The Government of the Churches of Christ, Book 5 · Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
The other Prerogative of Power challenged by Synods, to Excommunicate other Churches, considered and invalidated.
THE Second Prerogative of Power challenged by Synods, which we contend against, and deny to them, is such a coercive power to be in them, as given them by Christ to Excommunicate other Churches, and so by that Rod, to enforce them to Revoke their Sentence of Male-Administration, and receive a Person wrongfully Excommunicated by them.
That such a power is not in Synods to Excommunicate a Church or Churches, or so Rescind a Sentence past in a particular Church, is evinced by these following Arguments.
1. For such a pretended power, there is neither Precept nor Example.
1. The Apostles never did exercise such a power, who yet had power in all Churches, and over Persons among them.
2. None of the Reformed Churches ever practised it. Mr. Paget, a Learned Presbyterial Writer, acknowledgeth that none of the Reformed Churches ever practised it. Mr. Cartwright speaking of this power, did in his Days, put an, If it may be upon it.
If it be said their Government is so good, as it hath had no occasion to put such a power into Act: I answer.
Let the Arminian Congregation, that were in the Low Countries, be remembred. Though a National Synod was called; yet none of them were Excommunicated, and yet we believe they judged their Errors worthy of their censure. So the Churches of Anabaptists among them, who not only hold the not Baptizing of Children, but run into many other gross Errors, were never yet Excommunicated.
If it be said that they forbear to do it, because of great Inconveniences that would follow, by provoking of Multitudes; and that it tends more (in such cases) unto Edification to forbear it, than to execute it: It is Replyed,
1. That God hath Suited his Ordinances to the ordinary way of his Providence; and therefore would not have given an ordinary standing power for Government, which could not ordinarily be executed, without Tumult and Disturbance; and therefore there is no such power given.
2. If a Church or Churches did deserve it, it cannot be for Edification to forbear it; for not to Excommunicate them, is to edifie them in Sin. Churches that deserve Excommunication, can be edified in nothing by being connived at in their Sin, that will Damn them. And Excommunication is the means appointed by God, for the destroying the Flesh, and saving the Soul.
3. Neither can a Multitude be an excuse for the neglect. For however these Synods (if they have such a power) are to Discharge their Duty, and the Soul or Souls of Sinners, must thus be punisht.
4. Let it be observed, that such a power is contended for by the Presbyterial Divines, which was never practised, which themselves think and judge inconvenient to practice; and yet without this power granted to them, they say there is no Government: And herein lies the main of this great controversy, whether they should have such a power or no, which they never have exercised; and themselves think it to be ordinarily inconvenient to exercise it, reserving it as a Rod, in the House which they never will use, as if they kept it to scare Children with. But the Efficacy of Government, lies not in the Speculation and Doctrine, but in what is practicable. Shall Kingdoms be Disturbed about the Dispute of that which in the practice is a Chimera, and when they have it, shall be exercised Arbitrarily, and at Discretion? Yea, may not a Tryal be made, whether that the other way (which they call no Government) may not be sufficient?
We further conclude this first Head of Argument with this, that as such a Synodical power hath no President or Example in the Primitive Practices, nor in the Reformed Churches, so it hath this character upon it, that none but the Pope and Bishops, and Synods of Bishops ever practised it: And they have practised it by interdicting Kingdoms, not simply as civil States, but as Churches in Kingdoms, commanding the Ministers to forbear to administer the Holy Things unto any that did cleave to their Prince, or for any the like causes. And certainly by the principles of this Doctrine, a general Council of all the Reformed Churches, may in like manner Excommunicate any Nation or Kingdom, whom they judge Heretical, or to make a Schism from them; for whilst the Foundation of the power of Synods is pleaded to lie in Christ's Institution, as it hath ordinarily been urged in the Assembly, in answer unto our Reasons, that the Church-Catholick is one politick Body, and so the Elders of all Churches have power over any Churches, that are parts of that great Body, be they in Nations or in Provinces, which Subjects all States as truly to the Thunderbolt of Excommunication from Foreign Churches, as it did once to Rome.
