An inquiry
into
the original, nature, institution, power, order, and communion
of
evangelical churches.
The first part.
With
an answer to the discourse of the Unreasonableness of Separation,
written by
and in defence of the vindication of the nonconformists from the guilt of schism.
“Stand ye in the ways, and me, and ask for the old
paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye find rest for your
souls” —
A general account of the
controversy occasioned by
In its first aspect, the following work of
In a preliminary note to the reader, he disposes of the
calumny that the Dissenters were abettors of the papal interest in Britain,
classing it with stories still more ridiculous, as that they had been
receiving large bribes to pursue this unprincipled course. Then follows a
preface of some length, in which he meets the argument contained in the
first part of
I thought to have wholly omitted
the consideration of that part of the discourse of
But, at present, the insinuations of that preface do seem
to prevail much with those of the same party with its author, who want
nothing at any time but the countenance of such a pen and story to vent
their ill-will against Nonconformists “Report,” say they, “and we will
report it.” But also as he said, “Mendacium mendacio tegendum ne perpluat.” First,
evil inventions always tend unto, and stand in need of, new additions, to
render them useful unto their end; without which they quickly evaporate.
Wherefore, lest the insinuations of this worthy person should not be
sufficiently subservient unto the uniting of all Protestants in one common
interest against Popery, which was the original design of the Doctor’s
sermon, some have added unto it that which is homogeneal, as unto truth,
and so easily with the other discourse, that “the Nonconformists, some of
them at least, do receive, or have received, money from the Papists, to act
their affairs and promote
But I can cast this also into the same heap or bundle of other false surmises and reports concerning me, almost without number; which it would be a wonder that some men should pretend to believe and divulge, as they have done, if we were bound to judge that their charity and prudence were proportionable unto their dignities and promotions. These things must be, whilst interest, with hopes and fears, vain love, and hatred thence arising, do steer the minds of men.
But what if we have not designed the prevalence or
introduction of Popery, yet, being a company of silly fellows, we have
suffered ourselves to be wheedled by the Jesuits to be active for the
cutting of our own throats? for we are full well satisfied that we should
be the very first who should drink of the cup of their fury, could they
ruin the protestant interest in England. And into such an unhappy posture
of affairs are we fallen, that whereas it is evident we do nothing for the
promotion of Popery, but only pray against it, preach against it, write
against it, instruct the people in principles of truth whereon to avoid it,
and cordially join with all true Protestants in the opposition of it,
wherein we are charged with an excess that is like to spoil all, yet these
crafty blades know how to turn it all unto their advantage. As it should
seem, therefore, there remains nothing for Nonconformists to do in this
matter, but to bind themselves hand and foot and give themselves up unto
the power of the Papists; for all they do against them doth but promote
their interest. But this, I am persuaded, they will be greatly unwilling
unto, unless they are well assured that their episcopal friends will be
more ready to expose themselves to hazard for their preservation and
deliverance than yet they have reason to expect that they will. But, for
my part, I was a long time since taught an expedient by an eminent
personage for the freeing myself from any inclination to a compliance with
Popery, and that in the instance of himself; for being in Ireland when
there was, in former days, a great noise about reconciliation, a person of
his own order and degree in the court of England wrote unto him, to inform
him of a report that he was inclined to a reconciliation with Popery, or a
compliance on good terms with the church of Rome, and withal desired him,
that if it were so he would communicate Unto him the reason of his
judgment. But that great and wise personage, understanding full well
whereunto these things tended, returned no answer but this only, that he
knew no reason for any such report; for he was sure that he believed the
pope to be antichrist, which put an absolute period unto the intercourse.
And I can insist on the same defensative against forty such arguments as
are used to prove us compliant with the papal interest; and so I believe
can all the Nonconformists. And if this be not enough, I can, for my part,
subscribe unto the conclusion which that most eminent champion of the
protestant religion in
If this will not suffice, we know better how to spend our remaining hours of life in peace than in contending about impertinent stories and surmises, exhaled by wit and invention out of the bog of secular interest; and shall, therefore, only assure those by whom we are charged, in the pulpit, or coffee-houses, or from the press, to countenance the promotion of the papal interest in the nation, that as they deal unjustly with us herein, and weaken the protestant interest what lies in them, so let them and others do and say what they please, nothing shall ever shake us in our resolution, by the help of God, to abide in a firm conjunction with all sincere Protestants for the preservation of our religion, and in opposition to the Papists; yea, that we would do so with our lives at the stake, if there were none left to abide in the same testimony but ourselves. But if they think that there is no way for us to be serviceable against Popery but by debauching our consciences with that conformity which they prescribe unto us, we beg their pardon, we are of another mind.
The differences and contests among professed Christians about the nature, power, order, rule, and residence of the gospel church-state, with the interest of each dissenting party therein, have not only been great and of long continuance, but have also so despised [defied?] all ways and means of allaying or abatement, that they seem to be more and more inflamed every day, and to threaten more pernicious consequents than any they have already produced; which yet have been of the worst of evils that the world for some ages hath groaned under: for the communion so much talked of amongst churches is almost come only unto an agreement and oneness in design for the mutual and forcible extermination of one another; at least, this is the professed principle of them who lay the loudest claim to the name and title, with all the rights and privileges, of the church. Nor are others far remote from the same design, who adjudge all who dissent from themselves into such a condition as wherein they are much inclined to think it meet they should be destroyed. That which animates this contest, which gives it life and fierceness, is a supposed enclosure of certain privileges and advantages, spiritual and temporal, real or pretended, unto the church-state contended about. Hence, most men seem to think that the principal, if not their only concernment in religion, is of what church they are; so as that a dissent from them is so evil as that there is almost nothing else that hath any very considerable evil in it. When this is once well rivetted in their minds by them whose secular advantages lie in the enclosure, they are in a readiness to bear a share in all the evils that unavoidably ensue on such divisions. By this means, among others, is the state or condition of Christian religion, as unto its public profession, become at this day so deplorable as cannot well be expressed. What with the bloody and desolating wars of princes and potentates, and what with the degeneracy of the community of the people from the rule of the gospel, in love, meekness, self-denial, holiness, zeal, the universal mortification of sin, and fruitfulness in good works, the profession of Christianity is become but a sad representation of the virtues of Him who calls out of darkness into his marvellous light. Neither doth there seem at present to be any design or expectation in the most for the ending of controversies about the church but force and the sword; which God forbid.
It is, therefore, high time that a sober inquiry be made,
whether there be any such church-state of divine institution as those
contended about; for if it should appear upon trial that indeed there
is not, but that all the fierce digladiations of the parties at variance,
with the doleful effects that attend them, have proceeded on a false
supposition, in an adherence whereunto they are confirmed by their
interests, some advances may be made towards their abatement. However, if
this may not be attained, yet directions may be taken from the discovery of
the truth, for the use of them who are willing to be delivered from all
concernment in these fruitless, endless contests,
To make an entrance into this inquiry the ensuing discourse is designed. And there can be no way of the management of it but by a diligent, impartial search into the nature, order, power, and rule of the gospel church-state, as instituted, determined, and limited by our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles. When we depart from this rule, so as not to be regulated by it in all instances of fact or pleas of right that afterward fall out, we fall into the confusion of various presumptions, suited unto the apprehensions and interests of men, imposed on them from the circumstances of the ages wherein they lived. Yet is it not to be denied but that much light into the nature of apostolical institutions may be received from the declared principles and practices of the first churches, for the space of two hundred years or thereabouts. But that, after this, the churches did insensibly depart in various degrees from the state, rule, and order of the apostolical churches, must, I suppose, be acknowledged by all those who groan under the final issue of that gradual degeneracy in the papal antichristian tyranny; for Rome was not built in a day, nor was this change introduced at once or in one age. Nor were the lesser alterations which began this declension so prejudicial unto the being, order, and purity of the churches, as they proved afterward, through a continual additional increase in succeeding ages.
Having affirmed something of this nature in my brief “Vindication of the Nonconformists from the Guilt of Schism,”
the
The words he opposeth are these:— “It is possible that an impartial account may, ere long, be given of the state and ways of the first churches after the decease of the apostles; wherein it will be made to appear how they did insensibly deviate in many things from the rule of their first institution; so as that though their mistakes were of small moment, and not prejudicial unto their faith and order, yet occasion was administered unto succeeding ages to increase those deviations until they issued in a fatal apostasy.” I yet suppose these words inoffensive, and agreeable unto the sentiments of the generality of Protestants; for, —
1. Unto the first churches after the apostles I
ascribe nothing but such small mistakes as did no way prejudice
their faith or order; and that they did preserve the latter as well as the
former, as unto all the substantial parts of it, shall be afterwards
declared. Nor do I reflect any more upon them than did
2. To evince the improbability of any alteration in church
rule and order upon my own principles, he intimates, both here and
afterward, that “my judgment is that the government of the church was
democratical, and the power of it in the people, in distinction from its
officers:” which is a great mistake; I never thought, I never wrote any
such thing. I do believe that the authoritative rule or government of the
church was, is, and ought to be, in the elders and rulers of it, being an
act of the office-power committed unto them by Christ himself. Howbeit, my
3. This, therefore, is that which he opposeth, — namely, that there was a deviation in various degrees, and falling of from the original institution, order, and rule of the church, until it issued in a fatal apostasy. This is that which, on the present occasion, must be farther spoken unto; for if this be not true, I confess there is an end of this contest, and we must all acquiesce in the state, rule, and order that was in the church of Rome before the Reformation. But we may observe something yet farther in the vindication and confirmation of this truth, which I acknowledge to be the foundation of all that we plead for in point of church reformation; as, —
(1.) That the reasons and arguings of the Doctor in this matter, — the necessity of his cause compelling him thereunto, — are the same with those of the Papists about the apostasy of their church, in faith, order, and worship, wherewith they are charged, namely, when, where, how was this alteration made? who made opposition unto it? and the like. When these inquiries are multiplied by the Papists, as unto the whole causes between them and us, he knows well enough how to give satisfactory answers unto them, and so might do in this particular unto himself also; but I shall endeavour to ease him of that trouble at present. Only, I must say that it is fallen out somewhat unexpectedly that the ruins of the principal bulwark of the Papacy, which hath been effectually demolished by the writings of Protestants of all sorts, should be endeavoured to be repaired by a person justly made eminent by his defence of the protestant religion against those of the church of Rome.
(2.) But it may be pleaded, that although the churches following the first ages did insensibly degenerate from the purity and simplicity of gospel faith and worship, yet they neither did nor could do so from an adherence unto and abiding in their original constitution, or from the due observation of church order, rule, and discipline, least of all could this happen in the case of diocesan episcopacy. I answer, —
[1.] That as unto the original of any thing that
looks like diocesan episcopacy, or the pastoral relation of one person of a
distinct order from presbyters unto many particular complete churches with
officers of their own, with power and jurisdiction in them and over them,
unto the abridgment of the exercise of that right and power unto their own
edification which every true church is intrusted withal by Jesus Christ, it
is very uncertain, and was introduced by insensible degrees, according unto
the effectual working of the mystery of iniquity. Some say that there were
two distinct orders, — namely, those of bishops and presbyters, —
instituted at first in all churches planted by the apostles; but as the
contrary may be evidently proved, so a supposition of it would no way
promote the cause of diocesan episcopacy, until those who plead for it have
demonstrated the state of the churches wherein they were placed to be of
the same nature with those now called diocesan. Wherefore, this hypothesis
begins generally to be deserted as it seems to be by this author. Others
suppose that immediately upon, or at, or after the decease of the apostles,
this new order of bishops was appointed, to succeed the apostles in the
government of the churches that were then gathered or planted; but how,
when, or by whom, — by what authority, apostolical and divine, or
ecclesiastical only and human, — none can declare, seeing there is not the
least footstep of any such thing either in the Scripture or in the records
that remain of the primitive churches. Others think this new order of
officers took its occasional rise from the practice of the presbyters of
the church at Alexandria, who chose out one among themselves constantly to
preside in the rule of the church and in all matters of order, unto
[2.] Why may not the churches be supposed to have departed from their original constitution, order, and rule, as well as from their first faith and worship? which they did gradually, in many successive ages, until both were utterly corrupted. The causes, occasions, and temptations leading unto the former, are to the full as pregnant as those leading unto the latter; for, —
1st. There was no vicious, corrupt disposition of
mind that began more early to work in church-officers, nor did more grow
and thrive in the minds of many, than ambition, with desire of
pre-eminence, dignity, and rule. It is not to be supposed that Diotrephes
was alone in his desire of pre-eminence, nor in the irregular actings of
his unduly assumed authority. However, we have one signal instance in him
of the deviation that was in the church with him, from the rule of its
original constitution; for he prevailed so far therein as, by his own
single episcopal power, to reject the authority of the apostles, and to
cast them out of the church who complied not with his humour. How
effectually the same ambition wrought afterward, in many others possessing
the same place in their churches with Diotrephes, is sufficiently evident
in all ecclesiastical histories. It is far from being the only instance of
the corruption of church order and rule by the influence of this ambition,
yet it is one that is pregnant, which is given us by
2dly. As the inclination of many lay towards such a
deviation, so their interests led them unto it, and their temptations cast
them upon it. For, to acknowledge the truth unto our author and others,
the rule and conduct of the church, the preservation of its order and
discipline according unto its first institution, and the directions given
in the Scripture about it, are, according unto our apprehension of these
things, a matter so weighty in itself, so dangerous as unto its issue,
attended with so many difficulties, trials, and temptations, laid under
such severe interdictions of lordly power, or seeking either of wealth or
dignity, that no wise man will
3dly. That there was such a gradual deviation from the original institution of churches, their order and rule, is manifest in the event; for the change became at length as great as the distance is between the gospel and the rule of Christ over his church on the one hand, and the canon law with the pope or antichrist set over the Church on the other. This change was not wrought at once, not in one age, but by an insensible progress, even from the days of the apostles unto those dark and evil times wherein the popes of Rome were exalted into an absolute tyranny over all churches, unto the satiety of their ambition; for, —
4thly. This mystery of iniquity began to work in the days of the apostles themselves, in the suggestions of Satan and the lusts of men, though in a manner latent and imperceptible unto the wisest and best of men; for that this mystery of iniquity consisted in the effectual workings of the pride, ambition, and other vices of the minds of men, excited, enticed, and guided by the craft of Satan, until it issued in the idolatrous, persecuting state of the church of Rome, wherein all church rule, Order, and worship of divine institution was utterly destroyed or corrupted, we shall believe, until we see an answer given unto the learned writings of all sorts of Protestants, whereby it hath been proved.
These things are sufficient to vindicate the truth of the
assertion which the Doctor opposeth, and to free it from his exceptions;
but because, as was observed before, the supposition hereof is the
foundation of all our present contests about
Decays in any kind, even in things natural and political, are hardly discernible but in and by their effects. When an hectic distemper befalls the body of any man, it is ofttimes not to be discerned until it is impossible to be cured. The Roman historian gives this advice unto his readers, after he hath considered the ways and means whereby the empire came to its greatness: “Labente deinde disciplinâ velut dissidentes primo mores sequatur animo; deinde ut magis magisque lapsi sint, tum ire cæperint præcipites, donec ad hæc tempora, quibus nec vitia nostra, nec remedia pati possumus, periculum est,” Liv. Præfat. His words do not give us a more graphical description of the rise and decay, as unto virtue and vice, of the Roman empire, than of the Roman church, as unto its rise by holiness and devotion, and its ruin by sensuality, ambition, the utter neglect of the discipline of Christ, and superstition. But yet let any man peruse that historian, who wrote with this express design, he shall hardly fix upon many of those instances whereby the empire came into that deplorable condition whereto it was not able to bear its distempers nor its cure, such as was the state of the church before the Reformation. But besides the common difficulty of discovering the beginnings and gradual progression of decays, declensions, and apostasy, those which we treat of were begun and carried on in a mysterious manner; that is, by the effectual working of “the mystery of iniquity.” As this almost hid totally the work of it from the ages wherein it was wrought, so it renders the discovery of it now accomplished the more difficult. Passengers in a ship setting out to sea ofttimes discern not the progressive motion of the ship, yea, for a while the land rather seems to move from them than the vessel wherein they are from it; but after a season, the consideration of what distance they are at from their port gives them sufficient assurance of the progress that hath been made: so this declension of the churches from their primitive order and institution is discoverable rather by measuring the distance between what it left and what it arrived unto, than by express instances of it. But yet is it not altogether like unto that of a ship at sea, but rather unto “the way of a serpent on a rock,” which leaves some slime in all its turnings and windings, whereby it may be traced. Such marks are left on record of the serpentine works of this mystery of iniquity as whereby it may be traced, with more or less evidence, from its original interests unto its accomplishment.
The principal promoting causes of this defection on the
part of men were those assigned by
But to give farther evidence hereunto, I shall consider the
causes aforementioned
and impertinent in this case to suppose it; for it speaks
of a sudden total alteration in the state, order, and rule of churches, to
be made at once, whereas our discourse is of that which was gradual in many
ages, by degrees almost imperceptible. But yet I can give no security that
the churches of our way shall not, in process of time, decline from their
primitive constitution and order, either in their power and spirit, in
faith and love, or in the outward practice of them, unless they continually
watch against all beginnings and occasions of such declensions, and
frequently renew their reformation; or if it be otherwise, they will have
better success man any churches in the world ever yet had, even those that
were of the planting of the apostles themselves, as is manifested in the
judgment that our Lord Jesus Christ passed on them,
1. The great, and perhaps in some things excessive,
veneration which they had of their bishops or pastors, did probably
occasion in them some neglect of their own duty; for they were easily
induced hereon, not only implicitly to leave the management of all church
affairs unto them, but also zealously to comply with their mistakes. The
church of Smyrna, giving an account of the martyrdom of holy Polycarpus, tells us that when he
ascended the pile wherein he was to be burned, “he pulled off his own
clothes, and endeavoured to pull off his shoes, which he had not done
before, because the faithful strove among themselves who should soonest
touch his body,” Eusebius lib. iv. cap. 15. I think there can be no
veneration due to a man which was not so unto that great and holy person.
But those who did so express it might easily be induced to place too much
of their religion in an implicit compliance with them unto whom they were
so devoted. Hence a negligence in themselves as unto their particular
duties did ensue. They were quickly far if rein esteeming it their duty to
say unto their pastor or bishop that he should “take heed to the ministry
which he had received in the Lord, to fulfil it,” as the apostle enjoins
the Colossians to say to Archippus their pastor,
2. Many of the particular churches of the first plantations
increasing greatly in the number of their members, it was neither
convenient nor safe that the whole multitude should on all occasions come
together, as they did at first, to consult about their common concerns, and
discharge the duties of their communion; for by reason of danger from their
numerous conventions, they met in several parcels as they had opportunity.
Herewith they were contented, unless it were upon the greater occasions of
choosing their officers and the like, whereon the whole church met
together. This made them leave the ordinary administration of all things
in the church Unto the elders of it, not concerning themselves farther
therein; but still continuing members of the same particular church. It is
altogether improbable what
But, secondly, After these there ensued greater occasions of greater variations from the primitive institution and order of the churches on the part of the people; for, —
1. Such numbers of them were received into a relation unto particular churches as was inconsistent with the ends of their institution and the observance of the communion required in them; as will afterward appear. And the reliefs that were invented for this inconveniency in distinct conventions, supplied with the administration of the word and sacraments from the first church, or by stated titles, did alter the state of the church.
Among those multitudes which were added unto the churches, especially in the fourth century, many, if not the most, did come short inexpressibly in knowledge, gifts, grace, holiness, and uprightness of conversation of the primitive Christians, as the writers of that age complain. And being hereby incapable of walking according unto the order, rule, and discipline of the apostolical churches, there seemed to be a necessity of another rule, of other ways and means for their government, without their own concurrence or consent, than what was at first appointed, which were gradually introduced; whence the original of a multitude of those canons, which were arbitrarily invented afterward for their rule and government, is to be derived. And it may be made to appear that the accommodation of the rule, yea, and of the worship of the church, in the several ages of it, unto the ignorance, manners, and inclinations of the people, who were then easily won unto the outward profession of Christian religion, was one means of the ruin of them both, until they issued in downright tyranny and idolatry.
But much more of the cause of the deviation of the churches from their primitive rule and order is to be ascribed unto the ambition and love of pre-eminence in many of the clergy, or rulers of the churches; but this is no place nor season to manifest this by instances, besides it hath been done by others. I shall therefore inquire only into one or two things in particular, which are of principal consideration in the declension of the churches from their primitive institution, order, and rule; and, —
(1.) It is evident that there was an alteration made in the state of the church as to its officers; for it issued at last in popes, patriarchs, cardinals, metropolitan and diocesan bishops, who were utterly foreign unto the state and order of the primitive churches, and that for some ages. Nor were these officers introduced into the church at once, or in one age, nor with the powers which they afterward claimed and assumed unto themselves. It was done gradually, in many succeeding ages, working by design to accommodate the state of the church unto the political state of the empire in the distribution of its government.
(2.) The beginnings of this great alteration were
small, nor at all perceived in the days wherein they were first
acted. Nor is it agreed, nor, as far as I see, will it ever be agreed
among learned men, when first a disparity among the ordinary officers of
the church, in order, degree, or power, did first begin, nor by what means
it was brought about. The apostles were all equal among themselves; no one
had either office or office-power above others. So were all the ordinary
bishops and presbyters mentioned in the Scripture, as shall be proved
afterward. No intimation is given of any pre-eminence or superiority
amongst them of one over others. Yet afterward, in the third and fourth
centuries, much of that nature appears. It begins to be granted that the
bishops and elders mentioned in the Scripture were the same, and that there
was no difference in name, office, or power,
Churches were originally planted in cities and towns for
the most part; not absolutely, for the word was preached and churches
gathered by the apostles κατὰ πόλεις καὶ
χώρας, as
2. But, secondly, There was another occasion of this alteration, which took place before that insisted on; for in many of those city churches, especially when the number of believers much increased, there were many bishops or elders, who had the rule of them in common. This is plain in the Scripture, and in the ensuing records of church affairs; and they had all the same office, the same power, and were of the same order. But after a while, to preserve order and decency among themselves and in all their proceedings, they chose one from among them who should preside in all church affairs for order’s sake, unto whom, after a season, the name of bishop began to be appropriated. Whether the rule they proceeded by herein was to choose them unto this dignity who had been first converted unto the faith, or first called and ordained to be presbyters, or had respect unto the gifts and graces of those whom they chose, is not certain; but this way began in those churches wherein some extraordinary officer, apostle or evangelist, had long resided. It cannot, therefore, be doubted but they had some design to represent hereby somewhat of the dignity of such an officer, and a resemblance of the continuance of his presence among them; and this, I suppose, fell out early in the churches, though without ground or warrant. And the principal pastors of other churches, which had not any great number of elders in them, yet quickly assumed unto themselves the dignity which the others had attained.
Under this state of things, the churches increasing every
day in number and wealth, growing insensibly more and more (“indies magis magisque decrescente
disciplina”) into a form and state exceeding the bounds of their
original institution, and becoming unwieldy as unto the pursuit of their
ends, unto mutual edification, it is not hard to conjecture how a stated
distinction between bishops and presbyters did afterward ensue; for as the
first elder, bishop, or pastor, had obtained this small pre-eminence in the
church wherein he did preside and the assemblies of the villages about, so
the management of those affairs of the church which they had in communion
with others was committed unto him, or assumed by him. This gave them the
advantage of meeting in synods and councils afterward; wherein they did
their own business unto the purpose. Hereon, in a short time, the people
were deprived of all their interest in the state of the church, so as to be
governed by their own consent; which, indeed, they also had rendered
themselves unmeet to enjoy and exercise; — other elders were deprived of
that power and authority which is committed unto them by Christ, and thrust
down into an order or degree inferior unto that wherein they were
originally placed; — new officers in the rule of the church, utterly
unknown to the Scripture and primitive antiquity, were introduced; — all
charitable donations unto the church, for the maintenance of the ministry,
the poor, and the redemption of captives, were for the most part abused, to
advance the revenues of the bishops; — such secular advantages, in honour,
dignity, and wealth, were annexed unto episcopal sees, as that ambitious
men shamefully contested for the attaining of them; which, in the instance
of the bloody conflict between the parties of
I thought, also, to have proceeded with an account of the declension of the churches from their first institution, in their matter, form, and rule; but because this would draw forth my discourse beyond my present intention, I shall forbear, having sufficiently vindicated my assertion in this one instance.
It is no part of my design to give an answer at large unto
the great volume that
For the things of the first sort, — wherein the Doctor doth
so abound, both in his preface and in the first part of his book, as to
manifest himself, I fear, to be a little too sensible of provocation (for
the actings of interest in wise men are usually more sedate), — I shall
only oppose some general considerations unto them, without arguing or
contending about particulars; which would be endless and useless. And
whereas he hath gathered up almost every thing that hath been done,
written, or spoken to the prejudice of the cause and persons whom he
opposeth (though frequently charged before), adding the advantage of his
style and method unto their
I shall leave him without disturbance unto the satisfaction he hath in his own love, moderation, and condescension, expressed in his preface. Others may possibly call some things in it unto a farther account. But the first part of his book is cast under two heads:— 1. A commendation of the first reformers and their reformation, with some reflections upon all that acquiesce not therein, as though they esteemed themselves wiser and better than they. From this topic proceed many severe reflections and some reproaches. 2. The other consists in a story of the rise and progress of separation from the church of England, with the great miscarriages among them who first attempted it, and the opposition made unto them by those who were themselves Nonconformists. The whole is closed with the difference and debate between the divines of the assembly of the presbyterian way, and the “dissenting brethren,” as they were then called. Concerning these things the discourse is so prolix, and so swelled with long quotations, that I scarce believe any man would have the patience to read over a particular examination of it; especially considering how little the cause in hand is concerned in the whole story, whether it be told right or wrong, candidly or with a design to make an advantage unto the prejudice of others. I shall, therefore, only mark something with respect unto both these heads of the first part of the book, which, if I mistake not, will lay it aside from being of any use to our present cause:—
1. As unto the first reformers and reformation in the days of King Edward, the plea from them and it, which we have been long accustomed unto, is, that they were persons great, wise, learned, holy; that some of them died martyrs; that the work of the reformation was greatly owned and blessed of God: and, therefore, our non-acquiescency therein, but desiring a farther reformation of the church than what they saw and judged necessary, is unreasonable; and that what we endeavour therein, though never so peaceably, is schismatical. But, —
(1.) None do more bless God for the first reformers, and the work they did, than we do; none have a higher esteem of their persons, abilities, graces, add sufferings, than we have; none cleave more firmly to their doctrine, which was the life and soul of the reformation, than we, nor desire more to follow them in their godly design. They are not of us who have declared that the death of King Edward was a happiness or no unhappiness to the church of England, nor who have reflected on the Reformation as needless, and given assurance that if it had not been undertaken, salvation might have been obtained safely enough in the church of Rome. Nor were they of us who have questioned the zeal and prudence of the martyrs in those days of suffering. We have other thoughts concerning them, — another kind of remembrance of them.
(2.) The titles assigned unto them, of wise, learned, holy, zealous, are fully answered by that reformation of the church in its doctrine and worship which God wrought by their ministry; so that none without the highest ingratitude can derogate any thing from them in these things. But it is no disparagement unto any of the sons of men, any officers of the church since the days of the apostles, the first reformers, or those that followed them, to judge that they were not infallible, that their work was not absolutely perfect, like the work of God, whereunto nothing can be added nor aught taken away. Wherefore, —
(3.) We are not obliged to make what they did, and what
they attained unto, and what they judged meet as unto the government and
worship of the church, to be our absolute rule, from which it should be our
sin to dissent or depart. They never desired or designed that it should be
so; for to do so would have been to have cast out one Papacy and to have
brought in another. And the arguments of the Papists for their absolute
adherence unto the men of their veneration, those who
[1.] They did not think themselves obliged, they did not think meet, to abide within the bounds and limits of that reformation of the church which had been attempted before them, by men wise, learned, and holy, even in this nation. Such was that which was endeavoured by Wickliffe and his followers; in giving testimony whereunto many suffered martyrdom, and prepared the way unto those that were to come after. They approved of what was then done, or attempted to be done, for the substance of it, yet esteemed themselves at liberty to make a farther progress in the same work; which they did accordingly. Surely such persons never designed their own judgment and practice to give boundaries unto all reformation for evermore, or pretended that they had made so perfect a discovery of the mind of Christ, in all things belonging unto the rule and worship of the church, as that it should not only be vain but sinful to make any farther inquiries about it. Some thought they were come unto the utmost limits of navigation and discovery of the parts of the world before the West Indies were found out; and some men, when in any kind they know as much as they can, are apt to think there is no more to be known. It was not so with our reformers.
[2.] They did not at once make what they had done themselves to be a fixed rule in these things, for themselves made many alterations in the service-book which they first composed; and if they judged not their first endeavour to be satisfactory to themselves they had no reason to expect their second should be a standing rule unto all future ages. Nor did they so, but frequently acknowledged the imperfection of what they had done.
[3.] The first reformers, both bishops and others, both those who underwent martyrdom at home and those who lived in exile abroad, differed among themselves in their judgments and apprehensions about those things which are now under contest, whereas they perfectly agreed in all doctrines of faith and gospel obedience. The public records of these differences do so remain as that they cannot modestly be denied nor handsomely covered. And this must needs weaken the influence of their authority in the settlement of the church, which was an act only of the prevalent party among them.
[4.] They differed in these things from all other reformed churches, with whom they did absolutely agree in doctrine, and had the strictest communion in faith and love; for it is known that their doctrine, which they owned and established, was the same with that of the churches abroad called particularly Reformed, in distinction from the Lutherans. But as unto the state, rule, and order of the church, they differed from them all. I press not this consideration unto the disadvantage of what they attained unto and established in the way of reformation, or in a way of preferring other churches above them, but only to evidence that we have reason enough not to esteem ourselves absolutely obliged unto what they did and determined as unto all endeavours after any farther reformation.
[5.] In their reformation they avowedly proposed a rule
and measure unto themselves Which was both uncertain and in many
things apparently various from the original rule of these things given by
Christ and his apostles, with the
[6.] We may add hereunto the consideration of the horrid darkness which they newly were delivered from; the close adherence of some traditional prejudices unto the best of men in such a condition; the difficulties and oppositions they met withal as unto their whole work; their prudence, as they judged it, in an endeavour to accommodate all things unto the inclinations and desires of the body of the people (extremely immersed in their old traditions), which might not be destructive unto their salvation, in heresy or idolatry; — all which could not but leave some marks of imperfection on their whole work of reformation.
Upon these and the like considerations it is that we are
enforced to assert the use of our own liberty, light, and understanding, in
the inquiring after and compliance with the true original state and order
of the evangelical churches, with our duty in reference thereunto, and not
to be absolutely confined unto what was judged meet and practised in these
things by the first reformers. And the truth is, if present interest and
advantage did not prevail with men to fix the bounds of all
church-reformation in what was by them attained and established, they would
think it themselves a papal bondage, to be bound up absolutely unto their
apprehensions; from a confinement whereunto in sundry other things they
declare themselves to be at an absolute liberty. Wherefore, neither we nor
our cause are at all concerned in the rhetorical discourse of
2. Nor, secondly, are we any more concerned in the long story that ensues about the rise and progress of separation from the church of England, with the mistakes of some in principles, and miscarriages in practice, who judged it their duty to be separate; for as, in our refraining from total communion with the parochial assemblies of the church of England, we proceed not on the same principles, so we hope that we are free from the same miscarriages with them, or any of an alike nature. But it is also certain, that after the great confusion that was brought on the whole state and order of the church under the Roman apostasy, many of those who attempted a reformation fell into different opinions and practices in sundry things; which the Papists have made many a long story about. We undertake the defence only of our own principles and practices according unto them; nor do we esteem ourselves obliged to justify or reflect on others.
