The Government of the Churches of Christ, Book 5 · Chapter 10
CHAP. X.
That though it were granted, that the Elders of one Church, might exercise Acts of Authority and Jurisdiction in another, occasionally and when called to do so by that Church; yet from this cannot he concluded, that Authority over particular Congregations, which our Presbyterian Brethren challenge.
BUT if the Elders of other Churches, were capable to exercise the Acts of Jurisdiction occasionally in some cases over Churches (which they have not a constant Relation of Eldership unto) by vertue of the Catholick communion of Churches, yet the Seat in which, and the Bounds of Extent, over which this Jurisdiction should be exercised, must still be only a particular Congregation. And the call by which this Jurisdiction is to be exercised, should be occasionally from that Congregation, in case of want or need; which therefore should, in such cases, stand in stead of a fixed and a constant Relation, that Elders do bear to that Church, the call being occasional, and from themselves, in case of need, as the Jurisdiction they exercise is but meerly occasional, and for that time. And so by this means, still as the right bounds, that Christ hath Instituted for the Seat of Jurisdiction, is kept unto, and not exceeded; so the power of the Congregation it self, is hereby also preserved. But it is another thing, which by vertue of the Catholick communion of Churches, and the Elders thereof, that the Presbyterian Divines do challenge, and would erect, according to their Principles. They do challenge an Association, to be an Institution of Christ; by vertue of which, the greater company of Elders of other Churches may assume and challenge a power over any Congregation in that Association; and so erect a constant and an ordinary consistory, whereby not only the bounds and limits set by Christ, for the Seat of Jurisdiction, are transgressed and exceeded; but an unlawful power is erected, and set over the Churches; not only in respect of the constancy of it, but in respect also of the want of that Relation, of being Elders to them, which is the Foundation of the constant exercise of Jurisdiction.
So as the question will not be, whether by vertue of this Catholick communion, a particular Congregation may make use of the Elders of another Congregation, to Ordain, to assist them in Excommunication, &c. and so they may come to have power in a particular Church, by their special and peculiar call, for such an Act at such a time, (though this will not be acknowledged by us) but the question is, whether by Christ's Institution, they may erect a Judicatory, and challenge a Subjection from all the Churches. In the other way, the Congregations do not Subject themselves, nor their Liberty, but make use of that Ministry of an Elder, which Christ hath put upon them: Even as in Arbitrations, or in References unto other Churches, they do not Subject themselves to other Churches, it being done occasionally, and by their consent, whom they would single out to be the Arbitrators. So as it is one thing, that there may occasionally be an exercising of an Elder's power, in another's Congregation, and it is another thing, that it should be assumed and challenged (which is the thing that remains further to be proved by the Presbyterial Divines) as it is one thing for a Child under Age, though he should not govern himself, to have liberty to choose a Guardian for the time; but it is another thing, that a company of Men should assume to be his Guardians for ever. It would be one thing for a Corporation to send to another Corporation for their Recorder, a Man skillful in the Law, to perform the Office of a Recorder, with a Jury at their Sessions, they now wanting one, or there falling out a case of Difficulty, wherein their own doth need assistance: But it would be another thing, for the Recorders of several Corporations in a County, to go and challenge by vertue of Association, and the common Law of communion in the Kingdom, a constant power of Jurisdiction to be exercised over them.
And in this case, the communion of Churches in respect of Members, Qua Members, and of Elders Qua Elders, answer one another, according to our Principles. For as the Members of another Church, if they come to a particular Church, and are received by their consent by them (and so for that time, become as one Body with them, by vertue whereof, they receive the Sacrament amongst them, as being for this Act incorporated, and as one bread with them occasionally) in this do not receive meerly and simply, as Members of another Church, distinctly and a-part considered, although by vertue of their being Members of another Church; but they are thereby for that time, occasionally received into that Church, ad tantum, so far, as to enjoy such and such a Priviledge: So as the Sacrament in this, is not said to be given to the Members of two Churches a-part considered, but to one Church, as thus making one, tho' upon a differing respect. And so it is also in their receiving Elders (if we may make that Supposition) to perform Acts of Eldership occasionally, they do it not in this single and a-part consideration, that they are simply Elders of other Churches, as if considered only as such, they may make a consistory met out of this Church, to be over this Church, and so Excommunicate; but they come to, and are present in and with that Church, being called by them, and received as Elders for that Act, and for that time, as one with them: So as the Acts which they do perform are acts as of that Church, or of Elders in that Church, and are not to be considered as acts of other Elders that have power over that Church.
