A Defense of Sundry Positions of the Congregational Way, Position 21
POSITION XXI. 1 Cor. 5. Paul himſelf though an extraordinary Officer, yet would not take upon him to excommunicate the inceſtuous perſon, without the Church; but ſends to them, exhorting them to do it,(a)See alſo anſw. to 23. q. pag. 49. and reproves the Brethren of the Church of Coriuth as well as the Elders, that they did no ſooner put him away,(b)Cotton Keys, pag. 13.
To prove that this Doctrine is injurious to the Text, you thus reaſon:
He blames all women as well as men, Anſwer. that notwithſtanding the notorious fornication which was amongst them, they were puffed up, and gloried, &c.
1. We ſuppoſe this battery is raiſed againſt thoſe words, Reply. and reproves the Brethren as well as the Elders, &c. Now, if it might be any gratification of ſtrength to your Argument, we will grant, that the Apoſtle blames all in generall, and yet the Elders may without any ſhew of wrong to the Text, affirm, that he blames the Brethren as well as the Elders; for it will not follow, Paul reproves the whole Church, Ergo, he reproves not the Brethren which are a part of the Church.
2. If it be ſaid, that the wrong lies in the ſcope of the words: For hence we go above to prove, that the Brethren have aſhare in the power of Church-cenſures; Now the ſame argument will prove from this text, that women have a power in Church-cenſures, becauſe women are reproved in this place, as being part of the Church. We anſwer, when an Epiſtle is writ to a whole Church, it doth reſpect particular perſons, according to their ſeverall capacities: 1 Cor. 14.34, 35.Now women are not in a capacity of diſpenſing Church-cenſures; therefore the reproof is not extended unto them. If things indefinitly ſpoken to a whole Church, becauſe they cannot be verified of one who is not in a capacity to receive them, may not therefore be affirmed of another; then becauſe a liberty in cutting off offenders, by vertue of Gal. 5.9.12.13. doth not belong to women, neither doth it belong to Elders or Brethren; for the Apoſtle ſpeaketh to all. Likewiſe becauſe the Holy Ghoſt writes to the whole Church of Pergamus, females as well as males, and blames them for not caſting out the Balaamites and the Nicolaitans; which women have no power to do; therefore neither doth the reproof import any ſuch power, either in Elders or Brethren.
This it may be you intended but as a light velitation with theſe luſorious expreſſions, Sed remove iſta luforia, decretoriis opus eſt, i. remove theſe Toyes, there is need of Decrees.
Paul himſelf (ſay you) did excommunicate Alexander, Anſwer. and Hymeneus, 1 Tim. 1.20. and it is not mentioned that he took the conſent of the Church or Presbyterie.
That Paul alone did excommunicate Alexander and Hymeneus is not ſo cleare, Reply. but if we ſhould deny it, we could argue probably for the Negative. Paul ſaith to Timothy, 2 Tim. 1.6. Stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands; and yet Paul did but lay on hands with the Presbyterie, 1 Tim. 4.14. Now if the Apoſtle did not act in ordination, how much leſſe in excommunication without the concurrence of the Church? the rather becauſe Apoſtles concurrence with the Church, ſeems to make more,
1. For Gods glory in the univerſall humiliation of the whole Church.
2. For the Churches peace, who are more likely to ſubſcribe to the equity of thoſe proceedings of which themſelves have the cognizance, then if they were carried on by a tranſcendent and ſuperiour motion of Apoſtolicall power.
3. For the edification of the Church in ſeeing, and hearing, and concurring in the whole buſineſſe.
4. For the attainment of the end of excommunication, both the more immediate, viz. Non-communion with the party; and the more nemote & noble end, viz. the healing of the party, and of the offence.
2. Let what is aſſumed be granted; yet we ſuppoſe you will make no gain of it: For,
1. It will not neceſſarily follow, Paul did excommunicate Hymeneus and Alexander himſelf; therefore Paul did without the conſent of the Church of Corinth excommunicate the inceſtuous perſon: For it was but ſutable to the holy, and ſelf denying frame of the Apoſtles ſpirit, Jure ſuo cedere, to remit ſomething of his own right.
2. Neither is it ſo much as probablely convincing, if we conſider, that the Holy Ghoſt makes the ſubject excommunicating, to be the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 5.4, 5. 'Tis the Church of Corinth whom the Apoſtle requires to purge out the old leaven, verſ. 7. 'Tis the Church of Corinth in which the Apoſtle ſtates the power of judging, verſ. 12. do not ye judge them that are within.
