Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 2 · Chapter 10
CHAP. X. Some Objections m…de against Ecclesiastical Government a…d Discipline answered.
MR. Hussey in his Epistle to my selfe objecteth thus, What will your censure doe? it will shame a few whores and knaves; a great matter to shame them the Law of nature shameth.
All this in terminis might have been as justly objected against the Apostle Paul, when he wrote to the Corinthians to put away from among themselves the incestuous man. What will your censure do Paul? a great matter to shame one whom the law of nature shameth. The Lord save me from that Religion which will not shame Whores and Theeves, and all other whom the Law of Nature shameth, and that in a Church way (as well as civilly) if any such member fall into such impiety: yet this is not all. All Orthodox Writers that write of Church-censures, will tell him, that scandalls either of Doctrine or life, either against the first or second Table, fall under Ecclesiastical cognizance and censure.
Secondly, He argueth thus Ibid. Sure in the day of our Lord there will be as good a returne of the word preached, as of the censure. And in his plea pag. 1. If the Word be able to make the man of God perfect, then nothing is wanting to him: perfectum cui nihil deest: and it is a wonder how that Conscience should be wrought upon by humane authority, with whom divine cannot prevail.
Answ. 1. This also he might as well have objected against the Apostle Paul, who did require the Corinthians to put away from among them the incestuous man, and Titus to rej…ct an Heretick after once or twice admonishing of him. 2. He might object the same thing against Magistracy. Shall there not be a better account of the word preached then of Magistracy? and if the Word be able to make the man of God perfect, there is no need of Magistracy. Perfectum est cui nihil deest. Surely many Erastian Arguments do wound Civil as well as Ecclesiastical Government. 3. Church-censures are not acts of humane authority, for they are dispensed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and (if clave non errante) are ratified in heaven. 4. Discipline is no addition to that Word which is able to make the man of God perfect, for it is one of the directions of the Word. 5. The comparison which some make between the efficacy of the Word preached, and the efficacy of Church-discipline, as to the point of converting and winning foules, is a meer fallacy ab ignoratione …lenchi: for Church discipline is not intended as a converting, light-giving, or lifegiving Ordinance. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God: and the Word is the power of God for salvation to every one that beleeveth. But Ecclesiastical Discipline hath a necessary use, though it hath not that use. Discipline and censures in the Church are intended. 1. For the glory of God. that his name may not be blasphemed, nor the doctrine of the Gospel reproached, by occasion of uncensured scandalls in the Church. 2. For keeping the Ordinances of Christ from prophanation and pollution, that signa gratiae divinae, the signes of Gods favour and grace, and the seales of his Covenant may be denied to unworthy scandalous persons. 3. For preserving the Church from the infection of bad and scandalous examples, it is fit to put a black mark upon them, and to put away the wicked person as the Apostle saith; for a rotten member if it be not cut off, and a scabbed sheep if not separated from the flock, may infect the rest. 4. For the good also of the offender himself, that he may be ashamed, and humbled. 2 Thes. 3. 14. 2. Cor. 2. 7. This afflicting of the sinner with shame and sorrow, may and shall by the blessing of God be a means to the destruction of the flesh; 1 Cor. 5. 5. that is to tame and mortifie his lusts, and so far removere prohibens that he may be the better wrought upon by the Word. I conclude, Church-Government being instituted by Christ, and having a necessary use in the Church; the Erastians gain nothing by comparing it with the Word. Because it is not so necessary as the Word, Ergo, it is not necessary at all. Or because it is not efficacious in the same manner as the word is. Ergo it is not efficacious at all. The Apostle saith Christ sent me not to baptiz… but to preach the Gospel, 1 Cor. 1. 17. What if he had said Christ sent me not to rule but to preach the Gospel? Then had the Erastians triumphed. Yet this expression could not have proved that Church-government is not an Ordinance of Christ, more then that can prove that Baptisme is not an Ordinance of Christ. A negative in the comparative, will not inferre a negative in the positive.
3. Object. I could never yet see said Mr. Coleman, how two coordinate governments exempt from Superiority and inferiority can be in one State.
