The Government of the Churches of Christ, Book 7 · Chapter 10
CHAP. X.
Whether a Church may depose an Offiicer for a Crime which deserves not Excommunication.
THat a Church may not disclaim an Officer for an offence which is not worthy of Excommunication appears to me evident from this Reason, because you are to exercise the same patience towards an Officer, as an Officer, in matter of Crime, that you are to use to a private Member, and so you are not to disclaim him from being an Officer, on a lesser account than you would excommunicate him. According to that Rule (which nature dictates) to entreat an Elder as a Father. (And this in case of censure.) This is a main duty of a Church to a Minister, and by a Rule of equity grounded on Nature, in the duty of Children to a Father, not to renounce him for that fault for which they would not renounce a Brother.
Object. All this runs upon a false Supposition, (viz.) that an Officer may not be displaced for a crime cleaving to the Administration of his Office.
1. Because, what crime may be cured by a lesser censure, needs not a greater; but crimes that cleave to the Administration of an Office, may be cured by the displacing of the Officer, which is a lesser censure, therefore there is no need of Excommunication, which is a greater.
2. As an Officer cannot be chosen out of the Body, being guilty of some crimes; so the same crimes may be just matter of his displacing after his being chosen.
Answ. The Objection seems to intimate a distinction between sins cleaving to the Administration of his Office, and such as are otherwise common to him as a Brother, and that for such he may be disclaimed as an Officer, when he could not have been so as a Brother.
But 1. I do not see that the Scripture putteth any such distinction between these two sorts of sins, that for the one an Officer should be displaced, when not for the other. I am sure that other sins than such as cleave to the Administration of his Office, are promiscuously put together with the other, and alike forbidden in him, 1 Tim. 3. 2. A Bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of Ʋbi Scriptura non distinguie, ibi nec nos distinguere debemus.good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach. And so it Titus 2. 2. That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience. So as the case of any such crimes is all one with those cleaving to the Administration of his Office.
2. This your distinction doth run upon a false Supposition; as if the Subject to be considered in your treating with an Officer in matter of crime, were not the person, and that as he is a Saint and Brother, as well in sins of his Office, as in other sins; for though he is invested with a relation of Office (by vertue of his Gifts, and your choice) Yet the discharge of his Office faithfully is from his Grace; and the neglect of it (for which in such a case you would disclaim him) is but a fruit of his sin, from contrary corruption, and a failing as he is a Saint, so as in matter of sin you cannot distinguish his being a Saint and his being an Officer. Surely it is in this as in other Relations: a Brother being an husband as well as a brother, a Brother being a Master as well as a Brother, and he being an Officer as well as a Brother all these Relations do oblige them to several Duties) which, if they fail to discharge, you are to deal with them all as Saints failing in duty, seeing they are defects of Grace, and you have not in Church-fellowship one way of dealing with an Husband, if he sins against his Relation, another with a Master of a Family if against his; and so neither a peculiar one for an Officer if he sin against his. All the duties of the dispensation and of his Office, are but the duties of his particular Calling, and Relation, wherein, if he fail, (through corruption) he is to be dealt with as another brother who fails in his Relation, or neglects the duties of his Calling and no otherwise than the same Officer should be, If he sins in any other State: And though it be a sin against the Church more immediatly; yet it being but a sin, God's Ordinance is to have it reclaimed, the same way that all sins are, Mat. 18. 15. 16, 17. you cannot shew a Warrant that God hath given this peculiar power in this case over an Officer to disclaim him as an Officer, in way of an Ordinance, till he grow so hardned as he deserves Excommunication.
Your first Reason for it is, because such Crimes may be cured by this as a lesser censure, and so needs not a greater.
In this your Reason, if you view the expression, you will find that you again speak upon a false supposition, as if we had affirmed, that crimes in the dispensation of his Office did always need the Excommunication of the Officer. But our exception lies in this, that when his Crime needed not Excommunication in your own Judgment: But you thought that to be too great a censure, You should disclaim him as an Officer, when as on an Officer there is no such censure to be inflicted for matter of Crime in his Office, until it comes to that height as it deserves Excommunication. And that therefore it was violence in you to be so hasty to proceed so severely till he had deserved it.
1 'Tis true, that simply disclaiming an Officer (if for insufficiency) is less than Excommunication: But then 'tis not a censure, for that respects Crime, But to disclaim an Officer, in case of Crime and Sin, is interpretative as much as Excommunication. For if dispensed according to the word, it should not be done till he were past cure; and so should be joyned, or rather included, in Excommunication.
2. The fault we find lies in this, that you make this invention of disclaiming an Officer, a Church censure, and so an Ordinance of God coming between Admonition and Excommunication to cure a man, which we affirm you have no warrant for: So that though it be a less punishment than Excommunication (if he had deserved it) would be, that being a delivering up to Satan, yet you must not take on you to invent other punishments, as you are a Church, than God hath ordained; you have your power, your honour, your lives from Christ & your punishment (as 2 Cor. 2. 6. excommunication is called) from him also. In a Colledge you might invent twenty less punishments than expulsion: But in a Church you must invent none that God hath not ordained: And you have not the power that mens Courts have of varying their punishments who having Law to warrant them, use less violence under that consideration than you, who have neither God's Law nor man's to justifie your proceeding herein: And whereas you think because 'tis a less punishment, it may cure him, and so he should not need Excommunications. I answer
1. That which must cure must have God's blessing and promise of blessing annexed, and so be his Institution: but that this is such, we desire a warrant. It may cure him as a Cross (as an injustice done in a Civil Court may, and an unlawful suspension may do the man much good) but that is an accident, and no warrant for you to inflict it.