The Apoſtle, ſaith, foreign, Anſwer. I have judged as though I were, &c. which imports rather, that Paul himſelf would deliver him to Satan, then that he exhorts them to do it. Indeed he commands them to put him away, as he writes to them to reſtore him again, to ſee if they would be obedient in all things, 2 Cor. 2.9.
Brother, we cannot but obſerve, Reply. that you manage this argument ſomething tenderly, as if you did ſuſpect the ground you tread on; for you ſay not, that the words import that Paul would deliver him to Satan himſelf, and not that he exhorts the Corinthians to do it; but you ſay, that they import rather the one then the other; and this amounts to as much as nothing to the purpoſe: For in regard of the affinity the words may have with the one importment more then the other, they may be ſaid to import the one rather then the other, and yet in their proper ſenſe import neither. Luke 18.14.The Publican is ſaid to go away juſtified rather then the Phariſee, and yet the words do not poſitively import that either of them were juſtified.
And yet you have a good minde to make your Reader believe that Paul himſelf delivers him to Satan, and not the Corinthian Church, by their authority, and this you prove,
From the Gammaticall Syntax of the words, foreign—foreign.
Anſw. Doubtleſſe there muſt be an Accuſative caſe importing the ſubject delivering, underſtood; and this muſt be either foreign, with reference to the Apoſtle, or foreign, with relation to the Church. Not the firſt, as we conceive:
1. For if ſo, it is probable the Apoſtle would have ſaid, foreign, I have delivered him that hath ſo done this thing to Satan; and have commanded the Church only to take notice of it, and to abſtain from communion with him.
2. The Apoſtles judgment was ſuch a judgement as was paſſed at the writing of the Epiſtle; and therefore the Apoſtle ſaith, foreign, I have judged, or I have judged already him that hath done this thing, and therefore his judgement of the man was not the actuall caſting out of him, but only a judgement, that the Church ſhould paſſe the judgement of Excommunication againſt him, aſſuring them that not only his ſpirit, but the power of Chriſt ſhould go along with them.
3. foreign, To deliver to Satan, notes ſuch a publike and ſolemn tranſaction of an Ordinance, as Paul was in no poſſible capacity to do (for he did nothing by proxie) being abſent. For it notes;
1. A publike binding of the perſon under the guilt of ſin by the Key of Faith.
2. An obſervable exemplary ejection of the perſon out of the fraternity of the Church, and a ſhutting of the door of communion againſt him, untill he repent by the Key of Church order.
Now muſt the whole come together, and look one upon another in ſilence, and upon the inceſtuous perſon, imagining him to be thus excommunicate, becauſe Paul had judged to have him excommunicate, and ſo after this dumb ſhew, depart one from another: Therefore we conceive foreign muſt be underſtood as going before the Infinitive foreign and to relate to foreign, according to the rule of Grammarians, Si infinitivus, & Participium praecedens pertinent ad eandem perſmam, non additur accuſativus perſonae, ſed ſubintelligitur.
But it may be you will ſay, Objection. that you affirm that the Church is commanded to do it, and therefore Paul alone did not do it.
Doth Paul command the Church to deliver the inceſtuous perſon to Satan, Anſwer. and yet reſerve the whole power to himſelf? as he muſt needs do, if foreign, have reference to himſelf. Theſe things being ſpoken by you in reference to one individuall act under one and the ſame conſideration expreſſed in the word foreign, muſt needs be foreign, altogether inconſiſtent one with another, or with the truth.
2. If the Elders abuſe the Text by ſaying that Paul exhorts the Church of Corinth to excommunicate the inceſtuous perſon; how will you waſh your hands from all wrong offered to the Text, whilſt you affirm that Paul commanded them to excommunicate him? Yes, ſay you, Paul writes to them to ſee if they would be obedient in all things. Is this your meaning, that Paul writes not to them, requiring them to put forth a power given unto them (and all other Churches) by Jeſus Chriſt, but only to exerciſe an act of power, which did not of right belong unto them, but to his Apoſtolicall Function. And why by the ſame reaſon might not the Apoſtle then, and the Miniſters now in their Churches, call out one, or more, and command them to preach, or adminiſter Baptiſme, or the Supper, meerly to try their obedience? Now this muſt be your meaning, or elſe your argument will never conclude the thing you profeſſe to conclude: For we willingly grant that Paul writ unto them to try their obedience, but the very Text imports that there were other grounds of his writing as well as this; for he ſaith not, foreign, therefore, for this I write, much leſſe, foreign, for this therefore only writ, but foreign, for this therfore alſo I writ unto you, to try your obedience; intimating that there were other grounds. And therefore, that Paul writ unto them to try their obedience, will never afford ſuch a concluſion; therfore he writ not to them to exerciſe an ordinary power purchaſed for them by the blood of Chriſt: for obedience may be tried by that which is both a priviledge and a duty.
