, and in my liberty; then indeed I may forbear, and I ought to forbear, because of an offense; but I am not to forbear, if it be a Duty which he is offended at; neither am I to give away a liberty: So for peace, Men may forbear things that are indifferent to them, and so they ought to do: Yea, they may conceal their own Judgments, and forbear to practice some things, which otherwise they might do; as the Apostle says, Rom. 14. 22. Hast thou Faith? Have it to thyself. But a Man is to do nothing positive, that shall acknowledge a seeming power, and bring Congregations into Bondage, when Christ hath set them free; for Peace must be so kept in Churches, as that withal their privileges must be kept. There is no yielding from that right, which Christ hath given. The case of peace holdeth not in the acknowledgment of a false power, for that will breed Destruction.
Answ. 2. It is the keeping of the true bounds of power, as Christ hath seated them, that will preserve the peace of Churches; but to yield unto a false power, will always be occasion of quarrels.
Object. 5. But because that these Churches may be perhaps offended, with what you do, and with that Sentence you shall give, and so be engaged to question you for that Act, after you have done it; is it not therefore better to advise aforehand, and so to prevent that offense?
Answ. 1. It was the preventing offenses, and the avoiding of Schisms, that did set up Episcopal Power, as Jerome saith; for because a multitude of Presbyters could not agree in their Presbyteries, they devolved it into one Man; but the Remedy was worse than the Disease; for it Degenerated into Tyranny.
Answ. 2. Simply to prevent an offense, the liberty of Churches, nor the rights that is in Churches, is not to be taken away. An actual offense arising is a ground indeed for the Neighbouring Churches, to call upon that Church, to give them satisfaction; and there doth hereupon a Duty lie upon this Church, if it have miscarried, to give them satisfaction. But then they must be actually offended.
Answ. 3. The ground, why they would have us advise with the classical Presbytery, is not merely to prevent offenses; but it is because they claim an Authority.
Answ. 4. The case must be supposed so to fall out, that either the classical Presbytery will be of the same mind with the Congregational, or not. If it be supposed, that they shall be of the same mind, then there needs not to be advice to prevent offense; and this will ordinarily be the case, when the Rulers for Excommunication are fixed, and by some common Agreement, concluded upon between Churches. Or if it be supposed, they may not agree, in that case the Congregational Presbytery is put into a greater strait, and will run into an higher contempt and offense of the Presbytery classical, when they shall think themselves bound to Excommunicate the Man, against the Advice and Sentence of the classical Presbytery given them.
Answ. 5. There is no Inferior Court, which hath a Power and Ability to Judge, that, upon a Supposition of miscarriage, and of offending of an Higher Court, hath an obligation laid upon it, upon all occasions, therefore to advise with that Higher Court, to prevent these Appeals, and these Offences.
Answ. 6. If, for avoiding of offenses, there should be such advising always afore Sentence with other, or more or greater Churches; then the classical Churches should never give Sentence; for they may incur the offense of the Provincial, and this latter likewise of the National. And therefore, supposing that these Courts were one above another, and that the inferior had a full Right and Power to finish the Sentence of Excommunication, it were much better, to leave it to the cognizance of the higher Courts, by way of Appeals, than under the presupposition and pretence, that offenses may arise to weaken the Right of the particular Congregation, by an obligation to advise, and to have the Sentence of the higher Court antecedent.
The Government OF THE Churches of Christ.
BOOK IV.
The claims of the Presbyterian Government considered, and refuted. That the Church Universal, is not a Church Political, and the Seat of Government. That the Institution for Worship and Government, falleth not upon the Saints in a Nation, as a Nation or Kingdom, to be the Seat of it. That an Argument cannot be urged, for a National Church-Government, from the Instance of the Jewish Pattern. That a standing Presbytery is not to be set up, to Exercise Power and Jurisdiction, over particular Congregations.
CHAP. I.
That the Church Universal is not a Church Political, and the Seat of Instituted Government.
I shall now examine the Validity of the Presbyterian claims for their Government; and first, I shall prove, that the Church Universal is not, in the whole, and in all the Subordinate parts of it, a Church-Political, and the Seat of Instituted Government. The Church Catholic is not a formed Politick Body, which Christ hath made the Seat of this power. That it indeed affordeth fit materials, both of Saints and Men gifted, we grant, even as Men are by Nature, having variety of several parts, and variety of gifts, fitted to the Bodies Politick; and if you take all Mankind, there is, among them, variety of gifts, and Dispositions fitted to make up Common-wealths; yet all Mankind, taken together, are not a politick Body, but as they are formed up into Common wealths or Kingdoms; and Men, having thus several gifts, are put into several Offices and Places, in those several Kingdoms and Common-wealths; which are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Human Creature, as the Apostle calls it. Even so it is here.
