A Survey of the Sum of Church Discipline, Part 2 · Chapter 3
CHAP. III. Of an INDEPENDENT Church. Wherein the state of the Question is opened, the distastefull terme of INDEPENDENCY cleered, and the right meaning put upon it; Master R. his Arguments in the thirteenth Chapter debated.
IT is the subtilty of Satan, when he cannot wholly destroy the truth, which he especially desires, he labours to deface it what he may, and to present it in such unseemly appearances unto men, that either they reject it wholly; or if not that, yet they are long before they receive it; or if they do, it being under jealousies and suspitions, they receive it but in part, and not with that full approbation as they might, and it deserves.
And hence through the envy and distaste of some, the headinesse and rashnesse of others, men put such unsuitable expressions upon it, like an ill-shaped garment upon a wel-composed body, that it shewes somewhat deformed at the first sight.
This hath befaln the cause now in hand, by the term of Independency put upon it▪ which because in common use it carries a ranknesse of Supremacy, which easily disrelisheth with the spirits of men, being used here somewhat improperly, at the first appearance it easily provokes a nauseous distaste in the spirit of the hearer, that is not acquainted so fully with the compasse of the cause now under hand.
We shall take leave therefore to lay open the state of the question nakedly as it is, and narrow the expressions a little, where because of their unfitnesse and widenesse, they leave a kind of ill favoured appearance upon the truth.
The state of the Question then may thus be conceived:
When we speak of the Church, as in this place, we look at it not as totum essentiale onelyonly, as they use to speak, as it is made up and constituted of visible Christians, gathered in the fellowship of the faith; but as totum Integrale, or Organicum (as Ames expresseth it, lib. 1. medul. cap. 33. part 18.) as it is furnished and compleated with all such Officers, which Christ hath given to his Church for the perfecting thereof: for then and not before, the Church is said to be able in a right order to act and exercise all the ordinances of God.
2. When this Church is said to be Independent, we must know That INDEPENDENCY implies two things;
1. Either an absolute Supremacy, and then it is opposed to subordination.
2. Or else a sufficency in its kind, for the attainment of its end, and so its opposed to imperfection.
Take that word in the first sence, so a particular Church or Congregation is not absolutely supreame: For its subject unto, and under the supreme power politicke in the place where it is; so that the Magistrate hath a coactive power to compel the Church to execute the ordinances of Christ, according to the order and rules of Christ, given to her in that behalfe in his holy Word; and in case she swerves from her rule, by a strong hand to constraine her to keepe it. Hee is a nursing Father thus to the Church, to make her attend that wholesome dyet which is provided and set out, as her share and portion in the Scripture. Nay, should the supream Magistrate unjustly oppresse or persecute, she must be subject, and meekly according to justice, beare that which is unjustly inflicted.
Againe, she is so farre subject to the consociation of Churches, that she is bound, in case of doubt and difficulty, to crave their counsell, and if it be according to God, to follow it: and if she shall erre from the rule, and continue obstinate therein, they have authority to renounce the right hand of fellowship with her.
In the second sence, the Church may be said to be Independent, namely, sufficient to attaine her end; and therefore hath compleat power, being rightly constituted, to exercise all the ordinances of God.
As all Arts are thus compleat in their kinde, and have a compleat fufficiency in themselves to attaine their owne end; and yet are truely said to be subordinate each to the other in their workes.
The Word, then, in its faire and inoffensive sence, imports thus much, Every particular Congregation, rightly constituted and compleated, hath sufficiency in it selfe, to exercise all the ordinances of Christ.
And thus there is no harshnesse in the Word that offends the Hearer; nor is the se…se hard or difficult, which may load the cause with any loathsome distaste at all, was the minde not prepossest with prejudice.
For its granted of all, that it hath this sufficiency in the exercise of some ordinances; as to Preach, dispense Sacraments, without either craving or needing the consent of the Classis; nor was she to yeeld to the judgement of the Classis, if they should forbid her to execute her worke.
