The Government of the Churches of Christ, Book 2 · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
That the Name of a Church given in the New Testament to Congregational Churches rather than any other (as is proved from several Texts, 1 Cor. 11. 18. Rom. 16. 1, & 5. 1 Cor. 4. 17, &c.) proves Congregational Churches to have been intended by Christ in his Institution of a Church, they most properly being both in name, and nature such. That a Presbyterian Assembly of Elders cannot properly be called a Church: Evinced by several Arguments.
TO decide the controversie about the Divine Institution of a Congregational Church, we may put it to the trial, whether single Congregations with their Elders have more the style of Churches in the New Testament, than the Elders of many Congregations as assembled in a Consistory; and let that determine it. Now that those Congregations where God is publickly Worshipped, and the Preaching of the Word, and the Sacraments Administred, are called each of them a Church, is evident.
1. In 1 Cor. 11. 18. When you come together in the Church: He speaks of their Meeting for the Lord's Supper, ver. 20. And in ver. 22. he calls it so again. So their meeting for Preaching, and for singing of Psalms, he calls it a Church, chap. 14. ver. 2, & 19, & ver. 23. he calls it a whole Church, meeting for those ends. And there he gives not the name to the Meeting or Assembly but to the state and company, ver. 28. for the Rules, he giveth there, are for ordering of Worship. So too in Rom. 16. 4. saluting Aquila and Priscilla (who for his Life would lay down their own necks) he giveth these Congregations the name of Churches, unto whom (saith he) not only I give thanks, but also all the Churches of the Gentiles, and ver. 16. The Churches of Christ salute you. Were those a company of Elders over many Congregations met? Presbyterial Churches, that did testifie their thanks unto Aquila and Priscilla? Or were they Congregations of Saints and Strangers also where Paul had been? He had related unto them his own danger, and Aquila's, and Priscilla's, exposing their lives for his, and can it be supposed that the Saints as making several Presbyterial Churches (who are so vast, like unto ours, as the People never meet to do it) did salute the Romans, and Aquila and Priscilla? No rather the several Congregational Churches, might well have opportunity to express the remembrance of them at their Meetings. And the 1. ver. and the 5. ver. of Rom. 16. will easily prompt us what manner of Churches he meaneth, when he speaks of all these Churches, that they were such as was at Cenchrea, the Church which is at Cenchrea (saith he) which was a small Port seven miles off Corinth; and ver. 5. (saith he) Greet ye the Church that is (i. e. that met) in Priscilla's House. Such Churches as these were the Churches of the Gentiles, who saluted them. If we come to the Epistle of the Corinths, saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. 4. 17. As I teach every where in every Church. Doth he mean these Presbyterial Churches or Consistories? Or Congregational? Surely the Churches where Paul still Preached and Taught must be Congregational; For those Assemblies are the Subjects and Seats of Teaching. Take also the 17th verse of the 7th chapter, and bring it along unto the 11th chapter; So I ordain in all the Churches; and, We have no such custom nor the Churches of God; What! Presbyterial? Or Congregational? Let but this one consideration decide it. The custom of which he speaks that the contentions were about, was whether Men should be uncovered or covered praying or prophesying. Now all the Meetings for Worship where Men and Women, and where the Angels (whether Celestial or Elders) were present, these Assemblies where these Ordinances were used, he calleth Churches, and he saith they had no such custom. And in these respects of Meeting thus for Worship they are distinguished, Churches, and are made several, Churches in the Plural; and the general usages of all these Churches as constituted and ordered by the Apostles every where, he here presseth. If we come to chap. 14. He there gives order about Prophecying in their Meetings, into which Strangers came and were converted, ver. 25. In which they had Psalms and Doctrines, ver. 26. Where Men and Women were present, ver. 34, and 35. and therefore Congregational Meetings are meant. And he inforceth these directions he gives, with the examples of all the like Churches in all their Meetings, God is not the Author of Confusion but of Peace, as in all the Churches of the Saints, ver. 33. These must needs be Congregational Assemblies and Churches that met, for he speaks of the Churches of the Saints in common. Yet still you see when he speaks of Churches, yea and of all Churches, he speaks of them as such. And ch. 16. 1. When he Writeth about laying up Contribution for the Saints (the gathering and disposing of which belongeth unto particular Congregations, for the Money to be sure is had from thence) As I have given order (says he) to the Churches of Galatia, so do ye, he meaneth those Churches of Galatia he wrote to, Gal. 2. And these must be all Congregational, for to order that collection belongeth to the several Congregations. And ver. 19. The Churches of Asia (saith he) salute you. Now the many Congregations under a Presbytery, they do not meet to give salutes, they were therefore Congregational, for with a Congregational Church in this salute he doth joyn them all, for he addeth, Aquila and Priscilla saluteth you with the Church that is in their House, and why should we not think that he speaks uniformly in the same verse. This we see is the uniform style of the Apostle when he speaks of Churches and of all Churches.
