A Defense of Sundry Positions of the Congregational Way, Position 19
POSITION XIX.
The Power of Government is expreſsly given to the Church, where we are bidden Heare the Church, which is a particular Congregation, Matth. 18.
Brother, we could wiſh you had ſignified the Author by whom, Reply. and the place where this wrong (at leaſt as you ſuppoſe) is done to the Text, as you have done in other Sections, who thoſe be that preſume that Chriſt did no more reſpect the Jewiſh, then they do the Church of England; As your margent doth not inform us, ſo in ſearching thoſe few books we have, we cannot finde among all the Congregationall men, therefore we take it as an unjuſt aſperſion thrown upon them.
The Church, in the firſt and primary intent of theſe words, Anſwer. was a Church then in being, which did abominate the Gentiles, (for Heathens and Gentiles were all one) viz. the Jewiſh church, which was not aparticular Congregation, but a Nationall-church; having graduall judicatories and appeales; of which the Apoſtles were at that time, and Chriſt lived and died an actuall member, &c.
Whileſt you your ſelf ſay, Reply. that the Church in the primarie intent of theſe words, was a Nationall church, then in being, do you not imply, that theſe words, tell the Church, have reference to a Church, or churches, that were not yet in being, which ſhould afterward be inveſted with power of judging? and therefore giving it for granted, that Chriſt ſaying, Tell the Church, ſends them to the Jewiſh Synagogues or Sanhedrin, whileſt their authority did continue, (and ſo Peter needs not ſtay three yeeres, before he can acquaint the Church with his offence) yet ſtill the Congregationall church may be competitreſſe with Claſſicall, Provinciall, Nationall, and Oecumenicall churches for the power of judging; and if ſhe ſhould come off victricious, then the guilt of wreſting this place (for you urge it to prove the power of your judging church) would reſt among your ſelves, and the Congregationall men, and their Way be guiltleſſe. Now, for our parts we cannot ſee the title of Congregationall churches any way invalidated, by what hath been hitherto ſaid by your ſelf or others.
2. Whileſt you ſay, that the Church in the firſt and primarie, &c. I ſuppoſe your inference muſt be this; Ergo, thoſe words, Matth. 18. Tell the Church, cannot be rightly applied to a Congregationall Church, which hath no ſuch graduall judicatories and appeals; but Claſſicall, Provinciall, and Nationall Churches; for amongst theſe are found ſuch graduall judicatories and appeals. The ſinew and ſtrength of this reaſon is this: It is neceſſary that the judging Church in the times of the Goſpel, ſhould anſwer in the manner of its judicature the judging Church in the time of the Law: and ergo, if that Church which was to judge then had graduall judicatories and appeals, ſuch ought to have the judging Church in the dayes of the Goſpel: This main hypotheſis upon which the ſtrength of all depends, is unſound: For,
1. It is neceſſary that the judging Church in the times of the Goſpel ſhould be conformed to ſpirituall precepts and patterns left us by Chriſt and his Apoſtles: but Chriſt hath not appointed the Jewiſh church in matter of government to be a pattern to Goſpel Churches: For if ſo, then are not the Churches that are of Presbyterian complexion to be underſtood in this place, for there is a vaſt difference betwixt your Churches and the Jewiſh Church: For,
Firſt, there is diſparity in the manner of the calling of perſons; for Synods are made up of men, choſen and ſent forth by particular Churches, but the Sanhedrin did not conſiſt of choſen men ſent out by the Synagogues, but of Prieſts and Levites, which the Synagogues did neither chooſe nor ſend forth.
Secondly, there is diſparity in matter of power: In the Jewiſh Sanhedrin the chief Prieſt was chief, by vertue of Office, 2 Chron. 19.11. but in the Claſſicall Way all are equall in point of Office.
Thirdly, in reſpect of the cauſes judged: the Sanhedrin dealt with matters of civill nature, Deut. 21.5. but Synods only with Eccleſiaſticall.
Fourthly, in reſpect of the time of judicature. The Sanhedrin was a ſtanding, conſtant court; but Claſſicall, Provinciall, Nationall and Oecumenicall Synods, meet but once in a monethmonth, once in half a yeer, once in twelve moneths; or it may be, not once in many ages is an Oecumenicall Synod gathered, and ſo thoſe appeals that are made from a Nationall, are in little hope to finde relief from an Oecumenicall Synod.
2. If it were neceſſary that Church-government in the times of the Goſpel ſhould beare conformity with the Jewiſh Government, then they muſt not only have graduall judicatories and appeals, but they muſt have,
Firſt, a ſtated Oecumenicall judicature, conſtantly to judge all hard controverſies between blood and blood, plea and plea, ſtroke and ſtroke, into all Churches in the world.
Secondly, that this ſtated Oecumenicall judicature muſt have ſome ſtated place which God ſhould chooſe, Deut. 17.8. that ſo appellants might know whither to repaire for redreſſe of their grievances.
Thirdly, that there muſt be one chief by vertue of office over all met in this univerſall court, 2 Chron. 19.4. That he that ſhall do preſumptuouſly, and will not hearken to that Catholike councell, that man muſt die, Deut. 17.12.
3. There may be good reaſon rendered, why the Synagogues ſhould be under a Juperiour judicatory; and the ſame cauſe there is why Congregationall-churches ſhould be under a Superiour judicatory. The Synagogues were parts of a church that had not power to diſpence all Gods Ordinances amongſt themſelves, and were branches of a politick Nationall-church, endued with power of government as Nationall: The Promiſe and Covenant of God extended to the whole Nation. But there is no ſuch power of government left to every or to any Nation in the world; neither are particular Congregations parts of a Church, as the Synagogues of the Jewes were, but they are entire, and compleat Churches; and may tranſact all Gods Ordinances, walking in truth, and peace amongſt themſelves, otherwiſe all Gods Ordinances could not be tranſacted, unleſſe a whole Nation were converted and brought into Church-ſociety.
