Christian Concord, Part 2
More particularly, 1. Some Brethren of the Classicall way may possibly Object, that joyning with us in this way, may seem to signifie a dislike of the Resolutions of the Assembly, or a Consent to the undoing of what they have done. Ans. There is no ground for this scruple: For we do not disclaim or condemn the judgement or way of any party, by taking up at present with what all are agreed in. A present forbearance of the use of full Classicall Government, is no rejecting it. We did in this County seek for Authority from the Parliament many years ago, for the establishing of the Presbyterian Government; and all our endeavours were frustrate. And many Brethren that make this Objection, do Preach themselves without the exercise of the Presbyterian Government. For because they live not in London, Lancashire, Shropskire, where that Government was authorized by Parliament, therefore they will not use it: And so some of them for many years have forborn all administration of the Lords Supper, and others administer it without any exercise of Discipline: And may not we as lawfully exercise so much as all are agreed in, as they may forbear all?
Obj. But why may not you as well set up the Classicall Government punctually, as do what you do? Ans. We are not all of one minde; and those of us that are for the Classicall Government, do not think those parts of it which we here omit and forbear, to be of so great necessity or moment, as for the present use of it, to disjoyn and divide from all our Brethren of a different Judgement. We take our selves bound to do much for the Unity and Peace of the Churches: Besides, being many of us at a losse in several controverted Points of Discipline, we think the Amicable Union and Association of Brethren, where all things may be frequently and plainly debated, will be the likeliest way to satisfie and rectifie us in those controverted Points. In the mean time, you may joyn with us in going so far as we can go Unanimously, without disclaiming, yea or forbearing your own way. For I think the constant exercise of the Presbyterian Government may well consist with our Propositions and Associations: part of it being indeed above, but not contrary to our Agreement, and therefore may be done by those that will overgo us, without dividing from us.
As for the Objection about the Necessity of Ordaining Elders, it is answered before.
And whereas it may be Objected, that we do allow a single Minister to name offendors, and to charge it on the peoples consciences to avoid Communion with them, which only a Presbytery is authorized to do, I answer, 1. We desire each Church may have a Presbytery, and then we are agreed. 2. The Brethren of the Classicall Way do allow a single Pastor to pronounce the sentence of Excommunication it self, so be it he have the advice and consent of a Presbytery. And to avoid all possibility of breach upon this ground, we have agreed to take the advice of the Association of Ministers, before we require the people to avoid Communion with any. Only we resolve not to do this all on the same reasons and principles: One may think it of flat necessity in a Regimentall way: Another may think it of necessity in a way of Union: Another may think it convenient to avoid miscarriages and rash censures in so weighty a case: Another may think it fit to be yielded to, for Peace with those Brethren that judge it necessary, seeing it is unquestionably lawfull to take advice in cases of such weight. And why must we needs agree in our Reasons, as long as we agree in our practice? 3. It is only a Preaching power that we exercise, applying Christs doctrine to particular persons and cases: supposing the evidence of the fact and guilt to be beyound question, we do but apply the word to the person hereupon. The Word saith that with such we must not eat, we must not bid them Good speed, we must turn away from them, &c.] Now I have neighbours that go mad-drunk about the streets sometime once a week, sometime once in three daies, sometime but once a fortnight; Where hath God made it the prerogative of a Presbytery to name this man openly? or to say, With such a man you must not eat?] Or if I have a neighbour that would openly perswade others that Scripture is a fable and no Word of God; Why may not I say, [Bid him not good speed.] Have not Pastors a charge of particular souls, but only of people in general? Is not the Old Testament and New full of examples to warrant us in this? Take heed of crying down duty, under pretence of questioning Authority. If a single Pastor (that hath no Presbytery) shall all his time neglect the personal, publique reproof of such men, or warning the Church to avoid them, Dare you warrant him and answer for him at Gods barre? and for all the wrong that the Church may sustain by his neglect? If publique naming men be a Classicall Presbyterial, or Episcopal prerogative, then it will be as unlawfull for me to make so close an application, as to note out the person without naming him; for the case is all one. And then I may not answer a Separatist that will publiquely contradict my doctrine: or that will step up and Preach lies in my Congregation; because I cannot answer or reprehend him, without naming him, or personally applying my speeches to him. And then it seems a Minister may not out of the Pulpit name or describe any particular offendors openly, either in the Church or elsewhere: For the Pulpit makes not the difference (nor have we agreed there to do it.) What a deal of unscriptural invention is here? tending to the overthrow of all Ministerial power and duty. For if you will prove that one man may not name or particularize a sinner in reproof in publique, I will prove by the same reason that he may not as a Minister do it less publiquely before any witnesses; nor yet may perswade such particular persons to believe in Jesus Christ; which Paul durst do to a Felix or Agrippa.
Obj. But the offended Brother is bid [Tell the Church] and not Tell a particular Minister. And it is the Church that he is to hear.
Ans. And dare you say, he must not hear a particular Minister? Suppose it were granted you, that one Minister cannot be a Representative Church (as you interpret this Text) nor yet that it is the Congregation that is here meant; Doth it follow that because ultimatly the offended person must tell the Presbytery or Classis, that therefore he must not tell a single Pastor? or yet that a single Pastor must not without such telling, take notice of open abominations in the streets, nor personally reprove men? Thrust nothing on the Church without Scripture. It seems I may not go into the streets to reprove a railer, or part a fray, or reprehend the breakers of the Lords day, because it is a Classical or Episcopal prerogative to name men openly. Whether Lot offended in rebuking the Sodemites, will then be a hard question: For its like there was a greater Assembly then we have ordinarily at Worship: And if a Pastor may not do it, much less may any private man do it: and so farewell all brotherly open admonition, by any but a Classis or Bishop.
Obj. But, at least, one man may not sit in Judgement, nor examine the evidence of the fact when it is doubtfull. Ans. 1. A Pastor must endeavour to know the state of every particular soul in his charge, and therefore use all fit means to finde out all scandalous sins. May not he go to, or send for one of his people, and ask him whether such things be so or not? or ask others whether they know it? What is that Question which a Classis or Bishop may put, and a Pastor may not? 2. But for administring Oathes we meddle not with it. 3. And where the case is doubtfull, we disclaim all Determinations or Censures: Those we leave as others prorogative, confessing it belongs not to us. I do not think that so high a penalty as exclusion from Church-Communion, must passe upon dark and doubtfull Evidences.
Let me add this much of my own private Opinion (wherein all my Brethren here agree not with me,) I confess I take it for a very clear truth, that one single Pastor may not only do what we have agreed in, but may properly Excommunicate, and may Govern a Church, where there is no other Governour of that Church with him: Nay more then that, I think he may and must do all that we agree in (in this point) though there were a Presbytery in that Church, and the major Vote were against him. I would willingly give you my reasons for these Assertions; but only for fear lest you should think by my reasoning for them, that these were any part of our Agreement, or that our Propositions had any necessary dependance on these.
I will say no more to any Objections that may possibly be made by my Brethren of the Classical way, because I finde by experience it is needless (if others be as those with us,) For they are the forwardest men to our Union and Association, of any others (here.) The Lord grant the like spirit of Unity and Condescension in other Parts.