And if she have a compleatnesse of power in the highest Ordinances, why she should be denied the like in those that are of lesse excellency, I know not: or why the one should be conceived so strange, and the other so ordinary and equall, I see not; the Apostle knew no dispensation of so choice an excellency as Preaching, which he prefers before any other; I was sent to preach the Gospel, not to baptize: q. d. that was the chiefest part of his errand. If Ordination or Excommunication had been of so great eminency above all other, certainly he would have mentioned some of them.
It was the old kind of reasoning, which went currant, without any gainsaying: praedicare potest, corpus Domini conficere potest, ergo, potest etiam consecrare: Plesseus apud Gers. Bucer, dissert. de gubern. eccles.
It's granted also by Master R. that in Islands which are separated from the main land, and therfore cannot enjoy the societies of neighbouring Churches, with that comfort and conveniency, as their occasions may require, that among them ordination, and so excommunication may be performed by the Congregation.
This being an ordinary and common case, which fals out in the usuall and constant course of providence, and many such, which carry a proportion hereunto; I say, hence it appears, that the power natively and naturally lyes in the Congregation.
For to think that these occasions should put God to such extraordinary dispensations, as to crosse his ordinary rule; or that the exercise of the act of Ordination should again return into his own hand, to be immediately dispensed by himself, is too weak. As the Jesuits in the like manner are put to their shifts, when they cannot tell what is become of the power supream that was in the Pope, when he dyes; because there must not be two Popes on earth; they are therefore forced to say, that it is re-assumed into the hands of Christ; the feeblenesse of which conceit is confuted and condemned by all our Writers, Whitak. Junius, Ames. The like may be here said: and to put the Lord Christ to immediate and extraordinary wayes, when according to the course of ordinary traffique and commerce, as the States civill, in such places have intercourse with other States, so might the Churches have with other Churches: It hath no shew of Scripture or reason; especially if we adde, That the first Synod, which is made a pattern to all the rest, was a concurrence of such Churches, which were two hundred miles off one from another.
Lastly, it shall anon appear, that he maintains such a sufficiency of acting all Gods Ordinances amongst those, who are yet not independent in this opinion, and therefore the one may stand with the other.
Come we now to the consideration of such Arguments which Master R. alledgeth against this Independency now propounded.
Argument I.
If there be not a pattern of such an Independent Congregation by precept or practice, when one particular Congregation with one Pastor and their Eldership did or may exercise all the power of the keyes in all points; then such an Independent Congregation may not be holden.
But the former is true, There is no precept or practice of any such Church, ergo.
He instanceth in Ordination, and desires either precept or practice to be given of that.
Answer.
Let it here be remembred, first, that the difference betwixt Master R. and us, is not in cases, either of separation of Churches one from another; or speciall restitution after great defections and apostacies.
Secondly, But the difference betwixt him and us is here; When the Churches are compleated with all their Orders and Officers, then it is not in the power of a particular Church to dispense Ordination: but Ordination is to be acted by a Classis, or Colledge of Pastors, and that before Election.
Taking this consideration along with us, as the conclusion to be proved, to wit, Ordination must be dispensed by a Classis of Pastors, and that before election.
I shall readily reply many things; and the rather, because this dish hath been so often set before us, and is brought in as one, in all services almost unto nauseousnesse: referring therefore to that, which we have formerly writ, we adde here,
First, there is not the least shew, in all the Scriptures, of Ordination before Election, so dispensed; all the places alledged have not the least appearance of proof of this conclusion.
Secondly, when Churches were compleated with all their Officers that then Ordination was acted by a Colledge of Pastors, there is not a silable in the text that saith any such thing.
Examine we particulars by a sudden survey, and both these will be evident at the first sight.
In the first of the Acts, there is but one Church, and no Ordination at all, "For that is an act of supream jurisdiction, as Master R. But that the Apostles had supream power to call an Apostle, whose calling was immediate, implies a contradiction.
In Acts 6. the Church there was not compleat with Officers, and the Apostles as extraordinary persons did act there, as they might in all other Churches that should be erected; therefore this reacheth not our conclusion.