And it were no difficult task to compose a story of the
proceedings of some in the church of England, with reference unto these
differences, that would have as ill an aspect as that which is here
reported. Should an account be given of their unaccountable rigour and
severity, in that through so many years, yea ages, they would never think
of the least abatement of their impositions, in any one instance, though
acknowledged by themselves indifferent and esteemed by others unlawful,
although they saw what woful detriment arose to the churches thereby; yea,
how, instead thereof, they did to the last of their power make a progress
in the same course, by attempting new canons, to inflame the difference,
and increased in severities towards all dissenters; — should an account be
given of the silencings,
But setting aside the aggravations of things gathered out of controversial writings (wherein few men do observe the due rules of moderation, but indulge unto themselves the liberty of severe censures and sharp reflections on them they do oppose), the sum and truth of the story concerning these things may be reduced into a narrow compass; for, —
(1.) It is certain that, from the first dawning of the Reformation in this nation, there were different apprehensions, among them that jointly forsook the Papacy, as unto its doctrine and worship, about the state, rule, order, and discipline of the church, with sundry things belonging unto its worship also. I suppose this will not be denied.
(2.) There doth not remain any record of a due attempt and endeavour for the composing these differences before one certain way was established by those in power. And Whereas, [from] the state and condition wherein they were at that time, from the confusions about religion that were then abroad, and the pertinaciousness of the generality of the people in an adherence unto their old ways and observances in religion, with a great scarcity in able ministers, the greatest part of the bishops and clergy disliking the whole Reformation, they found themselves, as they judged, necessitated to make as little alteration in the present state of things as was possible, so as to keep up an appearance of the same things in the church which had been in former use, — on these grounds the state and rule of the church was continued in the same form and posture that it was before under the Papacy, the authority of the pope only being excluded, and the power of disposal of ecclesiastical affairs, usurped by him, declared to be in the king; so also, in imitation of that book of worship and service which the people had been accustomed unto, another was established, with the ceremonies most obvious unto popular observation.
(3.) This Order was unsatisfactory unto great numbers of
ministers and others; who yet, considering what the necessity of the times
did call for, did outwardly
(4.) Hereon those who were for the establishment, having secured their interests therein and obtained power, began after a while to oppress, excommunicate, silence, deprive, and imprison those who dissented from them, and could not come up unto a full practical compliance with their institutions and rules. Yet the generality of those so silenced and deprived abode in privacy under their sufferings, hoping for a reformation at one time or another, without betaking themselves unto any other course for the edification of themselves or their people.
(5.) After sundry years, some men, partly silenced and deprived as unto their ministry, and partly pursued with other censures and penalties, began to give place unto severe thoughts of the church of England and its communion, and, withdrawing themselves into foreign parts, openly avowed a separation from it. And if the extremities which many had been put unto for their mere dissent and nonconformity unto the established rule, — which, with a good conscience, they could not comply with, — were represented, it might, if not excuse, yet alleviate the evil of that severity in separation which they fell into.
(6.) But hereon a double inconvenience, yea, evil, did ensue, whence all the advantages made use of in this story to load the present cause of the Nonconformists did arise. For, —
[1.] Many of those who refused to conform unto the church in all its constitutions yet thought it their duty to wait quietly for a national reformation, thinking no other possible, began to oppose and write against them who utterly separated from the church, condemning its assemblies as unlawful. And herein, as the manner of men is on such occasions, they fell into sharp invectives against them, with severe censures and sentences concerning them and their practice. And, —
[2.] Those who did so separate, being not agreed among themselves as unto all principles of church-order, nor as unto the measure of their separation from the church of England, there fell out differences and disorders among them, accompanied with personal imprudences and miscarriages in not a few. Neither was it scarcely ever otherwise among them who first attempted any reformation; unless, like the apostles, they were infallibly guided. These mutual contests which they had among themselves, and with the Nonconformists who abode in their private stations in England, with their miscarriages also, were published unto the world, in their own writings and those of their enemies.
“Hinc omnis pendet Lucilius.” These were the things that gave advantage unto, and are the substance of, the history of our author concerning separation; wherein all I can find unto our present instruction is, that
There are and ever were sins, faults, follies, and
miscarriages among all sorts of men; which might be farther evidenced by
recounting, on the other hand, what were the ways, acts, and deeds, at the
same time, of those by whom the others were cast out and rejected. And
whereas it was the design of the reverend author to load the cause and
persons of the present Nonconformists with prejudice and contempt, it is
well fallen out, in the merciful disposal of things towards and amongst us,
by the providence and grace of God, that he is forced to derive the
principal matter of his charge from what was done by a few private persons,
three or four score years ago and more, in whose principles and practices
we are not concerned. And as for the difference that fell out more lately
among the divines in the assembly
Neither, to my knowledge, did I ever read a book wherein there was a greater appearance of diligence in the collection of things, words, sayings, expressions, discourses unto other ends, which might only cast odium on the cause opposed, or give advantage for arguings unto a seeming success, very little or no way at all belonging unto the cause in hand, than there is in this of our reverend author; though much in the same way and kind hath been before attempted.
But separation it is and schism which we are all charged withal; and the evil thereof is aggravated in the words of the author himself, and in large transcriptions out of the writings of others. Schism, indeed, we acknowledge to be an evil, a great evil, but are sorry that with some a pretended, unproved schism is become almost all that is evil in the churches or their members; so that let men be what they will, drenched, yea, overwhelmed in ignorance, vice, and sin, so they do not separate (which, to be sure, in that state they will not do, for why should he who hath plague-sores upon him depart from the society of them that are infected?) they seem to he esteemed, as unto all the concerns of the church, very unblamable.
The truth is, considering the present state and condition of the inhabitants of this nation, who are generally members of the church of England, — how “the land is filled with sin against the Holy One of Israel,” God giving us every day renewed tokens and indications of his displeasure, no compliance with his calls, no public reformation being yet attempted, — it seems a more necessary duty, and of more importance unto them upon whom the care of such things is incumbent, to endeavour in themselves, and to engage a faithful ministry throughout the nation, both to give a due example in their conversations, and to preach the word with all diligence, for the turning of the people from the evil of their ways, than to spend their time and strength in the management of such charges against those who would willingly comply with them as unto all the great ends of religion amongst men.
But this must be farther spoken unto. I say, therefore, first, in general, that whereas the whole design of this book is to charge all sorts of Nonconformists with schism, and to denounce them schismatics, yet the author of it doth not once endeavour to state the true notion and nature of schism, wherein the consciences of men may be concerned. He satisfies himself in the invectives of some of the ancients against schism, applicable unto those which were in their days, wherein we are not concerned. Only, he seems to proceed on the general notion of it, that it is a causeless separation from a true church; which departs from that of the Romanists, who will allow no separation from the church but what is causeless. To make application hereof unto us, it is supposed, —
(1.) That the church of England is a true church in its national constitution, and so are all the parochial churches in it; which can be no way justified but by a large, extensive interpretation of the word “true,” for there is but one sort of churches instituted by Christ and his apostles, but national and parochial churches differ in their whole kind, and therefore cannot both of them be of a divine original.
(2.) That we are members of this church by our own
consent. How we should come to be so otherwise, I know not. If we
are so by being born and baptized in
(3.) That we separate from this church in things wherein we are obliged by the authority of Christ to hold communion with it; which neither is nor will ever be proved, nor is it endeavoured so to be by any instances in this treatise.
(4.) That to withhold communion from parochial
assemblies in the worship of God, as unto things confessedly not of
divine institution, is schism, — that kind of schism which is condemned by
the ancient writers of the church. Upon these and the like suppositions it
is no uneasy thing to make vehement declamations against us and severe
reflections on us; all is schism and schismatic, and all of the same kind
with what was written against by
But the true state of the controversy between him and us is this, and no other, — namely, Whether a dissent in, and forbearance from, the communion of churches, in their state and kind not of divine institution, or so far as they are not of divine institution, and from things in other churches that have no such divine institution, nor any scriptural authority to oblige us unto their observance, be to be esteemed schism in them who maintains and professedly avow communion in faith and love with all the true churches of Christ in the world? This is the whole of what we are concerned in; which, where it is spoken unto, it shall be considered. But because there were in the primitive churches certain persons who, on arbitrary principles of their own, consisting for the most part in gross and palpable errors, which they would have imposed on all others, did separate from the catholic church, — that is, all other Christians in the world, and all the churches of Christ, condemning them as no churches, allowing not the administration of sacraments unto them nor salvation unto their members, — whom the ancient church condemned with great severity, and that justly, as guilty of schism, their judgment, their words and expressions, are applied unto us, who are no way concerned in what they speak of or unto. We are not, therefore, in the least terrified with what is alleged out of the ancients about schism; no more than he is when the same instances, the same authorities, the same quotations, are made use of by the Papists against the church of England, as they are continually: for, as was said, we know that we are no way concerned in them. And suppose that all that the Doctor allegeth against us be true, and that we are in the wrong in all that is charged on us, yet I dare refer it to the Doctor himself to determine whether it be of the same nature with what was charged on them who made schisms in the church of old. I suppose I guess well enough what he will say to secure his charge; and it shall be considered when it is spoken.
But, as was said, the great and only design of the author of this book is to prove all Nonconformists to be schismatics, or guilty of the sin of schism. How he hath succeeded in this attempt shall be afterward considered. And something I have spoken in the ensuing discourse concerning the nature of schism, which will manifest how little we are concerned in this charge. But yet it may not be amiss in this place to mind both him and others of some of those principles whereon we ground our justification in this matter, that it may be known what they must farther overthrow, and what they must establish, who shall persist in the management of this charge; that is, indeed, through want of love, in a design to heighten and perpetuate our divisions. And, —
The first of these principles is, That there is a rule prescribed by our Lord Jesus Christ unto all churches and believers, in a due attendance whereunto all the unity and peace which he requireth amongst his disciples do consist.
We acknowledge this to be our fundamental principle. Nor
can the rhetoric
But that our principle herein is according unto truth we
are fully persuaded. There is a rule of Christ’s given, which whosoever
walk according unto, “peace shall be on them, and mercy, and upon the whole
Israel of God,”
This principle we shall not be easily dispossessed of; and whilst we are under the protection of it, we have a safe retreat and shelter from the most vehement accusations of schism for a non-compliance with a rule, none of his, different from his, and in some things contrary unto his, for the preservation of church peace and unity. All the dispute is, whether we keep unto this rule of Christ or no; wherein we are ready at any time to put ourselves upon the trial, being willing to teach or learn, as God shall help us.
Secondly, we say, That this rule in general is the rule
of faith, love, and obedience contained and revealed in the Scripture; and
in particular, the commands that the Lord Christ hath given for the order
and worship that he requires in his churches. It may seem strange to
some that we should suppose the due observance of the rule of faith, love,
and obedience, — that is, of faith real and unfeigned, love fervent and
without dissimulation, and of universal, gracious, evangelical obedience, —
to be necessary unto the preservation of church peace and unity; but we do
affirm, with some confidence, that the only real foundation of them doth
lie herein, nor do we value that ecclesiastical peace which may be without
it or is neglective of it. Let all the Christian world, or those therein
who concern themselves in us, know that this is our principle and our
judgment — that no church peace or unity is valued by or accepted with
Jesus Christ that is not founded
Thirdly, Those who recede from this rule, in any
material branch of it, are guilty of the breach of church-unity, according
to the measure of their exorbitancy; — as suppose that any preach,
teach, or profess doctrines that are contrary to the form of wholesome
words, especially with reference unto the person, offices, and grace of
Christ, which are the subject of doctrines purely evangelical, they break
the peace of the church, and we are bound to separate or withdraw communion
from them; which is a means of preserving the true peace and unity of the
church. “Speciosum quidem est nomen pacis,
et pulchra opinio unitatis, sed quis ambigat eam solam, unicam, ecclesiæ
pacem esse, quæ Christi est,” saith
Fourthly, That conscience is immediately and directly concerned in no other church unity, as such, but what is an effect of the rule of Christ given unto that end. We know what is spoken concerning obedience unto the guides and rulers of the Church; which is a part of the rule of Christ. But we know withal, that this obedience is required of us only as they teach us to observe and do all that he hath commanded; for other commission from him they have none. When this rule is forsaken, and another substituted in the room of it, as it quickly diverts the minds of men from a conscientious attendance unto that rule of Christ as the only means of church-unity, so that other doth either proceed from men’s secular interests or may easily be accommodated thereunto. And whereas the lines of it must be drawn in the fields of pretended indifferences and real arbitrariness, it will be the cause of endless contentions, whilst whatever some think themselves to have power to appoint, others will judge themselves to have liberty to refuse.
Fifthly, It is unity of Christ’s appointment that schism respects as a sin against it, and not uniformity in things of men’s appointment. And, —
Lastly, Those who charge schism on others for a dissent from themselves, or the refraining of total communion with them, must, —
1. Discharge themselves of the charge of it, in a consistence with their charge on them; for we find as yet no arrows shot against us but such as are gathered up in the fields, shot at them that use them out of the Roman quiver. Neither will it avail them to say that they have other manner of reason for their separation from the church of Rome than any we have for our withdrawing communion from them; for the question is not, what reasons they have for what they do? but, what right and power they have to do it? — namely, to separate from the church Whereof they were, constituting a new church-state of their own, without the consent of that church, and against the order and authority of the same.
2. Require no communion but by virtue of the rule before declared. In no other are we concerned, with respect unto the peace and unity of the church.
But yet, When all is done, it will appear that mutual forbearance, first removing animosities, then administering occasion of inoffensive converse, unto the revival of decayed affections, leading unto sedate conferences and considerations of a more entire conjunction in the things whereunto we have attained, will more conduce unto universal peace and gospel unity than the most fierce contentions about things in difference, or the most vehement charges of schism against dissenters.
But I must return to the argument, and shall add something giving light into the nature of schism, from an instance in the primitive churches.
That which is first in any kind gives the measure of what follows in the same kind, and light into the nature of them. Whereas, therefore, the schism that was among the churches about the observation of Easter was the first that fell out unto the disturbance of their communion, I shall give a brief account of it, as far as the question in hand is concerned in it.
It is evident that the apostles did with care and diligence
teach the doctrine of Christian liberty, warning the disciples to “stand
fast” in it, and not submit their necks unto any “yoke of bondage” in the
things of the worship of God; especially the apostle Paul had frequent
occasions to treat of this subject. And what they taught in doctrine, they
established and confirmed in their practice; for they enjoined nothing to
be observed in the church but what was necessary, and what they had the
command of Christ for, leaving the observation of things indifferent unto
their original indifference. But whereas they had decreed, by the
direction of the Holy Ghost, some necessary condescensions in the Gentile
believers towards the Jews, in case of offence or scandal, they did
themselves make use of their liberty to comply with the same Jews in some
of their observances not yet unlawful. Hereon there ensued in several
churches different observations of some rites and customs, which they
apprehended were countenanced by the practice of the apostles, at least as
it had been reported unto them: for, immediately after the decease of the
apostles, very many mistakes and untruths were reported concerning what
they said, did, and practised; which some diligently collected from old men
(it may be almost delirant), as
At length this matter fell into the handling of
The noise hereof coming abroad unto other churches, great
offence was taken at it by many of them, and
Among those who so opposed and rebuked him,
And, — (1.) He tells us that “he wrote unto
(2.) He tells
(3.) He gives hereon that excellent rule: Ἡ διαφωνία τῆς νηστείας τὴν ὁμόνοιαν τῆς πίστεως συνίστησιν· — “The difference of fastings” (and consequently things of an alike nature) “commends the concord or agreement of faith.”
This was the first effect of a departure from the only rule
of unity and communion among the churches which was given by Christ himself
and his apostles. As hereby great confusion and disorder was brought upon
the churches, so it was the first public inroad that was made on the
doctrine of the Scripture concerning
Our reverend author will hardly find an instance before
this of schism among any churches that retained the substance of the
doctrine of faith, unless it be in those divisions which fell out in some
particular churches, among the members of them. And this we affirm to be
in general the case of the Nonconformists at this day: for admitting such
variations as time and other circumstances must necessarily infer, and they
are rejected from communion on the same grounds that
But this notion of schism is, in the judgment of
Nor was there the least appearance of any other kind of
schism among the churches of Christ until that which was occasioned by
2. But who is it that shall make these orders and constitutions, that must be observed for the preservation of the unity and peace of the church? It can be none but those who have power so to do by being uppermost in any place or time. Who shall judge them to be lawful? No doubt they that make them. And what shall these constitutions be about, what shall they extend unto? Any thing in the world, so there be no mention of it in the Scripture, one way or other. What if any one should now dissent from these constitutions, and not submit unto them? Why, then, he is guilty of schism! — as great and dangerous a sin as that of murder!! But when all is done, what if these constitutions and orders should be no ways needful or useful unto the preservation of the peace of the church? what if a supposition that they are so reflects dishonour on the wisdom and love of Christ? what if they are unlawful and unwarrantable, the Lord Christ not having given power and authority unto any sort of men to make any such constitutions? what if they are the great ways and means of breaking the unity and peace of the church? These, and other inquiries of the like nature, must be clearly resolved, not by the dictates of men’s own minds and spirits, but from the word of truth, before this intimation can be complied withal.
But that which is fallen out most beyond expectation in
this whole discourse is, that the reverend author, seeking, by all ways and
means countenanced with the least resemblance or appearance of truth, to
load the Nonconformists and their cause with the imputation of things
invidious and burdensome, should fix upon their prayers, by virtue of the
grace and gift of prayer which they have received, ascribing the original
of its use unto the artifice and insinuation of the Jesuits, as he doth,
preface, pp. 14, 15. But because I look on this as a thing of the greatest
importance of all the differences between them and us, — as that wherein
the life of religion, the exercise of faith, and the labour of divine love
do much consist, — the nature and necessity of that kind of prayer which is
here reflected on and opposed shall, God willing, be declared and
vindicated in a peculiar discourse unto that purpose; for the differences
that are between us cannot possibly have any more
The great pains he hath taken, in this preface, to prove
the Nonconformists to have been the means of furthering and promoting
Popery in this nation might, as I suppose, have been omitted without any
disadvantage unto himself or his cause; for the thing itself is not true.
As it is utterly impossible to affect the minds or consciences of the
Nonconformists with a sense of it, because they have a thousand witnesses
in themselves against the truth of the charge, so it is impossible it
should be believed by any who are in the least acquainted with their
principles, or have their eyes open to see any thing that is doing at this
day in religion. But as there are many palpable mistakes in the account he
gives of things among ourselves to this purpose, so if, on the other hand,
any should, out of reports, surmises, Jesuits’ letters and politics,
particularly those of
it is not praiseworthy to abide in these contests beyond necessity.
This discourse, indeed, of the reverend author is increased
into so large a volume as might justly discourage any from undertaking the
examination of it who hath any other necessary duties to attend unto. But
if there be separated from it the consideration of stories of things and
persons long since past, wherein we are not concerned, with the undue
application of what was written by some of the ancients
It is acknowledged that the differences which are amongst Protestants in this nation are to be bewailed, because of the advantages which the common enemy of the protestant interest doth endeavour to make thereby. Howbeit the evil consequences of them do not arise from the nature of the things themselves, but from the interest, prejudices, and biassed affections of them amongst whom they are. Nor shall any man ever be able to prove but that, on the doctrinal agreement which we all profess (provided it be real), we may, notwithstanding the differences that remain, enjoy all that peace and union which are prescribed unto the churches and disciples of Christ, provided that we live in the exercise of that love which he enjoineth us; which whilst it continues, in the profession of the same faith, it is impossible there should be any schism among us. Wherefore, whereas some are very desirous to state the controversy on this supposition, that there is a schism among us, and issue it in an inquiry on which side the blame of it is to be laid, — wherein they suppose they need no farther justification but the possession of that church-state which is established by law, — I shall willingly forego the charging of them with the whole occasion of the schism pretended, until they can prove there is such a schism, which I utterly deny; for the refraining of communion with parochial assemblies, on the grounds whereon we do refrain, hath nothing of the nature of schism in it, neither as it is stated in the Scripture nor as it was esteemed of in the primitive churches, amongst whom there were differences of as great importance, without any mutual charges of schism. Wherefore, although we cannot forego utterly the defence of our own innocency against such charges as import no less than a heinous guilt of sin against God, and imminent danger of ruin from men, yet we shall constantly unite ourselves with and unto all who sincerely endeavour the promotion of the great ends of Christian religion, and the preservation of the interest of protestant religion in this nation.
Something I judge necessary to add concerning my engagement, or rather surprisal, into this controversy, against my inclination and resolution.
The Doctor tells us, preface, p. 51, “That when his sermon came first out, it went down quietly enough, and many of the people began to read and consider it, being pleased to find so weighty and necessary a point debated with so much calmness and freedom from passion; which being discovered by the leaders and managers of the party, it was soon resolved that the sermon must be cried down, and the people dissuaded from reading of it. If any of them were talked withal about it, they shrunk up their shoulders, and looked sternly, and shook their heads, and hardly forbore some bitter words, both of the author and the sermon,” (which it seems he knows, though they did forbear to do so!) and much more to the same purpose. And, p. 53, “As if they had been the Papists’ instruments to execute the fury of their wrath and displeasure against me, they summon in the power of their party, and resolve with their force and might to fall upon me;” with more to the same purpose. And p. 59, “After a while they thought fit to draw their strength into the open field; and the first who appeared was,” etc.
I confess I was somewhat surprised, that, coming into this
coast, all things should appear so new and strange unto me as that I could
fix on no one mark to discover that I had ever been there before; for I am
as utter a stranger unto all
It is, therefore, no small mistake, that we “dissuaded” any from reading his sermon; which hath been commonly objected by some other writers of the same way. But if we were enemies unto these worthy persons, we could not desire they should have more false intelligence from our tents than they seem to have. This is not our way. Those who are joined with us are so upon their own free choice and judgment; nor do we dissuade them from reading the discourses of any on the subject of our differences. The rule holds herein, “Prove all things, and hold fast that which is good.”
Nor do I know any thing in the least of advices or agreements to cry down and oppose, confute or answer, the Doctor’s sermon; nor do I believe that there were ever any such among those who are charged with them. And what shall be said unto those military expressions of “summoning in the power of the party, resolved to fall on, think fit to draw their strength into the field?” etc. I say, what shall we say to these things? I am not a little troubled that I am forced to have any concernment in the debate of these differences, wherein men’s sense of their interest, or of provocations they have received, cast them on such irregular ways of defence and retaliation; for all these things are but fruits of imagination, that have nothing of truth or substance to give countenance unto them.
The way whereby I became to be at all engaged in this contest, and the reasons whereon I undertook a harmless defence of our innocency, as to the charge of schism at this time, I shall give a brief account of:—
Some days after the Doctor’s sermon was printed and
published, one of those whom he supposeth we persuaded not to read it
brought it unto me, and gave it me, with such a character of it as I shall
not repeat. Upon the perusal of it (which I did on his desire, being
uncertain to this day whether, without that occasion, I had ever read it at
all), I confess I was both surprised and troubled, and quickly found that
many others were so also; for as there was then a great hope and
expectation that all Protestants would cement and unite in one common cause
and interest for the defence and preservation of religion against the
endeavours of the Papists for its subversion, so it was thought by wise men
of all sorts that the only medium and expedient for this end was the
deposing of the consideration of the lesser differences among ourselves,
and burying all animosities that had arisen from them. And I yet suppose
myself at least excusable, that I judged the tendency of that discourse to
lie utterly another way. Nor is it in my power to believe
The reduction, I say, of the profession of Christianity in general unto its primitive purity, simplicity, separation from the world, and all implication with secular interests, so as that it should comprise nothing but the guidance of the souls of men in the life of God towards the enjoyment of him, is a work more to be prayed for to come in its proper season than to be expected in this age. Nor do any yet appear fitted in the least measure for the undertaking or attempting such a work, any farther than by their own personal profession and example. And whilst things continue amongst protestant churches in the state wherein they are, — under the influence of divided secular interests, and advantageous mixtures with them, With the relics of the old general apostasy, by differences in points of doctrine in rules of discipline, in orders of divine worship, — it is in vain to look for any union or communion among them, in a compliance with any certain rule of uniformity, either in the profession of faith or in the practice of worship and discipline. Nor would such an agreement among them, could it be attained, be of any great advantage unto the important ends of religion, unless a revival of the power of it in the souls of men do accompany it. In the meantime, the glory of our Christian profession, in righteousness, holiness, and a visible dedication of its professors unto God, is much lost in the world, innumerable souls perishing through the want of effectual means for their conversion and edification. To attempt public national reformation whilst things ecclesiastic and civil are so involved as they are, the one being rivetted into the legal constitution of the other, is neither the duty nor work of private men: nor will, as I suppose, wise men be over forward in attempting any such thing, unless they had better evidence of means to make it effectual than any that do as vet appear; for the religion of a nation, in every form, will answer the ministry of it. What is the present duty, in this state of things, of those private Christians or ministers who cannot satisfy their consciences, as unto their duty towards God, without endeavouring a conformity unto the will of Christ, in the observance of all his institutions and commands, confining all their concerns in religion unto things spiritual and heavenly? is the inquiry before us.
An inquiry
into
the original, nature, institution, power, order, and communion of evangelical churches.
When any thing which is pleaded to
belong unto religion or the worship of God is proposed unto us, our first
consideration of it ought to be in that inquiry which our Lord Jesus Christ
made of the Pharisees concerning the baptism of John, “Whence is it? from
heaven, or of men?” He distributes all things which come under that plea
or pretence into two heads, as unto their original and efficient cause, —
namely, “heaven” and “men.” And these are not only different and distinct,
but so contradictory one unto another, that, as unto any thing wherein
religion or the worship of God is concerned, they cannot concur as partial
causes of the same effect. What is of men is not from heaven; and what is
from heaven is not of men. And hence is his determination concerning both
sorts of these things: “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not
planted, shall be rooted up,”
Designing, therefore, to treat of churches, their original, nature, use, and end, my first inquiry must be whether they are from heaven or of men, — that is, whether they are of a divine original, having a divine institution, or whether they are an ordinance or creation of men; for their pedigree must be derived from one of these singly. They never concurred in the constitution of any part of divine worship, or any thing that belongs thereunto.
This would seem a case and inquiry of an exceeding easy
determination; for the Scripture everywhere makes mention of the church or
churches as the ordinances and institutions of God. But such things have
fallen out in the world in latter ages as may make men justly question
whether we understand the mind of God aright or no
1. For many ages, such things alone were proposed unto the world, and imposed on it for the only church, as were from hell rather than from heaven; at least from men, and thou none of the best: for all men in these western parts of the world were obliged to believe and profess, on the penalties of eternal and temporal destruction, that the pope of Rome and those depending on him were the only church in the world. If this should be granted, — as it was almost universally in some ages, and in this is earnestly contended for, — there would be a thousand evidences to prove that the institution of churches is not from heaven, but from men. Whether the inventions of men in the mystery of iniquity be to be received again or no, men of secular wisdom and interest may do well to consider; but he must be blind and mad, and accursed in his mind and understanding, who can think of receiving it as from heaven, as a divine institution. But I have treated of this subject in other discourses.
2. The name, pretence, and presumed power of the church or churches, have been made and used as the greatest engine for the promoting and satisfying the avarice, sensuality, ambition, and cruelty of men that ever was in the world. Never any thing was found out by men, or Satan himself, so fitted, suited, and framed to fill and satisfy the lusts of multitudes of men, as this of the church hath been, and yet continues to be: for it is so ordered, is of that make, constitution, and use, that corrupt men need desire no more for the attainment of wealth, honour, grandeur, pleasure, all the ends of their lusts, spiritual or carnal, but a share in the government and power of the church; nor hath an interest therein been generally used unto any other ends. All the pride and ambition, all the flagitious lives, in luxury, sensuality, uncleanness, incests, etc., of popes, cardinals, prelates, and their companions, with their hatred unto and oppression of good men, arose from the advantage of their being reputed “the church.” To this very day, “the church” here and there, as it is esteemed, is the greatest means of keeping Christian religion in its power and purity out of the world, and a temptation to multitudes of men to prefer the church before religion, and to be obstinate in their oppositions unto it. These things being plain and evident unto wise men who had no share in the conspiracy nor the benefit of it, how could they think that this church-state was from heaven, and not of men?
3. By “the church” (so esteemed), and in pursuit of its
interests, by
4. The secular, worldly interest of multitudes lying in this presumptive church and the state of it, they preferred and exalted it above all that is called God, and made the greatest idol of it that ever was in the world; for it was the faith and profession of it, that its authority over the souls and consciences of men is above the authority of the Scriptures, so that they have no authority towards us unless it be given unto them by this church, and that we neither can nor need believe them to be the word of God unless they inform us and command us so to do. This usurpation of divine honour, in putting itself and its authority above that of the Scripture or word of God, discovers full well whence it was. In like manner, those who assumed it unto themselves to be the church, without any other right, title, or pretence unto it, have exalted one amongst them, and with him themselves in their several capacities, above all emperors, kings, and princes, nations and people, trampling on them at their pleasure. Is this church-state from heaven? Is it of divine institution? Is it the heart and centre of Christian religion? Is it that which all men must be subject to on pain of eternal damnation? Who that knows any thing of Christ or the gospel can entertain such a thought without detestation and abhorrency?
5. This pretence of the church is at this day one
of the greatest causes of the atheism that the world is filled withal. Men
find themselves, they know not how, to belong unto this or that church;
they suppose that all the religion that is required of them is no more but
what this church suggests unto them; and abhorring, through innumerable
prejudices, to inquire whether there be any other ministerial church-state
or no, understanding at length the church to be a political combination,
for the wealth, power, and dignity of some
6. Unto this very day, the woful divisions, distractions, and endless controversies that are among Christians, with the dangerous consequences and effects of them, do all spring and arise from the churches that are in the world. Some are for the church of Rome, some for the church of England, some for the Greek church, and so of the rest; which, upon an acknowledgment of such a state of them as is usually allowed, cannot but produce wars and tumults among nations, with the oppression of particular persons in all sorts of calamities. In one place men are killed for not owning of one church, and in another for approving of it. Amongst ourselves prisons are filled, and men’s goods spoiled, divisions multiplied, and the whole nation endangered, in a severe attempt to cause all Christians to acknowledge that church-state which is set up among us. In brief, these Churches, in the great instance of that of Rome, have been, and are, the scandal of Christian religion, and the greatest cause of most of the evils and villanies which the world hath been replenished withal. And is it any wonder if men question whether they are from heaven or of men.