What though it be said that such Counsels are not likely to be practised, or if so, it must be with the States own consent: Yet still the Mystery is, that such a power is contended for as a Rod over them, as well as over lesser Churches; for though they have not Excommunicated de facto, any particular Churches; yet they have claimed that power, as a Rod to keep them in awe with.
If it be said, the Pope challenged to do this, as an Head of the Church Universal, and as Infallible: We Reply, that there is indeed this difference, that he, as but one, usurps it, and as the External Head of the Church; but yet these challenge the same power, as being themselves the Catholick Church it self Representatively. For if to tell the Church, Mat. 18. be in its ascent to tell General Councels as the Church; then they must be interpreted to be the Catholick Church, and infallibly may in the issue (through Mens pride) become the claim also, by how much many consenting, are more likely to have the Holy Ghost to assist them, than that, and so have more reason for their claim, then one set up to challenge it. And at first, that one was set up only to receive Appeals, and to Rescind Sentences, and to Excommunicate Churches, and from granting to them that power at the first, did that other of Infallibility spring.
A Second Head of Arguments, is drawn from the Nature of Excommunication; because that it contains more in that, than that which we call Non-communion, Namely this, that Persons are not only cast from communion with all these Churches (which we acknowledge) but further, are delivered to Satan, for the internal part thereof. And for the external part, it is strange that this Law of Synods, should oblige their conscience, that they should not meet among themselves, when as yet they are already a Church, and were a Church without any power derived from their associating with others. All then that they can fall from by vertue of the Sentence of the Synod, is but what they have from them, and among them by their association, and not what they have among themselves. Yea, the very words whereby Excommunication is exprest, is but this, Sit tibi Ethnicus, Let him be to thee an Heathen, and take that Wicked one from among you: And therefore when Neighbour-Churches, deal so with a Church; they can but eject and keep them and their Members out from amongst them. But this power contended for, goes further; for the Synod assumes to throw a Church out of it self, and to make them to be Heathens and Publicans, inter se, among themselves, who yet have all this while been a Church to Christ.
And that which further strengthens all this, is, that very Principle which the Assembly doth go upon to Establish this power in Synods and Presbyteries (given up in their answer to our Reasons against Presbyteries;) That as Families are bound to joyn into some Congregational Church, so those Churches into Association together: And as these joyned in a New Congregation, gives them power over each other; so this association of Churches, gives the whole a power over each of these Churches. Tho' we wholly assent not to this latter, yet supposing it (and it is one of the best and fairest grounds for the Presbyterial way) the Law of this Principle (if the Parallel be rightly made up) will not extend to a power of Excommunicating any of these Churches so associated. For, 1. If you take that External part of Excommunication, it is a cutting Men off from all Ordinances, wherein Church-Communion lies (as some hold) but more especially from the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper (which latter is acknowledged by all) for since Suspension cuts off from the Lord's Supper, therefore Excommunication must do it much more: Now the Parallel Law between these two kinds of associations, must run thus; That as a Congregation casts out of the communion of all those Ordinances, which a Congregation is the proper Seat of; so this greater association can by vertue of its association, only cast out of those Ordinances that belong unto them, as such an associated Body in common, and from among themselves in particular; and then that Sentence can arise to no more than what we contend to be the only power that Churches have one with another; and that is Non-communion. The Reason is clear, because they can but cast that Church out of their association, and from having any interest in their counsel and advice, &c. For associated Presbyteries, have not the Sacraments, nor the Solemn constant Ordinances of Worship; and therefore they can but by vertue of this association, deny them communion with themselves; and this we grant to Neighbour-Churches, that they may and ought to deal thus with an offending Church, by vertue of that Apostolick Rule, from such turn away. But this power of Excommunicating a Church contended for, is a further thing, it is a laying a Law upon a Church, to Dissolve their being any longer a Church, until they do Repent of that Sin they charge them with; it is to call in their Charter, that they can meet no more, Inter se, among themselves to enjoy the Sacrament, or any other Ordinance whatsoever. This is beyond the extent of the power of an association; yea, this is more than they are able to execute, and doth Christ give power to do that which they cannot execute? Now they may keep them from communion with them, either by not letting them into the Assembly (and therefore they had Ostiarii Doorkeepers in the primitive times) or they may do it by thrusting them out; as the Priests of Israel did the King, when he came to offer Sacrifice, or rather by a Moral contest against them, or forbearing to Excommunicate, when they are present: But they cannot keep them from meeting, inter se, among themselves. In the Primitive Times indeed they had Recourse to the power of Magistrates for it; but we seek for a sufficient Ecclesiastical Remedy.