In Acts 13.1, 2, 3. There is no Ordination to Office at all, for the Apostles had their Office before: secondly, the Officers of one Church (for so the words goe in the Church of Antioch) did what was done in an ordinary way; therefore no precedent for the Pastors of many Churches, what they either may, or should do.
But that out of Acts 14.23. how it can be haled in to the purpose in hand, it is beyond my apprehension.
First, for there is no mention made of the laying on of hands, but lifting up the hands.
Secondly, here are not Officers of many Congregations compleated, but Officers to be made in each particular Congregation.
Thirdly, here is no act of Ordination mentioned but of Election.
Fourthly, and therefore that which is here alledged, was the proper and peculiar act of the people, as all our Divines evince against Papists and Formalists; and the native signification of the word doth evidence, which must needs be here attended.
All which considered, thus to reason; If the people of one Congregation, Paul and Barnabas ordering the action, did choose their Elders; then ordination of Elders before election must be the act of the Pastors of many Congregations: this I say is wide the mark.
That of Acts 20.17, 28. is as far wide, if not further: for,
First, it cannot be proved that there were the Elders of many, but of one Church, as all the casting circumstances carry it.
Secondly, but certain it is, here is no act of Ordination performed or intended, and therefore nothing concerning that can be concluded.
The same is true of Phil. 1. 1 Thes. If there be any probability of dispute, it must be taken from that 1 Tim. 4.14. But it hath been proved before, that here was not an Ordination of an Officer, because it is beyond the power of ordinary Officers to give being to extraordinary Officers, such as Timothy; and therefore his laying on of hands was like that Acts. 13. 2, 3.
2. Master Ruterford addes, If ordination of Pastors in the Word be never given to People or beleevers, or to Ruling Elders, but still to Pastors, as is cleere, 1 Tim. 5.22. Tit. 1.5. Acts 6.6. Acts 13.3. 2 Tim. 1.6. 1 Tim. 4.14. And if Ordination be never in the power of one single Pastor (except we bring in a Prelate into the Church,) Then one Pastor with one single Congregation cannot exercise this point of discipline, and so not all points of discipline.
Reply. This argument is the same with the former, as touching the substance, onelyonly some few places, (which might have been annexed to those that were mentioned before) are here added, which we may consider in the order as they are propounded.
To that 1 Tim. 5.22. where Paul chargeth his Schollar, To lay on hands rashly on no man: To that also Tit. 1.5. which carries the same sence with it; and therfore they both receive the same Answer: we say,
First, here is nothing in the Text, that gives the least intimation of a Classis; and therefore the authority thereof can by no inference from hence, either be concluded, or confirmed, which is the thing to be proved: but the charge is directed expresly to Timothy and Titus in particular.
Secondly, the manner how Ordination is to be acted by the one, or Elders to be constituted by the other (for the word is larger in Tit. 1.5. foreign) it is not expresly discovered, but we are called by the words to look elsewhere, for the patterne, by which this practice & proceeding must be ordered in both cases.foreign. As I have appointed thee: what this appointment of the Apostle was, this Text doth not discover; and therfore of this no man can determine it.
Thirdly, all the circumstances give in evidence, that the Churches, touching whose ordering the Apostle here speakes, were not yet compleated in their Officers, but being newly founded and planted, were to be furnished and perfected with Rulers, by the helpe and direction of Timothy in the one, and Titus in the other place; and therefore in none of these the question is touched, according to the true nature thereof, as stated before; which is of Churches furnished with Officers.
Fourthly, it cannot be thought in reason, the Apostle would approve, much lesse appoint another way of ordaining Elders, then he himselfe practised. (I speake to that of Titus.)
But he ordained Elders by the suffrages of the people, and established them by the helpe of their fasting and prayer, Acts 14.23. That is all which is left there upon record; therefore this appointment Titus and Timothy must follow.
Fifthly, in all those charges, which are directed to Timothy and Titus in these Epistles, it never was intended, they should act them alone, but ever supposed, they should attend the order of Christ in his Churches, and have the concurrence of Officers, and members, in their ranks and places, as the quality and nature of the actions did require.
