8. They who are for a Congregational way do not hold absolute liberty for all Religions.
Chapter Eight They who are for a Congregational way do not hold absolute liberty for all Religions.
B ut for all that has been said, are there not yet a sort of men who, though they would color over things and put fair glosses upon their opinions and ways, say they would not have such absolute liberty as to have all religions suffered? Yet do they not come near this in their tenets and practice? Do not men in a Congregational way take away all ecclesiastical means that should hinder such absolute liberty as this? For they hold that every congregation has sole church power within itself, and they are not tied to give any account to others but merely in an arbitrary way. Will not this, once established, bring in a toleration of all religions and a very anarchy?
Answer: First, I know none holds this, and how far men in a Congregational way are from it shall appear presently.
In the clearing of this matter, I shall not argue for one side or the other. I shall only show you that there is in effect as much means to prevent or subdue error, heresy, and schism in the Congregational way (which you call by another name) as there is in what way other brethren endeavor to hold
forth. I am not here to plead what is right or wrong but only to show you the difference is not great as far as concerns this matter; what one holds, the same the other holds in effect. If this is done with clarity, then the great outcry against that way as fomenting divisions by opening a gap to all kinds of liberty will, I hope, be stilled, and your hearts in some measure satisfied.
I confess were it as many of you are made to believe—that that way gives liberty or at least has no help against all errors and heresies—it must be acknowledged it were a means of most fearful divisions and in no case to be tolerated. But certainly, you will find it far otherwise.
This argument I am now about (namely, how far brethren agree in a matter of such great moment and in that which they are by some thought most to disagree in, and their disagreement most feared as a matter of dangerous consequence) I know cannot be an unpleasing argument to you.
Although we cannot be ignorant that there is a generation of men that are vexed when they hear how near their brethren come to them in the way of agreement, it serves more for their turns to have the distance wide; they would keep open the wounds, yea widen them. But God forbid there should be such a spirit in you.
Wherefore for your help in this matter, these two things are to be premised:
First, that the only way the Church has to keep down errors or heresies is spiritual; as for other means, they are extrinsic to the Church; this all acknowledge. As for subjection to the Magistrate, if he pleases to interpose, both they and we must yield.
Secondly, the virtue of spiritual power works not upon the outward man but by its prevailing upon conscience; therefore, so far as men are conscientious, so far it works and no farther.
Now then see what difference there is in the Congregational way from the Presbyterian for prevailing with men's consciences to reduce to the truth those who go astray from it.
First, those in the Congregational may acknowledge that they are bound in conscience to give account of their ways to the Churches about them or to any other who shall require it; this not in an arbitrary way but as a duty that they owe to God and man.
Secondly, they acknowledge that Synods of other Ministers and Elders about them are an ordinance of Jesus Christ for helping the Church against errors, schisms, and scandals.
Thirdly, these Synods may by the power they have from Christ admonish men or Churches in His name when they see evils continuing in or growing upon the Church; and their admonitions carry with them the authority of Jesus Christ.
Fourthly, as there shall be cause, they may declare men or Churches to be subverters of the faith or otherwise according to the nature of the offense, to shame them before all the Churches about them.
Fifthly, they may by a solemn act in the name of Jesus Christ refuse any further communion with them until they repent.
Sixthly, they may declare—and that also in the name of Christ—that these erring people or Churches are not to be received into fellowship with any of the Churches of Christ nor to have communion with one another in the ordinances of Christ. Now all this being done in Christ's name—is this nothing to prevail with conscience?
You will say, "What if they care not for all this?"
Answer: That is as if you should say, "What if they are not conscientious?
What if nothing can prevail with conscience?"
I demand: What can any Church power do more to work upon men's consciences for reducing them from evil?
You will say: They may do all this with more authority than the Congregational way will allow.
Answer: We need not contend about the word "authority." But how much higher is any act of authority in the Church than for the Officers of Christ to act in the name of Christ?
If you say: Private brethren may admonish and declare in the Name of Christ.
This is more than if any private brethren should do the same thing; for a Synod is a solemn ordinance of Christ, and the Elders are to be looked on as the Officers of Jesus Christ.
But our brethren say: There is one means more in their way than the Congregational way has; that is if the six former will not work, then Synods may deliver to Satan.
In this very thing lies the very knot of the controversy between those who are for the Presbyterian and those who are for the Congregational way in reference to the matter at hand—namely, the means for reducing from or keeping out errors and heresies from the Church. In this lies the dividing business. But I beseech you consider at what a point we divide here and judge whether the cause of division in this matter is so great that there can be no help and whether if an evil spirit prevails not amongst us we may not join. For...
First, consider what is involved in this delivering to Satan, which is a seventh measure that our Brethren think may hopefully prevail with men's consciences when the six former cannot. Yes, they say, for by this they are
put out of the Kingdom of Christ into the Kingdom of Satan, and this will terrify.