For my part, I look upon it as one of the greatest mercies that God hath bestowed on any professed Christians in these latter ages, that he hath, by the light and knowledge of his word, disentangled the souls and consciences of any that do believe from all respect and trust unto such churches, discovering the vanity of their pretences and wickedness of their practices; whereby they openly proclaim themselves to be of men, and not from heaven. Not that he hath led them off from a church-state thereby; but by the same word revealed that to them which is pure, simple, humble, holy, and so far from giving occasion unto any of the evils mentioned as that the admittance of it will put an immediate end unto them all. Such shall we find the true and gospel church-state to be in the following description of it. He that comes out of the confusion and disorder of these human (and, as unto some of them, hellish) churches, who is delivered from this “mystery of iniquity,” in darkness and confusion, policies and secular contrivances, coming thereon to obtain a view of the true native beauty, glory, and use of evangelical churches, will be thankful for the greatness of his deliverance.
Whereas, therefore, for many ages, the church of Rome, with
those claiming under it and depending on it, was esteemed to be the only
true church in the world, and nothing was esteemed so highly criminal, —
not murder, treason, nor incest, — as to think of or to assert any other
church-state, it was impossible that any wise man not utterly infatuated
could apprehend a church, any church whatever,
But, notwithstanding all these things, it is most certain that churches are of a divine original, — that they are the ordinance and institution of Christ. I am not yet arrived, in the order of this discourse, to a convenient season of declaring what is the especial nature, use, and end of such churches as are so the institution of God, and so to give a definition of them, which shall be done afterward; but treat only as unto the general notion of a church, and what is signified thereby. These are of God. And in those churches before described, under a corrupt, degenerate estate, three things may be considered:— 1. What is of man, without the least pretence unto the appointment or command of God. Such is the very form, fabric, and constitution of the church of Rome, and those that depend thereon or are conformed thereunto. That which it is, that whereby it is what it is, in its kind, government, rule, and end, is all of man, without the least countenance given unto it from any thing of God’s institution. This is that which, through a long effectual working of men and Satan, in a mystery of iniquity, it arrived unto. Herewith the saints of God ought to have no compliance, but bear witness against it with their lives, if called thereunto. This in due time the Lord Christ will utterly destroy. 2. Such things as pretend unto a countenance to be given them by divine institution, but horribly corrupted. Such are the name of a church and its power, a worship pretended to be religious and divine, an order as to officers and rulers different from the people, with sundry things of the like nature. These things are good in themselves, but as engrossed into a false church-state and worship, corrupt in themselves, they are of men, and to be abhorred of all that seek after the true church of Christ. 3. There is that which is the essence of a true church, — namely, that it be a society of men united for the celebration of divine worship. This, so far as it may be found among them, is to be approved.
God laid the foundation of church societies and the
necessity of them in the law of nature, by the creation and constitution of
it. I speak of churches in general, as they are societies of the human
race, one way or other joined and united together for the worship of God.
Now, the sole end of the creation of the nature of man was the glory of
God, in that worship and obedience which it was fitted and enabled to
perform. For that end, and no other, was our nature created, in all its
capacities, abilities, and perfections. Neither was man so made merely
that every individual should singly and by himself perform this worship,
though that also every individual person is obliged unto. Every man alone,
and by himself, will not only find himself indigent and wanting supplies of
sundry kinds, but also that he is utterly disabled to act sundry faculties
and powers of his soul, which by nature he is endued withal. Hence the
Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone,”
These things, therefore, are evident in themselves:— 1. That God created our nature, or made man, for his own worship and service, and fitted the powers and faculties of his soul thereunto. 2. That this nature is so fitted for society, so framed for it as its next end, that without it, it cannot act itself according unto what it is empowered unto; and this is the foundation of all order and government in the world among mankind. 3. That by the light of nature this acting in society is principally designed unto the worship of God. The power, I say, and necessity of acting in society is given unto our nature for this end principally, that we may thus glorify God in and by the worship which he requires of us. 4. That without the worship of God in societies there would be an absolute failure of one principal end of the creation of man; nor would any glory arise unto God from the constitution of his nature, so fitted for society as that it cannot act its own powers without it. 5. All societies are to be regulated, in the light of nature, by such circumstances as whereby they are suited onto their end, for which they may be either too large or too much restrained.
Hence have we the original of churches in the light of
nature. Men associating themselves together, or uniting in such societies
for the worship of God, which he requires of them, as may enable them unto
an orderly performance of it, are a church. And hereunto it is required, —
1. That the persons so uniting are sensible of their duty, and have not
lost the knowledge of the end of their creation and being. 2. That they
are acquainted with that divine religious worship which God requires of
them. The former light and persuasion
Farther we need not seek for the divine original of churches, or societies of men fearing God, for the discharge of his public worship, unto his glory and their own eternal benefit, according unto the light and knowledge of his mind and will which he is pleased to communicate unto them.
What concerns the framing and fashioning of churches by arbitrary and artificial combinations, in provinces, nations, and the like, we shall afterward inquire into. This is the assured foundation and general warranty of particular societies and churches, whilst men are continued on the earth; the especial regulation of them by divine revelation will in the next place be considered. And he who is not united with others in some such society, lives in open contradiction unto the law of nature and its light, in the principal instances of it.
1. Whereas the directions given by the light of nature in and unto things concerning the outward worship of God are general only, so as that by them alone it would be very difficult to erect a church-state in good and holy order, God did always from the beginning, by especial revelations and institution, ordain such things as might perfect the conduct of that light unto such a complete order as was accepted with himself. So, first, he appointed a church-state for man in innocency, and completed its order by the sacramental addition of the two trees, — the one of life, the other of the knowledge of good and evil.
2. That before the coming of Christ, — who was to perfect
and complete
3. That it was God himself alone who made all
these alterations and changes; nor would he, nor did he, ever allow that
the wills, wisdom, or authority of men should prescribe rules or measures
unto his worship in any thing,
4. That the foundation of every church-state that is
accepted with God is in an express covenant with him, that they receive and
enter into who are to be admitted into that state. A church not founded in
a covenant with God is not from heaven, but of men. Hereof we shall treat
more at large, as I suppose, afterward. See it exemplified,
5. There is no good in, there is no benefit to be obtained
by, any church-state whatever, unless we enter into it and observe it by
an act of obedience, with immediate respect unto the authority of
Christ, by whom it is appointed and the observation of it prescribed unto
us,
6. Unless men, by their voluntary choice and consent, out
of a sense of their duty unto the authority of Christ in his institutions,
do enter into a church-state, they cannot, by any other ways or means, be
so framed into it as to find acceptance with God therein, See
“Discourse concerning Evangelical Love,” p. 88 of this volume.
Our principal concernment at
present is in the evangelical church-state, or the state of churches under
the New Testament; for this is
1. The church-state of the New Testament doth not less
relate unto, and receive force from, the light or law of nature,
than any other state of the church whatever. Herein, as unto its general
nature, its foundation is laid. What that directs unto may receive new
enforcements by revelation, but changed, or altered, or abolished, it
cannot be. Wherefore, there is no need of any new express institution of
what is required by that light and law in all churches and societies for
the worship of God, but only an application of it unto present occasions
and the present state of the church, which hath been various. And it is
merely from a spirit of contention that some call on us or others to
produce express testimony or institution for every circumstance in the
practice of religious duties in the church, and on a supposed failure
herein, do conclude that they have power themselves to institute and ordain
such ceremonies as they think meet, under a pretence of their being
circumstances of worship; for as the directive light of nature is
sufficient to guide us in these things, so the obligation of the church
unto it makes all stated additions to be useless, as on other accounts they
are noxious. Such things as these are:— the times and seasons of church
assemblies; the order and
This respect of the gospel church-state unto the light of
nature the apostle demonstrates, in his frequent appeals unto it in things
that belong unto church-order,
2. But such is the especial nature and condition of the
evangelical church-state; such the relation of it unto the person and
mediation of Jesus Christ, with all things thereon depending; such the
nature of that especial honour and glory which God designs unto himself
therein (things that the light of nature can give no guidance unto nor
direction about); and, moreover, so different and distant from all that was
before ordained in any other church-state are the ways, means, and duties
of divine worship prescribed in it, — that it must have a peculiar,
divine institution of its own, to evidence that it is from heaven, and
not from men. The present state of the church under the New Testament the
apostle calls τελείωσις,
All the dignity, honour, and perfection of the state of the
church under the Old Testament depended solely hereon, that it was, in the
whole and all the particulars of it, of divine institution. Hence it was
“glorious,” that is, very excellent, as the apostle declares,
3. The name of the church under the New Testament is capable of a threefold application, or it is taken in a threefold notion; as, — (1.) For the catholic invisible church, or society of elect believers in the whole world, really related by faith in him unto the Lord Jesus Christ as their mystical head; (2.) For the whole number of visible professors in the whole world, who, by baptism, and the outward profession of the gospel, and obedience unto Christ, are distinguished from the rest of the world; and, — (3.) For such a state as wherein the worship of God is to be celebrated in the way and manner by him appointed, and which is to be ruled by the power which he gives it, and according to the discipline which he hath ordained. Of the nature of the church under these distinct notions, with our relation unto either or all of them, and the duties required of us thereon, I have treated fully in my discourse of Evangelical Love, Church Peace, and Unity; and thither I must remit the reader. It is the church in the latter sense alone whose original we now inquire after; and I say, —
(1.) It was immediately from him that they received
revelations of what did belong unto this church-state, and what
was to be prescribed therein. They never did, neither jointly nor
severally, once endeavour, in their own wisdom, or from their own
invention, or by their own authority, to add or put into this church-state,
as of perpetual use, and belonging unto it as such, either less or more,
any one thing greater or less whatever. It is true, they gave their advice
in sundry cases of present emergencies, in and about church-affairs; they
gave direction for the due and orderly practice of what was revealed unto
them, and exercised authority both as unto the ordination of officers, and
the rejection of obstinate sinners from the society of all the churches; —
but to invent, contrive, institute, or appoint any thing in the church and
its state, which they had not by immediate revelation from Christ, they
never attempted it nor went about it. And unto this rule of proceeding
they were precisely obliged by the express words of their commission,
(2.) The authority whereby they acted in the
institution of the church in its order, whereon the consciences of all
believers were obliged to submit thereunto, and to comply with it in a way
of obedience, was the authority of Christ himself, acted in them and by
them,
5. Christ, therefore, alone is the author of the gospel church-state. And because this is the only foundation of our faith and obedience, as unto all that we are to believe, do, and practice, by virtue of that church-state, or in order thereunto, the Scripture doth not only plainly affirm it, but also declares the grounds of it, why it must be so, and whence it is so, as also wherein his doing of it doth consist.
Three things, amongst others, are eminently necessary in and unto him who is to constitute this church-state, with all that belongs thereunto; and as the Scripture doth eminently and expressly ascribe them all unto Christ, so no man, nor all the men of the world, can have any such interest in them as to render them meet for this work, or any part of it:—
(1.) The first of these is right and
title. He who institutes this church-state must have a right and
title to dispose of all men, in all their spiritual and eternal
concernments, as seemeth good unto him; for unto this church-state, namely,
as it is purely evangelical, no man is obliged by the law of nature, nor
hath any creature power to dispose of him into a condition whereon all his
concernments, spiritual and eternal, shall depend. This right and title to
the sovereign disposal of mankind, or of his church, Christ hath alone, and
that upon a treble account:— [1.] Of donation from the Father: he
appointed him the “heir of all things,”
Whereas, therefore, there is a disposal of the persons that are to belong unto this church-state, as unto their souls, consciences, and all the eternal concernments of them, by an indispensable moral obligation to a compliance therewithal, until men can manifest that they have such a right and title over others, and that either by the especial grant and donation of God the Father, or a purchase that they have made of them unto themselves, or conquest, they are not to be esteemed to have either right or title to institute any thing that belongs unto this church-state. And it is in vain pretended (as we shall see more afterward) that Christ, indeed, hath appointed this church-state in general, but that he hath appointed no particular form of churches or their rule, but left that unto the discretion and authority of men as they think meet, when they have outward power for their warranty. But if by these particular appointments and framings of churches with their order, men are disposed of, as unto their spiritual concernments, beyond the obligation of the light of nature or the moral law, we must yet inquire who gave them this right and title to make this disposal of them.
(2.) Authority. As right and title respect the
persons of men to be reduced into a new form of government so authority
respects the rules, laws, orders, and statutes to be made, prescribed, and
established, whereby the privileges of this new society are conveyed, and
the duties of it enjoined, unto all that are taken into it. Earthly
potentates, who will dispose of men into a state and government absolutely
new unto them, as unto all their temporal concernments of life, liberty,
inheritances, and possessions, so as that they shall hold all of ahem in
dependence on and according unto the rules and laws of their new government
and kingdom, must have these two things; — namely, right and title unto the
persons of men, which they have by conquest, or an absolute resignation of
all their interests and concerns into their disposal; and authority,
thereon to constitute what order, what kind of state, rule, and government,
they please. Without these they will quickly find their endeavours and
undertakings frustrate. The gospel church-state in the nature of it, and
in all the
This authority is not only ascribed unto Jesus Christ in
the Scripture, but it is enclosed unto him, so as that no other
can have any interest in it. See
The disorder, the confusion, the turning of the kingdom of
Christ upside down, which have ensued upon the usurpation of men, taking
upon them a legislative power in and over the church, cannot easily be
declared; for upon a slight pretence, no way suited or serviceable unto
their ends, — of the advice given and determination made by the apostles
with the elders and brethren of the church of Jerusalem, in a temporary
constitution about the use of Christian liberty, — the bishops of the
fourth and fifth centuries took upon themselves power to make laws, canons,
and constitutions for the ordering of the government and the rule of the
church, bringing in many new institutions on a pretence of the same
authority. Neither did others who followed them cease to build on their
sandy foundation, until the whole frame of the church-state was altered, a
new law made for its government, and a new Christ or antichrist assumed in
the head of its rule by that law; for all this pretended authority of
making laws and constitutions for the government of the church issued in
that sink of abominations which they call the canon-law. Let any man but
of a tolerable understanding, and freed from infatuating prejudices, but
read the representation that is made of the gospel church-state, its order,
rule, and government, in the Scripture on the one hand, and what
representation is made on the other of a church-state, its order, rule, and
government, in the canon-law, — the only effect of men’s
This authority was first usurped by synods, or
councils of bishops. Of what use they were at any time
to declare and give testimony unto any article of the faith which in their
days was opposed by heretics, I shall not now inquire; but as unto the
exercise of the authority claimed by them to make laws and canons for the
rule and government of the church, it is to be bewailed there should be
such a monument left of their weakness, ambition, self-interest, and folly,
as there is in what remaineth of their Constitutions. Their whole
endeavour in this kind was at best but the building of wood, hay, and
stubble on the foundation, in whose consumption they shall suffer loss,
although they be saved themselves. But in making of laws to bind the whole
church, — in and about things useless and trivial, no way belonging to the
religion taught us by Jesus Christ; in and for the establishment or
increase of their own power, jurisdiction, authority, and rule, with the
extent and bounds of their several dominions; in and for the constitution
of new frames and states of churches, and new ways of the government of
them; in the appointment of new modes, rites, and ceremonies of divine
worship; with the confusions that ensued thereon, in mutual animosities,
fightings, divisions, schisms, and anathematisms, to the horrible scandal
of Christian religion, — they ceased not until they had utterly destroyed
all the order, rule, and government of the church of Christ, yea, the very
nature of it, and introduced into its room a carnal, worldly church-state
and rule, suited unto the interests of covetous, ambitious, and tyrannical
prelates. The most of them, indeed, knew not for whom they wrought in
providing materials for that Babel, which, by a hidden skill in a mystery
of iniquity, was raised out of their provisions; for after they were hewed
and carved, shaped, formed, and gilded, the pope appeared in the head of
it, as it were, with those words of his mouth: “Is not this great Babylon,
that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power,
and for the honour of my majesty,” This was the fatal event of men’s
invading the right of Christ, and claiming an interest in authority to give
laws to the church. This, therefore, is absolutely denied by us, — namely,
that any men, under what pretence or name soever, have any right or
authority to constitute any new frame or order of the church, to make any
laws of their own for its rule or government that should oblige the
disciples of Christ in point of conscience unto their observation. That
there is nothing in this
It is, then, but weakly pleaded, “That seeing the
magistrate can appoint or command nothing in religion that God hath
forbidden, nor is there any need that he should appoint or command what God
hath already appointed and commanded; if so be he may not by law command
Such things in the church as before were neither commanded nor forbidden,
but indifferent, which are the proper field of his ecclesiastical
legislative power, then hath he no power nor authority about religion at
all;” — that is, if he hath not the same and a co-ordinate power with God
or Christ, he hath none at all! One of the best arguments that can be used
for the power of the magistrate in things ecclesiastical is taken from the
approved example of the good kings under the Old Testament. But they
thought it honour enough unto them, and their duty, to see and take care
that the things which God had appointed and ordained should be diligently
observed by all those concerned therein, both priests and people, and to
destroy what God had forbidden. To appoint any thing of themselves, to
make that necessary in the church and the worship thereof which God had not
made so, they never esteemed it to be in their power, or to belong unto
their duty. When they did any thing of that nature, and thereby made any
additions unto the outward warship of God not before commanded, they did it
by immediate revelation from God, and so by divine authority,
Of the same nature is the other part of their plea against
this denial of a legislative power in men with respect unto the
constitution of the evangelical church-state, or the ordaining of any thing
to be
Ans. 1. They do not, in my judgment, sufficiently think of whom and of what they speak who plead after this manner; for the substance of the plea is, that if the church have its whole frame, constitution, order, rule, and government from Christ alone, though men should faithfully discharge their duty in doing and observing all what he hath commanded, there would be nothing in it but disorder and confusion. Whether this becomes that reverence which we ought to have of him, or be suited unto that faithfulness and wisdom which is particularly ascribed unto him in the constitution and ordering of his church, is not hard to determine, and the truth of it shall be afterward demonstrated.
Ans. 2. As unto the dignity and honour of the rulers
of the church, the subject of so many ecclesiastical laws, they are, in the
first place, to be desired themselves to remember the example of Christ
himself in his personal ministry here on earth:
Ans. 3. Let the constitution of the church by Jesus
Christ abide and remain, — let the laws for its rule, government, and
worship, which he hath recorded in the Scripture, be diligently observed by
them whose duty it is to take care about them, both to observe them
themselves and to teach others so to do, — and we know full well there will
be no occasion given or left unto the least confusion or disorder in the
church. But if men will be froward, and, because they may not make laws
themselves or keep the statutes made by others, will neglect the due
observation and execution of what Christ hath ordained; or will deny that
we may and ought, in and for the due observation of his laws, to make use
of the inbred light of nature and rules of common prudence (the use and
exercise of both which are included and enjoined in the commands of Christ,
in that he requires a compliance with them in the way of obedience, which
we cannot perform without them), — I know of no relief against the
perpetuity of our differences about these things. But after so much scorn
and contempt hath been cast upon that principle, that it is not
The Scripture doth not only ascribe this authority unto
Christ alone, but it giveth instances of his use and exercise thereof;
which comprise all that is necessary unto the constitution and ordering of
his churches and the worship of them. (1.) He buildeth his own
house,
(3.) As unto this constitution of the gospel church-state,
the Scripture assigneth, in an especial manner, faithfulness unto
the Lord Christ,
Hereunto there is added, on the same account, the
consideration of his wisdom, his love, and care for the good of his church;
which
The substance of the things pleaded may, for the greater evidence of their truth, be reduced unto the ensuing heads or propositions:—
First. Every church-state that hath an especial institution of its own, giving [it] its especial kind, supposeth and hath respect unto the law and light of nature, requiring and directing in general those things which belong unto the being, order, and preservation of such societies as that is. That there ought to be societies wherein men voluntarily join together for the solemn performance of divine worship and joint walking in obedience before God; that these societies ought to use such means for their own peace and order as the light of nature directs unto; that where many have a common interest they ought to consult in common for the due management of it, with other things of the like importance, are evident dictates of this light and law. Now, whatever church-state may be superinduced by divine institution, yet this light and law, in all their evident dictates, continue their Obliging power in and over the minds of men, and must do so eternally. Wherefore, things that belong hereunto need no new institution in any church-state whatever. But yet, —
Secondly. Whatever is required by the light of
nature in such societies as churches, as useful unto their order, and
conducing unto their end, is a divine institution. The Lord
Christ, in the institution of gospel churches, their state, order, rule,
and worship, doth not require of his disciples that in their observance of
his appointments they should cease to be men, or forego the use and
exercise of their rational abilities, according to the rule of that
exercise, which is the light of nature. Yea, because the rules and
directions are in this case to be applied unto things spiritual and of mere
revelation, he giveth wisdom,
Thirdly. There are in the Scripture general rules directing us, in the application of natural light, unto such a determination of all circumstances, in the acts of church rule and worship, as are sufficient for their performance “decently and in order.” Wherefore, as was said before, it is utterly in vain and useless to demand express institution of all the circumstances belonging unto the government, order, rule, and worship of the church, or for the due improvement of things in themselves indifferent unto its edification, as occasion shall require; nor are they capable to be any otherwise stated, but as they lie in the light of nature and spiritual prudence, directed by general rules of Scripture.
These things being premised, our principal assertion is, — That Christ alone is the author, institutor, and appointer, in a way of authority and legislation, of the gospel church-state, its order, rule, and worship, with all things constantly and perpetually belonging thereunto, or necessary to be observed therein. What is not so is of men, and not from heaven. This is that which we have proved in general, and shall farther particularly confirm in our progress. Hence, —
6. There is no spiritual use nor benefit of any
church-state, nor of anything therein performed, but what, on the part of
men, consists in acts of obedience unto the authority of Christ.
If, in any thing we do of this nature, we cannot answer that inquiry which
God directs in this case to be made, namely, “Why we do this or that
thing,”
7. There is no legislative power in and over the church, as unto its form, order, and worship, left unto any of the sons of men, under any qualification whatever; for, —
(1.) There are none of them who have an interest in those rights, qualifications, and endowments, which are necessary unto an investiture into such a legislative power; for what was given and granted unto Christ himself unto this end, that he might be the lawgiver of the church, must be found also in them who pretend unto any interest therein. Have they, any of them, a right and title unto a disposal of the persons of believers in what way they please, as unto their spiritual and eternal concernments? Have they sovereign authority over all things, to change their moral nature, to give them new uses and significations, to make things necessary that in themselves are indifferent, and to order all those things by sovereign authority in laws obliging the consciences of men? And the like may be said of his personal qualifications, of faithfulness, wisdom, love, and care, which are ascribed unto him in this work of giving laws unto his churches, as he was the Lord over his own house.
(2.) The event of the assumption of this legislative power, under the best pretence that can be given unto it, — namely, in councils or great assemblies of bishops and prelates, — sufficiently demonstrates how dangerous a thing it is for any man to be engaged in; for it issued at length in such a constitution of churches, and such laws for the government of them, as exalted the canon law into the room of the Scripture, and utterly destroyed the true nature of the church of Christ, and all the discipline required therein.
(3.) Such an assumption is derogatory unto the
glory of Christ, especially as unto his faithfulness in and over the house
of God, wherein he is compared unto and preferred above Moses,
(4.) How it is derogatory unto the glory of the Scripture, as unto its perfection, shall be elsewhere declared.
8. There is no more required to give authority, obliging the consciences of all that do believe, unto any institution, or observation of duty, or acts of rule in the church, but only that it is made evident in the Scripture to be the mind and will of Christ. It is not necessary that every thing of this nature should be given out unto us in form of a law or precise command, in express words. It is the mind and will of Christ that immediately affects the consciences of believers unto obedience, by what way or means soever the knowledge of it be communicated unto them in the Scripture, either by express words, or by just consequence from what is so expressed. Wherefore, —
9. The example and practice of the apostles in the erection of churches, in the appointment of officers and rulers in them, in directions given for their walking, order, administration of censures, and all other holy things, are a sufficient indication of the mind and will of Christ about them. We do not say that in themselves they are institutions and appointments, but they infallibly declare what is so, or the mind of Christ concerning those things. Nor can this be questioned without a denial of their infallibility, faithfulness, and divine authority.
10. The assertion of some, that the apostles took their
pattern for the state and rule of the churches, and as unto divers rites of
worship, from the synagogues of the Jews, their institutions, orders, and
rules, not those appointed by Moses, but such as themselves had found
out and ordained, is both temerarious and untrue. In the pursuit of such
bold conjectures, one It was not till five years after the publication of this
work that
That there was a peculiar
church-state instituted and appointed by Christ, and his apostles acting in
his name and authority, with the infallible guidance of his Spirit, hath
been declared; but it may be yet farther inquired, whether this
church-state be still continued
There was a church-state under the Old Testament solemnly erected by God himself; and although it was not to be absolutely perpetual or everlasting, but was to continue only unto the time of reformation, yet unto that time its continuation was secured in the causes and means of it.
1. The causes of the continuation of this church-state unto its appointed period were two:— (1.) The promise of God unto Abraham that he would keep and preserve his seed in covenant with him, until he should be the heir of the world and the father of many nations in the coming of Christ, whereunto this church-state was subservient (2.) The law of God itself, and the institutions thereof, which God appointed to be observed in all their generations, calling the covenant, the statutes and laws of it, “perpetual” and “everlasting;” that is, never to cease, to be abrogated or disannulled, until by his own sovereign authority he would utterly change and take away that whole church-state, with all that belonged unto its constitution and preservation.
2. The means of its continuance were three:— (1.) Carnal generation, and that on a twofold account; for there were two constituent parts of that church, the priests and the people. The continuation of each of them depended on the privilege of carnal generation; for the priests were to be all of the family of Aaron, and the people of the seed of Abraham by the other heads of tribes, which gave them both their foundation in and right unto this church-state. And hereunto were annexed all the laws concerning the integrity, purity, and legitimacy of the priests, with the certainty of their pedigree. (2.) Circumcision, the want whereof was a bar against any advantage by the former privilege of generation from those two springs; and hereby others also might be added unto the church, though never with a capacity of the priesthood. (3.) The separation of the people from the rest of the world, by innumerable divine ordinances, making their coalition with them impossible.
From these causes and by these means it was that the
church-state under the Old Testament was preserved unto its appointed
season. Neither the outward calamities that befell the nation, nor the
sins of the generality of the people, could destroy this church-state; but
it continued its right and exercise unto the time of reformation. And if
it be not so, if there be not causes and means of the infallible
continuance of the gospel church-state unto the consummation of all things,
the time expressly allotted unto their continuance, then was the work of
Moses more honourable, more powerful and effectual, in the constitution of
the church-state under
The essence and nature of the church instituted by the authority of Jesus Christ was always the same from the beginning that it continues still to be. But as unto its outward form and order it had a double state; and it was necessary that so it should have, from the nature of the thing itself. For, — 1. The church may be considered in its relation unto those extraordinary officers or rulers whose office and power was antecedent unto the church, as that by virtue whereof it was to be called and erected. 2. With respect unto ordinary officers, unto whose office and power the church essentially considered was antecedent; for their whole work and duty, as such, is conversant about the church, and the object is antecedent unto all acts about it.
The first state has ceased, nor can it be continued; for
these officers were constituted, — 1. By an immediate call from
Christ, as was Paul, These words are printed in the original edition as if
they were the title of a particular treatise by our author. His treatise
under that title will be found in vol. iv. of his doctrinal works; but it
seems to have been published in 1693, twelve years after the present work
appeared. Such a discourse is promised in his preface to his treatise on
“the Work
of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” which was published in 1682, a year
after the publication of the present work. There is some discussion on the
subject of spiritual gifts in the first chapter of his great work on the
Holy Spirit; but a special and separate treatise seems alluded to in the
text above. To the “Discourse of Spiritual Gifts,” as published in 1693, there is
a preface by
But it doth not hence follow that the church-state
instituted by Christ did fail thereon, or doth now so fail, because it is
impossible that these apostles should have any successors in their office
or the discharge of it; for by the authority of the Lord Christ, the church
was to be continued under ordinary officers, without the call, gifts, or
power of the others that were to cease. Under these the church-state was
no less divine than under the former; for there were two things in it:— 1.
That the offices themselves were of the appointment of Christ; and if they
were not so, we confess the divine right of the church-state would
have ceased. The office of the apostles and evangelists was to cease, as
hath been declared; and it did cease actually, in that Christ after them
did call no more unto that orifice, nor provided any way or means whereby
any one should be made partaker of it. And for any to pretend a succession
in office, or any part of their office, without any of those things which
did constitute it, is extreme presumption. It is therefore granted, that
if there were not other offices appointed by the authority of Christ, it
had not been in the power of man to make or appoint any unto that purpose,
and the church-state itself must have ceased. But this he hath done,
This church-state was appointed by the authority of
Christ. The direction which he gave in his own person for addresses
unto the church in case of scandal, which is an obliging institution for
all ages,
Our inquiry, therefore, is, whereon the continuation of this church-state unto the end of the world doth depend; what are the causes, what are the means of it; whence it becomes infallible and necessary. I must only premise that our present consideration is not so much “de facto,” as unto what hath fallen out in the world unto our knowledge and observation, but “de jure,” or of a right unto this continuation; and this is such as makes it not only lawful for such a church-state to be, but requires also from all the disciples of Christ, in a way of duty, that it be always in actual existence. Hereby there is a warrant given unto all believers, at all times, to gather themselves into such a church-state, and a duty imposed on them so to do.
The reasons and causes appointing and securing this continuation are of various sorts, the principal whereof are these that follow:—
1. The supreme cause hereof is, the Father’s grant of a
perpetual kingdom in this world unto Jesus Christ, the mediator and head of
the church,
(1.) As unto the real subjects of it, — true
believers; which are the object of the internal spiritual power and rule of
Christ. Of these it is necessary, by virtue of this grant and divine
constitution of the kingdom of Christ, that in every age there should be
some in the world, and those perhaps no small multitude, but such as the
internal rule over them may be rightly and honourably termed a kingdom.
For as that which formally makes them such subjects of Christ gives them no
outward appearance or visibility, so if, in a time of the universal
prevalency of idolatry, there were seven thousand of these in the small
kingdom of Israel, undiscerned and invisible unto the most eagle-eyed
prophet who lived in their days, what number may we justly suppose to have
been within the limits of Christ’s dominions, which is the whole world, in
the worst, darkest, most profligate, and idolatrous times, that have passed
over the earth since the first erection of this kingdom? This, therefore,
is a fundamental article of our faith, — that by virtue of this grant of
the Father, Christ ever had, hath, and will have, in all ages, some, yea, a
multitude, that are the true, real, spiritual subjects of his kingdom.
