The Government of the Churches of Christ, Book 3 · Chapter 1
CHAP. I.
That a Particular Congregation of Saints, having a sufficient number of Elders, is a compleat Subject of Church Power and Government, proved, 1. From the Power which they have to Examine, and Admit Members. 2. From their Power of Suspending from the Sacrament. 3. From their being a perfect Political Church.
THis is agreed upon by all hands that some particular Church is such a Politick Body, as hath intire power to cast out by Excommunication; and a casting out of that particular Body, Is consequently a casting out of all the rest, by the Law of Communion of Churches, whether implicite, (one Church reverencing the judgment of another, till they see apparent cause to the contrary) or explicite by vertue of that their Association. Now the Question is, what particular Body or Church it is, whether a fixed Congregation (whereof a Man is a constant Member) when it hath a sufficiency of Elders over it, or a Presbytery of many Congregations?
Proposition, One single Congregation of Saints, having a sufficient number of Elders, and Officers, is an intire Seat of all Acts of Government, and of Excommunication it self, as well as of Worship. The truth of this Proposition will appear, if we consider the following Arguments.
Arg. I. If such a Church with the Elders are sufficient to Try and Examine, and so Admit ordinary Members, without the help of other Churches, then it is sufficient to cast them out. For,
1. The one is an affirmative act, the other a negative act, but both are acts of the Keys only turning several ways, the one opening the other shutting; the one is but judging initial Repentance, the other is a judging of occasional Repentance for a gross Sin. And there is as much reason you should require as evident signs of Repentance from the state of Nature, as you do in case of scandal. For as to men grown up, till they shew Repentance, there is this prejudice against them, that they are Children of Wrath by nature even as well as others.
2. The not admitting of Men to Church Ordinances, and not receiving them, is an act of as great moment to Men's Persons, as to be cast out. If then Churches be betrusted with the one, why should not they be betrusted with the other?
3. If Excommunication were more to the Man Excommunicated, than a not Receiving by way of Admission, yet Christ's Honour is as much concerned in what Members are taken in and owned for his Body, as in what are cast out.
4. In all Common-wealths, to Enfranchise and to cut off belong to the same Power, yea to Enfranchise doth more appertain to it. For Parliaments only do Enfranchise Strangers, but yet lower Courts do cut Men off by Death, according to the Law. And it holds in all Bodies else, for in Families, they have power to take in Servants, and power to cast out, and in Colledges to Admit and to Expell.
Object. But it will be objected, that to Excommunicate a Man, is to cast him out of all Churches, and therefore it is the greater Act.
Answ. 1. That simply alone doth not make it greater; for a Man is cast out of all Churches, not formally but only consequently, because the Churches have and hold communion one with another. Let the proportion be held between Admission and Excommunication in this, and they will be parallels; For if you will say that all Churches about have an interest, because they are to reject a Man, that is Excommunicated; so they have an interest also in Admission, to Receive him also, if he be admitted, and they cast a reflection up that Church he is of, if they Receive him not by vertue of his Fellowship.
Answ. 2. A Man in being so admitted into a particular Church, by vertue of that Fellowship, he is received occasionally into communion with any other Church.
Arg. II. If a single Congregation may Suspend from the Sacrament, without consulting others, then they may Excommunicate. This is evident,
1. From Presbyterial Principles, for those that hold Excommunication to be but a casting one off from Communion with the Church, and not to include a further thing, viz. a formal delivering him unto Satan, do make but a very small difference between Suspension and Excommunication. A Man Excommunicated they will admit to Hear, and therefore his being cast out of the communion of the Church, is but a depriving him of the communion of the Lord's Supper, and that is also done by Suspension: Only the one is but a Suspension from a few acts, this from many; but both are till he repents.
If it be said that the consequent of Excommunication, is to avoid civil converse, which is more than Suspension. We reply, that even so it is in Suspension also; for there is to be a withdrawing from a Brother, that walks inordinately before he is Excommunicated, 2 Thes. 3. 6. Yea, because a private Brother ought to withdraw converse with such an one, it is made a ground of Suspension from the Lord's Supper by the Church, that the Church should withdraw communion with him, and so Suspend him.
Arg. 3. Add to this, That they who are a Politick Church, having a sufficient Presbytery and Eldership, have a power to do all acts of a Church, and therefore to Excommunicate. But such a Congregation is a Politick Church, and have a sufficient Presbytery and Eldership.