When its injoyned Timothy, That they who sinne, he should rebuke openly, 1 Tim. 5.20.21. do nothing partially: Teach he must things appertaining to wholesome doctrine, Tit. 2. &c. Will any man say, that these duties must not be attended by all the Elders of those Churches; and that they should see and provide they might be attended, and stood charged so to doe, as well as Timothy and Titus.
Nay, let us goe no further then the place, Tit. 1.5. rectifie the things that are wanting. Imagine there had been Deacons wanting, must Titus onelyonly attend that, and none else? and he doe it alone without all other? Or, that he should, as a Guide, goe before, and see that others acted according to their places? the people were to finde out such as were fit to choose, and present them, and had there been Elders in the Church that they should lay on their hands, for the setling and investing of them in their places.
Lastly, Timothy and Titus are considered here, either as they be Evangelists, and so extraordinary persons; and then their actions are not to be made ordinary precedents; or else they are to be considered as expressing common actions of government, which are to continue in the Churches, with those who succeed them in such power: and then it will follow, if we force this example, that,
As Timothy and. Titus being particular persons, did put forth such acts of government: the like acts particular Officers may expresse in their particular Congregations. And hence the inference will be faire against Master Ruterford his assertion.
As touching that passage concerning Ruling Elders, that the ordination of the Pastor is denied unto him, as having no right or power therein; the falsenesse thereof hath beene evinced sufficiently elsewhere, whether I refer the Reader.
And from hence also the third allegation receives a satisfactory Reply; because indeed, that, which is therein contained doth in no wise conclude the thing to be proved.
If Preaching Elders be charged to watch against grievous Wolves, Acts 20.29. be rebuked, because they suffer them to teach false doctrine, Revel. 2.14. and commended because they try false Teachers, and cast them out, ver. 2. If commanded to ordaine faithfull men, and taught whom they should ordaine: Then one Pastor and single Congregation have not the power of this Discipline.
To which for Reply: I must needs professe, I can see no ground of reason in the Inference: For, first, those in Acts 20. were Elders of one Congregation, as the circumstances of the Text evidence: secondly, or suppose they were not; Doth Paul injoyne them, that when they are assembled in the Classis, they should watch against ravening Wolves? or that it doth properly appertaine to them in their speciall charges, wherein they are set as foreign and Watchmen in an especiall and particular manner. And thirdly, doth not this watch in its due proportion, concerne the Ruling Elder, as well as the Teaching; if it be not more especially appertaining to his place, to be as eyes in the wings, to passe up and down in the Assembly, and make inquiry after the first and least stirring of any false opinion, when it is in the very hatching and brooding secretly, before it dare shew it selfe, and to give timely intimation to the Teaching Elders to fortifie against the approach of such evils?
And is it not more then plaine, that the Teaching and Ruling Elders of any particular Congregation, are so farre bound to watch over the flock, that they should by private rebukes stay & stop the venting of erronious conceits; and if that will not prevaile, they should then take two or three. If yet they heare not, nor will reforme, they should tell it to the Congregation, and Preach publikely against it, and not suffer them to vent, or others to listen unto, their delusions?
Nay lastly, doth not Master Ruterford grant, that the People have power to reject an unworthy Minister; and therefore may they not try him, hinder him from Teaching, watch against him, and by the mouth of the Ruling Elder both publikely rebuke him, and remove him? so that nothing can be inferred from hence, that these acts are peculiar, or appropriate to a Teaching Elder, much lesse to such onelyonly, when they are Assembled in a Classis. We have done with the first Argument.
Argument II.
That government is not of God, nor from the wisedome of the Lawgiver, that deviseth meanes of Discipline to edifie the People; but omiteth meanes of edifying the Elders of every Congregation by the Keyes. But the Doctrine of Independent Congregation is such: ergo, The Assumption is evidenced by instance.
Suppose Elders grow scandalous and corrupt, either in life or doctrine. There is no way to gaine them upon this ground. For either they must censure themselves, and that is against nature and reason; or else they must be censured by a Classis, and that the Independencies of Churches will not allow.
