The Government of the Churches of Christ, Book 3 · Chapter 2
CHAP. II.
The fourth and fifth and sixth Arguments, to prove a single Congregation, to be a compleat Subject of Ecclesiastical power, drawn 1. From being a Body of Christ compleatly ordained, 2. Because Worship and Government are Commensurate. 3. From the Nature of Excommunication.
Arg. 4. THEY, that are a Body organized with all the Members, have all the priviledges of a Body; but a Church having a company of Elders, especially if of all sorts, is a body to Christ, and compleatly organized. The compleatness of the Natural body, lies not in the multitude of Members, but in having all. And that such a body thus compleat, should not have all power that a body can be supposed to have over its Members, is very strange. And again; that power and liberty, which is to be given to every brother in his proportion, is to be given to every compleat body of Christ, in the like proportion as it is a body. Now every brother hath power as a brother (and as it is his Duty) to withdraw from him he doth judge to walk inordinately, 2 Thess. 3. 5. And then every body that is rightly organized, must therefore have power as a Body, to a suitable proportion, to cut off any rotten Member; and if it can heal it self, to do it of it self, the Law of Nature will teach it, as it is a Body so to do. That is not a sound Body, that hath not strength to purge out it's own Excrements. All Bodies and Societies of Men, have power still within themselves, to cast out any who are Destructive to the Society, so Families have, (every lump purgeth out its own Leaven) and every particular Company in a Greater City, have that power so far as their own company reacheth.
The power which the Synagogues had and exercised, Congregations surely may have now. The Synedrim might give the Law in the Abstract directing, who and what kind of Persons were to be cast out, and for what; but they medled not with the particular Sentence, and applying of it to any Man; nor did the Towns and Cities that judged in their Gates. Neither were the Synagogues bound to advise, but only when the case was difficult, which is clearly by this; that the Jews had Synagogues in all the Cities of the Gentiles, dispersed up and down the World, and had their several Rulers in them; and they were not bound to come up to Hierusalem, to the Synedrim. These Synagogues, though they could not cast out of the Temple, yet cast out of themselves they might; and therefore a Man was cast out of the Synagogue.
As we argue in the case of Baptism of Children, that God hath not straitned, but rather inlarged his Grace, and the Liberty and Promises thereof under the Gospel; so we do argue here, that the liberty of such Assemblies, (as the Synagogues were) which Christ hath now Instituted, must have all the priviledges they had, and so much the more, by how much, that the Assemblies of the Saints now are more Noble, than Synagogues were then; they being called a Temple, the House of God, a Holy Nation, and a Royal Priesthood; and upon every Assembly, under the Gospel, God Creating a Cloud and a Pillar of Fire, these have all the promises and priviledges, that the Temple and the Nation of the Jews had, therefore surely as much as the Synagogues. The Prophet Jerem. 3. 16. makes the priviledge of every Church, under the Gospel, to be as great as that of the Temple at Hierusalem, where the Ark was, the place where God did choose for the Synedrim to sit in, and to govern that Nation. In those days, (saith he, speaking of the times of the Gospel) they shall say no more the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord (which therefore must needs be meant of the times of the Gospel; for the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, was the chiefest priviledge, under the Law, till Christ) neither shall it come into mind, neither shall they remember it, neither shall they visit it, neither shall that be done any more; But in stead thereof, he takes one of a City, and one of a Family, and brings them to Zion, takes not the Nation, but Selects some out of the Nation; and gives them Pastors according to his own Heart, as a greater priviledge than that of rhe Ark, and therefore it is meant of Congregational Assemblies; for to them Pastors are fixedly and properly given to feed them with Knowledge and Understanding. And if that every Congregation enjoyeth a greater priviledge than the Ark of the Lord, in having such Pastors; then surely it should also be governed by them, as the Synagogues also were by their Rulers, who were called Rulers of the Synagogue, not of the Synagogues; for each Synagogue had more Rulers than one, for the Government of them, as they were a Synagogue, Mar. 5. 22.