To this if it be Retorted, that such will the case be too, when in a particular Congregation, a company of Persons deserving Excommunication, are ejected (as a Pastor and others with him) yet they will meet still, and no Law can oblige them to the contrary: We Reply, by giving this Difference of the case.
1. That when a Congregation doth cast out the very Members, the Act it self whereby they cast them out from among them, leaves them barely a company of Out-laws, without Church State or Relation among themselves; for they had it but as Members of that Church, they are now cast out of; and they can Retain no other Relation left them, that gives them actual Right to Ordinances; for this is their Original first Relation. And therefore if they meet, yea, with a Mutual consent to be a New Church, they meet as Men, and Outlawed from a Church Relation, which they had put their Souls upon the Laws of; or at least by a Judicial Act past on them, they have now forfeited. They fall as the Angels, from that Original State, and if they will set up a New Kingdom, they do it but as the Devils do. But although Neighbour-Churches did cast them out from among them, that Act in the Nature and Extent of it, Reacheth not to cast them out of that Relation of a Church, that they had originally among themselves; Neither do they fall by vertue of that Act (which is all that is in the Synods power) from that Church Relation they had among themselves; which they had before their associating with them, and was the Foundation of it.
2. By that Act of being cast out of this Congregational Relation, they are cast out of the formerly enjoyed communion of the Lord's Supper, in a constancy in that Church; which they never enjoyed at all in that other Classical Church, for it is not the Seat of it: And so this Act of Excommunication, as in a Congregational Church performed, casts them out of all Ordinances, and out of all that is proper to such Relation and Fellowship; but it is not so in the other case. And hence it comes to pass that Excommunication from all Ordinances, can only be in a Church where all Ordinances are; and therefore not in or by a classical Church, where the main Ordinances Men are shut out from, are not Administred:
3. This Act of a Synod's Excommunicating a Church, is yet further for the External part of it, not simply an Obligation, not to meet for Ordinances, and to account of each other as Heathens; but further yet, the Sentence Terminates it self upon their Church-fellowship and Communion, Dissolves that, cuts them off from being an External Body, or Spouse to Christ, gives them such a Bill of Divorce, as removes the Candlestick, takes that in pieces, yea, delivers them as such to Satan, and makes them as Heathens and Publicans each to other. For otherwise if the Act be only the Synod's putting away this Church from among themselves, or the communion of other Churches; that we readily grant may be done, and surely it is Remedy sufficient through Christ's Blessing (although this is reckoned no Government.) But to do the other Act mentioned to Church or Churches, Christ hath not given power to Synods.
If it be answered, as it is by some, that the Object of this Excommunication of a Church, is only the Persons therein materially considered, but not their Church-State, otherwise than by consequence: We Reply, that formally the Object of this Sentence, is a Church as such, which is evident from this; that the great Argument alledged by the Presbyterial Divines is, that else there is no Remedy for an erring Church, as well as for Heretical Persons: And also that the Sins, which are the grounds of such Excommunications, be still Church Acts, Publick, not Personal, as grosly evil Administrations, or permissions of Notorious Sins, or Heresies Professed, Upheld, Defended, Adhered to by all in their Assemblies. And how else should Excommunication of a Church differ from the Suspension of a Church? This puts them into that State, as during the time of their Excommunication, they are to be reckoned as no Church, untill they Repent; for if they are as Heathens and Publicans, then they are no Church, unless we will make Heathen Churches, which is a contradiction. And if that whole Church should die Impenitent, they are to be reckoned to die, as out of Church-State among themselves, as well as in Relation to other Churches.