1. They are a Politick Church, and the least Church hath thus much power, that he that hears it not, let him be as an Heathen and a Publican, and the greatest hath no more. All the Churches in the World may add Advice in difficult cases, and a reverential Authority, but they cannot add Power, for that Christ hath given to a Church as it is a Church. The Presbyterial Divines themselves do argue the Power of Excommunication in a Presbytery, because it is a Church; only they say a Congregation is an imperfect Church. Whereas there is not one Scripture in the New Testament that doth so much as call a Presbytery, over many Congregations, a Church or if it did, there is then a greater thing to be proved (namely, this distinction which the Scripture hath not made) that a Congregation having an Eldership, is an incompleat Church Politick, and the other compleat. All Churches may be imperfect in respect of Moral Power, in some cases, wherein they need advice, and so a Presbyterial Church may be imperfect, and may run into errour, and so may a Provincial, so may a National, so may a General Council. And if the imperfection of a Church should lie in this, that it is subject to another Church, and accountable thereunto (according to Presbyterial Principles) then also a Provincial and a National Church were imperfect, and by that rule they also should not Excommunicate. But in a word, the imperfection of a Congregational Church must lie, either in respect of what they are as a Church, or in respect of their Eldership.
1. Their imperfection doth not lie in their being a Church, for they have more of Church than any classical Meeting of Elders hath, because they have both People and Elders also, and so partake of both sorts, which the other doth not. And the Assembly have in their vote acknowledged, Mat. 18. to intend a particular Church, and the Eldership thereof to be a Church, although they do not acknowledge it only to be a Church, and our Reformed Writers call Congregations, Ecclesiae primae, the first Churches
2. Neither doth their imperfection lie in their Eldership, as being insufficient, for if so, then either Elders are not an Eldership unto them for acts of Government; or they are not a sufficient Eldership for all acts of Governments. But
1. They are an Eldership or Presbytery unto them for acts of Government. For where there are more Elders than one united in common, for acts of Government, there they are an Eldership or a Presbytery, but so there are here. This is evident in the instance of Hierusalem, brought by the Assembly themselves, for they therefore prove Presbyterial Government, over many Congregations, because those Elders met for acts of Government, and that those many Congregations were one Church to those Elders. Now in a particular Congregation, where there are more Elders than one, there is one Church, and there are likewise the Elders thereof, meeting (say we) with that Church for Acts of Government, and that may meet apart (say they) for some Acts of Government. Of a Bishop it is said, (1 Tim. 3. 5. If he do not Rule his own house well, how shall he take care of the Church of God? That is to rule it, as the answering of one phrase to the other imports. And surely, if, by Bishop there, be meant a particular Elder, having relation unto a particular Congregation, Ruling in that Congregation is there intended, and to suppose that the House of God, that he is to take care of and to rule, is many Congregations, as met in a Classes, is too hard a supposition, especially seeing the Argument is taken from ruling his Family, and he is placed in a Congregation; and if the Congregation should not be meant here, by the House of God, the comparison went per saltum, by too wide a Leap.
2. As the Name Church, is applied to the House of Meeting in our Language to this day, so this is an Argument that Congregational Meetings are Churches, and so the Name Rector, which imports Ruling, continues also to this day. Presbyters (saith Bains) in antient time were in great difference, or of a double sort, those Bain's Diocesan tryal, Pag. 66.who are called, Proprij Sacerdotes, Rectores, Seniores, Minorum Ecclesiarum praepositi. The Bishop had not, nor challenged not that respective power over them, which he did over those who were numbred among his Clerks, who were helps to him in the Liturgy, in Chappels and Parishes which did depend on him, as their proper Teacher, though they could not so ordinarily go out to him. The first sort had power within their Churches, to Teach, Administer, Excommunicate, and were counted Brethren to the Bishops, and called Episcopi or Coepiscopi even of the Antient; But the Presbyters, which were part of their Clergy, they had this directive power over them, (indeed) the Canons Ecclesiastical allowing the same. And this power, in their own Congregations, these Rectors had, although they were Minorum Ecclesiarum praepositi, Rulers over lesser Churches. And surely they, that are fit to Teach their own Congregation, are fit to Govern their own Congregation: The word to Feed the Flock, implying, feeding them by Ruling, as well as by Teaching. They that are Parents to beget, have power of the Rod betrusted to them; and if they be fit to govern foro interno, then much more with others foro externo. It is a more Apostolical Work to beget, and to plant, and to multiply, than to Govern Men being converted. That those that should be fit to gather a Church, and to bring it to fulness from small beginnings, should not be fit to govern it, and to reap the fruit of it, but that the power should be in others that are extrinsecal to their Congregations, is absurd to think.
In the classical Government, if they admonish not personally only, i. e. each Minister apart, but as a body in common then they meet for Acts of Government, and that in common, as united: And if there be no admonition in common, wherein they all join, as an act of authority of the whole, then such admonitions proceed from the Minister alone, that doth admonish, and the other Elders therein are but as Cyphers. Now therefore when there is Elders, and these Elder united in acts in common, and those acts are acts of Government, there must needs be an Eldership. And this the Reformed Churches do acknowledge, and the Commissioners of Scotland, in ther papers, do own this to be an Eldership. The Reformed Churches, in France, call it a Presbytery; and the meeting of the Elders over many Congregations, that they call the Classis. And what doth make a Classical Eldership to be a Presbytery; but that materially there are Elders, that have relation to those Congregations, and that formally they are united for Acts in Common?