Arg. 5. If the Seat of Worship and Government be commensurable, and of equal extent: Then a single Congregation, as it is the Seat of Worship, so of Government. Now for Worship, none else do meet but Congregations; and if the Temple, Altar, and Worshippers, be measured by the same line, Rev. 11. the power that is in the Temple, is likewise so measured. If Altar and Judicature, be of like extent also (as they are, since the end of Discipline is to keep Worship pure) then where the constant Worship is, there should be constant Discipline, especially if Excommunication be a part of Worship, as was said afore, as well as Admonitions are: It cannot be otherwise, but that the proceedings of the whole Discipline, Admonitions, and all, should be before the whole Church, which is as well to be edified by it, as by Preaching; and therefore particular Congregations are to be the Seat of it: Thus we shewed before, that the main end of a Church was Worship, and that Discipline was the Appendix thereunto, to keep the Worship pure; and that so Christ under the Gospel, had made the bounds of a Church, to be measured by that of Worship, Rev. 11. 1. Measure the Temple and the Altar, and the Worshippers; and so all that belongs unto it. And this Worship and Government for the State of it, are of equal extent, commensurable one to the other, which is made out by this; that all sorts of Churches that ever were, had Worship and Government of equal extent. Before the Law, when there was a Church in the House, and it went in a Family-way, as the Worship was in the Family, so the Disciple was in that Family; and Excommunication was a casting out of that Family; so in Adam's Family, it is said of Gain, that he fled from the presence of the Lord, that is, from his Father's House. When as God did make a Nation a Church, the Church of the Jews (as 'tis called, Acts 7.) in the Wilderness, they did set all their Tents about the Tabernacle, and so, as one Church, they saw the Sacrifices. And when they were at Hierusalem, they had answerably a National Worship, they had Ordinances, as they were a National Church; therefore the Synedrim was to sit in the place that God should choose, to be there for Government, as well as he appointed the Sacrifices to be there. And for that Moral Worship in the Synagogues, so far forth, as they were the Seat of Worship, Prayer, and reading the Word, &c. so they had also casting out of the Synagogues: And although the Synedrim might make Laws, for what sins to do it; yet the exercise of it was by the proper Rulers, who are called therefore Rulers of the Synagogues. It is therefore Bains, his Argument against Diocesan Churches, that there could be no such Churches, Bain's Diocesan Trial, pa 69.because there was no publick Ordinances of Worship, as was in the National Churches of the Jews, unto which the Males came. And yet the Episcopal Government kept up this principle, for as they had a Diocesan Government, so they had a Cathedral Worship in the same place, as in a Mother Church, like that Representative Worship of Sacrifices in Hierusalem; and they had set meetings at them, to which all came up; and therefore their principles, in this, was better than this of the Presbyteries, for they had a Worship and a Government, that was commensurable.
Object. 1. The performing of Acts of Worship by a Minister, belongs to the power of Order; but the power of Jurisdiction is a further thing. A Minister may Administer the Sacrament, and perform a work of Order alone; but he cannot Govern alone, but he must be joyned with others; and therefore Worship and Government are not commensurable.
Answ. The question is not of the power, but of the extent of the State both of Worship and Government. He that is a Minister, and can alone perform an Act of publick Worship, yet he must do it in a publick Congregation; and so although it be done alone by his person, yet not beyond the extent of a Congregation, but still according to the limits and bounds of it. Now the Seat of Government, and the extent thereof, is commensurable to the Seat of Worship; so as although he cannot perform an Act of Government alone in the Congregation, but with others; yet still those others are but to be those, who belong to that Congregation, whereto he is a Minister, or an Elder for performing Acts of Worship.
Object. 2. The Apostles had a Latitude of power over all sort of Churches, and therefore the extent of Worship, and the power of Government, are not commensurable.
Answ. Although the Apostles had, in their Persons, power of Government over all Churches; yet still they exercised that power (for acts of censure) but when they were, in any of those Congregations, not in a consistory out of those Churches, but as personally present in the Churches. And therefore the Apostle saith, When I come, I will do so and so; and shall I come with a Rod? 1 Cor. 4. 19, 20, 21. And when they came to any particular Church, it was an Apostolick priviledge proper to them, which is not communicable to other Elders, they were foreign fellow-Elders, (as Peter's Phrase is, 1 Pet. 5.) in every one of those Churches; and did for that time concur in the Government of that Church, though with the interest of an Apostle. So as still de facto, the exercise of all their Government, was in a Congregation; and as they Administred not the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper alone, or out of Churches, so nor did they Excommunicate, but as joyned with a particular Church; nor did they choose Officers or Elders, but as present with Churches, whom these were to be Officers to. They might give Doctrinal Directions to Churches, concerning Government, in which they were infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost; but acts of Government, they performed not, but in the Churches themselves, and as concreted and becomming one with that particular Church; and therefore the Churches remained as distinct Churches, notwithstanding they were under Apostolical Government; and many Churches are no where called one Church, because under an Apostle.