Neither the power of
(2.) It may be considered with respect unto the outward
visible profession of subjection and obedience unto him, and the
observation of his laws. This also belongs unto the kingdom granted him of
his Father. He was to have a kingdom in this world, though it be not of
this world. He was to have it not only as unto its being, but as unto its
glory. The world and the worst of men therein were to see and know that he
hath still a kingdom and multitude of subjects depending on his rule. See
the constitution of it,
(3.) This grant of the Father may be considered with
respect unto particular churches or congregations; and the end of
these churches may be twofold:— [1.] That believers, as they are internal,
spiritual, real subjects of Christ’s kingdom, may together act that faith
and those graces whereby they are so, unto his glory. I say, it is that
true believers may together and in society act all those graces of the
Spirit of Christ wherein, both as unto faculty and exercise, their internal
spiritual subjection unto Christ doth consist. And as this is that whereby
the glory of Christ in this world doth most eminently consist, — namely, in
the joint exercise of the faith and love of true believers, — so it is a
principal means of the increase and augmentation of those graces in
themselves, or their spiritual edification. And from this especial end of
these churches it follows, that those who are members of them, or belong to
them, ought to be saints by calling, or such as are endued with those
spiritual principles and graces in whose exercise Christ is to be
glorified; and where they are not so, the principal end of their
constitution is lost. So are those churches to be made up, fundamentally
and materially, of those who in their single capacity are members of the
church catholic invisible. [2.] Their second end is, that those who belong
unto the church and kingdom
Wherefore, this state of the church also, without which
both the others are imperfect, belongs unto the grant of the Father,
whereby a perpetual continuation of it is secured. Nor is it of any weight
to object that such hath been the alterations of the state of all churches
in the world, such the visible apostasy of many of them unto false worship
and idolatry, and of others into a worldly, carnal conversation, with vain
traditions innumerable, that it cannot be apprehended where there were any
true churches of this kind preserved and continued, but that there were an
actual intercision of them all; for I answer, — First, No individual man,
nay, no company of men that come together, can give a certain account of
what is done in all the world, and every place of it where the name of
Christ is professed; so as that what is affirmed of the state of all
churches universally is mere conjecture and surmise. Secondly, There is so
great a readiness in most to judge the church-state of others, because in
some things they agree not in judgment or practice with what they conceive
to belong thereunto, as obstructs a right judgment herein; and it hath
risen of late unto such a degree of frenzy, that some deny peremptorily the
church-state, and consequently the salvation, of all that have not diocesan
bishops. Alas! that poor men, who are known to others, whether they are
unto themselves or no, what is their office, and what is their discharge of
it, should once think that the being and salvation of all churches should
depend on them and such as they are; yea, some of the men of this
persuasion, that Christians cannot be saved unless they comply with
diocesan bishops, do yet grant that heathens may be saved without the
knowledge of Christ! Thirdly, Whatever defect there hath been “de facto” in the constitution of these
churches and the celebration of divine worship, in any places or ages
whatever, it will not prove that there was a total failure of them,
It is hence evident that the perpetual continuation of the church-state instituted by Christ under the gospel depends originally on the grant of the kingdom unto him by his Father, with his faithfulness in that grant, and his almighty power to make it good. And they do but deceive themselves and trouble others who think of suspending this continuation on mean and low conditions of their own framing.
2. The continuation of this church-state depends on the
promise of Christ himself to preserve and continue it He hath assured
us that he will so build his church on the rock, that “the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it,”
3. It depends on the word or law of Christ, which
gives right and title unto all believers to congregate themselves in such a
church-state, with rules and commands for their so doing. Suppose, — (1.)
That there are a number of believers, or the disciples of Christ, in any
such place as wherein they can assemble and unite themselves or join
together in a society for the worship of God; (2.) That they are as yet in
no church-state, nor do know or own any power of men that can put them into
that state; — I say, the institution of this church-state by the authority
of Christ, his commands unto his disciples to observe therein whatever he
hath commanded, and the rules he hath given whereby such a church-state is
to be erected, what officers are to preside therein, and what other duties
belong thereunto, are warranty sufficient for them to join themselves in
such a state. Who shall make it unlawful for the disciples of Christ to
obey the commands of their Lord and Master? Who shall make it lawful for
them to neglect what he requires at any time? Where-ever, therefore, men
have the word of the Scripture to teach them their duty, it is lawful for
them to comply with all the commands of Christ contained therein. And
whereas there are many privileges and powers accompanying this
church-state, and those who are interested therein are, as such, the
especial object of many divine promises, this word and law of Christ doth
make a conveyance of them all unto those who, in obedience unto his
institutions and commands, do enter into that state by the way and means
that he hath appointed. Whilst we hear him, according to the reiterated
direction given us from heaven, whilst we do and observe all that he hath
commanded us, we need not fear that promised presence of his with
4. It depends on the communication of spiritual
gifts for the work of the ministry in this church-state, as is
expressly declared,
Whereas, therefore, the Lord Christ, in the exercise of his
right and power, on the grant of the Father of a perpetual visible kingdom
in this world, and the discharge of his own promise, hath, — (1.) Appointed
the ordinary offices, which he will have continue in his church by an
unalterable institution; (2.) Ordained that persons shall be called and set
apart unto those offices, and for the discharge of that work and those
duties which he hath declared to belong thereunto; (3.) Furnished them with
gifts and abilities for this work, and declared what their spiritual
qualifications and moral endowments ought to be; (4.) Made it the duty of
believers to observe all his institutions and commands, whereof those which
concern the erection and continuance of this church-state are the
principal; and, (5.) Hath, in their so doing, or their observance of all
his commands, promised his presence with them, by which, as by a charter of
right, he hath conveyed unto them an interest in all the power, privileges,
and promises that belong unto this state; — it is evident that its
perpetual
Lastly: As a means of it, it depends on three things in
believers themselves:— (1.) A due sense of their duty, to be found
in obedience unto all the commands of Christ. Hereby they find themselves
indispensably obliged unto all those things which are necessary unto the
continuation of this state; and that all believers should absolutely at any
time live in a total neglect of their duty, though they may greatly mistake
in the manner of its performance, is not to be supposed. (2.) The
instinct of the new creature and those in whom it is to associate
themselves in holy communion, for the joint and mutual exercise of those
graces of the Spirit, which are the same, as unto the essence of them, in
them all. The laws of Christ in and unto his church, as unto all outward
obedience, are suited unto those inward principles and inclinations which,
by his Spirit and grace, he hath implanted in the hearts of them that
believe. Hence his yoke is easy, and his commandments are not grievous.
And therefore none of his true disciples, since he had a church upon the
earth, did or could satisfy themselves in their own faith and obedience,
singularly and personally; but would venture their lives and all that was
dear unto them for communion with others, and the associating themselves
with them of the same spirit and way, for the observance of the commands of
Christ. The martyrs of the primitive churches of old lost more of their
blood and lives for their meetings and assemblies than for personal
profession of the faith; and so also have others done under the Roman
apostasy. It is a usual plea among them who engage in the persecution or
punishment of such as differ from them, that if they please they may keep
their opinions, their consciences, and faith unto themselves, without
meetings for communion or public worship; and herein they suppose they deal
friendly and gently With them. And this is our present case. It is true,
indeed, as
This, therefore, I say, is a means and cause on the part of believers themselves of the continuation of this church-state: for this instinct of believers, leading them unto communion, which is an article of our faith, in conjunction with the law and commands of Christ giving direction how and in what ways it is to be attained and exercised, binds and obliges them unto the continuation of this state; and the decay of this inward principle in them that profess Christian religion hath been the great and almost only ground of its neglect. (3.) The open evidence there is that sundry duties required of us in the gospel can never be performed in a due manner but where believers are brought into this state; which that they should enter into is, therefore, in the first place required of them. What these duties are will afterward appear.
On these sure grounds is founded the continuation of the gospel church-state, under ordinary officers, after the decease of the apostles; and so far secured as that nothing needs be added unto them for that end. Do but suppose that the Lord Christ yet liveth in heaven in the discharge of his mediatory office; that he hath given his word for a perpetual law unto all his disciples, and a charter to convey spiritual privileges unto them; that he abides to communicate gifts for the ministry unto men; and that there are any believers in the world who know it to be their duty to yield obedience unto all the commands of Christ, and have any internal principle inclining them to that which they profess to believe as a fundamental article of their faith, namely, the communion of saints; — and no man is desired to prove the certainty and necessity of the continuance of this state.
But there are some who maintain that the continuation and
preservation of this church-state depends solely on a successive ordination
of church-officers from the apostles, and so down throughout all ages unto
the end of the world; for this, they say, is the only means of conveying
church-power from one time to another, so as that if it fail, all
church-state, order, and power must fail, never in this world to be
recovered. There is, they say, a flux of power through the hands of the
ordainers unto the ordained, by virtue of their outward ordination, whereon
the being of the church doth depend. Howbeit those who use this plea are
not at all agreed about those things which are essential in and unto this
successive ordination. Some think that the Lord Christ committed the keys
of the kingdom of heaven unto Peter only, and he to the bishop of
Rome alone; from whose person, therefore, all their ordination must be
derived. Some
But whereas this whole argument about personal successive ordination hath been fully handled, and the pretences of it disproved, by the chiefest protestant writers against the Papists, and because I design not an opposition unto what others think and do, but the declaration and confirmation of the truth in what we have proposed to insist upon, I shall very briefly discover the falseness of this pretence, and pass on unto what is principally intended in this discourse.
1. The church is before all its ordinary officers; and therefore its continuation cannot depend on their successive ordination. It is so as essentially considered, though its being organical is simultaneous with their ordination. Extraordinary officers were before the church, for their work was to call, gather, and erect it out of the world; but no ordinary officers can be or ever were ordained, but to a church in being. Some say they are ordained unto the universal visible church of professors, some unto the particular church wherein their work doth lie; but all grant that the church-state whereunto they are ordained is antecedent unto their ordination. The Lord Christ could and did ordain apostles and evangelists when there was yet no gospel church; for they were to be the instruments of its calling and erection. But the apostles neither did nor could ordain any ordinary officers until there was a church or churches, with respect whereunto they should be ordained. It is, therefore, highly absurd to ascribe the continuation of the church unto the successive ordination of officers, if any such thing there were, seeing this successive ordination of officers depends solely on the continuation of the church. If that were not secured on other foundations, this successive ordination would quickly tumble into dust. (Yea, this successive ordination, were there any such thing appointed, must be an act of the church itself, and so cannot be the means of communicating church-power unto others. A successive ordination in some sense may be granted, — namely, that when those who were ordained officers in any church do die, others be ordained in their steads; but this is by an act of power in the church itself, as we shall manifest afterward.)
2. Not to treat of papal succession, the limiting of this
successive ordination, as the only way and means of communicating
church-power, and so of the preservation of the church-state, unto diocesan
prelates or bishops, is built on so many inevident presumptions and
3. The pernicious consequences that may ensue on this
principle do manifest its inconsistency with what our Lord Jesus Christ
hath ordained unto this end, of the continuation of his church. I need
4. The principal argument whereby this conceit is fully discarded must be spoken unto afterward. And this is the due consideration of the proper subject of all church-power, unto whom it is originally, formally, and radically given and granted by Jesus Christ; for none can communicate this power unto others but those who have received it themselves from Christ, by virtue of his law and institution. Now, this is the whole church, and not any person in it or prelate over it. Look, whatever constitutes it a church, that gives it all the power and privilege of a church; for a church is nothing but a society of professed believers, enjoying all church-power and privileges, by virtue of the law of Christ. Unto this church, which is his spouse, doth the Lord Christ commit the keys of his house; by whom they are delivered into the hands of his stewards, so far as their office requires that trust, Now, this (which we shall afterward more fully confirm) is utterly inconsistent with the committing of all church-power unto one person by virtue of his ordination by another.
Nothing that hath been spoken doth at all hinder or deny
but that, where churches are rightly constituted, they ought, in their
The principal inquiry, which we have thus far prepared the way unto, and whereon all that ensues unto it doth depend, is concerning the especial nature of that church-state, rule, and order, which the Lord Christ hath instituted under the gospel, of what sort and kind it is; and hereunto some things must be premised:—
1. I design not here to oppose, nor any way to consider, such additions as men may have judged necessary to be added unto that church-state which Christ hath appointed, to render it, in their apprehension, more useful unto its ends than otherwise it would be. Of this sort there are many things in the world, and of a long season have been so. But our present business is to prove the truth, and not to disprove the conceits of other men. And so far as our cause is concerned herein, it shall be done by itself, so as not to interrupt us in the declaration of the truth.
2. Whereas there are great contests about communion with
churches, or separation from them, and mutual charges of impositions and
schisms thereon, they must be all regulated by this inquiry, — namely, What
is that church-state which Christ hath prescribed? Herein alone is
conscience concerned as unto all duties of ecclesiastical communion.
Neither can a charge of schism be managed against any but on a supposition
of sin with respect unto that church-state and order which Christ hath
appointed. A dissent from any thing else, however pretended to be useful,
yea, advantageous unto church ends, must come under other prudential
considerations. All which shall be fully proved, and vindicated from the
exceptions of
3. There have been and are in the world several sorts of
churches of great power and reputation, of several forms and kinds, yet
contributing aid to each other in their respective stations; as, — (1.) The
papal church, which pretends itself to be catholic or universal,
comprehensive of all true believers or disciples of Christ, united in their
subjection unto the bishop of Rome. (2.) There were of old, and the shadow
of them is still remaining, churches called patriarchal, first
three, then four, then five of them, whereinto all other churches
4. Some there are who plead for a national church-state, arising from an association of the officers of particular churches, in several degrees, which they call classical and provincial, until it extend itself unto the limits of a whole nation; that is, one civil body, depending as such on its own supreme ruler and law. I shall neither examine nor oppose this opinion; there hath been enough, if not too much, already disputed about it. But, —
5. The visible church-state which Christ hath instituted under the New Testament consists in an especial society or congregation of professed believers, joined together according unto his mind, with their officers, guides, or rulers, whom he hath appointed, which do or may meet together for the celebration of all the ordinances of divine worship, the professing and authoritatively proposing the doctrine of the gospel, with the exercise of the discipline prescribed by himself, unto their own mutual edification, with the glory of Christ, in the preservation and propagation of his kingdom in the world.
The things observable in this description, and for the
farther declaration of it, are, — (1.) The material cause of this
church, or the matter whereof it is composed, which are visible
believers. (2.) The formal cause of it, which is their
voluntary coalescency into such a society or congregation, according to the
mind of Christ. (3.) The end of it is, presential local
communion, in all the ordinances and institutions of Christ, in obedience
unto him and [for] their own edification. (4.) In particular these ends
are, — [1.] The preaching of the word, unto the edification of the
church itself and the conversion of others; [2.] Administration of
the sacraments, or all the mystical appointments of Christ in the church;
[3.] The preservation and exercise of evangelical discipline, [4.]
Visibly to profess their subjection unto Christ in the world by
the observation of his commands. (5.) The bounds and limits of
this church are taken from the number of the members; which ought not to be
so small as that they cannot
These, and sundry other things of the like nature, shall be afterward spoken unto in their order, according unto the method intended in the present discourse.
Two things I shall now proceed unto:—
First, To prove that Christ hath appointed this
church-state under the gospel, — namely, of a particular or single
congregation. Secondly, That he hath appointed no other church-state that
is inconsistent with this, much less that is destructive of it:— First,
Christ appointed that church-state which is meet and accommodated unto all
the ends which he designed in his institution of a church. But such alone
is that church form and order that we have proposed. In Christ’s
institution of the church, it was none of his ends that some men might be
thereby advanced to rule, honour, riches, or secular grandeur, but the
direct contrary,
It would be too long to make a particular inquiry into all the ends for which the Lord Christ appointed this church-state; which, indeed, are all the duties of the gospel, either in themselves or in the manner of their performance. We may reduce them unto these three general heads:—
1. The professed subjection of the souls and
consciences of believers unto his authority, in their observance of his
commandments. He requireth that all who are baptized into his name be
taught to do and observe “all things whatsoever he hath commanded,”
He will not have this done singly and personally only, but in society and conjunction. Now, this cannot be done, in any church-state imaginable wherein the members of the church cannot meet together for this end; which they can only do in such a church as is congregational.
2. The joint celebration of all gospel ordinances
and worship is the great and principal end of the evangelical church-state.
How far this is directed unto by the law of nature was before declared.
Man was made for society in things natural and civil, but especially in
things spiritual, or such as concern the worship of God. Hereon depends
the necessity of particular churches, or societies for divine worship. And
this is declared to be the end of the churches instituted by Christ,
And to manifest that assemblies of the whole church, at
once and in one place, for the celebration of divine worship, is of the
essence of a church, without which it hath no real being; when God had
instituted such a church-form as wherein all the members of it could not
ordinarily come together every week for this end, yet he ordained that, for
the preservation of their church-state, three times in the year the males
(which was the circumcised church) should appear together in one place to
celebrate the most solemn ordinances of his worship,
3. The third end of the institution of the gospel church-state is the exercise and preservation of the discipline appointed by Christ to be observed by his disciples. The ancients do commonly call the whole religion of Christianity by the name of the “discipline of Christ,” — that is, the faith and obedience which he hath prescribed unto them, in contradistinction and opposition unto the rules and prescriptions of all philosophical societies; and it is that without which the glory of Christian religion can in no due manner be preserved. The especial nature of it shall be afterward fully spoken unto. For the use of the present argument I shall only speak unto the ends of it, or what it is that the Lord Christ designeth in the institution of it; and these things may be referred unto four heads:—
(1.) The preservation of the doctrine of the gospel in
its purity, and obedience unto the commands of Christ in its
integrity. For the first, the Scripture is full of predictions, all
confirmed in the event, that after the days of the apostles there should be
various attempts to wrest, corrupt, and pervert the doctrine of the gospel,
and to bring in pernicious errors and heresies. To prevent, or reprove and
remove them, is no small part of the duty of the ministerial office, in the
dispensation of the word. But whereas those who taught such perverse
things did for the most part arise at first in the churches
And hereunto belongeth the preservation of his commands in the integrity of obedience; for he appointed that hereby care should be taken of the ways, walkings, and conversations of his disciples, that in all things it should be such as became the gospel. Hence, the exercise of this discipline he ordained to consist in exhortations, admonitions, reproofs, of any that should offend in things moral or of his especial institution, with the total rejection of them that were obstinate in their offences; as we shall see afterward.
(2.) The second end of it was to preserve love
entire among his disciples. This was that which he gave in especial
charge unto all that should believe in his name, taking the command of it
to be his own in a peculiar manner, and declaring our observance of it to
be the principal pledge and evidence of our being his disciples; for
although mutual love be an “old commandment,” belonging both unto the moral
law and sundry injunctions under the Old Testament, yet the degrees and
measure of it, the ways and duties of its exercise, the motives unto it and
reasons for it, were wholly his own, whereby it becomes a “new commandment”
also. For the preservation and continuance of this love, which he lays so
great weight upon, was this discipline appointed, which it is several ways
effectual towards; as, — [1.] In the prevention or removal of offences that
might arise among believers, to the impeachment of it,
(3.) A third end of it is, that it might be a due
representation of his own love, care, tenderness, patience, meekness,
in the acting of his authority in the church. Where this is not observed
and designed in the exercise of church-discipline, I will not say it is
antichristian, but will say it is highly injurious, and dishonourable unto
him; for all church-power is in him and derived from him. Nor is there any
thing of that nature which belongs unto it, but it must be acted in his
name, and esteemed, both for the manner and matter of it, to be his act and
deed. For men, therefore, to pretend unto the exercise of this discipline
in a worldly frame of spirit, with pride and passion, by tricks of laws and
canons, in courts foreign to the churches themselves which are pretended to
be under this discipline, it is a woful and scandalous representation of
Christ, his wisdom, care, and love towards his church. But as for his
discipline, he hath ordained that it shall be exercised in and with
meekness, patience, gentleness, evidence of zeal for the good and
compassion of the souls of men, with gravity and authority; so as that
therein all the holy affections of his mind towards his church or any in
it, in their mistakes, failings, and miscarriages, may be duly represented,
as well as his authority acted among them,
(4.) It is in part appointed to be an evidence and pledge
of the future judgment, wherein the whole church shall be judged
before the throne of Christ Jesus; for in the exercise of this discipline
Christ is on his own judgment-seat in the church: nor may any man pronounce
any sentence but what he believeth that Christ himself would pronounce were
he visibly present, and what is according to his mind as declared in his
word. Hence
In all that degeneracy which the Christian professing
church hath fallen into, in faith, worship, and manners, there is no
instance can exceed the corruption of this divine institution: for
that which was the honour of Christ and the gospel, and an effectual means
to represent him in the glory of his wisdom and love, and for the exercise
of all graces in the church, unto the blessed ends now declared, was turned
into a domination, earthly and secular, exercised in a
Secondly, The very notation of the word doth determine the sense of it unto a particular congregation. Other things may in churches, as we shall see afterward, both in the rule and administration of the duties of holy worship, be ordered and disposed in great variety; but whilst a church is such as that ordinarily the whole body, in its rulers and those that are ruled, do assemble together in one place for the administration of gospel ordinances and the exercise of discipline, it is still one single congregation, and can be neither diocesan, provincial, nor national: so that although the essence of the church doth not consist in actual assemblies, yet are they absolutely necessary unto its constitution in exercise.
Hence is the name of a church. קָהַל, the verb in the Old Testament, is to
congregate, to assemble, to call and meet together, and
In this sense is the word used when the first intimation is
given of an evangelical church-state with order and discipline:
It were an endless task, and unsuited unto our present design, to examine the various pretensions unto the church in this place: enough, also, if not too much, hath been written already about them. I shall, therefore, observe only some few things from the context, which will sufficiently evidence what sort of church it is that is here intended:—
1. The rule and direction given by our Saviour in this place unto his disciples doth not concern civil injuries as such, but such sins as have scandal and offence in them, either causing other men to sin, or giving them grief and offence for sin; whereby the exercise of love in mutual communion may be impeded. Private injuries may be respected herein, but not as injuries, but so far as they are scandalous, and matter of offence unto them unto whom they are known. And this appears, —
(1.) From the proper signification of the phrase here used:
Ἐὰν ἁμαρτήσῃ εἰς σέ· — “If thy brother
sin against thee.” Doing of an injury is expressed by ἀδικέω, and to be injured by ἀποστερέομαι,
(2.) It is evident in the context. Our Saviour is treating
directly about all sorts of scandals and offences, or sins, as occasions of
falling, stumbling, and sinning, and so of perishing unto others, giving
rules and directions about them from the
(3.) Where the same rule is again recorded, the words used
enforce this application of them,
(4.) Another rule is given in case of private injuries that are only such; and that is, that we immediately forgive them.
(5.) It doth not seem a direction suited unto that
intense love which the Lord Christ requireth in all his disciples
one towards another, nor the nature of that love in its exercise, as it is
described,
2. The rule here prescribed, and the direction given, were
so prescribed and given for the use of all the disciples of Christ in all
ages, and are not to be confined unto any present case or the present
season. For, — (1.) There was no such case at present, no mutual offence
among any of his disciples, that should require this determination of it;
only respect is had unto what might afterward fall out in the church. (2.)
There was no need of any such direction at that time, because Christ
himself was then constantly present with them, in whom all church-power did
reside both eminently and formally Accordingly, when any of them did offend
unto scandal, he did himself rebuke them,
3. The church here directed unto is a Christian church;
for, — (1.) Whereas it hath been proved it concerned the times to come
afterward, there was in those times nothing that could pretend unto the
4. It is a visible particular congregation alone
that is intended; for, — (1.) As unto “the church” in other acceptations of
that name, either for the catholic invisible church, or for the whole body
of professed believers throughout the world, it is utterly impossible that
this duty should be observed towards it, as is manifest unto all. (2.) We
have proved that the first and most proper signification of the word is of
a single congregation, assembling together for its duties and
enjoyments. Wherever, therefore, the church in general is mentioned,
without the addition of any thing or circumstance that may lead unto
another signification, it must be interpreted of such a particular church
or congregation. (3.) The persons intended, offending and offended, must
belong unto the same society unto whom the address is to be made,
or else the one party may justly decline the judicatory applied unto, and
so frustrate the process; and it must be such a church as unto whom they
are known in their circumstances, without which it is impossible that a
right judgment in sundry cases can be made in point of offence. (4.) It is
a church of an easy address: “Go, tell the church;” which supposeth that
free and immediate access which all the members of a church have unto that
whole church whereof they are members. Wherefore, — (5.) It is said, Εἶπε τῆ ἐκκλησίᾳ, “Tell the church;” not a
church, but the church, — namely, whereunto thou and thy brother
do belong. (6.) One end of this direction is, that the offending and the
offended parties may continue together in the communion of the same church,
in love without dissimulation; which thing belongs unto a particular
congregation. (7.) The meaning is not, “Tell the diocesan
bishop,” for whatever church he may have under his rule, yet is not he
himself
All things are plain, familiar, and exposed to the common understandings of all believers whose minds are any way exercised about these things, as, indeed, are all things that belong unto the discipline of Christ. Arguments pretendedly deep and learned, really obscure and perplexed, with logical notions and distinctions applied unto things thus plain and evident in themselves, do serve only to involve and darken the truth. It is plain in the place, — (1.) That there was a church-state for Christians then designed by Christ, which afterward he would institute and settle; (2.) That all true disciples were to join and unite themselves in some such church as might be helpful unto their love, order, peace, and edification; (3.) That among the members of these churches offences would or might arise, which in themselves tend unto pernicious events; (4.) That if these offences could not be cured and taken away, so as that love without dissimulation might be continued among all the members of the churches, an account of them at last was to be given unto that church or society whereunto the parties concerned do belong as members of it; (5.) That this church should hear, determine, and give judgment, with advice, in the cases so brought unto it, for the taking away and removal of all offences; (6.) That this determination of the church is to be rested in, on the penalty of a deprivation of all the privileges of the church; (7.) That these things are the institution and appointment of Christ himself, whose authority in them all is to be submitted unto, and which alone can cast one that is a professed Christian into the condition of a heathen or a publican.
These things, in the notion and practice of them, are
plain, easy, and exposed to the understanding of the meanest of the
disciples of Christ, as it is meet that all things should be wherein their
daily practice is concerned; but it is not easily to be expressed into what
horrible perplexities and confusions they have been wrested in the church
of Rome, nor how those who depart from the plain, obvious sense of the
words, and love not the practice they direct unto, do lead themselves and
others into ways and paths that have neither use nor end. From the corrupt
abuse of the holy institution of our The Rota is an important ecclesiastical
court at Rome, before which all suits in the territory of the church may be
carried by appeal, and which takes cognizance of all beneficiary and
patrimonial interests. Twelve prelates are the judges; of whom one must be
a German, another a Frenchman, two Spaniards, and the rest Italians. —
Ed.
Nor can the discipline of any diocesan churches, administered in and by courts and officers foreign to the Scripture, both name and thing, be brought within the view of this rule, nor can all the art of the world make any application of it thereunto; for what some plead concerning magistrates or arbitrators, they are things which men would never betake themselves unto, but only to evade the force of that truth which they love not. All this is fallen out by men’s departing from the simplicity of the gospel, and a contempt of that sense of the words of the Lord Jesus which is plain and obvious unto all who desire not only to hear his words but also to observe his commands.
Thirdly, Our third argument is taken from the nature of the churches instituted by the apostles and their order, as it is expressed in the Scripture; for they were all of them congregational, and of no other sort. This the ensuing considerations will make evident:—
1. There were many churches planted by the
apostles in very small provinces. Not to insist on the churches of
Galatia,
2. These churches were such as that the apostles appointed
in them ordinary elders and deacons, that might administer all
ordinances unto the whole church, and take care of all the poor,
3. It is said of most of these churches expressly that they
respectively met together in one place, or had their assemblies of
the whole church for the discharge of the duties required of them; which is
peculiar unto congregational churches only: so did the church at Jerusalem
on all occasions,
It is no way necessary to plead any thing in the
illustration or for the confirmation of these testimonies. They all of
them speak positively in a matter of fact, which will admit of no debate,
unless we will put in exceptions unto the veracity of their authors. And
they
4. The duties prescribed unto all church-members in the writings of the apostles, to be diligently attended unto by them, are such as, either in their nature or the manner of their performance, cannot be attended unto and duly accomplished but in a particular congregation only. This I shall immediately speak distinctly unto, and therefore only mention it in this place.
These things being so plainly, positively, and frequently asserted in the Scripture, it cannot be questionable unto any impartial mind but that particular churches or congregations are of divine institution, and consequently that unto them the whole power and privilege of the church doth belong; for if they do not so, whatever they are, churches they are not. If, therefore, any other church-state be supposed, we may well require that its name, nature, use, power, and bounds be some or all of them declared in the Scripture. Reasonings drawn from the superiority of the apostles above the evangelists, of bishops above presbyters, or from church-rule in the hands of the officers of the church only, from the power of the Christian magistrate in things ecclesiastical, from the meetness of union among all churches, are of no use in this case; for they are all consistent with the sole institution of particular congregations, nor do in the least intimate that there is or needs to be any other church-state of divine appointment.
In confirmation of the foregoing argument, we urge the precedent and example of the primitive churches that succeeded unto those which were planted by the apostles themselves, and so may well be judged to have walked in the same way and order with them. And that which we allege is, —
That in no approved writers for the space of two hundred years after Christ is there any mention made of any other organical, visibly-professing church, but that only which is parochial or congregational.
A church of any other form, state, or order, — papal or
œcumenical,
Before I proceed unto the confirmation of this assertion by particular testimonies, I shall premise some things which are needful unto the right understanding of what it is that I intend to prove by them; as, —
1. All the churches at first planted by the apostles, whether in the greatest cities, as Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, Rome, etc., or those in the meanest villages of Judea, Galilee, or Samaria, were, as unto their church-state, in order, power, privilege, and duty, every way equal, — not superior or inferior, not ruling over or subject unto one another. No institution of any inequality between them, no instance of any practice supposing it, no direction for any compliance with it, no one word of intimation of it, can be produced from the Scripture; nor is it consistent with the nature of the gospel church-state.
2. In and among all these churches there was “one and the same Spirit, one hope of their calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism;” whence they were all obliged mutually to seek and endeavour the good and edification of each other, to be helpful to one another in all things, according unto that which any of them had received in the Lord. This they did by prayer, by advice and counsel, by messenger sent with salutations, exhortations, consolations, supplies for the poor, and on all the like occasions. By these means, and by the exercise of that mutual love and care which they were obliged unto, they kept and preserved unity and communion among themselves, and gave a common testimony against any thing that in doctrine or practice deviated from the rule and discipline of Christ. This order, with peace and love thereon, continued among them until pride, ambition, desire of rule and pre-eminence, in Diotrephes, and a multitude of the same spirit with him, began to open a door unto the entrance of “the mystery of iniquity,” under pretence of a better order than this, which was of the appointment of Christ.
3. It must be acknowledged, that notwithstanding this equality among all churches, as unto their state and power, there were great differences between them, some real and some in reputation; which, not being rightly managed, proved an occasion of evil in and unto them all. For instance:—
(1.) Some were more eminent in spiritual gifts
than others. As this was a privilege that might have been greatly improved
unto the honour of Christ and the gospel, yet we know how it was abused in
the church of Corinth, and what disorders followed thereon. So weak and
frail are the best of men, so liable unto temptation, that all pre-eminence
is dangerous for them, and often abused by them; which, I confess, makes me
not a little admire to see men so earnestly
(2.) Reputation was given unto some by the long abode of
some of the apostles in them. Of this advantage we find nothing in the
Scripture; but certain it is it was much pleaded and contended about among
the primitive churches, yea, so far, until by degrees disputes arose about
the places where this or that apostle fixed his seat;
which was looked on as a pre-eminence for the present and a security for
the future. But yet we know how soon some of them degenerated from the
church order and discipline wherein they were instructed by the apostles.