2. It is as evidently true, that they are a sufficient Presbytery. Its true indeed, (as was said afore, no one is sufficient for any of these things? And thus for moral imperfections, power might be taken from the Apostles themselves, who acknowledge this imperfection of themselves; but they have a political sufficiency.
For 1. If it be said that the insufficiency lies in the fewness of the number, and that in a Classical Presbytery, there are more; on answer to that, the Rule saith, Elders of the Church, and so speaks of them indefinitely; and our Saviour Christ saith, in Mat. 18. Where two or three are gathered, which the Presbyterial Divines do Interpret of the Elders. In Acts 13. 1. there are three Elders mentioned at Antioch, and that they ordained two Apostles, Barnabas and Paul, who (say our Brethren) acted as ordinary Elders, when joyned together in the same Act, and yet they ordained also, Acts 14. 23. Thus the Church of Colosse, had two Ministers, Epaphras and Archippus, and yet that Church was compleat, Col. 2. 10. And they were but one Congregation; for they were Pastors to them, who is a Faithful Minister to you, (saith he) and that in respect of Teaching; for (he saith) they had heard it from him, Col. 4. And when the Scripture hath not put the sufficiency upon a number, why, if there be but two, should they be excluded? And then too it may fall out, that as many Elders are in one Congregation, as in some Classes. It will not be denyed by our Brethren, that two Churches may associate, and make a Classis; and one Congregation may have as many Elders, as these two smaller ones, that do associate. And assuredly their sufficiency doth not lie, that they have relation unto many Congregations; for that this should have the influence into their sufficiency, is hard to be supposed; besides that this is but a secondary Relation, for the primary Relation is to their own several Churches, insomuch, as it was sometimes affirmed by our Brethren, that they were not Elders to all those several Congregations associated, but an Eldership only. And that is but an extrinsecal relation neither, whereas that relation, they have to their own, is more intrinsecal; because they are chosen by them, and because they personally watch over them, and are fixed amongst them, whereas this is but raised by a meer Association. And therefore this relation that they are Elders over, many Congregations can add nothing to their sufficiency.
2. Or else Secondly, their insufficiency is supposed to lie, in not having all sort of Elders, in this Congregational Eldership, both a Pastor, Teacher, and Ruling Elder. But if so, then a Classical Eldership may be imperfect too; for in some of these, one that hath the Office of a Teacher or a Doctor, may be, is often found wanting; or what if all Ruling Elders were wanting, and only Pastors met, were this an imperfect Eldership? And if all sorts and kinds of Elders, were necessary to make up the sufficiency of an Eldership or Presbytery Classical; then it were first necessary that every Congregation should have all these sorts of Elders; for a Classis cannot oblige the Congregations under them, that some should have a Teacher, others a Ruling Elder, others a Pastor, to make up all sorts among them; and besides the first relation of all Officers, being unto particular Congregations, as being primarily ordained for them (for none is an Officer simply, made for a Classical Church) therefore the Seat of all these sorts of Officers, is Congregations: And so if that the Classis have all, it is because the Congregations have all first; and if the Classes be bound to have all to make theirs sufficient, the Congregations also are bound to have all to make theirs sufficient.
3. Or else thirdly they are supposed Deficient, because they want Ability.
But 1. If they are Elders of the Church Universal (as some of our Brethren affirm) and of all the World; and accordingly fit for any work of Elders, as their Office is, it were strange that a company of them in a Congregation, two or three, or more, should not be fit for all the business in that Congregation.
But 2. Their inability must lie either in want of skill, or want of power. If in want of skill, it must be either skill to discern the proof of the Fact, for which Men are to be excommunicated; and if so, then they are unable to Admonish also; for they should not Admonish, but upon proof of the fact; and to disable a Congregation, People and Elders, to do that, which any Jury of a few Men use to do, ordinarily in point of Life and Death, is very hard. Or else their want of skill must lie in discerning, whether the sin be a sin of that Nature, that it deserves Excommunication for the matter of Fact, if it be not repented of; but they cannot be supposed to want skil in that, for then they cannot likewise suspend from the Sacrament, for they are to suspend but for such sins, as, if not repented of, would deserve Excommunication. Or else they must want skill to judge of Repentance, or the want of it; but surely if a Brother may be able to Judge of the Repentance of a Brother, in case of a flagitious sin (which in publick he should be Excommunicated for, if he Repented not) then a Church and these Elders, may be able to Judge of his Repentance of Publick sins. Yea, if a particular Eldership (according to Presbyterial principles) do find that the Man Repenteth upon their Admonition, though the sin be gross and heinous, they may forbear to bring him to the Classis, and receive him again, or else their Admonitions are in vain; and all must be brought however to the Classis. And if they may Judge of his Repentance, so as to prevent Excommunication, then they may as well judge of his Repentance, or of his Obstinacy, when he is to be Excommunicated.