This putting out of Christ's Kingdom must be understood as "clave non errante," if the Synod judges correctly, not otherwise; yes, this is granted by all. Then consider whether this is not done before, and that with the authority of Christ by those former six measures. Heretical congregations or persons are judged and declared in a solemn ordinance by the officers of Christ gathered together in His name, to be such as have no right to any church ordinance and to have no communion with any of the churches of Christ. Now, if this judgment is correct, are not such persons or congregations put out of the Kingdom of Christ and consequently put under the power of Satan?
Objection: But they are not formally and juridically delivered to Satan.
Answer: What? Shall we still divide, as to devour one another, over formality and juridically, when those terms are not at all in Scripture, seeing we agree in the substance of the matter, which may as really and fully prevail with conscientious men as if formality were observed? Especially if we consider, Secondly, that it is a great question among our Brethren whether this
"traditio Satanæ" was not apostolic, peculiar to the power of Apostles, so that ordinary elders did not have it. If it proves so, then non-communion will prove the utmost censure the Church now has.
But thirdly, if some brethren rise to a seventh degree and others stay at six, which yet have such a power over conscience that if they do not prevail, the seventh is no way likely to prevail: Why should not the Apostle's rule quiet us all? Philippians 3:15-16: "Whereunto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule; if in anything you be
otherwise minded, God will reveal even this unto you." If we have attained but to six, and our brethren have attained to seven, let us walk together lovingly to the six; if God shall later reveal the seventh (we will promise to pray and study in the meantime), we shall walk with them in that also. Why must it needs be now urged with violence so as to divide otherwise? And although we hold not the seventh, yet there is an ingredient in the sixth that has in it the strength of the seventh. For wherein lies the strength of the seventh above the rest? Is it not in this: that it is the last means Christ has appointed in His Church to work upon the heart? This consideration has much terror in it. Now those in the Congregational way say that this is fully in the sixth; therefore, that is as terrible to their consciences as the seventh can be to the consciences of our brethren, and that upon the same ground.
And consider now, my Brethren, whether the Congregational way is such that if it is allowed, there will be no help to reduce an erring or heretical church, but all religions—Arianism, Mahometanism, anything—must be tolerated. Surely men do not deal fairly in raising such mighty accusations upon such poor and weak grounds; this great aspersion and huge outcry that these men would have all religions tolerated and that in their way there is no help against any heretical congregations molder and vanish away before you.
Let no man yet say, "All this that has been said is nothing." If you are conscientious who hear them say so, your own hearts must needs suggest an answer: surely these things would be very much to me to prevail with my conscience.
But what if congregations refuse to give account of their ways? What if they will not show so much conscientiousness as to regard admonitions, declarations against them, or withdrawing communion from them?
Answer: So we may say, what if they will not regard your delivering them up to Satan but will go on still?
You will say then you will complain to the Magistrate; his power must come in to assist, to make them regard what the Church does.
Answer: But now you have no further help from any intrinsic power the Church has; and as for subjection to the Magistrate, there we are on equal ground. If he will interpose, he may assist and second the sentence of judging men subverters of faith or withdrawing communion from them in one case as well as the sentence of giving men up to Satan in another; and we must still be subject here to suffer what is inflicted if we cannot do what is required. Only we do not go so far as some do in this one thing: whereas they lay a law upon the consciences of Magistrates that they are bound to assist with their power the decrees of the Church, taking cognizance only of the fact of the Church—that they have thus decreed—not inquiring into the nature of things; we dare not lay any such bond upon the Magistrate's conscience.
But say that he is to assist the Church both upon knowledge of what the Church has done and knowledge of the nature of things; seeing every private man has this power—to be judge of his own act—it would be a great misery upon those who have power over men to be denied this power.
If it shall be said, "But surely they do not agree so far; they do not come up to these six things mentioned." To that I answer: I do not deliver only my own judgment but by what I know of the judgments of all those Brethren with whom I have occasion to converse by conference both before and since; I stand charged to make it good to be their judgments also. Yes, it has been both theirs and mine for diverse years, even then when we never thought to have enjoyed our own land again. And if it is so, then let the
Lord be judge between us and our Brethren for those loud and grievous outcries there have been against us in this matter.
But if the difference is so little, why do they not come in?
We come as far as we have light to guide us; we dare not step one step in the dark. If we do, we shall certainly fall into sin; whatever else we fall into, whatever the thing may be to others, it would be our sin if there were no other reason but because we venture in the dark. We sail up to our Brethren as far as we can see the line of truth, and beyond it we dare not venture in the least.
The controversy is not about minor or major trouble or inconvenience; if it were, such a charge might well make us blush. The inconvenience or trouble is minor, yet a few men will not yield to their brethren, who are many, for peace's sake. But the controversy is about sin; now whether that be minor or major, the difference cannot but remain if one party insists upon another that which to them is sin. To acknowledge anything as a power of Christ, which one cannot see Christ has owned in His word, must necessarily be so. Therefore, the way to peace is not the necessity of coming up to one another because the thing is minor, but the loving, peaceable, and brotherly conduct towards one another because the difference is small.