Though Ministers thus should be supposed to have, in respect of their Dedication to God and to Christ, a passive capacity to be used for any Ministerial Act in any Church, by vertue of the communion of Churches; yet it would be electively, and upon the call of that Church: But that they should have an active power, so as to come unto Congregations, and say, we ought to have this power amongst you, by vertue of Christ's Institution, and you ought to Associate with us, for all Acts of Government in common; and thus to challenge, as Elders, a power, upon occasion, in any or all Churches in the World, this is that which was properly the prerogative of an Apostle. The greatest thing in the Apostles, for their extent of power, lay in this, not only that when they came to a Church, they were capable of being called to joyn with a Sister Presbytery, and Eldership, when they wanted Ministers and Elders; but it lay in this, that when ever they came to any Church, they could challenge this as having an Universal call as Apostles, from Jesus Christ; and so they had Authority active, which they might assume. And if it were granted by us, that ordinary Ministers succeed the Apostles so far, as to have a passive capacity and power to be called to exercise their Ministry, in all or any Church; yet to assume the other, were to step into the Apostles Throne. The power of Authority of Jurisdiction is an active thing, not a passive, it is not as a dead Instrument that may be used; it is not simply to have the Gift and Ability to Judge, but it is to have the Power and Authority to Judge; which if the Church should not call them unto, they might call upon the Church, regarding it to be their Duty to exercise it for them. As the power of Government, or Jurisdiction of a King, is not a meer passive capacity, but it is a power to command them that are under him, which he is to perform and exercise among them. It is the Authority that gives the calling.
And in this respect, the Arguments that our Brethren use to bring, that Elders may exercise some Acts of Elders in others Churches, as that they may Preach, &c. and are to be received as Elders in other Churches, by vertue of the Catholick communion of Churches, are no way sufficient to prove and establish that Jurisdiction in their way. For,
1. It doth not follow, because they may do one Act of Ministry, as of Preaching, or Administring the Sacrament, that therefore they may do all; no more than it would follow, that because a Man may Preach alone, Baptize alone of himself; that therefore of himself alone, he may exercise Jurisdiction. Unto Acts of Jurisdiction there is a Formality, and the Formality doth lie in their Relation to such or such a Seat or Subject, over whom the Jurisdiction is exercised, and so and so bounded, and that by special Institution.
2. It will not follow, that if they may exercise as Elders one Act of Ministry, therefore all of Jurisdiction; because there may be some Acts of Ministry, which are properly belonging to the Church Universal, as Universal, and such Acts we judge Preaching, and Baptizing to be; and therefore we read, that Baptism was done both out of a Church Relation, and without the presence of a Church, as the Baptizing of the Eunuch by Philip. But so Ordination is not, so the Lord's Supper is not; Baptism we rather take to be an Ordinance of the Church Universal, One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism, Eph. 4. 5. But the Lord's Supper is an Ordinance of a particular Church, making one Body, and one Bread, and consisteth in a communion. One Apostle, and one Man, could not receive the Supper of the Lord together, because they could not make one Church, for this is made essential to it, 1 Cor. 10. We being many, are one Bread; therefore it is called, the Communion of the Body of Christ. But one Apostle may Baptize one Man when alone, and so we think one Minister may do it at this day, if he had converted him.