Against this I instanced in the co-ordinate governments of a General and an Admiral, of a Master and a Father, of a Captain and a Master in one ship. Mr. Hussey finding he can not make good Mr. Colemans word, tells me pag. 7. that he meaneth two supreme co-ordinate Governments. Where first he loseth ground, and tacitely yeeldeth that Church-Government and Civil Government, distinct each from other do well consist, as long as they are not supreme, but as two armes under one head: No inconsistency therefore of Congregational and Classical Elderships, and of Provinciall Assemblies, with the subordinate Magistrates and civil Courts in Cities and Counties. Next we shall find also in Scripture two co-ordinate supreme Governments, for the civil and the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin of the Jewes were both supreme and co-ordinate, and there was no appeal from the sentence of either: as is evident by that disjunctive Law, Deut. 17. 12. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the Priest (that is to the Priests, as vers. 9.) or unto the Judge (that is, the Assembly or Court of Judges, as I have cleared else-where) even that man shall die. But I have also answered more fully this objection concerning co-ordination. Chap. 8.
4. Object. Ministers have other work to do, and such as will take up the whole man. To this Argument (saith Mr. Hussey pag. 8.) Mr. Gilespie maketh no answer at all, though Saint Paul useth the very self same Argument to discharge the Preachers from oversight of the poor. Act. 6. 2. God forbid we should leave the care of the word of God, and serve at Tables. It will not be unseasonable to mind both him and Mr. Prynne that the canonized names by them used Stylo Romano, Saint Paul, Saint Matthew, Saint Mark, &c. ought to be laid aside, except they will use it of all Saints, and why not as well Saint Moses, and Saint Aar…n (whom the Psalmist calls the Saint of the Lord?) or why not Saint Aquila, Saint Apollos, Saint Epaphras, &c. Methinks men professing Reformation ought not to satisfie themselves in using this forme of speech, onelyonly of such as have been canoniz…dat Rome, and inrolled Saints in the Popes Calender. And as strange it is that Mr. Hussey makes Paul to act in the businesse, Act. 6. before he was either Saint or Apostle. Now to the Argument. I did answer at first (though Mr. Hussey is pleased not to take notice of it) pag. 36. that where Mr. Coleman objected, Ministers have other work to do, he might as well have added, that when Ministers have done that other work, and all that ever they can, yet without the power of Church-government, they shall not keep themselves, nor the Ordinances from pollution: that is, Church-Government is a part of their work, and a necessary part, which hath been proved: I thought it enough to touch an answer where an objection was but touched: another objection in that very place being more insisted on (and with more colour of reason) concerning the fear of an ambitious ensnarement.
And for the objection now in hand, Mr. Hussey hath made it no whit stronger by his instance from Act. 6. For 1. the Apostles did not wholy lay aside the care of the poor. Sure Paul (afterward an Apostle) took great care of the poor at diverse times, and in diverse places as himself recordeth: but such taking care of the poor as did distract and hinder them from the main work of preaching the Gospel, this was it which they declined; and in that respect the work of baptizing also did give place to the work of preaching, 1 Cor. 1. 17. Likewise the work of Discipline must be so ordered, as may not hinder the principal work of preaching the Gospel: which is very possible, yea probatum est: for where Church-government is exercised, there are as painful Preachers as any in the World, and such as neglect none of their other work. 2. To take speciall and particular care of the poor, did belong by Christs institution (whose mind was no doubt known to the Apostles) to the office of Deacons, and for that reason the Ministers of the word ought in like manner to be relieved of that burthen by Deacons: but Church-Government doth belong to the Elders of the Church, of whom some labour both in Doctrine and Government, others in Government onelyonly.
But neither must the Argument go so, I have another thing to ask; what is that other work which will take up the whole man? Mr. Hussey pag. 12. expounds Mr. Colemans meaning, that the preaching of the Gospel would take up the whole man, especially in our time: our knowledge of the Scriptures is to be acquired by ordinary means &c. And in his Epistle to the Parliament he saith, I found the Minister charged onelyonly with preaching and baptizing, which being performed with such zeal and diligence as is needful, is aboundantly a sufficient employment. And so he takes off the Minister not onelyonly from Government, but from visiting particular families, especially the sick; from catechising and examining those who are to be admitted to the Lords Supper, from the celebration of the Lords Supper it self, to say nothing of the solemnization of marriage, yea from disputations in Schools concerning the controversies of the time, which yet himself so much calls for. And why? the Minister hath other work to do, and such as will take up the whole man, which is to preach and baptize.