We yield also, that take the Church Universal in its parts, and so the Keys are given to the whole partitive, as divided into several Bodies, in whom God hath set Teachers and Pastors, &c. As we say he hath set, in a Kingdom, Constables and Justices of the peace, &c. but yet every Constable is not a Constable of the whole Kingdom; so he hath set in his Church Apostles, &c. who were as the Nobles, and were Ministers, and had power in all Churches; yet exercised their power, per partes, as they came to this Church, and that Church; but he hath set other ordinary Officers, as other Justices of Peace in their several less Jurisdictions, or as Majors and Recorders in Incorporate Towns.
We yield also, that all these Churches, by virtue of their Catholic Relation, are knit together again in a common communion, on which they owe one unto another, by several Bands and Ties, so as they have communion one with another; and that as Churches too, and with their Elders, as Elders: But the present question is▪ of the Keys of Jurisdiction.
1. These Keys cannot be given to the whole Universal Church; for first they do not, nor indeed can assemble.
2. The whole Universal Church, hath not all the Keys; for it is not capable of Preaching, nor is it capable of Receiving the Sacraments altogether. And suppose there were a General Council, of all the Ministers of the World, and they should receive the Sacrament; they should not receive it as Ministers, but they should receive it only as Believers.
That the Church-Catholics on Earth, neither is, nor can be the Seat of this public Worship, nor of this Government, as appears by those Arguments.
1. It can no more be so, than all Mankind can make a Common wealth.
2 This is reserved to Heaven, which is the only General Assembly, where the Worship of God is perfected; to which all other particular Assemblies, the Family on Earth, come, Heb. 12. 23.
3. If this power of Governing be given to the Church Universal; then either to a meeting of Elders, or of all the Faithful: Not of all the Faithful, for they cannot meet as in Congregations they do; nor is there any Institution for all the Males to meet, as in Jerusalem, nor for all the People, Male and Female, as once every Seventh year there, so these in someone place in the World. Neither is this power of Government, given to any meeting of Elders, as Elders to the Church Universal; for then either it must be, that God hath appointed a set company, as in the Sanhedrin, whose Office peculiarly it is, to be these Catholic Elders, set apart for that Work, as those who were Elders of the People (such in a manner were the Apostles,) And if so, let the ordinary Institution for this be shewn, such as theirs was for that, Deut. 7. 17. This indeed is the Popish principle, that all Bishops, are by Office Catholic Bishops; and may all, by their Office, attend a General Council: And thus as in Jury, God might have made two great ordinances, for the Government of his Church only; an Universal Sanhedrin for the Church Catholic (such as the Parliamentary power is in this Kingdom) and the other in that of Villages and Cities; there being none intermediate, or subordinate between them. But if it were so, then all intermediate Synods should be taken away, and only a General Council be that, to which all Congregations should Appeal. And that the Institution was not so, is evident by this, that all our Divines do acknowledge, that General Councils are but ad been esse, and not absolutely necessary, (which they would be, if the primary Institution fell upon them) and therefore for the first Three Hundred years, there was none. But if the meaning be, that each Elder is an Elder of the Church Universal; and that the Church Universal is a Politick Body, throughout from top to bottom, the greater part still Ruling the lesser, and the Universal Ruling the whole: So as by virtue of their Relation to the whole, they act in any part, or may act in the whole (which is according to the Principles that the Assembly goes upon, in their answer to our Reasons) then the Institution of the politick Power, is made to fall first, and primarily on the Church Universal; for in their first Praecognitum, they say the whole Church is one, made up of the collection of all; and that hence there is a dependency of all the lesser, as parts upon the whole. But
4. If the Institution falls upon the Church Universal, then the Church Universal is a politick Body; and if so, then as this whole Church should be but one politick Body, so each Elder, should be an Elder to this whole Church, for all ends and purposes of an Elder, both for Worship and Government, for Elder and Church are Relative; as when the Apostle saith, Ordain the Elders to every Church, assuredly they had the relation of Elders to that Church, both for Worship and Government. Now this will set up an unparalleled Monster in Government, the like to which Mankind never knew; and therefore cannot be the Institution of Christ; for Christ's Government is orderly. Now the Monstrousness of this will appear. 1. This will make an external politick Government to be managed by Men, (by Christ the Head, we grant it is now managed) that is, greater than any of the Monarchies, which, through their vastness, were hurtful to Mankind, whom they Ruled. For the Church Universal on Earth, is now, and hath been ever since the Apostle's time, in most of Nations, As Mr. Brerewood proves. There are the Ethiopic and Arabian Christians in Africa; the Grecians under the Turk: The Armenians under the Persian, the Indian Christians of St. Thomas, so called, because he was the Converter of Christians there; then there are all which are in Europe: And that many of these Churches are, in a great measure, pure in their Doctrine, or at least have enough to save Men; and so cannot be excluded out of the List of the Church-Catholic, appeareth by that confession of Faith, made by Patriarch Cyril, in the Name of the Grecian Churches. Now to have so vast a Body to be in the whole, the Seat of Government (especially if you add to it, when the fullness of the Jews and Gentiles shall come in, and the North and South shall give themselves to Christ) how can this be practicable? And if not so, how can it be the Institution? It is true, that Christ's Internal Kingdom, and is thus large managed by himself, both in whole, and in part, and by his Spirit: But that his External Kingdom should be such, is inconceivable.