Yea, 2. What is it in him you would cure? would you cure him as an Officer? or cure him as a Saint and Brother? if as an Officer (as would seem by inflicting punishment answerable to his sin, he sinning in his Office you would punish him in his Office to cure him) how improper a remedy is this for his cure? which casts him off, destroys him as an Officer, Lames him for use and exercise of his Office puts him out of it for ever? Doth that Surgeon cure a hand, that in going about to make it sound, makes it as an hand forever unuseful, though he leaves it a member still? Doth any man punish his Members so for failing in their Office? Will they cut off till there be no hope? Would you cure him as a Saint or Brother when you must forgoe that distinction of punishing him as an Officer for Crimes in his Office, when not as a Brother, seeing he is considered by you as a Brother in the time of his Office.
And therefore ye are to proceed with him for sins in his Office, as with a Brother, if he have committed sins, and use the same means for his cure that you would do to a Brother for his sins, you must use admonition and patience, till his sin comes to that height that it deserves casting off as a Brother by Excommunicating of him. Yea, you ought to treat him with more patience in this kind than you would do to Brother, for he is more. Entreat him as a Father.
2 Reas. Your second Reason drawn from the instance of Abiashar, who remained a member of the Jewish Church, when put from his Priest-hood, the only warrant from Scripture you alledge, how remote is it from the case in hand?
For 1. It was not an act of Ecclesiastical, but Civil power, The text says, Solomon thrust out Abiathar from the Priest-hood; it was the King did it, 1 Kings 2. 27.
And 2. Not for a sin in the dispensation of his Office, but for High Treason: So it serves not your purpose at all.
3. For which Treason he was a man of Death, verse 26. and that he remained alive and so in their Jewish Church, was from the King's pardon, I will not at this time put thee to death, verse 26. He only thrust him from the Priesthood, which he forfeited in forfeiting his life: And so was part of the punishment included in that other Death.
Yea, 4. It was done to fulfil a particular word of Prophecy; and no way as a standing Ordinance to cure him, so, v. 27. That he might fulfil the word of the Lord, which he spake concerning the house of Eli.
And 5. In respect to his Office, Solomon was so far from heightening his punishment more than to another Brother, that he therefore spared his life, because he had born the Ark of the Lord. Whereas he put Adonijah and Joab to death, being in the same Treason with him.
Object. 2. As an Officer cannot be chosen out of the body, being guilty of some Crimes, so the same Crimes may be just matter of displacing after his chosing.
Answ. 1. If you have those Crimes, mentioned, 1 Tim. 3. in your Eye take them but as eminent infirmities that stand with sincerity, as there the Apostle speaks of them, yet if eminent, such an one (if other supply may be had) is not to be chosen; yet consider,
1. That those sins and infirmities there mentioned are not only such as are found in the dispensation of his Office; but others also, as was said afore. So that you must say, that, not only for sins cleaving to his administration, but of any other kind he is to be disclaimed.
And 2. Those infirmities are mentioned as Rules for the choice of Officers, not of casting out one chosen, as also to shew what an one a Bishop ought to be after choice, so v. 1. If a man desires the Office of a Bishop: And so is to be chosen, let him be blameless, and it respects choice. So of a Decon, v. 10. Let him first be proved, then let him use the Office of a Deacon. The Rule therefore respects choice, Chap. 5. 9. Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years, &c. still those Rules were intended to direct choice. But, if after choice, these as infirmities were found in them, he says not, they are to be cast out unless obstinate, and so it proves more than an infirmity; so as those places will no way afford a ground for this.
And for your inference thence; That if he may not be chosen, being guilty of such Crimes as are there mentioned; that therefore after choice, when guilty, they are just matter to cast him out.
The Answer is, 1. We grant it, if obstinacy be joined to them, and so he deserve Excommunication: but simply, the guilt of them as infirmities (and they are no more till obstinacy and impenitency be added to them) is not just matter to cast out after choice and Ordination.
2. If you mean otherwise, that the sole guilt of them should require it: There is not the same Reason for not chosing at first and disclaiming afterwards. There is a vast difference to be put.
For, 1 In and before Choice there is an arbitrariness and freedom, and no obligation to chuse this or that man: But after he is chosen and ordained, there is an obligation by a solemn Covenant, the Covenant of God; and by Ordination the separation of him unto the service of Christ in that Church. Hence therefore, because their choice is an act, wherein they are free, and wherein they give so great a Testimony to the Man, to be qualified according to the Apostles Rules; they become partakers of his sins, if they chose him with those Infirmities, and so ought not to chuse him, because it is a sin.