See
(3.) The greatness, power, fame, or civil authority of the
place or city where any church was planted, gave it an advantage
and privilege in reputation above others; and the churches planted in such
cities were quickly more numerous in their members than others were.
Unless men strictly kept themselves unto the force of primitive
institutions, it was very hard for them to think and judge that a church,
it may be in a small village or town in Galilee, should be equal with that
at Jerusalem or at Antioch, or afterward at Rome itself. The generality of
men easily suffered themselves to be persuaded that those churches were
advanced in state and order far above the other obscure, poor
congregations. That there should be a church at Rome, the head city of the
world, was a matter of great joy and triumph unto many; and the advancement
of it in reputation they thought belonged unto the honour of our religion.
Howbeit there is not in the Scripture the least regard expressed unto any
of these things, of place, number, or possibility of outward splendour,
either in the promises of the presence of Christ in and with his churches,
or in the communication of power and privileges unto them. Yet such an
improvement did this foolish imagination find, that after those who
presided in the churches called in the principal cities had tasted of the
sweetness of the bait which lay in the ascription of a pre-eminence unto
them, they began openly to claim it unto themselves, and to usurp authority
over other churches, confirming their own usurpations by canons and rules,
until a few of them in the council of Nice began to divide the Christian
world among themselves, as if it had been conquered by them. Hence
proceeded those shameful contests that were among the greater prelates
about their pre-eminency: and hence arose that pretence of the bishops of
Rome unto no less a right of rule and dominion over all Christian churches
than the city had over all the nations and cities of the empire; which
being carried on by all sorts of evil artifices, as by downright forgeries,
shameless intrusions of themselves, impudent laying hold of all advantages
unto their own
By this imagination were the generality of the prelates in those days induced to introduce and settle a government in and among the churches of Christ answering unto the civil government of the Roman empire. As the civil government was cast into national, or diocesan, or provincial, in less or greater divisions, each of which had its capital city, the place of the residence of the chief civil governor; so they designed to frame an image of it in the church, ascribing an alike dignity and power unto the prelates of those cities, and a jurisdiction extending itself unto nations, dioceses, and provinces. Hereby the lesser congregations, or parochial churches, being weakened in process of time in their gifts and interest, were swallowed up in the power of the others, and became only inconsiderable appendices unto them, to be ruled at their pleasure. But these things fell out long after the times which we inquire into; only, their occasion began to present itself unto men of corrupt minds from the beginning. But we have before at large discoursed of them.
(4.) Some churches had a great advantage, in that the gospel, as the apostle speaks, “went forth from them” unto others. They in their ministry were the means, first, of the conversion of others unto the faith, and then of their gathering into a church-state, affording them assistance in all things they stood in need of. Hence these newly-formed churches, in lesser towns and villages, had always a great reverence for the church by whose means they were converted unto God and stated in church-order; and it was meet that so they should have. But in process of time, as these lesser churches decreased in spiritual gifts, and fell under a scarcity of able guides, this reverence was turned into obedience and dependence; and they thought it well enough to be under the rule of others, being unable well to rule themselves.
On these and the like accounts there was quickly introduced an inequality among churches; which, by virtue of their first institution, were equal as unto state and power.
4. Churches may admit of many variations as unto their outward form and order, which yet change not their state, nor cause them to cease from being congregational; as, —
(1.) Supposing that any of them might have many elders or
presbyters in them, as it is apparent that most of them had, yea, all that
are mentioned in the Scripture had so,
(2.) The members of those churches that were great and numerous, being under the care and inspection of their elders in common, might, for the ordinary duty of divine worship, meet in parts or several actual assemblies; and they did so, especially in time of persecution. Nothing occurs more frequently in ecclesiastical story than the meetings of Christians in secret places, in private houses, yea, in caves and dens of the earth, when in some places it was impossible that the whole body of the church should so assemble together. How this disposition of the members of the church into several parts, in each of which some elder or elders of it did officiate, gave occasion unto the distinction of greater churches into particular titles or parishes, is not here to be declared; it may be so elsewhere. But neither yet did this alter the state of the churches from their original institution; for, —
(3.) Upon all extraordinary occasions, all such as
concerned the whole church, — as the choice of elders or the deposition of
them, the admission or exclusion of members, and the like, — the whole
church continued to meet together; which practice was plainly continued in
the days of
Wherefore, notwithstanding these and other the like
variations from the original institution of churches, which came in partly
by inadvertency unto the rule, and partly were received from the advantages
and accommodations which they pretended unto, the state of the churches
continued congregational only for two hundred years, so far as can be
gathered from the remaining monuments of those times. Only, we must yet
add, that we are no way concerned in testimonies or sayings taken from the
writings of those in following ages, as unto the state, way, and manner of
the churches in this season, but do appeal unto their own writings only.
This is the great
I shall, therefore, briefly inquire into what representation is made of the state of the churches by the writers themselves who lived in the season inquired after, or in the age next unto it, which was acquainted with their practice.
That which first offereth itself unto us, and which is an
invaluable testimony of the state of the first churches immediately after
the decease of the apostles, is the epistle of Clemens Romanus unto the brethren of
the church of Corinth. This epistle, according to the title of it,
There is no doubt but some things in the writing of it did befall him “humanitus,” that the work of such a companion of some of the apostles as he was might not be received as of divine institution, — such was the credit which he gives unto the vulgar fable of the phœnix; — but for the substance of it, it is such as every way becomes a person of an apostolical spirit, consonant unto the style and writings of the apostles themselves, a precious jewel and just representation of the state and order of the church in those days. And sundry things we may observe from it:—
1. There is nothing in it that gives the least intimation
of any other church-state but that which was congregational,
although there were the highest causes and reasons for him so to do had
there been any such churches then in being. The case he had in hand was
that of ecclesiastical sedition or schism in the church of Corinth, the
church or body of the brethren having unjustly deposed their elders, as it
should seem, all of them. Giving advice herein unto the whole church,
using all sorts of arguments to convince them of their sin, directing all
probable means for their cure, he never once sends
2. This epistle is written, as unto the whole church at Corinth, so in the name of the whole church of Rome: Ἐκκλησία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ παροικοῦσα Ῥώμην τῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ παροικούσῃ Κόρινθον· — “The church of God which dwelleth” (or sojourneth, as a stranger) “at Rome” (in the city of Rome) “to the church of God that dwelleth” (or sojourneth) “at Corinth.” For although that church was then in disorder, under no certain rule, having cast off all their elders, etc., yet the church of Rome not only allows it to be a sister church, but salutes the brethren of it in the following words: Κλητοῖς ἡγιασμένοις ἐν θελήματι Θεοῦ διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ· — “Called and sanctified through the will of God by our Lord Jesus Christ.” The churches of Christ were not so ready in those days to condemn the persons, nor to judge the church-state and condition of others, on every miscarriage, real or supposed, as some have been and are in these latter ages.
3. This address being from the body of the church at Rome
unto that at Corinth, without the least mention of the officers of them in
particular, it is evident that the churches themselves, — that is, the
whole entire community of them, — had communion with one another, as they
were sister churches, and that they had themselves the transaction Page 73.
This was the state and order of the first churches. In
that communion which was amongst them, according to the mind of Christ,
they had a singular concern in the welfare and prosperity of each other,
and were solicitous about them in their trials. Hence, those who were
planted at a greater distance than would allow frequent personal converse
with their respective members, did on all occasions send messengers unto
one another; sometimes merely to visit them in love, and sometimes to give
or take advice. But these things, as indeed almost all others that belong
unto the communion of churches, either in themselves or with one another,
are either utterly lost and buried, or kept above ground in a pretence of
episcopal authority, churches themselves being wholly excluded from any
concernment in them. But as the advice of the church of Rome was desired
in this case by the whole church of Corinth (περὶ τῶν ἐπιζητουμένων παρ’ ὑμῖν πραγμάτων), so it was
given by the body of the church itself, and sent by messengers of their
own.
Page 1.
4. The description given of the state, ways, and walking of
the church of Corinth, Pages 2–4.
This was their state, this was their liturgy, this their
practice:— (1.) There was on all the members of the church a plentiful
effusion of the Holy Spirit in his gifts and graces; wherein, it may be,
respect is had unto what was affirmed by the apostle before of the same
church,
He that should ascribe these things unto any of those churches which now in the world claim to be so only, would quickly find himself at a loss for the proof of what he asserts. Did we all sedulously endeavour to reduce and restore churches unto their primitive state and frame, it would bring more glory to God than all our contentions about role and domination.
4. It is certain that the church of Corinth was fallen into
a sinful excess, in the deposition and rejection of their elders, Pages 57,
58, 62. Page 69.
But, for the sake of them who may endeavour to reduce any
church-state into its primitive constitution, that they may be cautioned
against that great evil which this church, in the exercise of their
supposed liberty, fell into, I cannot but transcribe a few of those
excellent words which are used plentifully with cogent reasons in this
epistle
Page 62.
5. Having occasion to mention the officers of the church,
he nameth only the two ranks of bishops and deacons, Pages 54, 55. Pages 57, 58.
6. I shall add no more from this excellent epistle, but only the account given in it of the first constitution of officers in the churches: Καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἡμῶν ἔγνωσαν διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅτι ἔρις ἔσται ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς διὰ ταύτην οὖν τὴν αἰτίαν πρόγνωσιν εἰληφότες τελείαν κατέστησαν τοὺς προειρημένους καὶ μεταξὺ ἐπινομὴν δεδώκασιν ὅπως ἐὰν κοιμηθῶσιν διαδέξωνται ἕτεροι δεδοκιμασμένοι ἄνδρες, τὴν λειτουργίαν αὐτῶν, τοὺς οὖν κατασταθέντας ὑπ’ ἐκείνων ἢ μεταξὺ ὑφ’ ἑτέρων ἐλλογίμων ἀνδρῶν, συνευδοκησάσης τῆς ἐκκλησίας πάσης, κ. τ. λ. — “Our apostles, therefore, knowing by our Lord Jesus Christ that there would contention arise about the name of episcopacy” (that is, episcopacy itself); “for this cause, being endued with a perfect foresight of things, they appointed those forementioned” (their first converts, unto the office of the ministry), “for the future describing or giving order about the course of the ministry, that other approved men might succeed them in their ministry. These” (elders), “therefore, who were so appointed by them, and afterward by other famous men, with the consent of the whole church,” etc.
Sundry things we may observe in this discourse:— 1. The
apostles foresaw there would be strife and contention about the name of
episcopacy; that is, the office itself, and those who should possess
it. This episcopacy was that office which the deposed elders had well
discharged in the church of Corinth. This they might foresee from the
nature of the thing itself, the inclination of men unto pre-eminence, and
the instance they had seen in their own days, in such as Diotrephes, with
the former division that had been in this very church about their teachers,
I have insisted long on this testimony, being led on by the excellency of the writing itself. Nothing remains written so near the times of the apostles, nor doth any that is extant which was written afterward give such an evidence of apostolical wisdom, gravity, and humility. Neither is there in all antiquity, after the writings of the apostles, such a representation of the state, order, and rule of the first evangelical churches. And it is no small prejudice unto the pretensions of future ages that this apostolical person, handling a most weighty ecclesiastical cause, makes not the least mention of such offices, power, and proceedings, as wherein some would have all church rule and order to consist.
The epistle of Polycarpus, and the elders of the church of
Smyrna with him, unto the church of the Philippians, is the next on
the roll of antiquity. Nothing appears in the whole to intimate any other
church-state or order than that described by
Unto this time, — that is, about the year 107 or 108, — do
belong the epistles ascribed unto
But yet, because these epistles are so earnestly contended
for by many learned men as the genuine writings of
All these epistles, — that is, the seven most esteemed, —
were written,
Πάντες ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἐν τῇ
προσευχῇ ἅμα συνέρχεσθε· μία δέησις ἔστω κοινή· — “Meet all of you
together in the same place; let there be one prayer in common of all,”
Epist.
ad Magnes. [cap. 7] This direction can be given unto no other but a
particular church. And again to the Philadelphians [cap. 2]: Ὅπου ὁ ποιμήν ἐστιν, ἐκεῖ ὡς πρόβατα
ἀκολουθεῖτε· — “Where your pastor is, there follow you as sheep.”
And how they may do so is declared immediately afterward [cap.4]: Θαῤῥῶν γράφω
τῂ ἀξιοθέῳ ἀγάπῃ ὑμῶν, παρακαλῶν ὑμᾶς μιᾷ πίστει, καὶ ἑνὶ κηρύγματι καὶ μιᾷ
εὐχαριστίᾳ χρῆσθαι· μία γάρ ἐστιν ἡ σὰρξ τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ, καὶ ἓν αὐτοῦ τὸ
αἷμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐκχυθέν, εἷς καὶ ἄρτος τοῖς πᾶσιν ἐθρύφθη καὶ ἒν ποτήριον
τοῖς ὅλοις διενεμήθη ἒν θυσιαστήριον πάσῃ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ εἷς ἐπίσκοπος ἅμα
τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ καὶ τοῖς διακόνοις τοῖς συνδούλοις μου· — “I write
with confidence unto your godly love, and persuade you to use one faith”
(or the confession of it), “one preaching of the word, and one eucharist”
(or administration of the holy sacrament). “For the flesh of Christ is one,
and the blood of Christ that was shed for us is one: one bread is broken to
all, and one cup distributed among all; there is one altar to the whole
church, and one bishop, with the presbytery, and the deacons my
fellow-servants.” Nothing can be more evident than that it is a particular
church, in its order and assembly for worship in one place, that
he describes; nor can these things be accommodated unto a church of any
other form. And towards the end of the epistle, treating about the
churches sending their bishops or others on their occasions, he tells them
in particular [cap. 10]: Πρέπον ἐστὶν
ὑμῖν ὡς ἐκκλησίᾳ Θεοῦ χειροτονῆσαι ἐπίσκοπον, εἰς τὸ πρεσβεῦσαι ἐκεῖ Θεοῦ
πρεσβείαν εἰς τὸ συγχωρηθῆναι αὐτοῖς ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ γενομένοις, καὶ δοξάσαι τὸ
ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ· — “It becometh you as a church of God to choose or
appoint a bishop, who may perform the embassy of God, that it may be
granted unto them to glorify the
In this state of things, this our great and learned
philosopher, who afterward suffered martyrdom about the year 160, undertook
to give an account unto
1. He declares the conversion of men unto the faith
as the foundation of all their church order and worship: Ὅσοι ἂν πεισθῶσι καὶ πιστεύωσιν ἀληθῆ ταῦτα τὰ ὑφ’
ἡμῶν διδασκόμενα καὶ λεγόμενα εἶναι, καὶ βιοῦν οὕτως δύνασθαι ὑπισχνῶνται,
ἔυχεσθαί τε καὶ αἰτεῖν νηστέυοντας παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν προημαρτημένων ἄφεσιν
διδάσκονται ἡμῶν συνευχομένων καὶ συννηστευόντων αὐτοῖς· — “As many
as are persuaded and do believe the things to be true which are taught and
spoken by us, and take upon themselves
2. In the next place he declares how those who were so converted were conducted unto baptism, and how they were initiated into the mysteries of the gospel thereby.
3. When any was so baptized, they brought him unto the
church which he was to be joined unto: Ἡμεῖς
δὲ μετὰ τὸ οὕτως λοῦσαι τὸν πεπεισμένον καὶ συγκατατεθειμένον ἐπὶ τοῦς
λεγομένους ἀδελφοὺς ἄγομεν, ἔνθα συνηγμένοι εἰσί κοινὰς εὐχὰς ποιησόμενοι
ὑπέρ τε ἑαυτῶν καὶ τοῦ φωτισθέντος καὶ ἄλλων πανταχοῦ πάντων εὐτόνως, κ. τ.
λ. — “Him who is thus baptized, who believeth, and is received” (by
consent) “among us” (or to be of our number), “we bring him unto those
called the brethren, when they are met” (or gathered together) “for joint
prayers and supplications for themselves, and for him who is now
illuminated, and all others, with intension of mind,” etc. We have here
another illustrious instance of the care and diligence of the primitive
church about the instating professed believers in the communion of the
church. That hereon those who were to be admitted made their public
confession we shall afterward declare. And the brethren here mentioned are
the whole fraternity of the church, who were concerned in these
4. He proceeds to declare the nature of their church
meetings or assemblies, with the duties and worship of them. And he
tells us, first, that they had frequent meetings among themselves: “They
that have any wealth,” saith he, “do help the poor,” καὶ συνεσμὲν ἀλλήλοις αἰεί “and we are continually
together;” that is, in the lesser occasional assemblies of the brethren,
for so, in the next place, he adds immediately, Τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ πάντων κατὰ πόλεις καὶ ἀγροὺς
μενόντων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνέλευσις γίνεται· — “On the day called Sunday
there is a meeting of all that dwell in the towns and fields or villages
about.” This was the state, the order, the proceeding of the church in the
days of
5. In this church he mentions only two sorts of officers, προεστῶτες and διάκονοι, “presidents and deacons.” Of the first sort, in the duty of one of their assemblies, he mentions but one, ὁ προεστώς, “the president,” the ruler, the bishop; to whom belonged the administration of all the holy mysteries. And that we may not think that he is called the προεστώς with respect unto any pre-eminence over other ministers or elders, like a diocesan bishop, he terms him προεστώς τῶν ἀδελφῶν, he that “presided over the brethren” of that church. Now, certainly that church wherein one president, elder, presbyter, or bishop, did administer the holy ordinances in one place unto all the members of it, was a particular congregation.
6. The things that he ascribeth unto this leader, to be done at this general meeting of the church every Lord’s day, were, — (1.) That he prayed; (2.) That after the reading of the Scripture he preached; (3.) That he consecrated the eucharist, the elements of the bread and wine being distributed by the deacons unto the congregation; (4.) That he closed the whole worship of the day in prayer.
7. In the consecration of the sacramental elements, he
observes that the president prayed at large, giving thanks to God: Εὐχαριστίαν ἐπὶ πολὺ ποιεῖται. So vain is
the pretence of some, that in the primitive times they consecrated the
elements by the repetition of the Lord’s prayer only. After the
participation of the eucharist there was a collection made for the poor, as
he describeth it at large; what was so gathered being committed to the
pastor, who took care for
This was the state, the order, and the worship of the
church, with its method, in the days of
Unto these times belongs the most excellent epistle of the churches
of Vienne and Lyons in France, unto the brethren in Asia and
Phrygia, recorded at large by Eusebius, Hist., lib. v. cap. 1. Their
design in it is to give an account of the holy martyrs who suffered in the
persecution under
This religious body or society, thus united by covenant, did meet together in the same assembly or congregation: “Corpus sumus, coimus in cœtum et congregationem, ut ad Deum quasi manu factâ precationibus ambiamus orantes;” and, “Cogimur ad divinarum literarum commemorationem,” etc. Designing to declare, as he doth in particular, “Negotia Christianæ factionis,” as he calls them, or the duties of Christian religion, which in their churches they did attend unto, he lays the foundation in their meetings in the same assembly or congregation.
In these assemblies there presided the elders, that, upon a testimony of their meetness unto that office, were chosen thereunto: “President probati quique seniores, honorem istum non pretio sed testimonio adepti.” And in the church thus met together in the same place, assembly, or congregation, under the rule and conduct of their elders, among other things they exercised discipline; that is, in the presence and by the consent of the whole: “Ibidem etiam, exhortationes, castigationes, et censura divina. Nam et judicatur magno cum pondere, ut apud certos de Dei conspectu; summumque futuri judicii præjudicium est, si quis ita deliquerit, ut a communicatione orationis et conventus, et omnis sancti commercii relegetur.” The loss of this discipline and the manner of its administration hath been one of the principal means of the apostasy of churches from their primitive institution.
To the same purpose doth
Some few things we may observe from the testimonies insisted on; as, —
1. There is in them a true and full representation of the state, order, rule, and discipline of the churches in the first ages. It is a sufficient demonstration that all those things wherein at the present the state and order of the church are supposed to consist are indeed later inventions; not merely because they are not mentioned by them, but because they axe not so when they avowedly profess to give an account of that state and order of the church which was then in use and practice. Had there been then among Christians metropolitan archbishops, or bishops diocesan, churches national or provincial, an enclosure of church power or ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in and for the whole rule of the church, unto bishops and officers utterly foreign unto any pretence of apostolical institution or countenance; had many churches, or many hundreds of churches, been without rule in or among themselves, subject to the rule of any one man standing in no especial relation unto any of them; with other things of the like nature been then invented, known, and in use, — how could they possibly be excused in passing them over without the least taking notice of them, or giving them the honour of being once mentioned by them? How easy had it been for their pagan rulers, unto whom they presented their accounts (some of them) of the state of their churches, to have replied that they knew well enough there were other dignities, orders, and practices than what they did acknowledge, which they were either afraid or ashamed to own! But besides this silence, on the other hand, they assert such things of the officers appointed in the church, — of the way of their appointment, of the duty of officers in the church, of the power and liberty of the people, of the nature and exercise of discipline, — as are utterly inconsistent with that state of these things which is by some pleaded for. Yea, as we have showed, whatever they write or speak about churches or their order can have no being or exercise in any other form of churches but of particular congregations.
2. That account which they give, that representation which
they make, of the kind, state, and order of the churches among them, doth
absolutely agree with and answer unto what we are taught in the
3. From this state the churches did by degrees and
insensibly degenerate, so as that another form and order of them did appear
towards the end of the third century; for some in the first churches not
applying their minds unto the apostolical rule and practice, who “ordained
elders in every church,” and that not only in cities and towns, but, as
Those of whom he speaks, ἡμεῖς, were the pastors or principal members of the
churches that were established. When they understood that, in any place
distant from them, a number of believers were called and gathered into
church-order by the preaching of the word, they presently, according unto
their duty, took care of them, — inquired into their state and condition,
assisting them, in particular, in finding out, trying, and recommending
unto them persons meet to be their officers and rulers. These he
acknowledgeth to be churches and cities of God, upon their collection by
the preaching of the word, antecedently unto the constitution of any
officers among them; as
Hereby was the original constitution and state of the first
churches for a good season preserved. Nor was there the least abridgment
of the power either of these churches or of their officers, because, it may
be, they were some of them planted in poor country villages; for as no man
in the world can hinder but that every true church hath “de jure” all the rights and powers that any other
church in the world hath or ought to have, or that every true officer,
bishop, elder, or pastor hath all the power that Christ hath annexed unto
that office (be they at Rome or Eugubium, A small town about eighty miles from
Rome. The expression is borrowed from
But this course and duty in many places, not long after,
became to be much omitted. Whether out of ignorance, or negligence, or
unwillingness of men to undertake the pastoral charge in poor country
churches, I know not, but so it was, that believers in the regions round
about any city, ἐν χώραις, were looked
on as those which belonged unto the city churches, and were not settled in
particular congregations for their edification, which they ought to have
been; and the councils that afterward ensued made laws and canons that they
should be under the government of the bishops of those city churches. But
when the number of such believers was greatly increased, so as that it was
needful to have some always attending the ministry among them, they came, I
know not how, to have “chorepiscopi”
among them and over them. The first mention of them is in the synod of Ancyra in Galatia, about the
year 314, can. 13; and mention is again made of them in a synod of Antioch, an. 341, and somewhat before at
the council of Neocæsarea, can.
13, and frequently afterward, as any one may see in the late collections of
the ancient canons. I verily believe, nor can the contrary be proved, but
that these “chorepiscopi” at first
were as absolute and complete in the office of episcopacy as any of the
bishops of the greater cities, having their name or denomination from the
places of their residence (ἐπίσκοποι κατὰ
χώρας), and not for an intimation of any inferiority in them unto
other city bishops; but so it came to pass, that through their poverty and
want of interest, their ministry being confined unto a small country
parish, and perhaps through a comparative meanness of their gifts or
abilities, the city bishop claimed a superiority over them, and made canons
about their power, the bounding
I shall add but one argument more to evince the true state
and nature of evangelical churches herein, — namely, that they were only
particular congregations; and that is taken from the duties and powers
ascribed in the Scripture unto churches, and the members or entire
brotherhood of them. It was observed before that the epistles of the
apostles were written all of them unto the body of the churches, in
contradistinction unto their elders, bishops, or pastors, unless it were
those that were written unto particular persons by name. And as this is
plain in all the epistles of Paul, wherein sometimes distinct mention is
made of the officers of the church, sometimes none at all, so the apostle
John affirms that he wrote unto the church, but that Diotrephes (who seems
to have been their bishop) received him not, at once rejecting the
authority of the apostle and overthrowing the liberty of the church; which
example was diligently followed in the succeeding ages,
Having given an account of that state and order of the gospel churches which are of divine institution, it is necessary that we declare also their suitableness and sufficiency unto all the ends for which the Lord Christ appointed such churches; for if there be any true proper end of that nature which cannot be attained in or by any church-state in this or that form, it must be granted that no such form is of divine appointment. Yea, it is necessary not only that such a state as pretends unto a divine original be not only not contradictory unto or inconsistent with such an end, but that it is effectually conducing thereunto, and in its place necessary unto that purpose. This, therefore, is that which we shall now inquire into, — namely, whether this state and form of gospel churches in single congregations be suited unto all those ends for which any such churches were appointed; which they must be on the account of the wisdom of Jesus Christ, the author and founder of them, or be utterly discarded from their pretence. Nor is there any more forcible argument against any pretended church-state, rule, or order, than that it is obstructive unto the souls of men in attaining the proper ends of their whole institution. What these ends are was in general before declared; I shall not here repeat them, or go over them again, but only single out the consideration of those which are usually pleaded as not attainable by this way of churches in single congregations only, or that at least they are not suited unto their attainment.
1. The first of these is mutual love among all
Christians, all the disciples of Christ. By the disciples of Christ I
intend them, and them only, who profess faith in his person and doctrine,
and to hear him, or to be guided by him alone, in all things that appertain
unto the worship of God, and their living unto him. If there are any
called Christians who in these things choose other guides, call other
ministers, hear them in their appointments, we must sever them from our
present consideration; though there are important duties required of us
towards them also. But what is alleged is necessary unto the constitution
To express and exercise this love, in all the acts and duties of it, among his disciples, was one end of his appointing them to walk in church-relation one unto another, wherein this love is the bond of perfectness. And the loss of this love, as unto its due exercise, is no less a pernicious part of the fatal apostasy of the churches than is the loss of faith and worship: for hereon is Christendom, as it is usually called, become the greatest stage of hatred, rage, wrath, bloodshed, and mutual desolations that is in the whole world; so as that we have no way to answer the objection of the Jews arguing against us from the divine promises of love and peace in the kingdom of the Messiah, but by granting that all these things arise from a rebellion against his rule and kingdom. Now, this love in its exercise is eminently preserved in this order of particular churches; for, —
(1.) The principle of their collection into such societies, next unto that of faith in Christ Jesus, is love unto all the saints; for their conjunction being with some of them as such only, they must have a love unto all that are so. And none of them would join in such societies if their so doing did in any thing impair their love unto all the disciples of Christ, or impede it in any of its operations. And the communion of these churches among themselves is, and ought to be, such as that all of them do constitute as it were one body and common church; as we shall see afterward. And it is one principal duty of them to stir up themselves, in all their members, unto a continual exercise of love towards all the saints of Christ, as occasion doth require; and if they are defective in this catholic love, it is their fault, contrary to the rule and end of their institution.
(2.) Unto the constant expression and exercise of this love
there are required, — [1.] Present suitable objects unto all the
acts and duties of it; [2.] A description and prescription of
those acts and duties; [3.] Rules for the right performance and
exercise of them; [4.] An end to be attained in their discharge.
All these things hath the Lord Christ provided for his disciples in the
constitution and rule of these churches. And a due attendance unto them
hath he appointed as the instance, trial, and experiment of their love unto
all his disciples;
We boast not ourselves of any attainments in this kind, — we know how short we come of that fervent love that flourished in the first churches; but this we say, that there is no way to recover it but by that state and order of particular churches which we propose, and, κατὰ τὴν δοθεῖσαν δύναμιν, do adhere unto.
But pretences unto the contrary are vehemently urged, and
the clamours unto that end are loud and many: for this way, it is said,
of setting up particular congregations is that which hath
caused endless divisions, and lost all love and Christian affection among
us, being attended with other mischievous consequents, such as the
most rhetorical adversaries of it are scarce able to declare, nor could
[1.] This objection, so far as I am able to observe, is
mostly managed by them who seem to know very little of the nature and
duties of that love which our Lord Jesus Christ enjoins in the gospel, nor
do give any considerable evidence of their living, walking, and acting in
the power of it. And as unto what they fancy unto themselves under that
name, whereas it is evident from common practice that it extends no farther
but to peaceableness in things civil and indifferent, with some expressions
of kindness in their
[2.] This objection lies not at all against the thing itself, — namely, that all churches of divine institution axe congregational, which alone at present is pleaded for, — but against the gathering of such societies or congregations in that state of things which now prevails amongst us. But whereas this depends on principles not yet declared and confirmed, the consideration of this part of the objection must be referred unto another place. I shall only say at present, that it is the greatest and most powerful engine in the hand of Satan, and men of corrupt secular interest, to keep all church reformation out of the world.
But if the way itself be changed (which alone, as absolutely considered, we at present defend), that change must be managed with respect unto some principles contrary unto love and its due exercise, which it doth assert and maintain, or some practices that it puts men upon of the same nature and tendency. But this hitherto hath not been attempted, at least not effected.
[3.] We do not find that a joint participation of the same ordinances at the same time, within the same walls, is in itself either an effect, or evidence, or duty of gospel love, or any means for the preservation or promotion of it; for it was diligently observed in the Papacy, When all true evangelical love, faith, and worship were lost. Yea, this kind of communion and conjunction, added unto an implicit dependence on the authority of the church, was substituted in their room; and multitudes were contented with them, as those which did bestead them in their neglect of all other graces and their exercise. And I wish it were not so among others, who suppose they have all the love that is required of them, if they are freed from such scandalous variances with their neighbours as should make them unfit for the communion.
[4.] If this be the only means of love, how do men maintain it towards any not of their own parish, seeing they never meet with them at the sacrament of the Lord’s supper? And if they can live in love with those of other parishes, why can they not do so with those who, having the same faith and sacraments with them, do meet apart, for the exercise of divine worship, in such congregations as we have described? Wherefore, —
[5.] The variance that is pretended to be caused
by the setting up of these particular congregations is a part of that
variance which Christ came to send into the world:
2. Another end of the institution of this state is, that
the church might be the “pillar and ground of the truth,”
Hence it was that the doctrine of the church, as unto the
substance of it, was preserved entire during the first two centuries, and
somewhat after. Indeed, as when the Israelites came out of Egypt, there
came along with them a “mixed multitude” of other people,
[1.] When prerogative and pre-eminence of any single
person in the church began to be in esteem, not a few who failed in
their attempts of attaining it, to revenge themselves on the church made it
their business to invent and propagate pernicious heresies. So did
[2.] When any of their bishops of the new constitution, whether patriarchal or diocesan, fell into heresies, which they did frequently, and theft numbers of them, they had so many advantages to diffuse their poison into the whole body of their churches, and such political interests for their promotion, as that the churches themselves were thoroughly infected with them. It is true, the body of the people in many places did oppose them, withdraw and separate from them; but it cannot be denied but that this was the first way and means whereby the churches ceased to be the ground and pillar of truth, many destructive errors being received into them, which did only outwardly assault them whilst they abode in their first institution. And had not the churches, in process of time, utterly lost their primitive state and order, by coalescing into one papal, pretended universal church, the faith itself could never have been so utterly corrupted, depraved, and lost among them, as in the issue it was.