2. As for the very name Church in the New Testament, the place of Congregational Meetings almost in all Languages hath the Name of Church, which name, no places, for General Councils or Presbyterial Meetings over many Congregations, at any time, have had. Not that we think the Place of Meeting to be properly called the Church, but only foreign, but yet it had originally its name from the Meeting, and the Persons, which were properly called the Church, and from their stated condition to meet in one place, the place was so named. The Clergy indeed hath been called the Church, but not as met, or assembled in any Synod, but in the Indefinite Universal Notion. But the place for the Congregation is called the Church, and the Meeting of the Saints hath the same name, 1 Cor. 14. 34. Let your Women keep silence in the Churches. And their constant Meeting in a fixed manner, and their state in order thereto is called the Church, Acts 11. 26. The Sacrament also was Antiently called foreign, i. e. the Meeting, their Meetings being said to be to break bread, Acts 20. 7. And in the great Bible the word Church is always translated by Congregation. And among the Grecians, foreign was never used for a representative Meeting only of Officers, but of the People also, and so it is in Acts 19. 39, 41. where the People making a tumult, it is called foreign, although an unlawful one. And although that Christ, Mat. 18. used the Hebrew phrase, yet Churches being to be set up among the Gentiles under the New Testament, that phrase was used also which was conformed unto what theirs signified.
Also under the New Testament the Name Church imports the Saints the People, in a more peculiar manner; and therefore the Meetings where Elders are severed from the People, are not called the Church. Grotius in Mat. 16. 18. And this to the expressions which are used in 2 Cor. 6. 16. Shew ye are the Temples of the Living God, I will dwell in them and walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my People. And in Acts 12. 5. Prayer was made of the Church, i. e. of the Saints, unto God for Peter. Yea this word Church is taken for the People of Israel under the Old Testament, as Acts 7. 38.
3. We desire one place to be given, where the Name Church in all the New Testament is given, to the meeting of the Elders alone. When the Apostle speaks of all the Churches, he gives them this appellation, all the Churches of the Saints, 1 Cor. 14. 33. but he no where expresseth the Churches of the Ministers, or Elders, no nor of the Apostles neither. Now can we think that Christ in his first Institution (Mat. 16. & Mat. 18.) which the Apostles were to Interpret afterward, and to give directions to us about it, meaned the word Church in a signification different from what the Apostles used? This would be a strange procedure indeed. How then can the Elders lay a claim to the things, when they have not a sufficient ground to challenge the name of a Church. As Parker replying to Dr. Billson's Assertion of the Parkerus de Polit. Eccles. Lib. 3. c. 1. Clemens Epist. ad Corinth. pag. 1.Keys being given in Peter's Person to the Church of Ministers very well says, That it may be denied, that the name Church is ever in the Scriptures restrained only to the Priests. Clemens Romanus when he Writes to the Church of Corinth, Writes to the Church, and not to the Presbyters (so the Apostles too in their Epistles) and Writes also from the Church at Rome. And when all the Apostles were met at Jerusalem, yet they alone are not called the Church, being but (as Moses is said to be, Heb. 3. 2, 5. a part of the House, but no where called the House) a part of it, Acts 8. 1. The Church was scattered except the Apostles. And indeed if the Elders were the intire Church, then they were the House of God, whereas they are but stewards in it, 1 Cor. 4. 1. The Apostles tho' they had the care of all the Churches, and that power in their hands which the Generality of Elders would never claim, yet they were but Officers in the Church, not the Church. Many Churches become one Church to no Officer in the World but Christ, but this pretence of the Elders being the Church, would make many Churches one Church to a company of Elders, that they may Govern them; and in relation to them as representers of the Church, they must be called one Church. What tho' the Old Testament frame, or Language be urged, we grant there was then a Church representative, but the Gospel knows no such now.