5. Object. If acts of Government be put in the hands of Church-Officers, there is fear of an ambitious ensnarement, which Mr. Coleman proved by an arguing from his owne heart to the hearts of other men. Mr. Gilespies answer to the matter of ambition saith Mr. Hussey, pag. 10. is onelyonly by involving the Civil Magistrate in the same danger of ambition. And here he falleth out into a concertation, professedly with my answer, but really with Mr. Colemans Argument: for the foundation of his Argument was universal. Might I measure others by my selfe, and I know not why I may not (God fashioneth mens hearts alike, and as in warer face answers to face, so the heart of man to man) &c. Hereupon I replyed, Is this corruption onelyonly in the hearts of Ministers? or is it in the hearts of all other men? I suppose he will say in all mens hearts; and then his Argument will conclude against all Civil Government.
And now per omnes musas I beseech him, which of us involveth the Magistrate in ambition? Must I be charged with involving the Magistrate because I discovered that Mr. Colemans Argument involveth the Magistrate? He might as truly say he is not the Traytor that commits Treason, but he is the Traytor that … Treason. And why saith he that my answer was onelyonly concerning that involving of the Magistrate? Did I not first shew that the two Scriptures on which Mr. Colemans Argument was grounded, did not prove it: though now Mr. Hussey tells us Mr. Coleman did but allude to those Scriptures (I am sure it was all the Scripturall proof which was brought for that Argument upon which so much weight was laid) which I will not trouble my Reader withall saith he: A pretty shift, when a man cannot defend the Argument, then forsooth he will not trouble the Reader. Next, did I not deny that which Mr. Coleman did take for granted; that we may reason from this or that particular corruption in one mans heart, to prove the same particular corruption in all other mens hearts, and that Paul taught us not so? Phil. 2. 3. Did I not also answer in his owne words, that his Brethrens wisedom and humility may safely be trusted with as large a share of Government as themselves desire? Did I not lastly answer, that if his whole Argument were granted, it cannot prove that there ought to be no Church-Government, for where the thing is necessary, abuses must be corrected and amended, but must not take away the thing it self? Unto which exceptions nothing hath been replied, nor offered to vindicate or make good that Argument which was publikely offered to the Parliament. If such men were fit to put the reverend Assembly and all the Ministery of England to school again, to learn to dispute, let every pious and wise man judg. And so I am ledd on to another Objection.
6. Object. Schools of Divinity will advance learning and Religion, and get us an able Ministery more then Ecclesiasticall Government can do. So Mr. Col man in his Sermon pag. …6. Yea Mr. Hussey calleth for Schools, that there may be unity found among the Preachers of the Gospel, together with more learning and knowledge, pag. 12, 13, 14, 15. (where by the way the Jesuits are much beholding to him, and Protestant Writers very little.) In his Epistle to the Parliament he desireth that Ministers would unbend their thought of Government, and think on wayes to get knowledge. I should have thought multum scientiae, parum Cons…ientiae, might be as seasonable a complaint. Knowledge and learning are indeed most necessary, and I am confident shall flourish more under Presbyteriall Government, then either under Popery or Prelacy. School-disputes need not hinder Ecclesiastical Government: that ought to be done, and this not to be left undone. There is a practical part which belongs to Presbyteries and Synods, as well as a contemplative part belonging to Schools: which made mSynod. Dord. sess. 18. Et quia vocati ad ministerium regimini Ecclesiae aliquando sunt praeficiendi: Ecclesiarum vero regimen in Scholis exacte non addiscitur, non abs re f…ret si aliquot ante vocasionem mensibus, in urbibus … us potestas His fiat ut inte…sint Presbyter…is, &c.the Divines of Ze…land to offer this among other Articles to be advised upon by the Synod of Dort, that they who are preparing for the Ministery, may (after their education at Schools, before their setling in the Ministery) be for some space present in Presbyteries, to learn Church-Government. That which a Minister must do, is work: and that work is labouring in the Word and Doctrine, in ruling and watching over the flock, in dispensing the Ordinances to them as a faithful Steward. But Mr. Hussey pag. 15. tells us the Minister must not be called from his study to examine notorious offences: which indeed suteth his notion of Schools. The Grecians did not intend Schools for any such work; for to them foreign was rest from work, and foreign to be idle, to take a vacation from work, that is, from other affairs, and from a practical life, to attend reading and studies. If Schools be made to serve for all those necessary uses which Church-Government will serve for; then there is much said; but other wise nothing against us.