Now to prove that it is not in the power of Synods, thus to do to Churches, let the following Reasons be considered.
1. This is a Maxim of the Reformed Churches, that Ecclesiae sunt pares, Churches are equal, and Par in parem non habet potestatem, one equal, hath not power over another. Admonish they may, withdraw communion they may; for as one Brother may do so from another, so these Churches may from an erring Church; yea, and a Synod being an Ordinance to them to heal them, and consisting of more Elders than are in that Church, they may declare Christ's command and will to them; but yet they have that power to deliver to Satan, to unchurch them, &c. We find not that a Synod or company of Elders are called a Church, and if they should be so Named, yet still they have not more of Church in them, than other Churches have; nay, they have less, for they want a Body of the Faithful, and their interest joyned with these Elders, who are more usually called the Church: They are not the Seat of the main Ordinances, for which Churches were constituted: They have not the Sacraments administred: They are not Bodies erected primarily for Worship; but only so far, as may occasionally accompany and subserve their Discussions, and Determinations. It would therefore be strange, that these should have so much more of Church in them, as to have power to unchurch other Churches and Bodies to Christ, when themselves are but Representative, at most of the Body of Christ (for Christ hath no Representative Body to him) but every Church consisting of Elders and People, are the Body of Christ, and so called, when the other never hath that Name.
2. To Dissolve a Church's external Estate as to all Ordinances, is a matter so far above Excommunicating single Persons, though never so many, that it is Christ's Prerogative alone to do it. This is confirmed,
1. By like instances in civil States, wherein to Dissolve an Incorporate Town, and to call in, and take away their Charter and Priviledge, belongs to the Supream Power; and though Judges and others may deal with Persons in Corporations, yet the Corporations themselves depend on the Crown.
2. It is confirmed by Scripture, Revel. 2. 5. Christ from Heaven makes it his Prerogative, to remove the Ephesian Candlestick, Repent, or I will come quickly and remove thy Candlestick. The Candlestick was their Church-State, Revel. 1. 23. The seven Candlesticks, are the seven Churches; and therefore he speaks not of their Mystical State, as they were Members of the Mystical Body, but of them, as they were a Candlestick Artificially formed up into that Holy Fellowship amongst them. So also it was Gods Prerogative alone, to give a Bill of Divorce to Israel, as she was a Church, and so it is expressed. And if it be said, it was done Ministerially by the Prophets declaring it, and so may this also be done to a Church by its Ministers: We Reply, that it was done by them Prophetically, as foretelling it; but there is no such Spirit of Prophecy in Synods.
3. It is Christ's Prerogative alone, to build and erect a Church, without the intervention of Ministerial Ecclesiastical power, to derive power to them; therefore also to Dissolve that Fellowship, and the use thereof, belongs only to him: Churches to be Erected, may and ought to have the direction and consent of Neighbour-Churches, because a New Sister is to be added to, and associated with them; but they receive no power from them, to become a Church. It was not the Intervention of the Apostles power, that constituted Churches, further than as they converted Materials for Churches to be made out of, and as they Directed and Taught them to become Bodies unto Christ, teaching them to do whatsoever Christ hath commanded them; but we never read, that making them Churches, was a Ministerial Act in them; we read they Ordained Elders, but not that they Ordained Churches. Paul says, he planted indeed, and he was a Wise Master-builder; but he speaks the one of converting Persons, the other of Doctrines, because he speaks of building Hay and Stubble afterwards.
It is the great Error of some of this Age, that having lost all Church-state and Ministry; therefore (say they) there must come Apostles to make Churches again, whereas if all Ordinances had been lost under Antichrist, yet if there be Saints alive, and they have the Apostles Writings, those Writings do Authorize them as fully to become a Church, and choose Ministers, and then to Ordain them, as if the Apostles were alive. Moses was not the Builder of the National Church of the Jews, but Christ immediately did it, and not merely gave Directions, Heb. 3. 3. This Man Christ, hath more Honour than Moses, in as much as he that Builded the House, hath more Honour than the House, whereof Moses was but a part himself.