4. Surely a setled Congregation of Saints deserveth the name of Church more, and suppose places could be found in Scripture, where it is taken both for Elders and the People apart, yet those meetings that have both Elders and People of both sorts, must needs have more of Church in them. We can give instances that the Disciples apart are called the Church in distinction from the Officers. You cannot give one instance where the Officers are called the Church in distinction from the Disciples. Certainly those that have the Power have the Name, and not those only that have the name Equivocally or Metaphorically.
5. A Presbyterial Church is called a Church in relation to the People of those Congregations by their own confessions when they interpret the Church of Hierusalem, the Church of Ephesus, to be many Congregations (and the Presbyterial's Argument is built thereon) and that the People of all those Congregations make one Church under that one Eldership. Now it is strange that they should have a Name of Church only as they are the subject or object of Discipline, and yet not so much as meet for that discipline actually neither, for so they cannot in a Presbyterial Church. The poor people of those Churches have no communion of Saints together herein, but such as they hold with all other Churches that are not under the same Presbytery; and yet they are according to Presbyterial principles in their Officers (as representing them) a distinct Church classical from all Churches else. So they make use of the name from the People, when the People enjoy not the thing. The poor Church of Hierusalem, Acts 8. 1. (when it is said that the Church was scattered) affords you an argument that therefore there was but one Church for Discipline in Hierusalem, and in that respect it is called one Church; when yet the scattering was not upon the Presbyterial Church that exercised Discipline, but upon the People. They were not in the representative body persecuted, and yet tho' they were scattered as a Church personally, and not representatively, and persecuted as a Church personally, not representatively only, yet according unto the Presbyterian Principles they never met as a Church personally, but only representatively.
If it be said that the People in Classical Assemblies may meet. Yet it is no otherwise than the People in the next Classes, which if they will may come thither, neither can they all possibly. You lay no more obligation on them to be present than you do upon the People of the next Classes. And therefore in that respect the People of that particular Classes, are no more of that Church than those of other Neighbouring Presbyters.
6. Those Assemblies must have more of Church in them, not only that have both Elders and People, as Congregations have: but that have constant Worship in them as well as government, And our Presbyterians allow some Government to Congregations, i. e. to the Elders of Congregations. Worship is the chief end of a Church. The formal notion of a Church is to meet and communicate in worship, and where there can be no Church-fellowship and Communion to the edification of the whole, there cannot be a Church. Which may be illustrated by the natural body, to which still Instituted Churches in Scripture are compared. The Eye, the Hand, the Head, they serve to several uses in the body, yet they are so united as they are all nourished with the same individual nourishment, and from the same stomach, and therefore this is a several body having all these parts, from another body. So is it here in the Churches instituted, they are such as have a communion in all the common Ordinances, not only in the same kind, but in the same ordinances individually in a constant way. And the Analogy of the Church universal, and the Churches particular will help to illustrate this further, for the Church Universal being one body, is therefore fed by one kind of Ordinances, as there is one Body, so there is one Baptism for kind. But the particular Churches which are Instituted, are such bodies as are fed with one and the same individual Baptism, and one and the same individual Lord's Supper, and so are one Bread. In a word, then all can come to those Classical Churches, or they cannot come; if they come then they are to make one Church for Worship too: If they cannot come, then there cannot be a fellowship for the edification of the whole, and when the Communion of Saints cannot be exercised, how can that be a Church? Every Church is a Temple, Eph. 2. 22. 1 Cor. 4. 16. The Temple of God are ye; Now the Temple did chiefly relate to Worship, and was the subject of all Ordinances, and the place where the Synedrim sat too. Answerably under the New Testament, the Preaching of the Gospel is called serving at the Altar, 1 Cor. 9. 14. So 1 Pet. 2. 5. The Saints are built up to offer Sacrifices. God's House is called an House of Prayer. The Church is called a body to Christ, one Body and one Bread (as was said afore) 2 Cor. 10. 