A Defense of Sundry Positions of the Congregational Way, Position 17
POSITION XVII.
So long as a Believer doth not joyn himſelf to ſome particular Congregation, he is without in the Apoſtles ſenſe, 1 Cor. 5.12.
Thoſe without, Anſwer. of whom the Apoſtle ſpeaketh, were unbelievers, Pagans, and Heathen; without Chriſt, as well as without the viſible Church.
Let it be granted that thoſe whom the Apoſtle ſpeaks of were both without Chriſt, Reply. and without the viſible Church, yet it may be ſecurely affirmed that the Apoſtle ſpeaks of them under the notion of ſuch as were without the viſible church, and not of thoſe that were without Chriſt.
1.Singuli de ſuâ familia judicant, non immittunt conſuram in alienam ſamiliam. Ergo, in Eccleſia ſimilis ſervetur ratio ut ſingulae deſuit membris judicent, Aretius in 1 Cor. 5. Becauſe thoſe (without) whom the Apoſtle had not to do to judge, ſtand in oppoſition to thoſe within, verſ. 12. the latter part, whom the Church of Corinth had to do to judge, and conſequently (if this expoſition of yours be true) the judgement of the Church of Corinth extended as far as the ultima Thule, the lands end of Chriſtianity; and only ceaſed when it came to the conſines of Paganiſme; and conſequently any one Church hath power to judge any one Believer in all the world, becauſe (ſay you) he is not without in the Apoſtles ſenſe; that is to ſay, he is not a Pagan, Heathen, or unbeliever.
2. Suppoſe the Apoſtle had known a member of the Church of Corinth (what ever he appeared outwardly in the frame of his converſation) to be indeed without Chriſt, and in a ſtate of enmity with God; if this man had committed a groſſe ſin, might not the Apoſtle have judged ſuch a one to be excommunicated? We ſuppoſe you will ſay, he might, and if ſo, we demand, why ſhould a Church-unbeliever be ſubject to the Apoſtles judgement, and an Heatheniſh unbeliever be exempted from the Apoſtles judgement? If Church-memberſhip did not make the one obnoxious to that ſpirituall judgement more then the other? For in the notion of unbelievers, and without Chriſt they both agree; and therefore if a Heathen were exempted from judgement, becauſe without Chriſt, and not for this reaſon, becauſe without the viſible Church; why ſhould not a Church-unbeliever be exempted as well as a Heathen?
2. If we miſtake not, a Believer not joyned to any particular congregation, is without, in reference to Church-judgement (and we ſuppoſe by vertue of this Text) in your Presbyterian calculation of Eccleſiaſticall power. For Claſſicall, Provinciall, and Nationall Synods, have a power of judging, or excommunicating thoſe only, that are within the combination. Now theſe being repreſentative Churches, he that is of no particular Congregation, is without the verge of Presbyteriall power; or elſe it will follow, that the Presbyteriall Church hath power to excommunicate a perſon that is not within their combination; and if one, by the ſame reaſon a thouſand, ten thouſand, in every quarter and corner of the world. But, ſay you,
The Apoſtle oppoſeth Fornicators of the World, Anſwer. and Fornicators that are Brethren.