(3.) To propagate the gospel is in like manner
required hereunto.
The like may be said of any other public acknowledged end of the institution of churches. If the way pleaded for be not consistent with them all, and the proper means of attaining them, if it be not suited unto their accomplishment, let it be discarded. I shall insist on one more only.
3. Our Lord Jesus Christ hath given that state unto his churches, hath instated them in that order, as that his interest, kingdom, and religion might be carried on in the world without prejudice or disadvantage unto any of the lawful interests of men, especially without any opposition unto or interfering with the civil authority or magistracy, which is the ordinance of God; and no church-way that doth so is of his institution. Wherefore, I shall briefly declare what are the principles of those of this way in these things, which are the principles of the way itself which they do profess:—
(1.) Our first general assertion unto this purpose is this: The Lord Jesus Christ taught no doctrine, appointed no order in his church, gave it no power, that is opposite unto or inconsistent with any righteous government in this world, of what sort soever it be, of those whereinto government is distributed in reason and practice. His doctrine, indeed, is opposed unto all unrighteousness in and of all men, magistrates and others; but not to the legal rule of magistrates that are unrighteous men. And this opposition is doctrinal only, confirmed with promises and threatenings of eternal things, refusing and despising all outward aids of force and restraint. This rule we allow for the trial of all churches and their state, whether they be according unto the mind of Christ.
But whereas the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught, commanded,
appointed nothing that is contrary unto or inconsistent with righteous
government of any sort, if rulers or magistrates shall forbid the
observance of what he hath commanded, appointed, and ordered, and then
charge it on him or his way that his disciples cannot, dare not, will not
comply with that prohibition, and accuse them thereon of sedition and
opposition unto government, they deal injuriously with him, whereof they
must give an account; for, whereas “all power is given unto him in heaven
and earth,” all nations are his inheritance, all people in his absolute
disposal, and it is his pleasure to set up his kingdom in the earth,
without which the earth itself would not be continued, he could not deal
more gently with the righteous rulers of this world (and he did it because
righteous rule is the ordinance of God), than to order all things so, that
whether they receive
(2.) In particular, the Lord Christ hath ordained no power or order in his church, no office or duty, that should stand in need of the civil authority, sanction, or force to preserve it, or make it effectual unto its proper ends. It is sufficient to discharge any thing of a pretence to be an appointment of Christ in his church, if it be not sufficient unto its own proper end, without the help of the civil magistrate. That church-state which is either constituted by human authority, or cannot consist without it, is not from him. That ordinance which is in its own nature divine, or is pretended so to be, so far as it is not effectual unto its end without the aid of human authority is not of him; he needs it not. He will not borrow the assistance of civil authority to rule in and over the consciences of men, with respect unto their living to God and coming unto the enjoyment of himself.
The way of requiring the sanction of civil authority unto ecclesiastical orders and determinations began with the use of general councils in the days of Constantine; and when once it was engaged in and approved, so far as that what was determined in the synods, either as to doctrine or as unto the rule of the church, should be confirmed by the imperial authority, with penalties on all that should gainsay such determinations, it is deplorable to consider what mutual havoc was made among Christians upon the various sentiments of synods and emperors. Yet this way pleased the rulers of the church so well, and, as they thought, eased them of so much trouble, that it was so far improved amongst them, that at last they left no power in or about religion or religious persons unto the civil magistrate, but what was to be exercised in the execution of the decrees and determinations of the church.
(3.) In particular, also, there neither is nor can be in this church-state the least pretence of power or authority to be acted towards or over the persons of kings or rulers, which should either impeach their right or impede the exercise of their just authority; for as Christ hath granted no such power unto the church, so it is impossible that any pretence of it should be seated in a particular congregation, especially being gathered on this principle, that there is no church-power properly so called but what is so seated, and that no concurrence, agreement, or association of many churches can add a new, greater, or other power or authority unto them than what they had singly before. And what power can such churches act towards kings, potentates, or rulers of nations? Have they not the highest security that it is utterly impossible that ever their authority, or their persons in the exercise of it, should be impeached, hindered, or receive any detriment from any thing that belongs to this church-state?
These principles, I say, are sufficient to secure Christian religion, and the state, order, and power of churches instituted therein, from all reflections of inconsistency with civil government, or of influencing men unto attempts of its change or ruin. The sum is:— Let the outward frame and order of righteous government be of what sort it will, nothing inconsistent with it, nothing intrenching on it, nothing making opposition unto it, is appointed by Jesus Christ, or doth belong unto that church-state which he hath ordained and established.
Two things only must be added unto these principles, that we may not seem so to distinguish the civil state and the church as to make them unconcerned in each other; for, —
First, It is the unquestionable duty of the rulers and
governors of the world, upon the preaching of the gospel, to receive
its truth, and to yield obedience unto its commands. And whereas all
power and offices are to be discharged for God, whose ministers all rulers
be, they are bound, in the discharge of their office, to countenance,
supply,
Secondly, It is the duty of the church, materially considered, — that is, of all those who are members of it, — in any kingdom or commonwealth, to be usefully subservient, even as Christians, unto that rule which is over them as men, in all those ways, and by all those means, which the laws, usages, and customs of the countries whereof they are do direct and prescribe. But these things are frequently spoken unto.
There are sundry other considerations whereby it may be evinced that this order and state of gospel churches is not only consistent with every righteous government in the world (I mean, that is so in its constitution, though, as all other forms, it be capable of maladministration), but the most useful and subservient unto its righteous administration, being utterly incapable of immixing itself, as such, in any of those occasions of the world or state affairs as may create the least difficulty or trouble unto rulers. With others it is not so. It is known that the very constitution of the papal church, as it is stated in the canons of it, is inconsistent with the just rights of kings and rulers, and ofttimes, in the exercise of its power, destructive unto their persons and dominions. And herein concurred the prelatical church-state of England, whilst it continued in their communion, and held its dependence on the Roman church; for although, they had all their power originally from the kings of this realm, — as the records and laws of it do expressly affirm, “That the church of England was founded in episcopacy by the king and his nobles,” — yet they claimed such an addition of power and authority, by virtue of their office from the papal omnipotency, as that they were ringleaders in perplexing the government of this nation, under the pretence of maintaining what they called the “rights of the church.” And hereunto they were enabled by the very constitution of their church-order, which gave them that power, grandeur, with political interest, that were needful to effectuate their design. And since they have been taken off from this foundation of contesting kings and princes on their own ecclesiastical authority, and deprived of their dependence on the power and interest of the papal see, having no bottom for or supportment of their church state and order but regal favour and mutable laws, there have, on such causes and reasons, which I shall not mention, ensued such emulations of the nobility and gentry, and such contempts of the common people, as leave it questionable whether their adherence unto the government be not note burdensome and dangerous unto it than were their ancient contests and oppositions.
It may be it will be generally
granted, I am sure it cannot be modestly denied, that particular churches
or congregations are of a divine original institution; as also, that the
primitive churches continued long in that form or order. But it will be
farther pleaded, that granting or supposing this divine institution of
particular churches, yet there may be churches of another form and order
also, as diocesan or national, that we are obliged to submit unto: for
although the apostles appointed that there should be bishops or elders
ordained κατὰ πόλιν, — that is, in
every city and town where Christian religion was received; and
In answer hereunto I shall do these two things:— First, I shall show that there is no church order, state, or church form of divine institution, that doth any way impede, take away, or overthrow the liberty, power, and order of particular congregations, such as we have described. Secondly, I shall inquire into the causes of churches of another state or order, as the power of magistrates and rulers, or their own choice and consent:—
1. There is no form, order, or church-state, divinely instituted, that should annul the institution of particular congregations, or abridge them of their liberties, or deprive them of the power committed unto them.
It is such a church-state alone that we are now concerned
to quire after. Whatever of that kind either is or may be imagined that
intrenches not on the state, liberty, and power of particular
congregations, is not of our present consideration. Men may frame and
(1.) These churches, as they are churches, are
meet and able to attain the ends of churches To say they are churches, and
yet have not in themselves power to attain the ends of churches, is to
speak contradictions, or to grant and deny the same thing in the same
breath; for a church is nothing but such a society as hath power, ability,
and fitness to attain those ends for which Christ hath ordained churches:
that which hath so is a church, and that which hath not so is none. Men
may, if they please, deny them to be churches, but then I know not where
they will find any that are so. For instance, suppose men should deny all
the parochial churches in England to be such churches as are intrusted with
church-power and administrations, what church, in the first instance, could
they require our communion withal? Will they say, it is with the national
or diocesan churches? Neither of these do or can, as such, administer
sacred ordinances A man cannot preach nor hear the word but in a particular
assembly; the Lord’s supper cannot be administered but in a particular
congregation; nor any presential, local communion of believers among
themselves, like that described by the apostle,
(2.) It is utterly foreign to the Scripture, and a monster unto antiquity (I mean that which is pure and regardable in this cause), that there should be churches with a part, half, more or less, of church-power and not the whole, neither in right nor exercise; or that there should be church-officers, elders, presbyters, or bishops, that should have a partiary power, half or a third part, or less, of that which entirely belongeth unto the office they hold. Let one testimony be given out of the Scripture, or that antiquity which we appeal unto, unto his purpose, and we shall cease our plea But this is that which our understandings are set on rack withal every day; — there is a national church, that is intrusted with supreme church-power in the nation whereof it is. Here, at the entrance, we fall into a double disquietment.
(3.) It will be said that these churches, as such, were indeed originally intrusted and invested with all church rights, power, and authority, but for many weighty reasons are abridged in sundry things of the exercise of them; for who can think it meet that every single parish should be intrusted with the exercise of all church rule and power among themselves?
Ans. 1. Whose fault is it that these churches are
not meet for the exercise of that power which Christ hath granted unto such
churches? If it be from themselves, their negligence, or ignorance, or
wickedness, it is high time they were reformed, and brought into that state
and condition wherein they may be fit and able to answer the ends of their
institution. 2. They are indeed sorry churches that are not as meet to
exercise all church-power, according to the mind of Christ, as the
chancellor’s court. 3. There is no power pleaded for in congregational
churches but what is granted unto them by the word and constitution of
Christ. And who is he that shall take this from them, or deprive them of
its exercise or right thereunto? (1.) It is not done, nor, ever was by
Jesus Christ himself. He doth not pull down what himself hath built; nor
doth any one institution of his in the least interfere with any other. It
is true, the Lord Christ by his law deprives all churches of their power,
yea, of their state, who walk, act, and exercise a power not derived from
him, but set up against him, and used unto such ends as are opposite unto
and destructive
That right, power, or authority which we thus assign unto all particular churches gathered according unto the mind of Christ, is that, and that only, which is necessary to their own preservation in their state and purity, and unto the discharge of all those duties which Christ requireth of the church.
2. Now, although they may not justly by any be deprived hereof, yet it may be inquired whether there may not an addition of ecclesiastical power be made unto that which is of original institution, for the good of the whole number of churches that are of the same communion. And this may be done, either by the power and authority of the supreme magistrate, with respect unto all the churches in his dominion; or it may be so by the churches themselves erecting a new power, in a combination of some, many, or all of them, which they had not in them singly and distinctly before.
For the power of the magistrate in and about religion, it:
hath been much debated and disputed in some latter ages. For three hundred
years there was no mention of it in the church, because no supreme powers
did then own the Christian religion. For the next three hundred years
there were great ascriptions unto supreme magistrates, to the exaltation of
their power; and much use was made thereof among the churches by such as
had the best interest in them. The next three hundred years was, as unto
this case, much taken up
It hath not yet been disputed whether the supreme magistrate hath power to ordain, institute, and appoint any new form or state of churches, supposedly suited unto the civil interest, which were never ordained or appointed by Christ. It hath not, I say, been disputed under these terms expressly, though really the substance of the controversy lies therein. To assert this expressly would be to exalt him above Jesus Christ, at least to give him power equal unto his; though really unto the institution of the gospel church-state, and the communication of graces, offices, and gifts to make it useful unto its end, no less than all power in heaven and earth be required.
Some plead that there is no certain form of
church-government appointed in the Scripture, — that there was none
ordained by Christ, nor exemplified by the apostles; and therefore it is in
the power of the magistrate to appoint any such form thereof as is suited
unto the public interest. It would seem to follow more evidently that no
form at all should by any be appointed; for what shall he do that
It cannot well be denied but that the present pretences and
pleas of some to reduce all things in the practice of religion into the
power and disposal of the civil magistrate are full of offence and scandal.
Whatever, therefore, the supreme power in any place may do, or will be pleased to do, for the accommodation of the outward state of the church and the exercise of its rule unto the political government of a people or nation, yet these two things are certain:—
1. That he can form, erect, or institute no new church-state which is not ordained and appointed by Christ, and his apostles by virtue of his authority; and what he doth of that nature appoint is called a church only equivocally, or by reason of some resemblance unto that which is properly so called.
2. To dissent from what is so appointed by the supreme power, in and about the state, form, rule, and worship of churches, whatever other evil it may be charged with or supposed liable unto, can have nothing in it of that which the Scripture condemns under the name of schism, which hath respect only unto what is stated by Christ himself.
That which in this place we should next inquire into is, what these particular churches themselves may do, by their own voluntary consent and act, in a way of association or otherwise, for the accumulation and exercise of a power not formally inherent in them as particular churches; but I shall refer it unto the head of the communion of churches, which must be afterward spoken unto.
Unto some one or other of those
particular congregations which we have described, continuing to be the
pillar and ground of truth, it is the duty of every believer, of every
disciple of Christ, to join himself for the due and orderly
observation and performance of the commands of Christ, unto the glory of
God and their own edification,
This, in general, is granted by all sorts and parties of
men; the
Yea, it is granted, also, that persons ought to choose what churches they will join themselves unto, wherein they may have the best advantage unto their edification and salvation. They are to choose, to join themselves unto, that church which is in all thugs most according to the mind of God.
This, it is supposed, is the liberty and duty of every man; for if it be not so, it is the foolishest thing in the world for any to attempt to got others from one church unto another; which is almost the whole business of religion that some think themselves concerned to attend unto.
But yet, notwithstanding these concessions, when things come to the trial in particular, there is very little granted in compliance with the assertion laid down; for besides that it is not a church of divine institution that is intended in these concessions, when it comes unto the issue where a man is born, and in what church he is baptized in his infancy, then all choice is printed, and in the communion of that church he is to abide, on the penalties of being esteemed and dealt withal as a schismatic. In what national church any person is baptized, in that national church he is to continue, or answer the contrary at his peril; and in the precincts of what parish his habitation falls to be, in that particular parish church is he bound to communicate in all ordinances of worship. I say, in the judgment of many, whatever is pretended of men’s joining themselves unto the truest and purest churches, there is no liberty of judgment or practice in either of these things left unto any of the disciples of Christ.
Wherefore, the liberty and duty proposed being the foundation of all orderly evangelical profession, and that wherein the consciences of believers are greatly concerned, I shall lay down one proposition wherein it is asserted in the sense I intend, and then fully confirm it.
The proposition itself is this:—
It is the duty of every one who professeth faith in Christ Jesus, and takes due care of his own eternal salvation, voluntarily and by his own choice to join himself unto some particular congregation of Christ’s institution, for his own spiritual edification, and the right discharge of his commands.
1. This duty is prescribed unto them only who profess
faith in Christ Jesus, who own themselves to be his disciples, that
call Jesus Lord; for this is the method of the gospel, that first men by
the preaching of it be made disciples, or be brought unto faith in Christ
We do therefore avow, that we cannot admit any into our church-societies, as to complete membership and actual interest in the privileges of the church, who do not, by a profession of faith in and obedience unto Jesus Christ, no way contradicted by sins of life, manifest themselves to be such as whose duty it is to join themselves unto any church Neither do we injure any baptized persons hereby, or oppose any of their right unto and interest in the church; but only, as they did universally in the primitive churches, after the death of the apostles, we direct them into that way and method wherein they may be received, unto the glory of Christ and their own edification. And we do therefore alarm, that we will never deny that communion unto any person, high or low, rich or poor, old or young, male or female, whose duty it is to desire it.
2. It is added, in the description of the subject, that it
is such one who takes due care of his own salvation. Many there
are who
3. Of these persons it is said that it is their duty so
to dispose of themselves. It is not that which they may do as a
convenience or an advantage, not that which others may do for them, but
which they must do for themselves in a way of duty. It is an obediential
act unto the commands of Christ; whereunto is required subjection of
conscience unto his authority, faith in his promises, as also a respect
unto an appearance before his judgment-throne at the last day. The way of
the church of Rome, to compel men into their communion, and keep them in
it, by fire and fagot, or any other means of external force, derives more
from the Alcoran than the Gospel. Neither doth it answer the mind of
Christ, in the institution, end, and order of church-societies, that men
should become members of them partly by that which is no way in their own
power, and partly by what their wills are regulated in by the laws of men;
for it is, as was said, commonly esteemed that men being born and baptized
in such a nation are thereby made members of the church of that nation, and
by living within such parochial precincts as the law of the land hath
arbitrarily established are members of this or that particular
congregation. At least, they are accounted so far to belong unto these
churches, as to render them liable unto all outward punishments that shall
be thought meet to be inflicted on them who comply not with them. So far
as these persuasions and actings according unto them do prevail, so far are
they destructive of the principal foundation of the external being and
order of the church. But that men’s joining themselves in or unto any
church-society is, or ought to be, a voluntary act, or an act of free
choice, in mere obedience unto the authority and commands of Christ, is so
sacred a truth, so evident in the Scripture, so necessary from its
subject-matter, so testified unto by the practice of all the first
churches, as that it despiseth all opposition. And I know not how any can
reconcile the
4. There is a double joining unto the church:—
(1.) That which is as unto total communion in all the duties and
privileges of the church; which is that whereof we treat. (2.) An
adherence unto the church as unto the means of instruction and
edification to be attained thereby. So persons may adhere unto any church
who yet are not meet or free, on some present consideration, to confederate
with it as unto total communion; see
5. The proposition respects a visible professing church. And I intend such a church in general as avoweth authority from Christ, — (1.) For the ministerial preaching of the word; (2.) Administration of the Sacraments; (3.) For the exercise of evangelical discipline; and, (4.) To give a public testimony against the devil and the world, not contradicting their profession with any corrupt principles or practices inconsistent with it. What is required in particular, that any of them may be meet to be joined unto such a church we shall afterward inquire.
6. It is generally said that “out of the church there
is no salvation;” and the truth hereof is testified unto in the
Scriptures,
7. This is true both positively and negatively of the
catholic church invisible, of the elect; all that are of it shall
be saved, and none shall be saved but those that belong unto it,
8. This position of truth is abused by interest
and pride, an enclosure of it being made by them who, of all Christians in
the world, can lay the least and weakest claim unto it, — namely, the
church of Rome; for they are so far from being that catholic church out of
which there is no salvation, and wherein none can perish, like the ark of
Noah, that it requires the highest charity to reckon them unto
9. Our inquiry is, what truth there is in this assertion with respect unto these particular churches or societies for the celebration of gospel worship and discipline whereof we treat; and I say, —
(1.) No church, of what denomination soever, can lay a claim unto this privilege as belonging unto itself alone. This was the ancient Donatism; they confined salvation unto the churches of their way alone. And after many false charges of it on others, it begins really to be renewed in our days; for some dispute that salvation is confined unto that church alone wherein there is a succession of diocesan bishops; which is the height of Donatism. The judgments and determinations made concerning the eternal salvation or damnation of men by the measures of some differences among Christians about churches, their state and order, are absurd, foolish, and impious; and for the most part used by them who sufficiently proclaim that they know neither what it is to be saved, nor do use any diligence about the necessary means of it. Salvation depends absolutely on no particular church-state in the world; he knows not the gospel who can really think it doth. Persons of believers are not for the church, but the church is for them. If the ministry of angels be for them who are heirs of salvation, much more is the ministry of the church so. If a man be an adulterer, an idolater, a railer, a hater and scoffer of godliness; if he choose to live in any known sin, without repentance, or in the neglect of any known duty; if he be ignorant and profane; a word, if he be not born again from above, be he of what church he will, and whatsoever place he possesses therein, he cannot be saved. And on the other side, if a man believe in Christ Jesus, — that is, know him in his person, offices, doctrine, and grace; trust unto him for all the ends of the wisdom and love of God towards mankind in him; if he endeavour to yield sincere and universal obedience unto all his commands, and to be conformed unto him, in all things following his example, having for these ends received of his Spirit, — though all the churches in the world should reject him, yet he shall undoubtedly be saved. If any shall hence infer that then it is all one of what church any one is, I answer, — [1.] That although the being of this or that or any particular church in the world will not secure the salvation of any men, yet the adherence unto some churches, or such as are so called, in their constitution and worship, may prejudice, yea, ruin the salvation of any that shall so do. [2.] The choice of what church we will join unto belongs unto the choice and use of the means for our edification; and he that makes no conscience hereof, but merely with respect unto the event of being saved at last, will probably come short thereof.
[1.] The foundation of this duty, as was before declared, doth lie in the law and light of nature. Man cannot exercise the principal powers and faculties of his soul, with which he was created, and whereby he is enabled to glorify God, which is the end of him and them, without a consent and conjunction in the worship of God in communion and society; as hath been proved before.
[2.] The Way whereby this is to be done God hath declared and revealed from the beginning, by the constitution of a church-state, through the addition of arbitrary institutions of worship unto what was required by the law of nature: for this gives the true state, and is the formal reason of a church, — namely, a divine addition of arbitrary institutions of worship unto the necessary dictates of the law of nature unto that end; and the especial nature of any church-state doth depend on the especial nature of those institutions, which is constitutive Of the difference between the church-state of the Old Testament and that of the New.
[3.] Such a church-state was constituted and appointed
under the Old Testament, founded in and on an especial covenant between God
and the people,
[4.] As a new church-state is prophesied of under the New
Testament,
[5.] The Lord Christ hath disposed all the ways and means of edification unto these churches; so that ordinarily, and under an expectation of his presence in them and concurrence unto their efficacy, they are not otherwise to be enjoyed. Such are the ordinary dispensation of the word, and administration of the sacraments. For any disciple of Christ to live in a neglect of these things and the enjoyment of them according to his mind, is to despise his care and wisdom in providing for his eternal welfare.
[6.] He hath prescribed sundry duties unto us, both as necessary and as evidences of our being his disciples, such as cannot be orderly performed but as we are members of some particular congregation. This also hath been before declared.
[7.] The institution of these churches is the way
which Christ hath ordained to render his kingdom visible or conspicuous, in
distinction from and opposition unto the kingdom of Satan and the world.
And he doth not, in a due manner, declare himself a subject in or unto the
kingdom of Christ who doth not solemnly engage h this way. It is not
enough to constitute a legal subject of the kingdom of England that he is
born in the nation, and lives in some outward observance of the laws of it,
if he refuse solemnly to express his allegiance in the way appointed by the
law for that end. Nor will it constitute a regular subject of the kingdom
of Christ that he is born in a place where the gospel is professed, and so
professeth a general compliance therewith, if he refuse to testify his
subjection by the way that Christ hath appointed for that end. It is true,
the whole nation, in their civil relation and subordination according to
law, is the kingdom of England; but the representation of the kingly power
and rule in it is in the courts of all sorts, wherein the kingly power is
acted openly and visibly. And he that lives in the nation, yet denies his
homage unto these courts, is not to be esteemed a subject, So doth the
whole visible professing church, in one or more
[8.] The whole administration of the rule and discipline appointed by Christ is confined unto these churches, nor can they be approved by whom that rule is despised. I shall not argue farther in a case whose truth is of so uncontrollable evidence. In all the writings of the New Testament, recording things after the ascension of Christ, there is no mention of any of his disciples with approbation, unless they were extraordinary officers, but such as were entire members of these assemblies.
The controversy about the continuation of a church-state and the administration of gospel ordinances of worship is not new in this age, though some pride themselves as though the invention of the error whereby they are denied were their own. In former ages, both in the Papacy and among some of them that forsook it, there were divers who, on a pretence of a peculiar spirituality and imaginary attainments in religion, wherein these things are unnecessary, rejected their observation. I suppose it necessary briefly to confirm the truth, and vindicate it from this exception; because, though it be sufficiently weak in itself, yet what it is lies against the foundation of all that we are pleading about. But to reduce things into the lesser compass, I shall first confirm the truth by those arguments or considerations which will defeat all the pleas and pretences of them by whom it is opposed, and then confirm it by positive testimonies and arguments, with all brevity possible.
First, therefore, I shall argue from the removal of all causes whereon such a cessation of churches and ordinances is pretended; for it is granted on all hands that they had a divine original and institution, and were observed by all the disciples of Christ as things by him commanded. If now, therefore, they cease as unto their force, efficacy, and use, it must be on some of these reasons:—
1. Because a limited time and season was fixed unto
them, which is now expired. So was it with the church-state and
ordinances of old; they Were appointed unto the “time of reformation,”
(1.) It is so as unto the limitation of any time as unto their duration and continuance; for, — [1.] There is no intimation given of any such thing, either in the divine word, promise, declaration about them, or the nature of the institutions themselves. But whereas those of the Old Testament were in time to be removed, that the church might not be offended thereby, seeing originally they were all of immediate divine institution, God did by all manner of ways, as by promises, express declarations, and by the nature of the institutions themselves, fore-signify their removal; as the apostle proves at large in his Epistle to the Hebrews. But nothing of this nature can be pretended concerning the gospel church-state or worship. [2.] There is no prediction or intimation of any other way of worship, or serving God in this world, that should be introduced in the room of that established at first; so that upon a cessation thereof the church must be left unto all uncertainties and utter ruin. [3.] The principal reason why a church-state was erected of old, and ordinances of worship appointed therein, that were all to be removed and taken away, was that the Son, the Lord over his own house, might have the pre-eminence in all things. His glory it was to put an end unto the law, as given by the disposition of angels and the ministry of Moses, by the institution of a church-state and ordinances of his own appointment. And if his revelation of the will of God therein be not complete, perfect, ultimate, unalterable, if it be to expire, it must be that honour may be given above him unto one greater than he.
(2.) It is so as unto their decay, or the loss of their
primitive
Men might at a cheaper rate, as unto the eternal interest of their own souls, provide another covering for their sloth, negligence, unbelief, and indulgence unto proud, foolish imaginations, whereby they render the churches and ordinances of the gospel useless and ineffectual unto themselves; thereby charging them with a decay and uselessness, and so reflecting on the honour and faithfulness of Christ himself.
2. They do not cease because there is at present, or at
least there is shortly to be expected, such an effusion of the gifts
and graces of the Spirit as to render all these external institutions
needless, and consequently useless. This, also, is falsely pretended.
For, — (1.) The greatest and most plentiful effusion of the Holy Spirit in
his gifts and graces was in the days of the apostles, and of the first
churches planted by them; nor is any thing beyond it, or indeed equal unto
it, any more to be expected in this world; — but yet then was the gospel
church-state erected, and the use of all its ordinances of worship
enjoined. (2.) The ministry of the gospel, which compriseth all the
ordinances of church-worship as its object and end, is the ministration
of the Spirit; and therefore no supplies or communication of him can
render it useless. (3.) One of the principal ends for which the
communication of the Spirit is promised unto the church is to make and
render all the institutions of Christ effectual unto its edification. (4.)
3. Do they cease in their administration for want
either of authority or ability to dispense them, which is pleaded unto
the same end? But neither is this pretence of any force; it only begs the
thing in question. (1.) The authority of office for the administration of
all other ordinances is an institution; and to say that all institutions
cease because none have authority to administer them is to say they must
all cease because they are ceased. (2.) The office of the ministry,
If all these, or any of them, do fail, I acknowledge that all ministerial authority and ability for the dispensation of gospel ordinances must fail also, and consequently the state of the church. And those who plead for the continuation of a successive ministry without respect unto these things, without resolving both the authority and office of it into them, do but erect a dead image, or embrace a dead carcase, instead of the living and life-giving institutions of Christ. They take away the living creature, and set up a skin stuffed with straw. But if these things do unalterably continue; if the law of Christ can neither be changed, abrogated, nor disannulled; if his dispensation of spiritual gifts according unto his promise cannot be impeded; if believers, through his grace, will continue in obedience unto his commands, — it is not possible there should be an utter failure in this office and office-power of this ministry. It may fail in this or that place, in this or that church, when the Lord Christ will remove his candlestick; but it hath a living root, whence it will spring again in other places and churches, whilst this world doth endure. Neither, —
4. Do they cease because they have been all of them
corrupted, abused, and defiled, in the apostasy which fell out
among all the churches in the latter ages, as it was fully foretold in the
Scripture. For, — (1.) This supposition would make the whole kingdom of
Christ in the world to depend on the corrupt lusts and wills of men, which
have got by any means the outward possession of the administration of his
laws and ordinances. This is all one as if we should say, that if a pack
of wicked judges should for a season pervert justice, righteousness, and
judgment, the being of the kingdom is so overthrown thereby as that it can
never be restored. (2.) It would make all the duties and all the
privileges of all true believers to depend on the wills of wicked
apostates; for if they may not make use of what they
There is nothing, therefore, in all these pretences, that should in the least impeach the infallible continuation of the evangelical churches and worship, as to their right, unto the end of the world. And the heads of those arguments whereby the truth is invincibly confirmed may be briefly touched on:—
1. There are express testimonies of the will of Christ, and
his promise for its accomplishment, that the church and all its
ordinances of worship should be continued always, unto the end of the
world. So as to the church itself,
If it be said, that notwithstanding what may be thus
pleaded, yet, “de facto,” the true
state of gospel churches and their whole worship, as unto its original
institution, did fail under the papal apostasy, and therefore may do so
again, I answer, — (1.) We do not plead that this state of things must be
always visible and conspicuous; wherein all protestant writers do
agree. It is acknowledged, that as unto public view, observation, and
notoriety, all these things were lost under the Papacy, and may be so again
under a renewed apostasy. (2.) I do not plead it to be necessary, “de
facto,” that there should be really at all times a true visible church, as
the seat of all ordinances and, administrations in the world; but all such
churches may fail, not only as unto visibility, but as unto their
existence. But this supposition of a failure of all instituted churches
and worship I grant only with these limitations:— [1.] That it is of
necessity, from innumerable divine promises and the nature of Christ’s
kingly office, that there be always in the world a number, greater or
lesser, of sincere believers, that openly profess subjection and
obedience unto him; [2.] That in these persons there resides an
indefeasible right always to gather themselves into a
church-state, and to administer all gospel ordinances, which all the world
cannot deprive them of:
2. The nature and use of the gospel church-state require
and prove the uninterrupted continuance of the right of its
existence, and the observance of all ordinances of divine worship therein,
with a power in them in whom that right doth indefeasibly reside, — that
is, all true believers, — to bring it forth into exercise and practice,
notwithstanding the external impediments which in some places at some times
may interrupt its exercise. In the observation of Christ’s institutions
and celebration of the ordinances of divine worship doth the church-state
of the gospel, as professing, consist. It doth so in opposition, — (1.)