17. because they partake of one Bread. But none of these do belong to a Presbyterial Church, they may pray occasionally, but the Ordinance of Prayer, and constant Worship is not there. Publick Worship lies in a Communion, therefore it is to be only with those that can enjoy Communion together. Yea it is made the very definition of a Church in the Article of the Church of England, which Article we hope will never be changed, Ecclesia est numerus fidelium (so others also define it) in cultu Divino & Disciplina Communicantium. The Church is a number of Believers communicating in Divine Worship and Discipline. which a Presbyterial Church is not. The end of a Church is that God may be publickly Worshipped, he would not have Instituted Churches else, but principally for that, therefore he had Congregations to do it, in which only it is done; and of Discipline superadded, is but to keep that kind of Worship pure, for Government is but casting out of the Body impure Members: And therefore the great Ordinance of Discipline, of Excommunication, is when they are met together, then they are to cast out from amongst them. As the intent of it is but to keep the Worship pure, so answerably it is to be exercised then when they meet to Worship, but Presbyterial Churches meet not for Worship, but Discipline only. Now as the Body is ordained for Meat Principally and Nourishment, and is not ordained for Physick but occasionally, so it is as to the state of the Church, and therefore our Divines make the Essential notes of a Church to be the Word, Sacraments, and Discipline; but in these Presbyterial Churches, the Word, and Sacraments are Wanting, and there is only Government. The General Assembly of the Saints in Heaven, is a Church in relation unto Worship, and tho' there is no Discipline there, yet they are never more a Church than when they are there. And the Apostle also speaking of the Church in the New Testament, in Heb. 10. saith, that Now there is an House of God, because there is an High Priest as well as before, ver. 21. and therefore (saith he) let us draw near (he speaks of publick Worship) not forsaking the assembling of our selves together, ver. 25. and that in Synagogues, for so the Word signifies. And therefore in Mat. 18. as Discipline so prayer is meant, and unto that is the Promise of Christ to be in the midst of them more peculiarly made, and upon occasion of that. And indeed it were exceeding strange that seeing the chief end of Churches, (which are Congregations) is for Worship, and that's the great business for which they are appointed, that if there were many Congregations in those of Hierusalem, and those of Antioch, and the like, as is pretended, that there should not be mention of those many Congregations, under the names of Churches, but that Discipline only must carry away the denomination of their being one Church, though many in relation unto it. If there were one word in any of those instances, that there were many Churches among them making one Church, it were something, but there is not.
7 If such a Presbyterial company of Elders were a Church, then Discipline must merely constitute a Church as a Church. And so the objection against the Episcopal Government, viz. That for Government alone there was an Order of Priesthood, namely a Bishop; will come with greater force here, as being very strange that for Government alone, there should be a Church Instituted. And that Discipline doth never constitute any kind of Church is clear, because that which can abesse be or not, and adesse be, without the destruction of the subject, will never constitute it. But so all Divines do say of Discipline, that a Church may be a Church though it be defective in Discipline, therefore it is not that which doth constitute a Church. And this principle the Church of England is concerned to hold up, or else they will justifie separation from them, as having been hitherto no true Churches. But lo here is a Church, a Presbyterial Church, that is a Church upon no other consideration but for Discipline.
8. And add to this, that since Presbyterial Government makes Congregations (which are Churches, having each their Elders over them) to be united for Government unto one Presbyterial Church: Let us but consider how many several Churches it makes.
1. For first, There is the particular Congregations consisting of People and their Elders for Worship, they are one sort of Churches.
2. There is secondly the Eldership in every one of those Congregations, which according to their principles is the Church, for they interpret Mat. 18. to be, Tell that Eldership, that is, Tell the Church; there's a second sort.
3. Then thirdly, There is all these Elders met in one for the Government of any of these Congregations; There's a third sort of Churches; for these Elders must be a Church in a true sense for the People, or they cannot meet: And if they will challenge Government by virtue of Mat. 18. they must needs challenge to be a Church. Now let it be considered, that those are not so much subordinations, as National and Provincial (which are but subordinations of the same kind, for the same ends) which consists of greater or lesser number of Elders; but these are diversifications, several sorts of bodies going to make up one Church that it might be a compleat both for Worship and Government. And that it is a diversification is clear by this.
1. Because they are Churches for differing purposes. The Congregations are Churches for Worship, but the particular Elderships and Presbyterial Elderships, are only for Discipline; now ends do diversifie such bodies.
2. They are not the same Churches by way of Accumulation, as many things of the same sort laid together: which is clear by this, because the particular Churches consist of People and Elders, but these have Elders of Churches only. And as we urge in our Argument that is drawn from Elders, that this Presbyterial Government would make one Man to be a double sort of Elders, both a Ruling Elder and a Teaching Elder, a Ruling Elder to some Churches, and a Teaching Elder to others, so also this makes them several sorts of Churches.