3. If the Elders of other Churches should have power to Judge and Determine things in a Doctrinal way, to give the Rule upon occasion; it will not follow, that they have the power of Juridical Application, of Excommunication according to that Rule. The Apostles might deliver the Doctrine of Faith, as Apostles to them that were without, when yet they could not Juridically judge them that were without. The Pharisees by their Doctrine, did bind Burthens upon Men's Consciences, and that in their Sermons, when they Sat in Moses his Chair, when yet they did not bind by way of censure. Yea, every Minister may Doctrinally deliver the Rule, when yet alone, and that as a Minister he cannot exercise an Act of Jurisdiction. We see this in civil power in Kingdoms, the Judges of the Kingdom altogether met cannot condemn a Man, without a Jury, though they may deliver what is Law, and say what is the Rule. Yea, though the House of Commons in Parliament, in an extraordinary way, by way of Bill, may adjudge a Man to Death, yet in an ordinary course, they are not Witnesses to the Fact; and although they have power of making all the Laws in the Kingdom, they do not give an Oath, as the House of Peers doth. The Assembly that now Sitteth, they are betrusted with power in a Doctrinal The Assembly of Divines at Westminster.way, to give their Judgments what shall Reform the Kingdom; and their Judgment herein is to be looked upon, as the Judgment of so many Elders of several Churches; but they have not power to Administer a censure.
4. Because they may come to have as Elders, Authority in any Church, in the way forementioned, occasionally, electively (the power of the Church being seen, in calling them upon such an occasion together to assist them, and to be present with them, they exercising that power but in that Church, and joyntly with that Church, and as an entire Act of that Church, whereto for the present, they perform the Office of Elders) it will not follow, that therefore they may in all Churches, usurp a power over them, and call upon them, and challenge it from them. This will not follow from the other, because, as was said, the Priviledge of Government is given unto the Church, as the Seat of it, and is therefore to be drawn down to it, exercised in it, and not to be claimed out of it.
The one therefore running thus in a Natural Moral way, the other by a special Institution, forming up a Body on purpose, and arming it with a power, over and above what the Natural Law of communion and Non-communion reacheth to, which is to deliver unto Satan, and to perform all Acts of Admonition and Censure, in order thereunto: Hence therefore,
1. This commuion with other Churches, is not in a fixed set way, but occasional. The Synhedrim was a Set and a fixed Court, and therefore by Institution; but this communion is but as the communion of Saints one with another, in a general way. Hence,
2. It being in a Moral way to other Churches, and the Elders thereof, therefore the Obligation for matters of ending of controversies, is answerable and suitable. They are not bound to go to the next Neighbour-Church, but to any other whom they do most Reverence, or who are most fit and proper to end the controversie; therefore Antioch sent to Jerusalem. If it were by Institution, it would take in the Neighbour-Churches, as in the case of Murther, the next City was to make an Atonement. When James doth bid us confess our Sins one to another, in case a Man be so troubled with Lust, so that he is called to confess it to another, the Obligation doth not require him necessarily to confess it to his Minister, or to the next Saint or Brother he meeteth; for it is not laid upon him in a way of Institution, but upon a Moral ground, and answerably he is Morally to consider who is the fittest Man to confess this Sin unto, and will be Faithful and Secret, and is able to ease him; so that it runs not in a way of Institution of Set Persons.
3. Hence therefore, that Neighbour-Churches should have a Ground and a Warrant to call a Neighbour-Church in question, or to an account, is not by way of Power and Authority, as, if it ran in a way of Institution, it should be; but it is by way of Offence, and therefore they are to do it, when they are offended with their proceedings, and with their miscarriages. So then, as the Subjection of a Man or a Brother, in the case of Offence, to forbear such a practice, which is otherwise indifferent to him, is not by vertue of any Authority his Brother hath over him, but it is in a Moral way; so it is in this case.
4. Whereas the Analogy of Mat. 18. is urged to be as well between a Church offending and other Churches, as between a Brother and a Congregation; that when they are offended, they are to tell it to a greater number of Churches. We shall not be against this Analogy, for the like way of proceeding; only we are against the like Authority of proceeding. If other Churches will deal with a Sister-Church, in the way of Moral communion specified, let them observe the same Analogy, and we shall submit to it; but if they will erect from that Analogy the like Authority and Power of Jurisdiction, unto that we deny the Analogy to reach; because that in the Church-Universal, and the communion thereof as such, Christ hath placed no such Jurisdiction.