7. Object. But Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? if the power of Government and censures be in the hands of Church-officers, how shall they be censurable and punishable for their owne offences? How shall the Censurers themselves be censured? This objection I find in the eight Epistle of Dionysius Areopagita (or who ever he was that wrote under that name) It was made by one D…mophilus, What then say you, must not the prophane Priests, or such as are convicted to have done somewhat amisse be corrected? and shall it be lawful to them alone, while they glory in the Law, to dishonour God by breaking of the Law? A little after, this direct answer is made to the objection. But if perhaps any among these erre from that which it becommeth him to do, foreign, let him be corrected by the Saints of his owne order, and so order shall not be intermixed with order, but each one shall be exercised in his owne order and administration. As the faults of Church-officers deserve the greatest censures, so in all the Reformed Churches, where the free exercise and administration of Church-discipline is received, there is greatest severity of Church-discipline against Church-officers, and especially against Ministers of the Word, when any such are upon just proof convict of scandal. It is too much diffidence (and groundlesse, I dare say) to apprehend that Ministers who have taken upon them the bond of such a Covenant, and joyned in such a Reformation, will yet be ready to connive at any scandalous person of their owne coat. And if a Classis should happen to commit such an error, yet there can be no such fear in this particular from a Provinciall or National Assembly, which in a well Reformed Church, (as they are constituted of choice, able, and godly, both Ministers and others assembled from diverse quarters, so) use to correct (not to confirme) the maladministration in inferior Ecclesiastical Courts. I speak here of the Ecclesiastical offences of Church-officers: their other offences belonging wholy to the Civil cognizance and Jurisdiction.
8. Object. But let the Scripture speak expressely, and Institutions appear Institutions, and all must bow. It is asked why we must not prove a must be, as well as a may be: and whether do our proofes amount to an Institution and a Ius divinum. For satisfaction in this point also. I answer the Question which for the present I speak to, is not whether Christ hath in his Word limited and determined us to any one particular forme of Church-government, so as no other forme can be admitted as lawful or agreeable to the Word: Much lesse do I now enquire what is that particular forme or kind of Government which Christ hath instituted. But the present controversie with the Erastians is, whether Christ have not appointed and instituted a Government in his Church in the hands of Churchofficers, distinct from Civil government: As it is one thing to enquire whether it be the will of God, that there be a civil Government or Magistracy, that is, that there be not an Anarchie in a N…tion, but some rule and government. Another thing, to enquire whether God hath in his Word limitted a nation to any one particular kind of Civil Government, and if any, what it is? So it is one thing to enquire whether it be the will of Christ, that there be an Ecclesiastical Government, or an intrinsecal power of ruling in the hands of Church-officers, distinct from the civil Government? Another thing to ask whether the Word determineth any one kind of Church-Government as necessary, and which it is? The former, not the latter is our present controversie. Yea in very truth the Erastians do oppose not onelyonly the institution, but the lawfulnesse and agreeablenesse to the Word of God, of a Church-Government distinct from the civil; For their principles and Arguments tend to the investing of the civil Magistrate with the whole and sole power of Church-Government; as that which belongeth to him onelyonly, and that Iure divino: So that if their Principles hold good, it shall be unlawful and contrary to the Word of God, for Church-officers to claim, or assume, or exercise any Government or power of censures. Though (I say) the clearing and vindicating of the lawfulnesse of a distinct Church-Government, doth overthrow the Erastian Principles: yet that I may deal the more clearly and fully, for the satisfaction of all such as may be satisfied, this I avouch and averre: It is Jure divino, It is the will of God, and of his Sonne Iesus Christ the King and Head of his Church, that there be a Church-Government in the hands of Church-Officers distinct from the Civil Government. It is de necessitate praecepti, of the necessity of precept that it be s…. It is sin and a violation of Christ… Institution if it be not so. I am confident the Arguments which I have brought Chap. 9. will reach this point, and fully conclude it, especially if the strength of them be put together. Yet now to drive the nail to the head, I adde these following Arguments, directly inferring and proving an Institution.