Unto the world and the kingdom of Satan; for hereby do men call
Jesus “Lord,” as
3. The visible administration of the kingdom of Christ
in this world consists in this church-state, with the administration
of his institutions and laws therein. A kingdom the Lord Jesus Christ hath
in this world; and though it be not of the world, yet in the world it must
be until the world shall be no more. The truth of all God’s promises in
the Scripture depends on this one assertion. We need not here concern
ourselves what notions some men have about the exercise of this kingdom in
the world, with respect unto the outward affairs and concerns of it; but
this is certain, that this kingdom of Christ in the world, so far as it is
external and visible, consists in
We have proved before that it is the duty of all individual Christians to give themselves up unto the conduct, fellowship, and communion of some particular church or congregation. Our present inquiry hereon is, whereas there is a great diversity among professing societies in the world, concerning each whereof it is said, “Lo, here is Christ,” and “Lo, there is Christ,” what church, of what constitution and order, any one that takes care of his own edification and salvation ought to join himself unto. This I shall speak unto first in general, and then in the examination of one particular case or instance, wherein many at this day are concerned. And some things must b premised unto the right stating of the subject of our inquiry:—
1. The diversities and divisions among churches, which
respect is
(1.) Such as are occasioned by the remaining weaknesses, infirmities, and ignorance of the best of men, whereby they know but in part, and prophesy only in part; wherein our edification is concerned, but our salvation not endangered.
(2.) Such as are in and about things fundamental in faith, worship, and obedience. We shall speak to both of them.
2. All Christians were originally of one mind in all things needful unto joint communion, so as that there might be among them all love without dissimulation. Howbeit there was great variety, not only in the measure of their apprehensions of the doctrines of truth, but in some doctrines themselves, — as about the continuance of the observations of the law, or at least of some of them; as also oppositions from without unto the truth by heretics and apostates: neither of which hindered the church-communion of true believers. But the diversity, difference, and divisions that are now among churches in the world is the effect of the great apostasy which befell them all in the latter ages, as unto the spirit, rule, and practice of those which were planted by the apostles; and will not be healed until that apostasy be abolished.
3. Satan having possessed himself of the advantage of these divisions, whereof he was the author, he makes use of them to act his malice and rage, in stirring up and instigating one party to persecute, oppress, and devour another, until the life, power, and glory of Christian religion is almost lost in the world. It requires, therefore, great wisdom to deport ourselves aright among these divisions, so as to contribute nothing unto the ends of malice designed by Satan in them.
4. In this state of things, until it may be cured, — which it will never be by any of the ways yet proposed and insisted on, — the inquiry is concerning the duty of any one who takes care of his own soul as unto a conjunction with some church or other. And on the negative part, I say, —
(1.) Such a one is bound not to join with any
church or society where any fundamental article of faith is
rejected or corrupted. There may be a fundamental error in a true church
for a season, when the church erreth not fundamentally,
(2.) Where there is in any church taught or allowed a mixture of doctrines or opinions that are prejudicial unto gospel holiness and obedience, no man that takes due care of his salvation can join himself unto it; for the original rule and measure of all church-communion is agreement in the doctrine of truth. Where, therefore, there is either not a stable profession of the same doctrine in all substantial truths of the gospel, but an uncertain sound is given, some saying one thing, some another, or that opposition is made unto any truths of the importance before mentioned, none can be bound or obliged to hold communion with it, nor can incur any blame by refraining from it: for it is the duty of a Christian in all things προτιμᾶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, and to join with such a church would, — [1.] Stain their profession; [2.] Hinder their edification; [3.] Establish a new rule of communion, unknown to the Scriptures, — namely, besides truth; as might easily be manifested.
(3.) Where the fundamentals of religious worship are corrupted or overthrown, it is absolutely unlawful to join unto or abide in any church. So is it with the church of Rome. The various ways whereby the foundations of divine religious worship are overthrown in that church, by superstition and idolatry, have been sufficiently declared. These render the communion of that church pernicious.
(4.) Nor can any man be obliged to join himself with any church, nor can it be his duty so to do, where the eternally fixed rule and measure of religious worship, — namely, that it be of divine institution, — is varied or changed by any additions unto it or subtractions from it; for whereas one principal end of all churches is the joint celebration of divine worship, if there be not a certain stable rule thereof in any church of divine prescription, no man can be obliged unto communion therewith.
(5.) Where the fundamentals of church order, practice, and discipline are destroyed, it is not lawful for any man to join in church communion. These fundamentals are of two sorts, — [1.] Such as concern the ministry of the church; [2.] Such as concern the church itself.
[1.] There are four things that are necessary fundamentals unto the order of the church on the part of the ministry:—
1st. That all the ministers or officers of it be
duly chosen by the church itself, and solemnly set apart in the
church unto their office,
2dly. That those who are called unto the office of
the ministry be duly qualified, by their endowment with spiritual
gifts, for the discharge of their duty, is fundamental unto the ministry.
That the Lord Jesus Christ doth still continue his dispensation of
spiritual gifts unto men, to fit and enable them unto the office and work
of the ministry; that if he doth not do so, or should at any time cease so
to do, the whole office of the ministry must cease, and the being of the
church with it; that it is altogether useless for any churches or persons
to erect an image of the gospel ministry by outward rites and ceremonies,
without the enlivening force of these spiritual gifts, — I have proved
sufficiently in my “Discourse of Spiritual Gifts, and their Continuance in the
Church.” See note on page 249. [These words are printed in the
original edition as if they were the title of a particular treatise by our
author. His treatise under that title will be found in vol. iv. of his
doctrinal works; but it seems to have been published in 1693, twelve years
after the present work appeared. Such a discourse is promised in his
preface to his treatise on “the Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” which was
published in 1682, a year after the publication of the present work. There
is some discussion on the subject of spiritual gifts in the first chapter
of his great work on the Holy Spirit; but a special and separate treatise
seems alluded to in the text above. To the “Discourse of Spiritual Gifts,” as
published in 1693, there is a preface by
3dly. It is of the same importance that persons so
called do take heed unto their ministry that they fulfil it, —
that they give themselves unto the word and prayer, that they labour
continually in the word and doctrine, and all those other duties which in
the Scripture are prescribed unto them; and this, not only as unto the
matter of them, but as unto the manner of their performance, — with zeal,
love,
4thly. It is required that they be examples unto the flock, in the expression of the nature and power of the doctrine which they preach, in their conversation, especially in zeal, humility, self-denial, and readiness for the cross.
Where these things are not, there is such a defect in the fundamentals of church-practice, as unto the ministry of it, that no man who takes care of his own edification can join himself unto a church labouring under it; for ministers and churches are nothing but institute, means of the conversion of sinners and the edification of believers. And when any of them, through their own default, cease so to be, there is no obligation unto any man to join or continue in their communion, nor do they contract any guilt in a peaceable departure from them, but discharge their duty. That this be done peaceably, without strife or contention, without judging of others, as unto their interest in Christ and eternal salvation, the law of moral obedience doth require; that it be done with love, and compassion, and prayer towards and for them who are left, is the peculiar direction of that moral duty by the gospel. Such a practice at present would fall under severe charges and accusations, as also brutish penalties, in some places. But when all church-craft shall be defeated, and the uses that are made of its imaginary authority be discarded, there will be little occasion of this practice, and none at all of offence.
[2.] Again; there are things fundamental unto church practice and order in the church itself, which, where they are neglected, no man ought of choice to join himself unto that church, seeing he cannot do without the prejudice of his edification, the furtherance whereof he ought to design in that duty. And these are, —
1st. That the discipline of Christ be duly
exercised in it according unto his mind, and by the rules of his
prescription. There never was any sect, order, or society of men in the
world, designed for the preservation and promotion of virtue and things
praiseworthy, but they had rules of discipline proper unto the ends of
their design, to be observed in and by all that belong unto them. Where
the erection of such societies is continued in the world, as it is much in
the Papacy, both their constitution and their conversation depend on the
especial rules of discipline which they have framed unto themselves.
Where, therefore, there is a church, or any society that pretends so to be, wherein there is an utter neglect of this discipline of Christ, or the establishment of another not administered by the laws and rules that he hath prescribed, no disciple of Christ can be obliged to join unto or to continue in the total, sole communion of such a church. And whereas there are two parts of this discipline of Christ, — that which is private, among the members of the church, for the exercise and preservation of love; and that which is public, in and by the authority of the rulers of the church, for the preservation of purity and order, — a neglect in either of them cloth much impeach the fundamental constitution of a church as unto its practice.
2dly. There are sundry other things which belong unto this discipline in general, which are of great consideration in the discharge of the duty we inquire into. Among them are, — (1st.) That constant difference be put between the good and the bad in all church administrations; (2dly) That persons openly or flagitiously wicked be not admitted into the society of the church, or a participation of its privileges; (3dly.) That holiness, love, and usefulness be openly avowed as the design and interest of the church. But they are all so comprised in the general head of discipline as that I shall not in particular insist upon them.
From what hath been thus declared, it will appear, on the other hand, what church it is that a disciple of Christ, who takes due care of his own edification and salvation, ought in duty to join himself unto in complete communion. To answer this inquiry is the end of all those discourses and controversies which have been about the notes of the true church. I shall briefly determine concerning it, according to the principles before evinced:—
(1.) It must be such a church as wherein all the
fundamental truths of the gospel are believed, owned, and professed,
without controversy, and those not borne withal by whom they are denied or
opposed. Without this a church is not the pillar and ground of truth, it
doth not hold the Head, it is not built on the foundation of the prophets
and apostles. Neither is it sufficient that those things are generally
(2.) It must be such a church as wherein the divine worship instituted or approved by Christ himself is diligently observed, without any addition made thereunto. In the observance of this worship, as unto all external, occasional incidences and circumstances of the acts wherein it doth consist, it is left unto the prudence of the church itself, according to the light of nature and general rules of Scripture; and it must be so, unless we shall suppose that the Lord Jesus Christ, by making men his disciples, doth unmake them from being rational creatures, or refuseth the exercise of the rational faculties of our souls in his service. But this is so remote from truth, that, on the contrary, he gives them an improvement for this very end, that we may know how to deport ourselves aright in the observance of his commands, as unto the outward discharge of them in his worship and the circumstances of it; and this he doth by that gift of spiritual wisdom whereof we shall treat afterward.
But if men, if churches, will make additions in or
unto the rites of religious worship, unto what is appointed by Christ
himself, and require their observance in their communion, on the force and
efficacy of their being so by them appointed, no disciple of Christ is or
can be obliged, by virtue of any divine institution or command, to join in
total, absolute communion with any such church. He may be induced, on
various considerations, to judge that something of that nature at some
season may not be evil and sinful unto him, which, therefore, he will bear
with or comply withal; yet he is not, he cannot be obliged, by virtue of
any divine rule or command, to join
(3.) It is required that the ministry of a church so to be joined with is not defective in any of those things which, according to the rule of the gospel, are fundamental thereunto. What these are hath been declared. And because edification, which is the end of church-communion, doth so eminently depend on the ministry of the church, there is not any thing which we ought to have a more diligent consideration of in the joining of ourselves unto any such communion. And where the ministry of any church, be the church of what sort or size it will, is incurably ignorant or negligent, or, through a defect in gifts, grace, conscientious attendance unto their duty, is insufficient unto the due edification of the souls of them that believe, no man can account himself obliged unto the communion of the church but he that can be satisfied with a shadow and the names of things for the substance and reality of them.
If, therefore, it be granted, as I think it is, that
edification is the principal end of all church-communion, it is not
intelligible how a man should be obliged unto that communion, and that
alone, wherein due edification cannot be obtained. Wherefore, a ministry
enabled by spiritual gifts, and engaged by sense of duty, to labour
constantly in the use of all means appointed by Christ for the edification
of
If it he said, that if all men be thus allowed to judge of what is best for their own edification, and to act according unto the judgment which they make, they will be continually parting from one church unto another, until all things are filled with disturbance and confusion, I say, —
[1.] That the contrary assertion, — namely, that men are not allowed to judge what is meet and best for their own edification, or not to act according to the judgment they make herein, — may possibly keep up some churches, but is the ready way to destroy all religion.
[2.] That many of those by whom this liberty is denied unto professing Christians yet do indeed take it for granted that they have such a liberty, and that it is their duty to make use of it. For what are all the contests between the church of Rome and the church of England, so far as Christians that are not churchmen are concerned in them? Is it not, in whether of the churches edification may be best obtained? If this be not the ball between us, I know not what is. Now, herein do not all the writers and preachers of both parties give t heir reasons and arguments unto the people why edification is better to be had in the one church than in the other? And do they not require of them to form a judgment upon those reasons and arguments, and to act accordingly? If they do not, they do but make a flourish, and act a part, like players on a stage, without any determinate design.
[3.] All Christians actually do so. They do judge for themselves unless they are brutish; they do act according unto that judgment, unless they are hardened in sin; and therefore who do not so are not to be esteemed disciples of Christ. To suppose that in all things of spiritual and eternal concernment men are not determined and acted every one by his own judgment, is an imagination of men who think but little of what they are, or do, or say, or write. Even those who shut their eyes against the light and follow in the herd, resolving not to inquire into any of these things, do it because they judge it is best for them so to do.
[4.] It is commonly acknowledged by Protestants that
private Christians have a judgment of discretion in things of
religion. The term was invented to grant them some liberty of judgment, in
opposition unto the blind obedience required by the church of Rome; but
withal to put a restraint upon it, and a distinction of some superior
judgment, it may be in the church or others. But if by discretion
(4.) The same is to be spoken of gospel
discipline, without which neither can the duties of church-societies
be observed nor the ends of them attained. The neglect, the loss, the
abuse hereof, is that which hath ruined the glory of Christian religion in
the world, and brought the whole profession of it into confusion. Hereon
have the fervency and sincerity of true, evangelical, mutual love been
abated, yea utterly lost; for that love which Jesus Christ requireth among
his disciples is such as never was in the world before amongst men, nor can
be in the world but on the principles of the gospel, and faith therein.
Therefore it is called his “new commandment.” The continuation of it
amongst the generality of Christians is but vainly pretended; little or
nothing of the reality of it in its due exercise is found. And this hath
ensued on the neglect of evangelical discipline in churches, or the turning
of it into a worldly domination; for one principal end of it is the
preservation, guidance, and acting of this love. That mutual watch over
one another that ought to be in all the members of the church, the
principal evidence and fruit of love without dissimulation, is also lost
hereby. Most men are rather ready to say, in the spirit and words of Cain,
“Am I my brother’s keeper?” than to attend unto the command of the apostle,
“Exhort one another daily, lest any of you be hardened through the
deceitfulness of sin;” or comply with the command of our Saviour, “If thy
brother offend thee, tell him of it between him and thee.” By this means
likewise is the purity of communion lost, and those received as principal
members of churches who, by all the rules of primitive discipline, ought to
be cast out of them. Wherefore this also is to be considered in the choice
we are to make of what churches we will join ourselves unto, as unto
constant, complete communion, and in whose communion we will abide; for
these things are matters of choice, and consist in voluntary, free acts of
obedience. With those unto whom they are not so, who would on the one hand
have them to be things that men may be compelled unto, and ought so to be,
or, on the other, that follow no other guidance in them but outward
circumstances, from the times and places where they are born and inhabit, I
will have no contest. It follows from hence, also, that where there are
many churches wherein these things are found,
From what we have insisted on we may borrow some light into the determination of that case wherein multitudes are at this day concerned. And the case itself may be briefly stated in this inquiry, — namely, Whether all Protestants, ministers and people, are bound to join a themselves unto the church of England, as now by law established in its parochial assemblies, as unto complete, constant communion, without the use of any other church means for their own edification, so as if they do not so do they are guilty of schism? This is that which is called “conformity unto the church of England;” which, as unto private persons, can be expressed only in constant, complete communion in parochial assemblies, according to their present constitution, without the use or exercise of any other church worship or discipline but what is by law established in them. Refraining from an absolute compliance herein is called schism. But whereas ecclesiastical schism, whatever it be in particular, in its general nature hath respect only unto divine institutions, this, which respecteth only the laws, rules, and determinations of men, can have no alliance thereunto. Yet it is not only charged as such, without the least countenance from Scripture or antiquity, so far as it may be allowed of authority with us, but the supposition of it is accumulated with another evil, — namely, that those who are so guilty (of it), in the judgment of them who are intrusted with secular power, though peaceable and orthodox, ought to be punished with various penalties, gradually coming unto the loss of goods, liberty, and in some cases of life itself; — an opinion ignominious unto Christian religion, however vapoured withal by young men, whose wit flies above all serious consideration of things and their circumstances, and countenanced by others, from an influence of interest, who otherwise would, not be imposed on by such an anti-evangelical presumption. I shall, therefore, at the utmost distance from interest or passion, briefly consider the case proposed, and give an account of my thoughts concerning it.
1. One or two things are usually premised unto the consideration of this case; as, namely, —
(2.) That not only as Christians, but as reformed Protestants, we do agree in the renunciation of the doctrines and worship of the church of Rome; which are opposed by the common consent of all those who are usually so called. Yet this must be added thereunto, that if any in or of the church of England should make an accession unto any parts of the doctrine and worship of the Roman church, not avowed or warranted by the consent of the church in its first reformation, we are not, we cannot be, obliged unto communion with them therein; and by their so doing, the original bond of our communion is weakened if not dissolved.
2. These things being premised, we shall inquire, in the
first place, what is the rule of that communion with the church of England
in its parochial assemblies which is required of us. If this be pleaded to
be a rule of divine prescription, we acknowledge that great diligence and
humility are required unto the consideration of it, that we be not
mistaken. And if it prove to be according to the mind of Christ, — that
is, of his institution, — if we fail of a compliance with it, we are guilty
of schism. But if the rule prescribing, limiting, and exacting this
communion, be not so much as pleaded to be of divine institution, whatever
fault there may be in our dissent from it, schism it is not: for
ecclesiastical schism neither hath nor can have respect unto any thing but
divine institutions; for if it hath, it is in the power of an sort of men
to make schismatics of whom they please, as, practically and in pretence,
it is come to pass at this day in the world. Now, the rule of the
communion required is, the law of the land, the Book of Canons,
with the rubric of the Common Prayer. If, according to the
prescriptions, directions, and commands given in them, we do join ourselves
in communion with parochial assemblies, then are we judged conformable to
the church of England, and not else. By and according unto these are all
inquiries made concerning communion with the church; and if they are
observed, the return is, “omnia
bene.” Now, this rule hath no divine warrant for its institution,
no example in the primitive churches, especially considering
I will not inquire what is that power and authority whereby
this rule constituted and confirmed, nor in whom it doth reside. The name
of the church is usually pretended and pleaded. But before any can be
concerned herein, all that hath been pleaded for the true state and nature
of evangelical churches must be overthrown; which will not be done
speedily. Railings, revilings, and reproaches will not do it. But until
this is done, it will be believed that every particular congregation is
indispensably obliged in itself to observe and do all the commands of
Christ, and is left at liberty so to regulate the outward circumstances of
its worship and order as is best for its own edification, whereof itself is
the most competent judge. But as
3. The church-communion required by virtue of this rule is constant and complete, exclusive unto any other church-order or means of public edification. It doth not command or appoint that men should communicate in parochial assemblies when there is occasion, when it is for their edification, when scandal would arise if they should refuse it; but absolutely and completely. And whereas there are many things relating unto church-order and divine worship enjoined in that rule, there is no distinction made between them, — some things that are always necessary (that is, in the seasons of them), and some things wherein men may forbear a compliance, — but they are all equally required in their places and seasons, though perhaps on different penalties. And whoever fails in the observation of any ceremony, time, or place, appointed therein, is in the power of them who are intrusted with the administration of church power or jurisdiction; for the discipline of the church it cannot be called. Suppose a man would comply with all other things, only he esteems the use of one rite or ceremony, as the cross in baptism, or the like, to be unlawful; if he forbear the use of it, or to tender his child unto baptism where it is used, he is to be cut off as a schismatic from the communion of the church, no less than if he had absolutely refused a compliance with the whole rule. And, therefore, whatever condescension and forbearance a some things is pretended, he that doth not in all things observe the whole rule is in “misericordia cancellarii;” which oft proves an uneasy posture. If any men think that the Lord Christ hath given them such a power and authority over the souls and consciences of his disciples, as that they can bind them unto the religious observance of every rite and ceremony that they are pleased to appoint, on the penalty of excision from all church-communion and the guilt of schism, I shall only say that I am not of their mind, nor ever shall be so.
4. This communion contains a virtual approbation
of all that is contained in the rule of it, as good for the edification of
the church. It is certain that nothing is to be appointed in the church
but what
These things being premised, I shall propose some of those reasons on the account whereof many cannot conform unto the church of England, by joining in constant, complete communion with parochial assemblies, so as by their practice to approve the rule of that communion obliging themselves to use no other public means for their own edification:—
I. The church of England in its parochial assemblies stands in need of reformation; for it is apparent that either they fail in their original institution or else have degenerated from it. What hath already been discoursed concerning the original institution of churches, with men’s voluntary coalescency into such sacred societies, with what shall be afterward treated concerning their essential parts in matter and form, will sufficiently evidence their present deviation from the rule of their first institution. Neither, so far as I know, is it pleaded that they are distinct churches of divine institution, but secular appointments, as for other ends, so for an accommodation of men in the performance of some parts of divine worship. And if they are found no more, they can have no concernment into the inquiry about schism; for withholding church-communion from such societies as are not churches is a new kind of schism, unknown to all antiquity. And for that which takes itself to be a church by a divine warranty, suppose it be so, to command constant, complete communion, exclusive unto all other church-communion, with that or them which are no churches, determining a refusal thereof to be schism, is to undertake a cause which needs not only great parts but great power also to defend it.
But let these parochial assemblies be esteemed churches
(without a supposition whereof I know not what ecclesiastical concernment
we can have in them), three things will be said thereon:— 1. That the
church of England, as in other things so in these parochial
1. Unto the proof of the first assertion some things are to be premised; as, —
(1.) Churches instituted, planted, ruled according to the
mind of Christ in all things, may degenerate into a corrupt state,
such as shall stand in need of reformation; in a neglect whereof they must
perish as unto their church-state and privileges. This needs no
confirmation; for besides that it is possible, from all the causes of such
an apostasy and defection, that so it should be, and it is frequently
foretold in the Scripture that so it would be, the event in and among all
churches that had originally a divine institution doth make uncontrollably
evident. The seven churches of Asia, most of them within few years of
their first plantation, were so degenerated that our Lord Jesus Christ
threatened them with casting off unless they reformed themselves. What a
woful apostasy all other churches, both of the east and west, were involved
in, is known unto and confessed by all Protestants. But yet the case of
none of them was deplorable or desperate, until, through pride and carnal
interest, they fell some of them into a persuasion that they needed no
reformation, nor could be reformed; which is become a principal article of
faith in the Roman church. There was a reformation attempted, and attained
in some measure, by some nations or churches in the last ages, from the
corruption and impositions of the church of Rome. However, none of them
ever pretended that it was complete or perfect, according to the pattern of
the Scripture, as unto the institution and discipline of the churches; no,
nor yet to the example of the primitive church c f after ages, as is
acknowledged by the church of England in the beginning of the “commination
against sinners.” But suppose it to be complete, to conclude that because
an outward rule of it was established, so long as that outward rule is
observed there can be no need of reformation, is a way to lead churches
into a presumptuous security unto their ruin; for whereas men, being
secured in their interest by that rule, are prejudiced against any progress
in reformation beyond what they have attained, — which that it should be a
duty is contrary unto the whole nature of Christian religion, which is the
conduct of a spiritual life, in the growth and increase of light
(2.) Where churches do so stand in need of reformation, and
will not reform themselves, being warned of their duty, the Lord Christ
threatens to leave them, and assuredly will do so in the time that he hath
limited unto his patience. This is the subject of five of his epistles or
messages unto the churches of Asia,
(3.) Reformation respects either doctrine and worship, or obedience becoming the gospel. The debates about such a reformation as concerns the retaining or removing of certain ceremonies, we concern not ourselves in at present; nor shall we in this place insist on what concerns doctrine and worship, which may afterward be spoken unto. But we shall confine ourselves here unto the consideration of gospel obedience only. And we say, —
This assertion may seem somewhat importune and severe; but when the sins of a church or nation are come to that height, in all ranks, sorts, and degrees of men, that all persons of sobriety do fear daily that desolating judgments from God will break in upon us, it cannot be unseasonable to make mention of them, when it is done with no other design but only to show the necessity of reformation, or how necessary it is for some, if all will not comply therewith; for if a city be on fire, it is surely lawful for any of the citizens to save and preserve, if they can, their own houses, though the mayor and aldermen should neglect the preservation of the whole city in general.
It might be easily demonstrated what great numbers [there
are] amongst us, — [1.] Who have imbibed atheistical opinions, and
either vent them or speak presumptuously, according unto their influence
and tendency every day; [2.] Who are profane scoffers at all true
Christian pigsty and the due expressions of the power of godliness, — an
evil not confined unto the laity, — such things being uttered and published
b them as should be astonishable unto all that know the fear of the Lord
and his terror; [3.] Who are profoundly ignorant of the mysteries
of the gospel, or those doctrines of Christian religion whose knowledge is
of the highest importance and necessity; [4.] Who are openly flagitious
in their lives, whence all sorts of gross immoralities do fill the
land from one end unto the other; [5.] Who live in a constant
neglect of all more private holy duties, whether in their families or
in personal retirement; [6.] Who are evidently under the power of
pride, vanity, covetousness, profaneness of speech in cursed oaths and
swearing; [7.] Who instruct the worst of men unto an approbation
of themselves in such ways as these, by petulant scoffing at the very name
of the Spirit and grace of Christ, at all expectation of his spiritual aids
and assistances, at all fervency in religious duties, or other acts of a
holy converse. These, and such like things as these, do sufficiently
evidence the necessity of reformation; for where they are continued, the
use and end of church-societies is impaired or lost. And it
The substance of what is proposed under this consideration may be expressed in the ensuing observations:— (1.) The generality of the inhabitants of this nation are joined and do belong unto the church of England, in its parochial assemblies. (2.) That many walk and live without any visible compliance unto the rule of Christ in gospel obedience: yea, — (3.) Great, notorious, provoking sins do abound among them, for which it ought to be feared continually that the judgments of God will speedily follow; as is acknowledged in the “commination.” (4.) That hereon they all stand in need of reformation, without which the principal ends of church-communion cannot be obtained among them. (5.) That this reformation is the duty of these churches themselves; which if it be neglected, they live in a contempt of the commands of Christ; for, — (6.) Unto them, in the preaching of the word and exercise of discipline, are the means of this reformation committed: for we treat not at present of the power or duty of the supreme magistrate in these things. (7.) That this state of churches cannot hinder, nor ought so to do, if continued in, the true disciples of Christ from reforming themselves, by endeavouring the due observance of all his commands.
2. In this state the church of England doth not, and it is
to be feared will not, nor can reform itself. But although the
weight of the whole argument in hand depends very much on this assertion,
yet I shall not insist on its particular confirmation, for sundry reasons
not now to be mentioned. It is enough that no such work hath been a yet
attempted, nor is at this day publicly proposed, notwithstanding all the
mercies that some have received, the losses which
3. This being the state of the parochial churches in England, the inquiry is, Whether every believer in England be indispensably obliged, by virtue of any law, rule, or direction of a divine original, to continue in constant, complete communion with them, so as not to make use of any other ways and means of Christ’s appointment for their own edification, on the penalty of the guilt of schism? Now, although we do not (as we shall see immediately) lay the weight of refraining from their communion on this consideration, yet is there enough in it to warrant any man in his so doing; for a man in his conforming thereunto makes it a part of his religious profession, not only that the church wherein he is joined is a true church, but that there is in its state and actings a due representation of the mind of Christ, as unto what he requireth of his churches, and what he would have them to be. The Lord Christ is the “apostle and high priest of our profession:” and in all things that belong thereunto we declare that we do it in compliance with his will; and we do so, or we are hypocrites. This no man can do in such a church-state who is convinced of its defects, without reflecting the greatest dishonour on Christ and the gospel.
More weight will be added unto this consideration when we
shall treat of the matter of gospel churches, or of what sort of persons
they ought to consist. In the meantime, those who pretend a reverence unto
antiquity in those things wherein they suppose countenance to be given unto
their interest, may do well sometimes to consider what was the
discipline of the primitive churches, and what were the manners, the
lives, the heavenly conversations of their members. Because in the third
and fourth centuries there is mention made of bishops distinct from
presbyters, with some ecclesiastical practices and ceremonies in worship
not mentioned in the Scripture nor known unto the apostolical churches,
shall we judge ourselves obliged to conform thereunto as our rule and
pattern, so as that in the judgment of some they are to be esteemed no
churches who conform not their outward state and practice unto the same
rule? and shall we judge ourselves at liberty to reject all that they did
in the exercise of discipline, and in the preservation of purity of life
and holiness in the churches, and that according to the command of Christ
and rule of the Scripture? Who knows not upon what diligent trial, and
experience first obtained of their knowledge, faith, and godliness,
II. The constitution of these parochial assemblies is not
from heaven, but of men. There is almost nothing which is required unto
the constitution of evangelical churches found in them; nor are they looked
on by any as complete churches, but only as conveniencies for the
observance of some parts of the worship of God. What some have in their
wisdom found out for conveniency, others are engaged unto a compliance
therewithal by necessity; for being born within the precincts of the parish
makes them to belong unto the assemblies of it, whether they will or no.
To refrain from the communion of such churches, whose bond of relation
consists only in cohabitation within the precincts of a political
constitution, is a new kind of schism, which may be cured by a removal out
of those precincts.
1. That a conjunction in them is a voluntary act of free choice in them that so join together in them. Other kind of assemblies for the worship of God neither the one nor the other doth give the least countenance unto.
2. That they have in themselves sufficient right, power, and authority unto the attaining all the ends of such assemblies in holy worship and rule. Other kind of churches they know nothing of.
3. That they are enabled to preserve their own purity and continue their own being.
But all these things are denied unto our parochial assemblies by law; and therefore they can claim no warranty from either of those principles. Wherefore, there can be no obligation upon any believer to join himself with such churches in constant communion as are judged none by them that appoint them, or only partially and improperly so, or are of such a constitution as hath in its essentially constituent, parts no warranty either from the light of nature or Scripture direction, so as that his dissent from them should be esteemed schism. How far communion with them for some duties of worship, — which is, indeed, all that they can pretend unto, — may be admitted, we do not now inquire.
III. There is not in them (and therefore not in the church of England, as unto its present profession) a fixed standard of truth, or rule of faith to be professed, which every believer may own, and have his part or interest therein. This I grant is not from the original constitution of the church, nor from what is established by any law therein, but from persons who at present have the declaration of its profession, committed unto them. But from what cause soever it be, it is sufficient to warrant any man who takes care of his own edification and salvation to use his own liberty in the choice of the most effectual means unto those ends. Wherefore some things may be added in farther explanation of this consideration; as, —
1. It is the duty of every church to be the pillar and
ground of truth, to hold fast the form of wholesome words, or to keep
the truth
2. This is the principal end of the ministry of
the church in particular,
3. Every private man’s confession is included in the public profession of the church or assembly whereunto he belongs. And, —
4. Oneness or agreement in the truth, whereby we come to have “one Lord, one faith, one baptism,” is the foundation of all church-communion; which if it be taken away, the whole fabric of it falls to the ground. If the trumpet in any church, as unto these things, gives an uncertain sound, no man knows how to prepare himself for the battle, or to “fight the good fight of faith.”