If it be said that the fault may be so Atrocious, that they cannot so well judge of his Repentance; the Answer is,
1. Then all such sins should be brought immediately to the Classical Presbytery, and not to the particular Eldership at all; for them to Admonish, or to deal with him in order to Repentance.
2. The more Heinous the Fault is, the more apparent it is; and therefore the better they may judge of it, and the easier an Excommunication should be for it.
Or 2. Their Insufficiency must be supposed to lie in want of power.
But 1. If they be a Presbytery in a Church, they must needs have Power and Authority to do all that a Presbytery is ordered for, or is ascribed to it. A Presbytery and Presbyterial Acts, are Relative and Mutual.
2. All Christ's Ordinances and Means, are sufficient unto his end. As a Minister, if he be a True and Lawful Minister, hath sufficiency both of Gifts and Power, to do what belongeth unto him as a Minister; as to Acts of all sorts, and the least, as well as the greatest: So if Christ do Ordain a Presbytery, to Govern as a Presbytery, it is a perfect means for all Presbyterial Acts; for God's Appointments are perfect, and God's means for Government, are as compleat as his other means of Preaching and the Sacraments. A Presbytery, if it be a Presbytery, is as perfect, as a Presbytery, as a particular Minister, is as a Minister. A Minister, is a compleat Minister, not to Preach only, but to Baptize; not to Baptize only, but to Administer the Lord's Supper; not to Preach one part of the Council of God, but all; not to Administer the Bread only, but the Cup; and if he is the Minister of one Sacrament, then also of another; for there are no such Ministers as the Bishops, Deacons. Now look what a Minister is in his kind, that Elders are in their kind, and if they have power to Admonish, then power to Excommunicate.
3. If they be fit for one Act of Government, then for all Acts, of all sorts and kinds (for of them we speak now) we do not say in all cases; for a case may be too difficult for them, and then they seek Advice, but we speak of the kinds. If they be able, they have the power, in one as well as the other, which is proved.
1. Because our Presbyterian Brethren's own Arguments, do run from instances of one part of Government, to all. They cannot give Instances of all Acts of Government done by those, that they suppose to be Classical Churches; but they argue from some few, and those less than Excommunication, as in the instance of the Church of Jerusalem, they argue from the less, from having received Alms, that they meant to prevent a Scandal. Yea, they argue that because the Synod in Acts 15. might with an Authority Doctrinal declare, that therefore they might Excommunicate. So we argue, if a Congregational Presbytery may do all these, then they may Excommunicate; and it is their right to do it. Our Presbyterian Brethren, can give no instance of any one that did all; and until they have an Instance, that Classical Churches did all these, it may still be said, that Classical Churches be imperfect; and how then shall they or we, know what is a perfect Presbytery, and what is not? To give them power to Admonish, to Suspend from the Sacrament, and not to Excommunicate, is to make them imperfect. If then they are furnisht with power, they must likewise have Ability, for what Christ gives power to do, to that he gives ability sufficient.
If it should be said, that Congregational Elders do but Govern in foro interno, I answer 1. That's the same that the Bishops allowed, only unto Pastor of Congregations, affirming themselves had only the external Judicature. Then 2. They rule more than in foro interno, for they set up an outward Judicature in a Church of Elders, united in common, even while they Admonish in common, and suspend from the Sacrament in common.
So that to conclude this Argument, to say that they are insufficient for Ability and Power; it is 1. A wrong to Christ, in Reproaching his means, as insufficient to his ends. It is 2. A wrong to the Presbytery it self; it is enough to take away the power from them; but to take away a Man's power and his Estate, and make him a Ward under pretence, that he is not able to manage it, or hath no power to do it, is the greatest wrong that can be. 3. If some Elders and Congregations be found insufficient, then they are insufficient to be Elders, put them out, or let them only be Wards, shall the Law be general for their sakes? 4. If you ask what is a sufficient Eldership? We ask you what is an insufficient? And wherein insufficiency lieth? And let not Churches be kept imperfect (when it is their due to have a sufficient Eldership) that under the pretence of that, the necessity of Presbyterial Government may appear. But as in case of Separation, the Assembly hath affirmed, that if there be a want of officers, or the like, it is required that there be a supply, and that there be not a Separation; so in Congregations, let there be a sufficient Eldership, let there be a supply, let not the power be taken away. For thus the Bishops took away Ruling Elders, and did leave but one Pastor in a Congregation, that so they might have the better pretence to govern, and to do all themselves.