Perſecution in the Primitive times (as it is at this day) was chiefly (if not only) levied againſt thoſe who did joyn themſelves to the Churches, to the enjoyment of Ordinances, Reply. or at leaſt otherwiſe viſibly (as Paul at his firſt converſion, by preaching) declared themſelves to be Chriſts Diſciples. Hence thoſe to whom God had given ſo much faith and conſtancy, as to be willing to expoſe themſelves to perſecution; theſe did inliſt themſelves in the Churches, frequented their meetings, (which were obſervable by the Perſecutors) and profeſſed themſelves of the fraternity of the Church, the Church looked on them as her members, and accordingly diſpenſed ordinances and cenſures to them, as they had need. Others there were, who, like Nicodemus, came to Chriſt by night; or like thoſe chief Rulers, ſpoken of, Joh. 12.42. who, though they believe in Chriſt, yet they dare not confeſſe him, by publike joyning of themſelves, to run all hazards with the Church. Hence it is, that no politick viſible Church doth look upon theſe as of her fraternity; or doth diſpence all ordinances and cenſures to them. Now the Brother that is oppoſed to the fornicators of the world, is not he, that by the internall and inviſible grace of faith is a Brother, and of the myſticall body of Chriſt, though peradventure he dare not openly profeſſe Chriſt. But ſuch a one is foreign, in the Church of Corinth, who is a named and profeſſed Brother; ſo looked upon, not only by the motherly eye of the Church, but oft times by the malitious eye of the world; though peradventure they be not truly brethren, united with the reſt of the faithfull people of God, as members of the myſticall body of Chriſt. 2. With ſuch a one not to eat, preſuppoſeth in an orderly way, a forbearing of voluntary civil and ſpirituall communion with the party upon this ground, that he is under cenſure in the Church. Now the power of Church-cenſures is not to be executed by the church-myſticall, but by the church-viſible, as ſuch; neither is it to be executed upon the members of the Church-myſticall, as ſuch, but upon the members of the viſible church, whether they be in truth or only in appearance members of the myſticall church. So then Fornicators of the world, are to be underſtood of the world as it ſtands in oppoſition to the viſible church, and ſo thoſe that are of the myſticall church may be fornicators of the world in that ſenſe. And though by the lawes of Chriſt, concerning Church-diſcipline, every man be forbidden to eat with thoſe that are known Fornicators, under church-cenſure in their own church; and by vertue of church-communion, with thoſe that are fornicators, under cenſure in any other church: yet if one that is a member of the myſticall, but dares not profeſſe his ſubjection to Chriſt in that particular, of joyning himſelf to ſome viſible church, ſhall be a fornicator, we know no law of Chriſt preciſely concerning church-diſcipline, that interdicts a man to eat, in point of voluntary civill communion, with ſuch a man, any more then if he were a Pagan, or Heathen.
But, Anſwer. ſay you, without are Dogs, and Sorcerers; ſuch as the Apoſtle had not to do with: What have I to do, &c. verſ. 12. (and yet he had to do with all Chriſtians, by his illimited apoſtolike power, whether they belong to that, or any other Congregation or no;) ſuch as God judgeth, or are left to the immediate judgement of God: But this is not the caſe of Believers not joyned (eſpecially in your ſenſe of joyning) to a particular Congregation; nor do you (I hope) judge it to be the caſe of Believers in England and Scotland.
1. Reply. There might be Dogs, in the Apoſtolike Churches, as well as without, Phil. 3.2. and with ſuch dogs Paul had to do with; Nay, he had to do with the dogs of the Gentiles; he received a key of knowledge, by which he was to open the Kingdome of heaven to them in caſe they would repent and believe, and to binde them under the guilt of impenitencie and infidelity, in caſe they would not repent and believe, Matth. 28.19. with Mark. 16.16. But thoſe that Paul had not to do to judge, who are ſaid to be without in this place, are all ſuch as are contradiſtinguiſhed to thoſe that are within, with whom the Church had to do, by way of Eccleſiaſticall judgement. Now the church of Corinth had power of Eccleſiaſticall judgement, over all, and only thoſe which were within the combination of that church; and therefore Paul had nothing to do to judge them (that is to ſay, with the judgement mentioned in this place) which were out of this combination. Now what was this judgement? Anſw. The judgement whereby the Apoſtle decrees, that the church of Corinth ſhall excommunicate fornicators, and conſequently ſhall not eat with them. Now the Apoſtle had received no ſuch power to judge thoſe perſons to excommunication, and that by the miniſtery of a church, that were never in fellowſhip with the church: But ſuch perſons (though for their crimes they may be ſubject to the judgement of the civill Magiſtrate,) yet in reſpect of Eccleſiaſticall judgement they are left to the immediate judgement of God. And if this be not the caſe of Believers not joyned to a particular congregation, by whom ſhall thoſe Believers be judged? Why ſhall this Congregationall, Claſſicall, Provinciall, National-church judge them, rather then that? May they be judged by all, or any one? Certainly they ſtand no more related to one then to another, which are members of none at all. Where ſhall the fault be charged, if judgement be not paſſed? We ſaid before, if a church may judge one out the combination, why not a thouſand, why not ten thouſand? &c. yet we are far from judging thoſe Believers in England and Scotland which are not joyned in our Way of joyning to a particular Congregation, therefore to be altogether out of Church-combination, not capable of the Eccleſiaſticall judgement of their Churches, and conſequently ſubject to the immediate judgement of Chriſt.