2. That, which increaseth the wonder, is, that all these should be governed by a general Aristocracy, whereas that it should be governed, by one Man, would be more feasable: But then,
3. It makes it more strange, that this should further be the Law of it, that every Elder of every Congregation, should be the Elder of these Churches, yea, of the whole Church; for all acts of Government, and that he should be bound up in his constant function, and exercise to the compass of one Congregation; and yet have, by a Fundamental Institution, a Right of Eldership in power, in all the Churches of the World besides. See but how absurd such a Government will be in the like civil Society, that were so vast a Body; suppose that in all these Countries mentioned, or all over the World, the Forms of Government, that now are, should be pulled down, and should begin anew; and that the Government should be, that the Burgomasters or Aldermen, yea, Constables of every little Town or Village, chosen by the People, should be an Alderman to all ends and purposes, in all Towns Imperial, Incorporate, yea, in Villages, to Hang and Draw, as occasion is, throughout the World, and to have as much Right, as any therein; and by virtue of the Law, this Duty should lie on him, to stir up others, and join with others (if there be anything amiss) to assume the Authority to execute this. We read indeed, that in the Roman Monarchy, it was the privilege of private Persons, that he who was free of one City, Rome, was free of all the World, for Trading, &c. but that he should have power of Office in all Cities, was never heard of. This is a thing that never fell out, no not in Israel. There were indeed, general Elders, on purpose, appointed over all the Nation; but they were not Elders over every City. It is nowhere found, but in Turkey, it is not to be paralleled, but in that Government, which the Janizaries have, and among the Jesuits, it is the Law of their Society, but it is formidable to Princes, as was that of the Templars.
4. It is strange, that Christ should appoint such a Government, and leave it loosely for the persons, if they be called (as that is the Limitation with which our Brethren would mollify it) to act in this, or that part of the Universal Church; and never so much as set down any of these things. In so great a Body, and Latitude of power, there had needed to have been, the most sure and certain Order, distinctly appointed by Christ. For let it be considered, how many things were to be ordered: As whether there should be but one General Council, to which all controversies should be brought, as in Israel the Sanhedrim was: And whether it should be of a constant standing, or be chosen anew every year: Whether in it, there should be more of Ruling or Teaching Elders, or an equal number of both: Whether there should be many Subordinations of sorts of Elders, and how many of them; and by what Rules and Limits, set out; and what number of each Elders should be therein: And who should choose them which are to be sent, whether every individual Elder meeting, as in provincial Assemblies they did, or whether a few chosen should choose the others. It is a wonder, that Christ hath set down none of these things, that he neither appointed one General Court, to which all Appeals should be brought; nor, if there were to be Subordinate Synods, hath assigned how many they should be, nor so much as declared, that there should be any such Subordination. And if the General Law of this supposed Government is, that every greater number should Rule the less; this would be an exceeding loose, and confused foundation of a settled Government; and a settled Government, Christ must be supposed to have left. In this case therefore, surely there should, of necessity, be the most positive Law to determine what that call is, whereby such should execute it, as well as to lay down a Law for the right, or else everyone of them would challenge it; for every Man will say, he hath as good a Right as another, nay, greater.
5. This Right would both give all a pretence to it, as also lay it upon them. For as it is their Duty (as it was Paul's) to take care of all the Churches, so they have a call already, by their Fundamental Relation. And then if Elders, chosen by the Churches, should determine one way; yet the rest having a Fundamental Right, being Catholic Elders by Institution, might Determine the other way; for the obligation is by virtue of their being Elders of this Catholic Church.
6. Christ never gave an Institution, which was never brought forth into Act; but such is this pretended Institution of a Catholic Church, to be the Seat of Government.