First, The Scripture speaks of Church Government in the same manner, and with the same height, fulnesse, and peremptorinesse of expression, as it speaketh of other things which are without controversie acknowledged even by the Erastians themselves to be Institutions of Christ. For instance, Let the Erastians prove against the Socinians the necessity and perpetuity of the Ordinance of Baptisme, that it ought to continue alwais in the Church, and that by vertue of an Institution and precept of Christ: I will undertake by the like medium to inferre the like conclusion concerning Church-Government. Again, let them prove the necessity, perpetuity, and institution (I say not now of the Word it self, or of preaching, but) of the ministery, or of the Pastoral office, I will bring the like Argument concerning Church-Government: I do not now compare or paralel the Government with the Ministery of the Word quo ad necessitatem medii vel finis, as being equally necessary to salvation, nor yet as being equally excellent; but this I say, The one is by the Scripture language an Institution and Ordinance of Christ as well as the other. One Ordinance may differ much from another, and still both be Ordinances.
Secondly, Church-Government is reckoned among such things as had an Institution, and which God did set in the Church, 1 Cor. 12. 28. It is a good Argument for the Institution of Pastors and Teachers, that God set them in the Church, as we read in that place, and Christ gave them to the Church, Ephes. 4. 11. Will not this then hold as well for the Institution of a Government in the Church? That the Governments mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 28. are Ecclesiastical and distinct from civil, is already proved, Chap. 6.
Thirdly, If it be the will and commandement of God, that we be subject and obedient to Church-Governors, as those who are over us in the Lord, as well as to civil Governors, then it is the will of God that there be a rule and Government in the Church, distinct from the civil. For Relata se mut…o ponunt vel tollunt. If we be obliged by the fifth commandement to honour Magistrates as Fathers, then it is the will of God that there be such Fathers. So when we are commanded to know them which are over us in the Lord, and to esteem them highly, 1 Thess. 5. 12. to honour doubly Elders that rule well, 1 Tim. 5. 17. to be subject and obedlent unto Ecclesiasticall Rulers, Heb. 13. 17. with verse 7. 24. doth not this intimate the will of God, that Pasto…s and Elders be over us in the Lord, and rule us Ecclesiastically?
Fourthly, That which being administred is a praise and commendati…n to a Church, and being omitted is a ground of controversie to Christ against a Church, can be no other then an Ordinance, and necessary duty. But Church-Government and Discipline is such a thing, as being administred, it is a praise and commendation to a Church, 2 Cor. 2. 9. Revil. 2. 2. and being omitted is a ground of Controversie to Christ against a Church, 1 Cor. 5. 1. 2. 6. Revel. 2. 14. 20. Ergo.
Fifthly, The rules and directions concerning an Ecclesiastical Government and Discipline are delivered preceptwise in Scripture 1 Cor. 5. 13. Put away that wicked person from among you. 2 Thess. 3. 14. Note that man. Tit. 3. 10. A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject. Augustine lib. contra Donatistas post Collationem, Cap. 4. saith that Church-censur…s and discipline are exercised in th… Church secundum praeceptum Apostolicum, according to the Apostolick precept, for which he citeth 2 Thess. 3. 14.
Sixthly, There is an Institution and command, Matth. 18 17. Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican. In which place there are three Acts of the Church, that is, of the Assembly of Church-Officers. 1. They must be met together to receive complaints and accusations, Tell the Church. 2. They give sentence concerning the case, if he neglect to hear the Church, &c. Where heareing is required and obedience, there must needs be an authoritative speaking or judging. So that they who would prove the Church here hath onelyonly power to admonish doctrinally, because it is said If he hear not the Church; they may as well prove that the Judges of Israel had no more power but to admonish doctrinally because it is appointed Deut. 17. 12. that the man who will not hearken to the Judge shall die; and it is not there expressed that the Judge shall put him to death, more then it is expressed here that the Church shall declare the offender to be as a heathen and a publican. 3. They must bind such a one by Excommunication, Whatsoever ye bind on earth, &c.
Neither could it ever enter in the thoughts of Jesus Christ to command one Church-member or private brother to esteem another brother as an heathen and a publican, whom he would not have so esteemed by the whole Church: and least of all can it be the will of Christ that one and the same person should be esteemed by one of the Church to▪ be as a heathen and a publican, and withall be esteemed by the whole Church as a brother, a good Christian, a Church-member, and accordingly to be freely admitted to the Ordinances.