This Goſpel was writ principally for the Jews ſome ſay in Hebrew, Anſwer. &c.
Admitting the Propoſition were true, Reply. (which yet we have much cauſe to doubt of;) may not Congregationall men that are Chriſtians, uſe this place aright in applying it to Congregationall churches, becauſe the whole Goſpel was writ principally for the Jews? Certainly the undiſcernible ſtrength of this reaſon (at leaſt by us,) will levie war againſt the Presbyterians (except they will profeſſe themſelves Jews,) for applying this place to Presbyterian Churches. The Epiſtles to the Hebrews and James, were writ principally for the Jewes; and yet Chriſtians that are Gentiles, may make a right uſe of them.
In it the ſpirit of God uſeth much the language and dialect of the old Teſtament, Anſwer. in which Kahal (and Eccleſia with the Seventy) do ſometimes ſignifie the company of Elders, as well as the body of the people; a Nationall Church with graduall judicatories and appeals, as well as a particular aſſembly.
We cannot but deſpaire of ever ſeeing the premiſes delivered of the concluſion. Reply. Let it be granted, that Kahal, &c. ſignifies in the old Teſtament, ſometimes a company of Elders, ſometimes the People; ſometimes a Nationall, ſometimes a Congregationall Church; yet it will not follow, that the Congregationall men, in applying Mat. 18.17. to the Congregationall Church, have offered any violence to the Text. For it will not follow, Kahal ſometimes ſignifies a Nationall Church in the old Teſtament, (no, though to make it more ſtrong, you adde; that the Spirit uſeth much the language and dialect of the old Teſtament) I ſay, it will not follow therefore it ſignifies a Nationall Church in Matth. 18.17. for the Spirit may uſe (by your own confeſſion) the language and dialoct of the old Teſtament, and yet it may be underſtood of a particular Aſſembly. Neither will it follow, Kahal ſometime in the old Teſtament, Ergo Eccleſia ſignifies a company of Elders, Ergo, it ſignifies a company of Elders in Matth. 18.17.
Now there is not a word in the Text, Anſwer. to ſhew either that the Church is not here taken for the Presbyterie, but for the People (ſeeing when Chriſt ſaith, whatſoever ye ſhall binde, &c. he ſpeaks to the Diſciples, verſ. 1. or Apoſtles, which are elſewhere ſaid, to have the power of binding and looſing, Matth. 16.19. Joh. 20.23. and were not ordinary Believers but Elders? 1 Pet. 5.1.) or, that it is meant of a parcular Congregation, without graduall judicatories and appeals, &c.
Theſe are the Premiſes; Reply. but how ſhall we do to get the concluſion willingly to follow theſe Premiſes? which muſt be this: Ergo, when the Congregationall men affirm, that the particular Congregation is the Church, to which God hath given the power of government, and urge Matth. 18. to prove the exerciſe of ſuch power by the Church aforeſaid, they abuſe that Text. For the Congregationall men may very ſecurely affirm, that thoſe words, Tell the Church, ſend the offended Brother to the Congregationall Church in the time of the Goſpel (even as they ſent the Jewés to the Sanhedrin whileſt that was in force) and yet not ſend him to the people, as they ſtand in oppoſition to the Presbyterie, which are the moſt noble organicall parts of the integrally perfect Church: For we do not ſeat the power of the Keys in the people, as they are contradiſtinguiſhed to their Elders; but in the whole Church, by a moſt wiſe and divine diſperſion of power unto the diſſimilar parts of the Church, according to their ſeverall capacities: For, as the Elders have an authoritative power, ſo the people have a power of liberty in point of cenſures: So that reclamante Eccleſiâ, there can be no excommunication. So then, though it be not underſtood of the people only, no nor chiefly, as they ſtand in oppoſition to their Guides; yet this place may lawfully be underſtood of the Congregationall Church as it is contradiſtinct to Claſſicall, Provinciall. Nationall, and Oecumenicall Churches. The reaſon is, we have preſidents in the Word of God for the one, as in the Churches of Jeruſalem, Corinth, Cenchrea, &c. and rules preſcribed to ſuch a Church, Acts 6.3. 1 Cor. 5.4. chap. 11. chap. 12. chap. 1.4. chap. 16. but of any ſtated Claſſicall, Provinciall, Nationall, Oecumenicall Churches, there is a deep ſilence in the Scriptures of the new Teſtament; no precept for the erecting of ſuch, and no lawes nor Officers provided for ſuch Churches. Now Chriſt, Matth. 18. ſends the people of God to ſuch a Church, as ſhould be in ſtrength, by vertue of a Charter from heaven to redreſſe grievances, and heal offences, and therefore he ſends us to the Congregationall Church, as it oppoſeth thoſe churches I ſpoke of before, for theſe can ſhew no ſuch charter.
I read that the promiſe of binding and looſing is not given to a particular Congregation when leavened with error and variance. Anſwer. But then a Synod of Churches, or of their Meſſengers may judicially convince and condemn errors, ſearch out truth, &c.
All that we have to ſay to that, Reply. is this; If you will acknowledge the power of binding and looſing to be ſeated in the particular Congregation, we ſhall not contend againſt it, (though we cannot ſay that the Scriptures and reaſons brought, are convincing to each of us to inforce our grant) but that in eaſe of error or ſcandall that cannot be healed in the Congregation; A Synod of neighbour churches, or their Meſſengers may judicially condemn thoſe errours and ſchiſmes, &c. and impoſe wayes of peace and truth; but yet not aſſume authority of cenſuring the delinquents, but leave that to particular Churches to be performed.Cotton Keys, pag. 28.