But when he is once chosen, and so great a Covenant passed, and so great an Ordinance as Separation passed upon him, then those his Infirmities (though sins in him) are not approved of by you, though you disclaim him not; if you use the means God hath appointed for the cure of him, which is Admonition with patience; yea and by vertue of your Covenant you are to bear with them (if they be but Infirmities) though in his Administration of his Office, because that Covenant cannot be so arbitrarily broken as it was made (as your Rule would make it) but binds, as all other Covenants do, till some other Rule warrants a disclaim. The same Rule for choosing and disclaiming, is not commensurable each to other:
Which 2. Appears in this, that not only those crimes here mentioned, but some circumstances also, though no crimes, are given as Rules to divert from a Choice, which yet by reason of the Covenant passed, ought not to procure a disclaiming after Choice. For v. 6. He is not to be one newly come to the Faith; (though never so well Gifted, for that he supposeth, and so in those days it sometimes fell out through the effusion of the Holy Ghost at first) lest he fall into Pride, but if chosen once, should that have put him out? Or if he is one against whom after he was chosen, those without had raised ill reports, should this necessitate a disclaiming, because this, if it had fallen out afore, should have diverted his Choice? v. 7.
3. See this in other Covenants that pass: Marriage is a Covenant of God, which until made, many infirmities and circumstances, &c. may and ought to divert one from chusing such or such a person, which after cannot be a warrant for a divorce: for it is the Covenant of God. You must divorce in no case, but such as God in his Word gives power and warrant for.
4. See it in another Instance more near the case. A private Christian, that seeks admission, being found guilty of any crime, without Repentance: The Rule for his admission is, that he must testifie Repentance, and so satisfie the Church of the truth of his Grace and Repentance of those sins: But if he be once admitted, and in Covenant with you, you ought not presently to disclaim him as a Brother, till he doth repent, but to admonish him as a Brother, 2 Thes. 13. 15. and with patience bear with him, using not only one admonition, but a second also, ere you reject him, Titus 3. 10. and this in case of Heresie; the most dangerous of sins to Church-fellowship, and not indeed to reject, till it comes to obstinacy; because now he is in Covenant with you; now the proportion as strongly holds between the Choice of an Officer, and his casting out as an Officer; and the admission of a Brother, and his casting out as a Brother; the Covenant that binds to the Officer, being as strong as that which binds unto a Brother.
5. Upon commission of such crimes, he is made uncapable for the present of Choice (until Repentance) but not so, for the same sins after Choice, unless you would make him fall in his Office, ipso facto, and make him uncapable of admonition, &c. Therefore there is no way par ratio, before and after chusing.
Again 6. If a man had been guilty of such crimes, yet if he had repented, he might be chosen: Then especially after Choice, if he be guilty of them, upon Repentance he might be continued in his Place; why otherwise would you have received him in again? and for his Repentance, why should not all the same means and patience be first used, as is used for a Brother's, and so not a casting off, as there is not the casting off a Brother.
Yea 7. If an Officer should be thus disclaimed, he would not be under all those Ordinances that a Brother as a Brother is under, but in a worse case far: For towards a Brother, Christ hath appointed admonition upon admonition with patience (till such obstinacy be added, as it justly calls for Excommunication, which as it were unwillingly they pronounce upon him) as means to reclaim him ere he be renounced as a Brother; and should it not be thus to an Officer? An Officer is capable of sin in his Office, as well as a Brother; (for he that is most spiritual may be tempted, Gal. 6. 1, 2.) and so is capable of reproof in his Office, as well as a Brother, Coll. 4. 17. Say to Archippus, fulfil thy Ministry; and also of publick rebuke for sins proved by two or three Witnesses that are publick, 1 Tim. 5. 19, 20. For, as appears by the coherence, those Rules concern Elders, yet so as in these proceedings they are to exercise not only tthe same, but more respect and patience than to a Brother.
For, v. 1. They are gentle unto him as a Father; and v. 19. They are so far from censuring him hastily, that they are not to receive an accusation, or listen to it but upon the Testimony of two or three approved ones. Surely then the case is evident, they are, as v. 20. to rebuke them openly, but no more: Till it comes to Excommunication, you find not a tittle for disclaiming:
Object. 3. That less admonition ripens an Officers sin sooner than a Brother's, for displacing him as an Officer.
Answ. 1. The Rules by which you must judge of the ripeness of his sin, must be in the Word; now shew that the Limits of proceeding against an Officer, are more strict than against a Brother.
2. 'Tis true, his sin, is aggravated more, but still not ripe for rejection, until such impenitency and obstinacy be added to it, as would procure Excommunication.
Last of all, we add this, That if he were obstinate and impenitent in his sin, and deserved Excommunication, yet it doth not appear that thereby he fell from all future right to his Office, so as that you are free instantly to send for another. From the Scripture we have not learned, that the Relation is utterly broken and made void, as that of a Brother is not by Excommunication: But if upon that Ordinance he repented, as you are bound to receive him as a Brother, so as your Officer again, for you cannot shew a ground that the one Relation should be more evacuated than the other. Excommunication is not a casting off but in order to Repentance, which restores him ad pristinum statum, to his former state.