Arg. 6. That a single Congregation, with it's Elders, is an intire Seat of Government, is proved from the Nature of Excommunication it self.
1. Excommunication relateth to Communion, and Communion with Churches is either fixed, and in a constant way, or occasional. To throw a Man out of occasional Communion, is not Excommunication, it is but a secondary act, that supposeth first to throw him out of a fixed Communion. It is but Non-communion, or denial of Communion, and keeping of him out of it, as all other remote Churches may do. And the Execution of the act, is from the power of Christ; and that promise which he hath made, I will be in the midst among you, when thus gathered together, Mat. 18. 20. whereas the way of Presbytery classical Excommunication, is as if the congregation was gathered in the Name of the Pretbyters, and with their power; and that they could promise to be in the midst among them. Excommunication therefore, formally and properly is a casting him out of a fixed Communion; therefore that Church, which actually doth hold a fixed communion with him, hath that power, and to them properly must belong the casting of him out. Do not ye judge them that are within, saith the Apostle? 1 Cor. 5. 12. And so far as any were Within to them, so far they had Power over them. Now to that particular Congregation, whereof a Man is a Member, a Man is so Within, in respect of a fixed communion as to no Church else in the World; there is therefore a Power of throwing of him out, belonging to them, which belongs to no Church, nor unto all the Churches in the World. Other Churches can but throw him out of an occasional communion as he shall come to them, and therefore answerably, their throwing of him out must be but occasionally, as he shall at any time offer to come to them. Hence therefore the formal act of Excommunication must needs be proper unto them, whom he holdeth a fixed communion with. Add to this, that other Churches can throw him out, but of that communion which he holds with them, and the communion ordinarily, he holds with them, is but as being a Member of a Church associated with them (supposing such an association) and as far as their interest goes, so far their power may go, they may throw him out of their association, but no further. But Excommunication is a throwing of a Man out of a fixed communion of all Ordinances for Worship, now such a communion he holds not with other Churches. They may indeed throw him out of their own Within, which is, for the fixed part of it, but a matter of association for Government; but the Congregations, Within, are in respect of ordinary communion in Worship. Now answerable unto their Interest is their Power; and therefore Excommunication is to take him from the midst of them (from among you, 1 Cor. 5. 13.) with whom he did use to Worship. The very import of the word Excommunication is Excommuni caetu, the formal and direct act therefore of Excommunication is to throw him out of that fixed communion, which he had. It is a casting out of all other Churches consequently, yea out of the visible Catholick Church consequently, but formally it is only out of that particular Church whereof he is a Member. Other Churches, by vertue of their communion together, may ratifie it by approving it, but that Church, which the act properly concerns in the formality of it▪ is a particular Church whereof he is a Member, and therefore answerably the formal power must lie there. And although this Government of Christ hath been never so much corrupted by a power set over Congregations, yet still the act of Excommunication (or at least the execution) hath been performed in the particular Churches whereof a Man is a Member.
2. Where and by whom that act is done, that excommunicateth a Man, there the power and the main of the power must lie, (for the substance of the act) and there alone. But in particular Congregations, and by the Elders of the People thereof, that act alone is done, by which a Man actually is cut off from communion with all other Churches, and whereby he is excommunicated; Therefore that particular Congregation is the only, or at least the main substantial subject of that power, whereby a Man is excommunicated. We have an instance in the Church of Corinth, when the Apostle directs them to deliver that Man unto Satan, when they were met together. Whether the Man was excommunicated, or no, it matters not, however the direction was given, and the direction falls upon the very act it self, when and where it was actually to be executed and done, and in them it puts the power; When ye are met together in the Name, and with the Power of the Lord Jesus, deliver such a Man to Satan, 1 Cor. 5. 4, 5. There's the Act, and there's the Power, all meet together, and he speaks of the ultimate act of Excommunication; and where, and in what Meeting that is to be done amongst them, there the power resideth.