Paul bids the Coloſſians cauſe an Epiſtle to be read in Laodicea, Anſwer. they (its like) did it in obedience to Apoſtolicall authority; yet it will not bence follow, that a Church hath ordinarily the ſame power over another Church.
There is a twofold cauſing; by way of authority, Reply. or by way of morall ſwaſion, or endeavour: this latter, the Apoſtle ſpeaks of, foreign, (ſaith he) work, or uſe your endeavour; and the ſame power hath every Church over other at this day for their good.
2. Suppoſe you could obtain what you deſire in all theſe, that Paul did excommunicate, not the Church; or if the Church did, yet it is a wrong to the text, to plead for the like power at this day: Do you not all this while fight againſt the Presbyterians (whoſe Cauſe you pretend to advocate) as well as againſt the Congregationall men whom you profeſſedly oppoſe? For, if it will not follow, The Church of Corinth (whether particular, or repreſentative) is commanded to deliver the inceſtuous perſon to Satan, therefore every true Courch hath the ſame power; then whileſt the Presbyterian Brethren urge this place to prove the power of a Claſſicall Presbyterie, they wrong the Text: For though it may be a queſtion, whether this Text gratifie the fraternity of the Church, with ſo much power as we would ſtate upon them by vertue of this Text; yet Presbyterians, and Congregationall men all, (except your ſelf, that we know) agree; That whatſoever power the Fraternity and Presbyterie of the Church of Corinth had, that the Fraternity and Presbyterie of all true Churches have to the end of the world.
He bids them purge out the leaven, Anſwer. and put away from them the wicked perſon, &c. which muſt not be underſtood, as if Elders and People were equally authorized thereunto, &c.
1. Reply. Is not this to inſinuate, that the Elders of New-England and Mr. Cotton affirm, that the Elders and People are equally authorized to caſt out the inceſtuous perſon, and not only quilibet in ſuo gradu, every one in their degree? There is nothing in the place by you alledged, that doth import thus much. They ſay, the Apoſtle reproves the one as well as the other: The King for a miſcarriage in a Cauſe, may reprove the Jury as well as the Judge, and yet there is no ſuch implication, that Elders and People, Judge and Jury, are equally authorized to the reſpective acts of Judicature. The Elders of New-England infer from hence, that all Church-power is not in the Officers alone; do they therefore affirm that there is as much in the people, as in the Elders? Whereas in anſwer to Q. 15. p. 60. they ſhew certain acts of power in the Elderſhip, which are not in the people; and Mr. Cotton (a)Cotton Keys, cap. 4. and 5.expreſly gives all authority properly ſo called, to the Elderſhip, allotting only a popular power of intereſt and liberty to the people.
2. And laſtly, (for the reſt of your expreſſions about this matter, I take to be but of the train and retinue of this grand miſpriſion, and ſo paſſe them over;) laſtly (I ſay) when you ſay, that he bids them purge out the old leaven, and put away the wicked perſon, which muſt not be underſtood, as if Elders and People were equally authorized thereunto, but quilibet in ſuo gradu; a man would think you did acknowledge, that the People in ſuo gradu are authorized to purge out the old leaven, and put away the wicked perſon (which queſtionleſſe are acts of ſome kinde of governing power) and yet in the Cataſtrophe of all this Diſcourſe you wipe the Fraternity of the Church cleerly of all acts of governing power, when you ſay — So when he ſpeaks of acts of gouerning power, it is to be underſtood of Elders, and not of Believers. Are not theſe foreign? Are purging out the old leaven, and putting away the wicked perſon, acts of governing power? And are Believers authorized in ſuo gradu to perform theſe acts? and yet doth no act of governing power belong to the Believers of the church? Let him aſſoyle this Riddle that is an Oedipus, able to do it; for our parts we cannot. Thus much of your 21. Section.