1. Because that Church can never meet; and as frustra est potentia, sic etiam potestas quae non reducitur in Actum, i. e. not only Natural Power; but Authority too is in vain, which cannot be brought into the condition of Acting. Christ did not set up a Doctrinal Principle for Government, and policy in the Speculation; but such an one as is practical. And our Presbyterian Brethren make use of the Notion, yet reject the thing; for they would be unwilling, that a General Council of all Christians interested, should be the Major part, Determining all the parts of Government and Doctrine, and bind up all Churches thereunto. Surely Jesus Christ suited his Government of his Church to all times, and there have been few times, in the World, in which this could be done, no not by General Councils; Divisions have and will hinder it, Persecutions, or distance of place, or want of consent, who shall call them, will hinder it.
2. It cannot be, that the primary Institution should fall upon it; for then the Institution should fall upon the Representative Church first, rather than on the Church both of the Faithful, and of the Elders too. But the Institution must rather be where both are; for they have more of the Reality of a Church.
3. God giveth Gifts and Abilities, suitable to all his Institutions; when God did call Apostles to an Universal Eldership, he gave them Gifts suitable: Now there are few, we may say none, of Elders that are fit to be Elders Catholic, that are fit to act in the Church Universal: And yet, everyone in their place, every Ruling Elder, by this principle, must be supposed to be fit if called; for the Institution and their Office (according to this principle) doth give them the Jus, the Right, and the Ability; whereas the choice, by others, gives only the exercise; but the right, if founded upon an Institution, supposeth a fitness, or an Ability in all. That every Bishop (who pretended to have an higher Degree of Office, than ordinary Elders, by Divine Institution) should be a Catholic Bishop (for by the Antient Canon Law, all Bishops, in the World, might be of a General Council, by virtue of their place) is far more supposable. For as by their principles, they were of an higher Function; so a supposition might be made, of a proportionably higher Eminency of Parts, and Gifts to be in them, above other Men, as in some few in the Church there eminently is, as well as there is a vast difference of Natural Gifts, among the Sons of Men. Thus as Bishops were supposed to be Men of an Higher Degree, so, like Saul, they might be supposed Taller than their fellows. But to make all Elders, yea, Ruling Elders, (for they must come in too, if they be likewise by Institution) and all Ministers, Catholic Elders, and fit for General Councils, is to assert, that Christ hath also given to them all Gifts and Abilities, suitable to so Great a function and charge.
4. God never called Men to do work in any part, which they are not capable of, as these Catholic Elders are not; for they ought to have variety of Languages, as God gave the Apostles. For if Appeals may be made, they are to hear every Man in his own Language speak for himself. When God did make Catholic Elders, Catholic Rulers, he gave them Languages. You argue more Congregations than one, from variety of Languages in Jerusalem, or else they could not perform their Duties to each. We may do the like against this Catholic Eldership here. If it had been only asserted, that every Man is an Elder of a Church, in the same Nation, then indeed such Elders might, in respect of Language, have been fit for their Office; but if you extend their Office to all the World, then it is impossible for them, to discharge it, when they are called to exercise it in any part of it, since they have not all Languages; and so are not capable of a call, to exercise their whole Function (as our Brethren say, their Right and Office is) in every part, or in the whole. But now when God made Officers of all Churches, he gave Gifts accordingly, Tongues, and Languages, as to the Apostles. Now we believe, that most Ruling Elders, have but one Language; yea, and if Latin, were the general Language, they were not fit to be Catholic Elders.
5. By the Law of this Rule, if the Apostles should have met in a General Council, other Elders being also in that General Council, Catholic Elders, and being there, by virtue of being Catholic Elders, they must needs have been, in that respect, equal with the Apostles. For in that place, and in that Sphere, what could the Apostles challenge more of Authority amongst them, since to be a Catholic Elder, was the Highest Authority of an Apostle?
6. This principle is contradictory to other principles of our Presbyterian Brethren: For, whereas to rear up their Subordination of Assemblies, they invented a Representative Relation, personating many Churches, and also other Superior Assemblies, such as National, and General Councils; this new taken up principle, of every Elder's being an Elder of the Universal Church, destroys it, or makes it needless. It takes away all such Representations; for every Person, chosen to be of them, was already a Member really, and not Representatively of the whole, and hath a full Right of Eldership of the whole Church, according to this their Notion, and the special call, any one hath, is but Designatio personae, a Designation of the Person, who shall serve at such a time; but in that Council, when met, he Representeth the whole Church, as much as any particular Church, when he meeteth there. And to make him an Elder, representing any particular Church, is to give him a lower Title than he had; for he is an Elder of the Universal. And his call only gives the Exercitium, the other gives the Jus, which is more than the Exercitium, for it is the root of it.