1. In all Spiritual Ordinances, the power is inseparable from the act: And therefore to make the power whereby a Man is excommunicated to lie in one Assembly, and the act of excommunication to be performed in another, is to divide what Christ hath put together. He that baptizeth hath the power of baptizing, and he that preacheth of preaching, and so those that actually excommunicate of excommunication, and the act is more than the sentence. If therefore they have the greater committed to them; they must needs have the less. And,
2. Whom Jesus Christ betrusteth with the act, he must betrust them the power, because his power, whereof their's is but the execution, doth accompany their act, and therefore Paul saith, when you are met with the Power of the Lord Jesus, give such an one unto Satan. It is not as in Civil cases, there the power lies in the Sentence, but here in the Execution. And indeed the ultimate Sentence lies in the Execution, and is all one with it, when in the presence of all the Church it is said, We deliver this Man to Satan. And therefore,
3. In Scripture the Power is expressed by the Act. Paul saith, Whom I did deliver unto Satan; and so ordination is called the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery. The Power of the Presbytery is expresly their act; and therefore where the Act lies, the Power must lie.
Now we ask this Question, Whether a Man be actually Excommunicated and delivered up unto Satan, until he is so delivered up at a Meeting of that particular Church whereof he is a Member, Elders and People being present? We are not now inquiring what proceedings are to go before, preparatory hereunto; but this is that we contend for, that where the Act is done which ultimately Excommunicates him, there the substance of the Power lies.
Whereas it may be answered, that the Execution is in the Congregation, but the Sentence is in the Presbytery; as in Civil Courts it is where the Man is Sentenced by the Judges, but actually Executed by the Sheriffs. We reply,
1. That Instances of Civil proceedings will not hold here. For the Sentence by the Judge is that authoritative Act, as by him that hath the Power in Law to cut the Man off; but to Execute the Man, to put him to Death, that's an act of Nature which any Man can do, though he, that doth it, is to do it lawfully, by vertue of the Sentence; but the Act, whereby the Man is in Law kill'd, is the Sentence, and therefore he is from that time Civiliter Mortuus, dead in Law. But so it is not in this Spiritual act of binding of Sin, and of delivering unto Satan; there must be a power, and an authority that is in the persons that doth accompany them, and that as met together. And the Execution of the Act is from the Power of Christ, and that promise which he hath made, I will be in the midst among you, when thus gathered together, Mat. 18. 20. Whereas the way of Presbyterial Classical Excommunication, is as if the Congregation was gathered in the name of the Presbyters, and with their Power, and that they could promise to be in the midst among them. And however there may be, many preparatory acts unto it, yet the thing is not done till it be done, by them that have the Power. And therefore if the Classical Presbytery will challenge it, they must all be present, but if the Congregation must do it, it is an evident argument that the power lies there.
2. If the Classical Presbytery had the power hereof, then when they do Sentence him to be Excommunicated, they ought actually to Excommunicate him, and compleat it, for to say that the power should be in them and not the act, when as those that do the act are to meet and gather together in the power of the Lord Jesus, is very inconsistent. If they do not actually Excommunicate, what they do must be only a doctrinal direction, that the Man deserveth to be Excommunicated, such as the Apostle put forth in case of neglect, when he gave his judgment, I have judged already (saith he, 1 Cor. 5.) Let such a one be delivered unto Satan, &c. But he acknowledgeth the power to be in them, for saith he Do not ye judge them that are within? And therefore he saith not, I have delivered him, but that he be delivered. And it is in this as in case, suppose of Baptism, that a Minister had neglected his duty to Baptize one, and the Apostle had sent to him, to Baptize him, and given his Sentence, such a one should be Baptized, and should further press it, do not you Baptize such and such a one, do not you use to do it? So he speaks here, Do not ye judge them that are within? Do you not use to do it? Now as in this case, the question will be whether the power of Baptizing lay in the Apostle or in the Minister, that upon this doth Baptize? Certainly in the Minister, and he doth that by an immediate commission from Christ. For he that doth the substance of the Act, in him the power lies; though he may be directed in a case of neglect by an Apostle when alive. And so now tho' a particular Congregation in case of a neglect may be called upon, and urged by other Churches, yet still in the one case as in the other, in them the Power lies by whom the substance of the Act is done. Neither yet do we hereby intend to give that power to a Classical Presbytery that the Apostle had over Corinth, but only we alledge it thus far, that though the Apostle had Power to command now when absent, and if he had been present, had power to have concurred with them in the very act, that yet still the power lay in them, without the Apostle, to have proceeded, by whom the Act was to be done according to the Apostle's direction.