Or else they must be censured by the multitude of Beleevers. But this cannot be granted; because the Lord hath not given this rod of censure to the flocke.
Secondly, because this is popular government and worse; The Flocke made OVERSEERS of the Shepheard, the Son authorized to correct the Father.
"Thirdly, We desire a patterne of this from the Word.
Reply.
There is nothing here, but hath been alledged and answered before.
The first part of the Answer makes the question; the proof of the question. For the conclusion to be proved, being this; That a particular Congregation cannot exercise, in a right order, all Gods ordinances, and so excommunication, as not having received the power from the Lord Christ; The proofe is this, They have not received this power; ergo, they have not received it. This is to crave and not to prove.
To the second we have spoken at large. Thus much here shall suffice.
1. If by Overseer be ment an Officer, it is a meer mistake; for that is, and hath been ever denied. If a Judge and brotherly helper of his reformation, it is such a government which the Word doth not onelyonly allow: Tell Archippus, Beware of false Teachers; but its that which all combinations, both civill and Ecclesiasticke societies doth of necessity require.
2. Is not a Pastor a member in the body, a Brother as well as a Father? and doth not, should not, one member take care, and a memberly oversight each of other? are we not therfore called Members each of other? Rom. 12.6. 1 Cor. 12.
And is it strange to Master R. that a Son being in a combination or corporation with the Father, should be authorized to reject his aberations and offences according to the rule of Religion and reason. Is it not easie to conceive, and ordinary to find in experience, that Father and Son may be fellow Aldermen in a Corporation? and in case the Father be a Delinquent, and prove justly obnoxious to censure of the Court of Aldermen, may not, nay, should not a Son passe his vote in a just sentence against his own Father? though he do not this as a Son, yet being a Son, and being in the same Corporation, by vertue of that combination; he may, and according to the righteousnesse of the cause, he should proceed to censure the evil of his Father. A pattern of this government we have given in before, and therefore the third thing is answered.
The third Argument which is taken from many absurdities, which follow from this cause, is made up of nothing but mistakes; some whereof are the very question in hand; some have been immediately handled in the forgoing reason, as the second and the fifth, which are one and the same with the former; and therefore they partly have before, and afterward shall receive an answer, together with the things of this nature
Argument 4.
That Doctrine is not to be holden which tendeth to the removing of a publike Ministery.
"But this Doctrine of Independent Churches is such.
The Assumption is proved, from the definition of a visible Church, which is this; It is an Assembly of true Beleevers, joyning together according to the order of the Gospel, in the true worship.
"Whence this follows: That every twelve in a private family is this way joyned.
Reply is;
Family-relation is one thing, and Church-relation is another; they stand by vertue of divers rules, civill Oëconomicks, and Ecclesiastick Politicks; and therefore though there were never so many families, and that of those that exercise Christian duties together; yet this would not make them a Church.
His second proof is, Because such a Church hath within it self the power of the Keyes, and is not subject to any superiour Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction.
The force of the proof will appear in the frame of it. "If an Independent Church hath the power of the Keyes, and is not subject to any other, then it tends to the removall of a publike Ministery.
Reply.
This proof is, in the reality of it, the same with the proposition to be proved: for to be an Independent Church, and to have full power of the exercise of all Ordinances, are all one.
Secondly, the consequence hath no truth nor strength in it, for the quite contrary followes.
Such an Independent Church can call and ordain Officers, and is bound so to do, before she can enjoy some Ordinances.
For none can consecrate and give the Sacrament, but onelyonly Pastors and Teachers, and therefore those she must provide, before she can partake: and this is the most easie and certain means to provide and so to continue a faithfull ministery, according to Christs appointment, to the end of the world. For both Brightman and Ames and the Truth also will make it appear, That Christ never will want a Church of Beleevers professing his faith unto the end of the world. Whereas Classes and Synods have totally failed, and come onelyonly to be restored and recovered by the help of particular Congregations.
His fifth Argument taken from Mat. 18.17. hath been answered before, whether I shall refer the Reader.