7. It would make Bellarmine's Argument good, that the greater company of Elders simply would have the greater Authority; for, it lying not in representation, but in being Elders of the Catholic Church, they must (though out of a Council) needs carry it, if more of them will agree to meet in a Body, at any time.
8. If every Elder were thus an Elder of a Church Universal, then the Church Universal should call him to his Office; but the Church Universal doth not call him, but only particular Churches. For Church and Elder are Relatives, and the call is that which makes the Relation: And Jesus Christ calleth either mediately, or immediately. Immediately, he indeed did call Apostles to be Officers of the Church Universal; but then himself did it, and gave Gifts accordingly fit for it. When he calleth mediately, there is a proportion between the means by which he calleth, and the thing whereto a Man is called; and therefore the proportion must lie in this, if he be a Member of the Church Universal, the Church Universal must be the means of his call; and if he be called by a particular Church, then his Office reacheth no further: We have an express Institution, that Elders were set over their particular Flocks, by the Holy Ghost, Acts 20. and when the Apostles themselves, who were General Officers of all Churches, did Ordain any Elder, it was but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so that although the callers had an Universal power, which no Synod in the World hath the like; yet the Office of the called was limited, according to the Seat and Church, to which he was called: And if the Apostle did not make General Elders, who yet had an Universal Power, then surely a particular Church cannot make a general Elder, that exceeds its proportion; he is thereby limited both by the extent of the power of the callers, and the limits of the Seat, to which he is called: And indeed, the Nature of an Office, in the Church, is a Separation of him for a constant work; it is not to do here and there an act of Office, as a Journy-man, but to have a constant employment, which Office therefore is limited to a certain Church, which Church also calleth him to a certain employment there. And if it be said that a Corporation hath power to call a Man to be a Member of the Parliament, for the whole Kingdom. Yet there is a double difference in this. The Law faith not, that every Burgess is a Parliament Man, and a Burgess of the Kingdom; which is, that you would make to be the Law here. And then in the Second place, the whole Terminus, and Object of his call, is to be a Burgess in that case of the whole Kingdom; and the relation ceaseth, when the use and exercise ceaseth.
And if it be said, that every Member is a Member of the Church Universal; and therefore every Elder is an Elder of the Church Universal: The case is not the same: For the one is a mere communion by way of privilege: The other is by way of Jurisdiction. And there is a great deal of difference, between a Man's being free to Trade in all places, and in all Countries; and to have the power of a Senator, or a Constable, or a Noble-man, in all Countries where ever he comes. And sure our Brethren will not hold themselves to the parallel thereof, for 1. Tho' a Member of any other Church hath the privilege to Receive the Sacrament, or have his Child Baptized; yet they would not allow him a capacity of being called (when he comes occasionally among them) to choose an Officer with them, or exercise such a privilege over them, or with them. 2. If the proportion of Elder and Members be observed, then by this Rule, as any Member of another Church may, without any further special call, than barely a Testimony, that he is a member of another Church, challenge communion with any Church; (without any precedaneous active call of the Church intervening) so by the same Rule of proportion, if every Elder, were an Elder of the Church Universal, you need not say, if he be called by another Church, he may do thus or thus; but if it be made out by made out by Testimony, that he is an Elder of another Church, he may challenge the privilege of an Elder, as the other may of a member. 3. As for the communion of members in other Churches, there needs not any special Association of Churches into a Presbytery, neither hath a member a further right or call, to receive in a Church within his Association, then in any other Church in the World. By like Reason, Associations should be as needless for these Universal Elders to exercise Government in, and if the proportion holds, then as the Elder or Elders of one Association is excluded from coming to intermeddle in a Neighbor Association: So members of another Association should be from communion in those Churches, which are not Associated with it.
9. That which is the principle and foundation of Popery; and which if it prevailed, and all the Churches challenge the right of it, would hinder further Reformation and Growth in the Truth; and would make all the Reformed Churches Schismatics, and would justify Nonresidency, and introduce a Foreign Ecclesiastical Government, in all States and Kingdoms, that cannot be Christ's Government: But such is this Catholic Political Church.
1. As for Popery, Bellarmine and Suarez lay this Foundation for the Pope's Authority. 1. That the Church Universal is a politick Body, and he quoteth the same Scripture, that our Brethren use to do. And 2. He saith therefore, it must have a Supreme power, existing somewhere: For as there cannot be una res publica sine Civili Suprema potestate, nor unus exercitus sine imperatore;