3. According to Presbyterial practices, it is evident that the power is not in them, but in the Congregation; for after that they have Sentenced a Man to be Excommunicated, and it is to be supposed, that his sin is ripe for Excommunication; and that he is obstinate enough, to be now Excommunicated, then it should be presently acted and done, if the power were in them. But they stay the Execution of it, in the particular Congregation, for three days; they give him three Admonitions more, and the People are to pray for him; and so they do manifestly, de facto, hereby put the ultimate judgment of his impenitence into the Congregation, and the ultimate act of Execution also. For if the Man did Repent, they were not to Excommunicate him; and because they judge him to continue impenitent, they do Excommunicate him, according to the Presbyterial practices.
If it be answered, as it is by some, that the Sentence, by vertue of which he standeth Excommunicated, is that of the Classical Presbytery, and that the Elders of the Congregation, are but the Praecones, they do not exercise the substance of the Act, only declare and publish it: Then we reply.
1. That here is more than a promulgation, not only because it is not presently done; but because other means of Admonitions, as Ordinances of Christ are applyed to him, to bring him to Repentance; and if so, it is apparent, that when the Classical Presbytery Intended him to Excommunication, that he was then not fit for Excommunication; for why should these Authoritative Admonitions of his own Elders come afterwards? They may as well continue their Admonitions, publickly after his Excommunication. Now if his sin were not fit for excommunication, so as they might take it upon their Consciences, he ought not now to be excommunicated, then by vertue of their Sentence, he is not excommunicated, when he is excommunicated; for they Sentenced him, when his sin was not ripe for it. So that according to their own practices, they make the Presbyterie's act to be but a Doctrinal discernment, that in such a case, if he continues thus and thus obstinate, he is to be excommunicated. But
2. That, which the Elders in the Congregation do, is more than to be Praecones of the Sentence of the Presbytery; and their delivering of him to Satan, actually, is more than a publishing, not only because they do Authoritatively as Elders, Admonish him after the Presbyterie's Sentence (and if they do Authoritatively Admonish him, certainly they do Authoritatively also excommunicate him after their Admonitions, if he continues impenitent) but also because when it is done, they call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus; and they do it in the Name, and with the power of the Lord Jesus. If it were a meer promulgation, there needed no invocation, as an act of theirs.
3. Again, if the Form of the Sentence, whereby the Elders of the Congregation do excommunicate him, be considered, do not they say; We, in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and with his power, deliver thee to Satan to excommunicate thee. Yea, were not that Congregation in Corinth, to do so, which the Man belonged unto? Whereas if the Classical Presbytery had the power, and these were only the publishers; then the Classical Presbytery were only to use those words, because the power was in them; and the Ministers were only to declare, that such an one was excommunicated by them, in the Name of the Lord Jesus. And if so, then all the Eldership of a Congregation are to the Classis, but even as Curates are to the Bishops: And indeed, the Bishop's principles are more consonant to themselves, than this; for they say, that the act of excommunication is done, and absolved, and perfected in their Courts; and that the Curate doth only promulge it (as their manner is) but that the Man is indeed excommunicated by the Bishop. But here there is a pretence of leaving the substance of the act, to be formally done and executed by the Elders of the Congregation; and yet a denial, that a power to do it lies in them; and the power to do it, assumed to be in them, who yet profess they do not actually excommunicate.
4. If they were only Praecones, then any Man may do it, as well as the Elders of his own Church.
If it be objected, that, in a Congregation it self, when it is done, it is done by one Man that pronounceth it, the Pastor of the place, or the like.
The answer is 1. That as in Prayer, when the Pastor is the Mouth of all the People unto God, he is but the Mouth of those People that are present, and do joyn with him; and it is their act, and not the act of Men absent: So it is here, in this act he is the Mouth of the Elders, and the whole Congregation as present, as of God to throw this Man out: But to make the Elders of the Congregation, and the whole Congregation, to be but the publishers of what the Presbytery hath done, when they were absent, this is indeed to make them meer publishers, which any Man may do, yea, they themselves may do it, by fixing it upon the Church Door.