If it be answered to all this, that by Excommunication, their Fundamental Church-State is not Dissolved, as the character of a Brother, or of a Minister, is not so defaced when Excommunicated; but that if he Repent again, he remains a Minister without a New Ordination: We Reply, besides the Reasons forementioned, that so likewise if Christ should remove the Candlestick, and unchurch any, if they Repent, their Church-State would be Restored; and 2. If they be thrown out of their own Church by Excommunication, this Church-State must remain as it were in the Air, as an accident without a Subject. And 3. If they be cast out of the visible Church (which is the greater) by Excommunication, then they are cast out of the less also.
It may, and hath been said, that in cases of Male-Administrations, wherein Churches have Miscarryed and Erred, though Synods have the power of Excommunication in such cases; yet it is not necessary for the Rectifying of that Evil, that they should proceed against the Church, so as the Church should be the object of their dealing with; but it may be enough for them to deal with Persons only that are Scandalous, whom the Church will not amend; and that then in case of the Churches neglect, they may Excommunicate those Persons.
Now unto this we Reply, that in these cases of evil Administrations, what power Synods are betrusted withal, is to be primarily, or at least as much exercised upon the Church that hath miscarryed and neglects its Duty, as upon the Persons: And therefore it will not Salve it, that they should let the Church alone, or deal more lightly with them; and so take upon them to Excommunicate the Persons, whom the Church neglects to Excommunicate. Which is made good by these Reasons.
1. From the priviledge and power of that Church, be it Classical or Congregational, that is the first Subject of Excommunication; they have the power first from Christ to do it, and a command so to do, and the Duty lies on them. And therefore Synods are to call upon them, and to provoke them to do it, who have that power committed to them, and not take it out of their Hands; for Synods are not to assume more power than the Apostles did. When the Church of Corinth had neglected to Excommunicate the incestuous Corinthian, Paul did not take it upon him, and Excommunicate him himself; but in this case he deals with the Church, for not doing their Duty, because the power of Judging was committed to them; Do not ye Judge them that are without? 1 Cor. 5. 12. He blames them, lays it upon them as a Sin, and if they had still continued in that neglect, their Sin had been as great as that of the Man himself, and greater. And therefore Christ also in his Epistle from Heaven, to the Church of Thyatira, Revel. 2. 20. blames that Church and the Angel thereof, for suffering Jezabel to Teach, and lays the Sin upon them in this case, as well as upon Jezabel her self: And therefore if Synods are to Excommunicate at all, and have power to Excommunicate the Persons, they must proceed against the Church also.
1. If it be said, that the Church must be supposed not to see that Reason (for want of light) to Excommunicate a Member or Members, that the Synod doth, and so they may not have that cause to deal with the Churches, that they have with the Person or Member: We Reply, that if the Sin be not evidently notorious in all Mens Eyes, deserving Excommunication; but such, as it may be well supposed, the Inferior Church might not see ground for Excommunication, why should the Synod meddle with cases of that nature, why should they not rather rest in the Sentence of those Inferior Courts? And if it be such a Sin as is Notorious, and the Scandal answerably, then surely this Church that Person belongs unto, is as much, yea more in fault for their neglect or partiality. And surely Synods (if they had any such Authority) being such Great and Superior Bodies, should not intermeddle but in cases suitable to themselves, in cases of Moment, great and manifest to all Men's Consciences.
And 2. The constitution of Synods, and the Relation they bear to Churches argues it. They are not as Totum integrale, but Collectivum; not an integral whole, they are not Ecclesia integralis, but Collectiva, not an integral Church, but Collective, that is, they are in our Brethren's intent, a Church of Churches (if a Church at all) and not in an immediate way a Church of the Members of those Churches singly, and apart considered. Their First and Primary Relation is therefore to the Churches, as a part of that whole, and but Secondarily unto the Members; and they are therefore accordingly to deal in all such cases of omission with the Churches. Their Work is to have the care and care of Churches, and their Miscarriages; and therefore to deal with Members only, and let the Churches alone, is to neglect that which is their proper charge.