3. It must needs make a diversification of Churches. For as when many Families unite into a City for Government, there is a new relation and notion; so now here, there is the notion of a new Church. And then,
4. Add to this (which heighteneth the absurdity of it) that whereas the Presbyterial Church is made the compleat Church, they yet do want those great and main Ordinances, for which principally a Church is said to be a Church, as the Sacraments and the like. So of the two, this greater Church is the less compleat, and therefore is less the Church than a particular Congregation.
And if you say, they are made compleat Churches by being both, yet you make at least wise two sorts of Churches, as we said before: And you make a whole Church more uncompleat, as it is the whole, than it is in the parts.
If it be said that the Church Universal is one, and yet hath no Ordinances as Church, as Preaching the Word and Sacraments, and yet it is truly a Church. We answer, it is not a Church Instituted in relation unto Ordinances; but a Church Mystical in relation unto Persons and Personal Graces.
This also farther addeth confirmation to us, that the supposition of there being many Congregations, in all, or many of those Cities, under a common Presbyterian Government of many Elders, thus in the general only held forth, leaveth room for, yea is the occasion of a variety of suppositions of several frames and forms of Government, which those Congregations might be cast into, both in relation to their Officers, and to the Members mutually among themselves. 1. As that either they were Conventus promiscui (as Didoclavius calls them) promiscuous unfixt Assemblies, some meeting together at one place or time, some at another time with others, having no fixed relation; Or else that they were fixed meetings in respect of the Members divided into set determinate companies meeting constantly together. 2. Or else otherwise, supposing them set and fixed Congregations in respect of the Members, yet there are other as various and more difficult suppositions may still be made concerning the relation of these Officers and Elders, how they were disposed of to the right performance of their duties, which the command of the Word lays on them toward their Flock. As, whether they were either fixed and appropriated to these several Congregations respectively, some to one, some to another (as it is in most of the Reformed Churches, and is with us, and we suppose will not be altered amongst us) or else unfixt in respect of all the Congregations, so as equally and mutually in their course, these Ministers might Preach and Officiate to them all by turns (as in some Cities in Holland.) And then 3 If you suppose them fixedly divided into several Congregations, then another question cometh, what power those Elders that are appropriated to each Congregation should have over the Flock? Whether over all, or none, or some part? Now it is the supposition of their being many Congregations under one Presbytery, that only is the ground of this uncertainty, and bringeth in this variety of suppositions of these several ways, how these things should be cast, whereas the supposing of them to be but several distinct Churches tho' great ones, will make all things fall in naturally. For then there could be but one way of casting and moulding Members, nor could there be but one common relation of Elders, and so all those duties and things that are spoken about the Power and Duties of Elders, and of the Members amongst themselves, and whatsoever is spoken of Churches and Elders, their Dues, and Duties run all but in one Channel. And then consider too (supposing them many Congregations) that the designing out, which of those suppositions was the pattern left by the Apostles, was a matter of as much moment (as touching the point of the right ordering of Congregations) as this common Presbyterial Government can be supposed to be of, in as much as the execution of all mutual duties between People and Pastors, and the administration of all holy things amongst them, appertaining to this particular Government of the several Congregations, and upon the right ordering and settlement of them, and of these Elders relation to them, doth the right Government and Administration of all holy things depend. And yet consider too at the same time, that we do not find the Holy Ghost making so much as a mention of any such distinct subordinated Congregations to a Classis (only the multitudes of Believers are looked upon through multiplying Glasses to argue it) much less giving any hints to discern by, in the History of the Apostles, or in the Epistles, what the frame was of these supposed Churches, and what their particular special relation to Elders in this supposed variety was. There is not any thing to any such purpose extant, in either that instance of Jerusalem or any other of those examples of Cities, that are pretended to hold forth this multitude of Congregations making one Church under one Common Presbyterial Government. This hath long and doth still stick in our Consciences because the Holy Ghost is silent, and hath not left us the least footsteps in the Sacred History, to discern in which of these ways (supposing many Congregations thus making a Church for Government) the Apostles did settle the constitution of this Church, and how they did dispose the relation of these Elders and Officers to those several Congregations.