3. So it was in the Government of Judah, the Synhedrim did not themselves meddle with the Person to be Judged, and pronounce the Sentence in stead of the Judges of a particular City, but left it to them still to Judge according to their proper Priviledge; but dealt with the Judges, in case they pronounced not the Sentence; and so here it should be, if we will suppose any such power at all to be in Synods.
2. It may and hath been said, that Presbyterial Government supposeth the fault of this Excommunication, to lie in the Elders that Excommunicated the Man, and so need not to deal with the Churches by way of coertion to them; but only with those Elders that had the Hand in it, who may be Deposed, and others placed in their room.
To which we Reply, 1. That the People are supposed also at least to give their consent to the Excommunication of a Person in a Church (by their own acknowledgment, and according to the practice of the Reformed Churches) yea, and are to Judge as the Jury doth, by finding a Man Guilty; and the Officers are as the Judges (so in the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 5th and 6th chap.) And if so, then they are to be Judged in fault, as well as the Officers.
But 2. If the People are not to be Censured and Judged, yet suppose they cleave to their Officers in this Act, as thinking that they ought, and as being convinced with them, that this Man is to remain Excommunicated; and therefore dare not partake with him, as it is their Duty in such a case: Then the People are to be Excommunicated, as well as their Officers, and both of them for this same thing, as being a Church Act, according to their interests, common to both.
3. If the Officers only should be Excommunicated in this case, and others put in their rooms: Then 1. If the People do cleave to their former Officers, these Officers will want a Church to officiate unto; and why should they Desert their Elders, when they in their consciences Judge their Act to be Just? It becomes them to say, let us all dye with them in such a case. And if the Synod will Excommunicate a Pastor, and the Elders of a Congregation (supposing the People cleave to them) where is it that you will Excommunicate him? In their own Church, or in your Churches? In his own Church, the People are against it. And if in your Churches, where is the Peoples concurring consent to this Man's Excommunication? And if it be done in your Churches, you only throw him out of your own. Or 2. If they do not cleave to their Officers, yet they conscientiously Judging that they ought not to receive the Man into communion with themselves, here is still no sufficient remedy for the Man by this.
4. Let it be further considered, that if these Elders only should be Deposed; yet they are perhaps the whole, the greater part at least of a Classis (for by the greater part, every thing is carried) and so of the Elders of many Congregations. Yea, if the Provincial hath seconded the Sentence; then the greater part of the Elders of a Province, are to be Excommunicated also: And if the People cleave to them (as of old they did use to do to their Bishops) then the People of all those Churches also, must be Excommunicated, and what a havock of the Churches will this make?
If it be said, that in this case as in a Rebellion, some few are singled out for example to the rest: It is answered,
1. It is not in this, as in civil Government; for there capital punishments are chiefly for example, to prevent and deter others; but here this of Excommunication, is for the personal good of those that have Sinned, to destroy the Flesh, that they may be saved; and therefore the Souls that deserve it, ought and must be Excommunicated: Neither is there any Warrant to think, that when the Merit and Obstinacy of the Sin, calls for that Ordinance appointed, the only means to cure it (which cure is only to bring Sinners to Godly Repentance) that that Sin will be healed, by any lower means of making others an Example: The Excommunication of some few, may be a means to prevent those that are not fallen; but not those that are fallen into obstinacy. 2. In such civil Mulcts, Princes and States have power to Pardon the Rebels, or to pass the Crime by; because the Injury (so far as 'tis civil, is to themselves) but no Ecclesiastical Court hath power to forgive, but where Christ forgives, and he forgives only the Penitent; nor yet ought they to forbear, if they have the power of inflicting this Spiritual Punishment.
Lastly, Let the Inconvenience be considered, if Synods should Excommunicate Persons (when the Inferior Churches did acquit them) without Excommunicating the Churches themselves, what Confusion and Disturbance it is like to bring. The Persons Excommunicated will say, where I am known, and am a Member, there I am acquitted, and not medled with; but by Strangers, and the Elders of a Nation (having taken the cause out of their Hands) I am condemned. This will bolster up Persons, and make them obstinate, and they will oppose Sentence against Sentence.