It will be said that this cannot be justly charged on the church of England, yea, not without open wrong and injustice; for she hath a fixed, invariable standard of truth in the Thirty-nine Articles, which contain its public profession of faith and the rule of its communion. Wherefore I say, that it is not the primitive constitution of the church nor its legal establishment that are reflected on, but only the present practice of so many as makes it necessary for men to take the care of their own edification on themselves. But here also some things are to be observed:—
1. These articles at present are exceeding defective, in
their being a fixed standard of the profession of truth, with respect unto
those errors and heresies which have invaded and pestered the churches
since their framing and establishment. We know it was the constant,
invariable custom of the primitive churches, upon the emergency of any new
errors or heresies, to add unto the rule and symbol of their confession a
testimony against them, so as to preserve themselves from all communion in
them or participation of them. And a usage it was both necessary and
laudable, as countenanced by Scripture example, however afterward it was
abused; for no writing, such as all church-confessions are, can obviate
unforeseen heresies, or errors not broached at the time of its writing, but
only that which is · of divine institution, wherein infinite wisdom hath
stored up provision of truth, for the destruction of all errors that the
subtlety or folly of man can invent. When these articles of the church of
England were composed, neither Socinianism nor Arminianism, which have now
made such an inroad on some protestant churches, were n the world, either
name or things. Wherefore, in their
2. Besides, a distinction is found out, and passeth current among us, that the articles of this confession are not articles of faith, but of outward agreement for peace’ sake among ourselves: which is an invention to help on the ruin of religion; for articles of peace in religion, concerning matters of faith, which he that subscribes doth it not because they are true or articles of faith, are an engine to accommodate hypocrisy, and nothing else. But according unto this supposition they are used at men’s pleasure, and turned which way they have mind to. Wherefore, —
3. Notwithstanding this standard of truth, differences in important doctrines, wherein the edification of the souls of men is highly concerned, do abound among them who manage the public profession of the church. I shall not urge this any farther by instances; in general it cannot modestly be denied. Neither is this spoken to abridge ministers of churches of their due liberty in their management o the truths of the gospel; for such a liberty is to be granted as:—
(1.) Ariseth from the distinct gifts that men have
received; for “unto every one is given grace according to the measure of
the gift of Christ,”
(2.) As followeth on that spiritual wisdom which ministers receive in great variety, for the application of the truths of the gospel unto the souls and consciences of men. Hereon great variety in public church-administrations will ensue, but all unto edification.
(3.) Such as consists in a different exposition of
particular places of Scripture, whilst the analogy of faith is kept and
preserved,
(4.) Such as admits of different stated apprehensions in and about such doctrines as wherein the practice and comfort of Christians are not immediately nor greatly concerned.
Such a liberty, I say, as the dispensation of spiritual
gifts, and the different manner of their exercise, as the unsearchable
depths that are in the Scripture, not to be fathomed at once by any church
or any sort of persons whatever, and our knowing the best of us but in
part, with the difference of men’s capacities and understandings in and
IV. Evangelical discipline is neither observed nor attainable in these parochial assemblies, nor is there any relief provided by any other means for that defect. This hath in general been spoken unto before; but because it belongs in an especial manner unto the argument now in hand, I shall yet farther speak unto it. For, to declare my mind freely, I do not judge that any man can incur the guilt of schism who refrains from the communion of the church wherein the discipline of the gospel is either wholly wanting or is perverted into rule and domination, which hath no countenance given unto it in the word of truth. And we may observe, —
1. The discipline of the church is that alone for which any rule or authority is given unto it or exercised in it. Authority is given unto the ministers of the church to dispense the word and administer the sacraments; which, I know not why, some call the “key of order.” But the only end why the Lord Christ hath given authority, or rule, or power for it unto the church, or any in it, is for the exercise of discipline, and no other. Whatever power, rule, dignity, or pre-eminence is assumed in the churches, not merely for this end, is usurpation and tyranny.
2. The outward means appointed by Jesus Christ, for the preservation of his churches in order, peace, and purity, consists in this discipline. He doth by his word give directions and commands for this end; and it is by discipline alone that they are executed. Wherefore, without it the church cannot live in its health, purity, and vigour. The word and sacraments are its spiritual food, whereon its life doth depend; but without that exercise, and medicinal applications unto its distempers which are made by discipline, it cannot live a healthy, vigorous, faithful life in the things of God.
3. This discipline is either private or public:—
(1.) That which is private consists in the mutual
watch that all the members of the church have over one another, with
admonitions, exhortations, and reproofs, as their edification doth require.
The loss
(2.) That which is public, in the rulers of the church, with and by its own consent. The nature and acts of it will be afterward considered.
4. There are three things considerable in this discipline:— (1.) The power and authority whereby it is exercised; (2.) The manner of its administration; (3.) The especial object of it, both as it is susceptive of members and corrective; whereunto we may add its general end:—
(1.) The authority of it is only a power and liberty to act and ministerially exercise the authority of Christ himself. As unto those by whom it is exercised, it is in them an act of obedience unto the command of Christ; but with respect unto its object, the authority of Christ is exerted in it. That which is exercised on any other warranty or authority (as none can exert the authority of Christ but by virtue of his own institutions), whose acts are not acts of obedience unto Christ, whatever else it be, belongs not unto the discipline of evangelical churches.
(2.) As unto the manner of its administration, it
is that which the Lord Christ hath appointed to express his love, care, and
tenderness towards the church. Hence the acts of it which are corrective
are called “lamenting” or “bewailing” of them towards whom they are
exercised,
(3.) The object of it, as it is susceptive of members, is professed believers; and as it is corrective, it is those who stubbornly deviate from the rule of Christ, or live in disobedience of his commands. Wherefore, the general end of its institution is, to be a representation of the authority, wisdom, love, care, and patience of Christ towards his church, with a testimony unto the certainty, truth, and holiness of his future judgment. The especial nature of it shall be afterward considered.
Unto this discipline, either as unto its right or exercise, there is no pretence in parochial assemblies, yea, it is expressly forbidden unto them. Whereas, therefore, it is a matter of so great importance in itself, so subservient unto the glory of Christ, so useful and necessary into the edification of his disciples, so weighty a part of our professed subjection unto him, without which no church can be continued in gospel purity, order, and peace, the total want or neglect of it is a sufficient cause for any man who takes care of his own salvation, or is concerned in the glory and honour of Christ, to refrain the communion of those churches wherein it is so wanting or neglected, or at least not to confine himself thereunto.
1. That this discipline is not to be placed where and in what hands men please, but to be left where Christ hath disposed it.
2. That one reason of the unmeetness of parochial churches for the exercise of this discipline is because they have been unjustly deprived of it for so many ages.
3. It is to be inquired, whether the pretended discipline doth in any thing answer that which Christ hath plainly and expressly ordained. For if a discipline should be erected whose right of exercise is derived from secular power, whose administration is committed unto persons who pretend not in the least unto any office of divine institution, as chancellors, commissaries, officials, etc., every way unknown unto antiquity, foreign unto the churches over which they rule, exercising their pretended power of discipline in a way of civil jurisdiction, without the least regard unto the rules or ends of evangelical discipline, managing its administration in brawlings, contentions, revilings, fees, pecuniary mulcts, etc., in open defiance of the spirit, example, rule, and commands of our Lord Jesus Christ, — it would be so far from supplying this defect, that it would exceedingly aggravate the evil of it. God forbid that any Christian should look on such a power of discipline, and such an administration of it, to be that which is appointed by Jesus Christ, or any way participant of the nature of it! Of what expediency it may be unto other ends I know not, but unto ecclesiastical discipline it hath no alliance; and therefore in its exercise, so far as it is corrective, it is usually applied unto the best and most sober Christians.
Wherefore, to deal plainly in this case, whereas there is
neither the power nor exercise of discipline in parochial assemblies or
their ministry, not so much by their own neglect as because their right
thereunto is denied and its exercise wholly forbidden by them in whose
power they are; and whereas, in the supply that is made of this defect, a
secular power is erected, coercive by pecuniary and corporal penalties,
administered by persons no way relating unto the churches over which they
exercise this power, by rules of human laws and constitutions, in litigious
and oppressive courts, in the room of that institution of Christ, whose
power and exercise is spiritual, by spiritual means, according to the
Scripture rules, — it is lawful for any in m who takes care of his own
salvation and of the means of it
V. This defect in parochial churches, that they are
intrusted by law with no part of the rule of themselves, but are wholly
governed and disposed of by others at their pleasure, in the ways before
mentioned, — which shakes their very being as churches, though there be in
them assemblies for divine worship, founded in common right and the light
of nature, wherein men may be accepted with God, — is accompanied with such
other wants and defects also as will weaken any obligation unto complete
and constant communion with them. I shall give one only instance hereof:
The people’s free choice of all their officers, bishops, elders,
pastors, etc., is, in our judgment, of divine institution, by virtue of
apostolical example and directions. It is also so suitable unto the light
of nature, — namely, that in a society absolutely founded in the
voluntary consent of them who enter into it, and [which] doth
actually exist thereby, without any necessity imposed on them from
prescription, former usage, or the state of being born in and under such
rules and laws, as it is with men in their political societies, the people
should have the election of them who are to rule among them and over them,
there being no provision of a right unto a successive imposition of any
such rulers on them without their own consent, — that nothing can
rationally be pleaded against it. And, therefore, whereas in all
ordinarily settled governments in the world, setting aside the confusion of
their originals, by war and conquests, the succession of rulers is either
by natural generations, the rule being confined unto such a line,
or by a popular election, or by a temperature of both; there hath
been a new way invented for the communication of power and rule in
churches, never exemplified in any political society, — namely, that it
shall neither be successive, as it was under the Old Testament, nor
elective, nor by any temperature of these two ways in one, but by a strange
kind of flux of it through the hands of men who pretend to have so received
it themselves from others. But whether hereon the people of the church can
have that respect and devotion unto them as they would have unto hereditary
rulers (long succession in rulers being the great cause of veneration in
the people), especially such as had a succession one unto another by a
natural descent through divine appointment, as the priests had under the
law, or as unto those whom, on the account of their worth, ability, and
fitness for the work of the ministry among them, they do choose themselves,
they may do well to consider who are concerned. The necessity there is of
maintaining a
VI. What remaineth of those reasons whereon those who cannot comply with the conformity under consideration are cleared, in point of conscience, from any obligation thereunto, and so from all guilt of schism whatever, belongs unto the head of impositions on their consciences and practice, which they must submit unto. These being such as many whole books have been written about, the chief whereof have r o way been answered, — unless railings and scoffings, with contempt and fierce reproaches, with false accusations, may pass for answers, — I shall not here again insist upon them. Some few things of that nature I shall only mention, and put an end unto this dispute:—
1. The conformity required of ministers consists
in a public assent and consent unto the Book of Common Prayer,
with the rubric, in it, which contains all the whole practice of the church
of England, in its commands and prohibitions. Now, these being things that
concern the worship of God in Christ, the whole entire state, order,
2. The conformity that is required of others being precise, and without power of dispensation in them by whom it is required, to answer the rule or law of it before declared, every man by his so conforming doth thereby take it on his conscience, and make it part of his Christian profession, that all which he so conforms unto is not only what he may do, but what he ought to do, both in matter and manner, so far as the law, or any part of it, doth determine or enjoin them. No man is allowed to make either distinction or protestation with respect unto any thing contained in the rules; and, therefore, whatever he doth in compliance therewith is interpretable, in the sight of God and man, as an approbation of the whole. Sincerity and openness in profession is indispensably required of us in order unto our salvation. And, therefore, to instruct men, as unto the worship of God, to do what they do not judge to be their duty to do, but only hope they may do without sin, or to join themselves in and unto that performance of it which either they approve not of as the best in the whole, or not lawful or approvable in some parts of it, is to instruct them unto the debauching of their consciences and ruin of their own souls. “Let every man be persuaded in his own mind;” for “what is not of faith is sin.”
On these suppositions, I say, the imposition of the things so often contended about on the consciences and profession of Christians, — as, namely, the constant, sole use of the liturgy in all church administrations, in the matter and manner prescribed; the use and practice of all canonical ceremonies; the religious observation of stated holidays, with other things of the like nature, — is sufficient to warrant any sober, peaceable disciple of Christ, who takes care of his own edification and salvation, to refrain the communion required in this rule of conformity, unless he be fully satisfied in his own mind that all that it requires is according to the mind of Christ, and all that it forbids is disapproved by him. And whereas the whole entire matter of all these impositions are things whereof the Scripture and the primitive churches know nothing at all, nor is there any rumour of them to be imposed in or on any church of Christ for some centuries of years, I can but pity poor men who must bear the charge and penalties of schism for dissenting from them, as well as admire the fertility of their inventions who can find out arguments to manage such a charge on their account.
But whereas the dissent declared from that communion with parochial assemblies is that whereon we are so fiercely charged with the guilt of schism, and so frequently called schismatics, I shall divert a little to inquire into the nature and true notion of schism itself; and so much the rather, because I find the author of the “Unreasonableness of Separation” omit any inquiry thereinto, that he might not lose the advantage of any pretended description or aggravation of it.
Although it be no part of my
present design to treat of the nature of schism, yet with respect unto what
hath already been discoursed,
There are three notions of schism that deserve our consideration:—
1. The first is that of divisions among the members of the same church, all of them abiding still in the same outward communion, without any separation into distinct parties. And unto schism in this notion of it three things do concur:—
(1.) Want of that mutual love, condescension, and forbearance, which are required in all the members of the same church; with the moral evils of whisperings, back-bitings, and evil surmises, that ensue thereon.
(2.) All undue adherence unto some church offices above others, causing disputes and janglings.
(3.) Disorder in the attendance unto the duties of church assemblies, and the worship of God performed in them. This is the only notion of schism that is exemplified in the Scripture, the only evil that is condemned under that name. This will appear unto any who shall with heedfulness read the Epistles of Paul the apostle unto the Corinthians; wherein alone the nature of this evil is stated and exemplified. But this consideration of schism hath been almost utterly lost for many ages. Whatever men do in churches, so that they depart not from the outward communion of them, it would be accounted ridiculous to esteem them schismatics. Yet this is that which, if not only, yet principally, the consciences of men are to regard, if the will avoid the guilt of schism. But this notion of it, as was said, being not suited unto the interest or advantages of any sort of men, in the charge of it on others, nor any way subservient to secure the inventions and impositions of the most, is on the matter lost in the world.
(1.) That the church continued its state and outward communion: There is no mention of any that separated from it, that constituted a new church; only in the same church they agreed not, but were divided among themselves. Want of love and forbearance, attended with strife and contention among the members of the same church, abiding in the same outward communion, was the schism they were guilty of.
(2.) The effect of this schism was, that the body of the church, or multitudes of the members, by the instigation of some few disorderly persons, had deposed their elders and rulers from their offices, and probably had chosen others in their places; though that be not mentioned expressly in the epistle.
(3.) That the church itself is not blamed for assuming a power unto themselves to depose their elders, much less that they had done it without the consent, advice, or authority of any bishop or other church but only that they had dealt unjustly with those whom they had deposed; who, in the judgment of the church of Rome, unto which they had written for advice, were esteemed not only innocent, but such as had laudably, and profitably discharged their office; whereon the whole blame is cast on those who had instigated the church unto this procedure.
(4.) There was not yet, nor in a hundred and fifty years
after, the least mention or intimation of any schism in a dissent from any
humanly-invented rules or canons for order, government, or worship in any
church, or religious ceremonies imposed on the practice of any in divine
service, — that is, on any church or any of the members of it. There is
not the least rumour of any such things in primitive antiquity, no instance
to be given of any man charged with schism for a dissent from such a rule.
Any such rule, and any ecclesiastical censure upon it, is apocryphal, not
only unto the Scripture, but unto that which I call primitive antiquity.
The first attempt of any thing a this kind was in reference unto the
time and day of the observation of Easter. This was the first
instance among Christians of an endeavour to impose the observation of
human or church constitutions or groundless traditions on any churches or
persons in them. And whereas that which was called a schism between the
This beginning, I say, had the imposition of unscriptural, uninstituted rites, ceremonies, and religious observations, among the churches of Christ, and this solemn rebuke was given unto it. Howbeit the ignorance, superstition, and interest of following ages, with the contempt of all modesty, brake through the boundaries of this holy rebuke, until their own impositions and observations became the substance of all their church-discipline, unto the total subversion of Christian liberty.
Wherefore, to allow church-rulers, or such as pretend so to
be, a liberty and power to appoint a rule of communion, — comprising
institutions and commands of sundry things to be constantly observed in the
whole worship and discipline of the church, not warranted in themselves by
divine authority, — and then to charge believers, abiding firm in the
doctrines of the faith, with schism, for a non-compliance with such
commands and appointments, is that which, neither in the Scripture nor in
primitive antiquity, hath either instance, example,
3. After these things the notion of schism began to be managed variously, according unto the interest of them who seemed to have the most advantage in the application of it unto those who dissented from them. It were an endless thing to express the rise and declare the progress of these apprehensions; but after many loose and declamatory discourses about it, they are generally issued in two heads. The first is, that any kind of dissent from the pope and church of Rome is schism, all the schism that is or can be in the world, the other is, that a causeless separation from a true church is schism, and this only is so. But whereas, in this pretended definition there is no mention of any of its internal causes nor of its formal reason, but a bare description of it by an outward effect, it serves only for a weapon in every man’s hand to perpetuate digladiations about it; for every church esteems itself true, and every one that separates himself esteems himself to have just cause so to do.
In the following times, especially after the rise and prevalency of the Arian heresy, it was ordinary for those of the orthodox persuasion to forsake the communion of those churches wherein Arian bishops did preside, and to gather themselves into separate meetings or conventicles for divine worship; for which they were accused of schism and in sundry places punished accordingly, yea, some of them unto the loss of their lives. Yet I suppose there are none nosy who judge them to have been schismatics.
The separation of When the archdeacon
But in these things we have no concernment. Other notions of schism besides those insisted on we acknowledge not, nor is any other advanced with the least probability of truth. Nor are we to be moved with outcries about schism, wherein, without regard to truth or charity, men contend for their own interest. Of those notions of it which have been received by men sober and learned we decline a trial by none, that only excepted, that the refusal of obedience unto the pope and church of Rome is all that is schism in the world; which, indexed, is none at all.
That which is now so fiercely pleaded by some concerning
different observations of external modes, rites, customs, some more, or
none at all, to make men schismatics, is at once to judge all the primitive
churches to be schismatical. Their differences, varieties, and diversities
among hem about these things cannot be enumerated; and so, without any
disadvantage unto the faith or breach of love, they continued to be until
all church order and power was swallowed up in
For a close unto this whole discourse concerning the original, nature, and state of gospel churches, I shall use that liberty which love of the truth puts into my possession. Churches mentioned in the Scripture, ordained and appointed by the authority of Jesus Christ, were nothing but a certain number of men and women converted to God by the preaching of the gospel, with their baptized seed, associating themselves, in obedience unto Christ’s commands and by the direction of his apostles, for the common profession of the same faith, the observance and performance of all divine institutions of religious worship, unto the glory of God, their own edification, and the conversion of others. These believers, thus associated in societies, knowing the command and appointment of Jesus Christ by his apostles for that end, did choose from among themselves such as were to be their rulers, in the name and authority of Christ, according to the law and order of his institutions, — who in the Scripture are called, on various considerations, elders, bishops, pastors, and the like names of dignity, authority, and office, — who were to administer all the solemn ordinances of the church among them. Unto this office they were solemnly appointed, ordained, or set apart by the apostles themselves, with fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands, or by other ordinary officers after their decease.
This was the way and method of the call and setting apart
of all ordinary officers in the church, both under the Old
Testament and in the New. It is founded in the light of nature. In the
first institution of ordinary church-rulers under the law, the people
looked out and chose fit persons, whom Moses set apart to the office,
The foundation of these churches was generally in a
small number of believers. But that church-state was not complete
until they were supplied with all ordinary officers, as bishops and
deacons. The former were of several sorts, as shall be proved hereafter;
and of them there were many in every church, whose number was increased
Of these churches one only was originally planted, in one city, town, or village. This way was taken from conveniency for edification, and not from any positive institution; and it may be otherwise where conveniency and opportunity do require it. The number in these churches multiplying daily, there was a necessity for the multiplication of bishops or elders among them. Hereon the advantage of some one person in priority of conversion, or of ordination, in age, gifts, and races, especially in ability for preaching the gospel and administering the holy ordinances of the church, with the necessity of preserving order in the society of the elders themselves, gave him peculiar dignity, pre-eminence, and title. He was soon after the bishop, without any disadvantage to the church.
For in those churches, in some of them at least,
evangelists continued for a long season, who had the administration of
church-affairs in their hands. And some there were who were of note among
the apostles, and eminently esteemed by them, who had eminent, yea,
apostolical gifts as to preaching of the word and prayer, which was the
peculiar work of the apostles These were the ἄνδρες ἐλλόγιμοι mentioned by
Every one of these churches were bound by the command of
Christ to live in peace and unity, through the exercise of peculiar,
sincere, and fervent love among all their members; as also to walk in peace
and useful communion with all other churches in the world,
All these churches, and all the members of them, were
obliged, by virtue of divine institution, to obey their guides, to
honour and reverence them; and by their voluntary contribution to provide
for their honourable subsistence and maintenance, according to
their ability. Other church-state neither the Scripture nor antiquity unto
the end of the second century doth know any thing of; which I shall
hereafter more fully manifest, Neither was there any thing known then to be
schism or so esteemed, but a division falling out in some one of these
churches: which happened for the most part, if not only, by some of their
teachers falling into heresy and drawing away disciples after them
To erect new kinds of churches; to introduce into them new orders, new rules, rites and ceremonies; to impose their observation on all churches and all members of them; and to charge their dissent with the guilt of schism, that schism which is prohibited and condemned in the Scripture, — hath much of an assumed authority and severity in it, nothing of countenance from the Scripture or primitive antiquity.
But after that churches began to depart from this original
constitution by the ways and means before declared, every alteration
produced a new supposition of church unity and peace, whereto every church
of a new constitution laid claim. New sorts of schism were also coined and
framed; for there was a certain way found out and carried on, in a mystery
of iniquity, whereby those meek, holy, humble churches or societies of
Christ’s institution, who, as such, had nothing to do with the things of
the world, in power, authority, dignity, jurisdiction,
During the progression of this apostasy, church-unity and schism declined from their centre, and varied their state according unto the present interest of them that prevailed. Whoever had got possession of the name of the church in a prevailing reputation, though the state of it was never so corrupt, made it bite and devour all that disliked it, and would swear that submission unto them in all things was church-unity, and to dissent from them was schism. Unto that state all the world know that things were come in the church of Rome. Howbeit, what hath been disputed about or contended for, of power, privileges, authority, pre-eminence, jurisdiction, catholicism, ways of worship, rule, and discipline, which the world is filled with such a noise about, and in the dispute whereof so many various hypotheses are advanced that cannot be accommodated unto such Christian congregations as we have described, are but the effects of the prudence or imprudence of men; and what it will prove the event will show.
Things of this nature being once well understood will deliver the world from innumerable fruitless, endless contests, sovereign princes from all disturbance on the account of religion, and private persons from the fatal mistake of intrusting the eternal concernments of their souls unto their relation unto one church and not unto another. I am not so vain as at this time to expect the reduction of Christian religion unto its primitive power, purity, and simplicity; nor do I reflect blare on them who walk conscientiously in such a church state and order as they approve of, or suppose it the best they can attain unto; only I think it lawful for all Christ’s disciples at all times to yield obedience unto all his commands, and to abstain from being servants of men in what he hath not enjoined.
An answer
to
Dr Stillingfleet’s book of the Unreasonableness of Separation;
in defence of the vindication of nonconformists from the guilt of schism.
The preceding discourse was
written, for the most part, before the publishing of the treatise of the
1. I shall not depart from the state of the question as laid down by ourselves on our part, as unto our judgment of parochial churches, and our refraining from communion with them. Great pains are taken to prove the several sorts of dissenters to be departed farther from the church of England than they will themselves allow, and on such principles as are disavowed by them; but no disputations can force our assent unto what we know to be contrary unto our principles and persuasions.
2. We do allow those parochial assemblies which have a
settled, unblamable ministry among them to be true churches, so far as they
can pretend themselves so to be; — churches whose original form is from
occasional cohabitation within precincts limited by the law of the land; —
churches without church-power to choose or ordain their officers, to
provide for their own continuation, to admit or exclude members, or to
reform at any time what is amiss among them; — churches which are in all
things under the rule of those who are set over them by virtue of civil
constitutions foreign unto them, not submitted willingly unto by them, and
such, for the most part, as whose offices and power have not the least
countenance given unto them from the Scripture or the practice of the
primitive churches; such as are chancellors, commissaries, officials, and
the like; — churches in which, for the most part, through a total neglect
in evangelical discipline,
3. We do and shall abide by this principle, that communion in faith and love, with the administration of the same sacraments, is sufficient to preserve all Christians from the guilt of schism, although they cannot communicate together in some rites and rules of worship and order. As we will not admit of any presumed notions of schism, and inferences from them, nor allow that any thing belongs thereunto which is not contrary to gospel love, rules, and precepts, in the observance of Christ’s institutions; so we affirm, and shall maintain, that men abiding in the principles of communion mentioned, walking peaceably among themselves; refraining communion with others, peaceably, wherein they dissent from them; ready to join with other churches in the same confession of faith and in the defence of it, and to concur with them in promoting all the real ends of Christian religion; not judging the church-state of others so as to renounce all communion with them, as condemning them to be no churches, continuing in the occasional exercise of all duties of love towards them and their members, — are unduly charged with the guilt of schism, to the disadvantage of the common interest of the protestant religion amongst us.
4. Whereas there are two parts of the charge against us, —
the one for refraining from total
These things being premised, I shall proceed to examine what the reverend Doctor hath farther offered against our former vindication of the Nonconformists from the charge of schism. And I desire the reader to take notice that we delight not in these contentions, that we desire nothing but mutual love and forbearance; but we are compelled, by all rules of Scripture and natural equity, to abide in this defence of ourselves. For whereas we are charged with a crime, and that aggravated as one of the most heinous that men can incur the guilt of in this world, and to justify men in severities against us; being not in the least convinced in our consciences of any accessions thereunto, or of any guilt on the account of it, I suppose the Doctor himself will not think it reasonable that we should altogether neglect the protection of our own innocency.
In the method whereinto he hath cast his discourse, he begins with the reinforcement of his charge against our refraining from total communion with parochial assemblies. If the reader will be pleased to take a review of what is said in the preceding discourse unto this head of our charge, in several chapters, he will easily perceive that either the reasonings of the Doctor reach not the cause in hand, or are insufficient to justify his intention; which I must say, though I am unwilling to repeat it, is by all ways and means to load us with the guilt and disreputation of schism.
That which I first meet withal directly unto this purpose is part ii. p. 157. The forbearance of communion with the church of England in its parochial assemblies (that is, in the way and manner before described) he opposeth with two arguments. The first respects those who allow occasional communion with parochial churches, but will not comply with them in that which is constant and absolute for he says, “If the first he lawful, the latter is necessary, from the commands we have to preserve the peace and unity of the church. And the not doing it,” he says, “is one of the provoking sins of the Nonconformists.” But whether it be a sin or no is “sub judice;” that it is provoking unto some is sufficiently evident. I shall not make this any part of my contest. Those who have so expressed their charity as to give countenance unto this pretended advantage will easily free themselves from the force of this inference; for it must be remembered that this constant, total communion doth not only include a conscientious observance of all things appointed to be done by the rules or canons in those assemblies, but a renunciation also of all other ways and means of edification by joint communion as unlawful and evil. And it will be hard to prove that, on a concession of the lawfulness of communion in some acts of divine worship, it will be necessary for men to oblige themselves unto total, constant communion, with a renunciation and condemnation of all other ways and means of joint edification. It may also be lawful to do a thing, with some respects and limitations, at some times, which it may not be lawful to do absolutely and always. It may be necessary, from outward circumstances, to do that sometimes which is lawful in itself, though not necessary from itself; it can never be necessary to do that which is unlawful. Of the first sort they esteem occasional communion, and the other of the latter.
Some time is spent in taking off an exception unto this
inference from the practice of our Saviour, who had occasional communion
with the Jews in the temple and synagogues; which he proves to have been
constant and perpetual, and not occasional only, and that he prescribed the
same practice unto his disciples. But I think this labour might have been
spared: for there is nothing more clear and certain than that our Lord
Jesus Christ did join with the Jews in the observance of God’s institutions
among them on the one hand; and,
But the Doctor proceeds unto a second argument, p. 163, to
the same purpose, from, as he calls it, “the particular force of that
text,”
I will spare the reader as much as is possible in the repetition of things formerly spoken, and the transcription of his words or my own, without prejudice unto the cause itself.
After a reflection of some obscurity and intricacy in my discourse, he repeats my sense of the words according unto his apprehension, under four heads, about which I shall not contend, seeing whether he hath apprehended my mind aright or no, or expressed the whole of what I declared, belongs not unto the merit of the cause in hand. Nor, indeed, do I yet know directly what he judgeth this text doth prove, or what it is that he infers from it; though I know well enough what it is designed to give countenance unto, and what is the application that is made of it. And, therefore, he issues his whole dispute about it in this inquiry, how far the apostle’s rule hath an influence on this case. But whosoever shall come unto a sedate consideration of this text and context, without prejudice, without preconceived opinions, without interest in parties or causes, will judge it to be a matter of art to apply them unto the present controversy, as unto the imposition of an arbitrary rule of walking in churches on all that are presumed to belong unto them.
But to clear these things, the Doctor proposeth three things to be debated:— “1. Whether the apostle speaks of different opinions or different practices. 2. Whether the rule he gives be mutual forbearance. 3. How far the apostle’s rule hath an influence into this cause.”
The first two of these belong not at all unto the present
argument,
Without any long deductions, artificial insinuations, or diverting reasonings, without wresting the text or context, these things are plain and evident in them:—
1. A supposition of differences among believers in and about opinions and practices relating unto religion and the worship of God. So is [it] at present between us and those of the church of England by whom we are opposed.
2. In this state, whilst these differences do continue, there is one common rule, according unto which those who so dissent among themselves are to walk in the things wherein they are agreed. Such is the rule of faith and love; which we all assent unto and are agreed in.
3. This rule cannot consist in a precise determination of the things in difference, with an authoritative prescription of uniformity in opinions and practice, because it is directed unto upon a supposition of the continuation of those differences between believers.
4. That during the continuation of these differences, or different apprehensions and practices, whilst on all hands they use the means of coming unto the knowledge of the truth in all things, they should walk in love, mutually forbearing one another in those things wherein they differed.
Until it be manifested that these things are not the design of the context, and to contain [not] the sense of the words, they are not only useless unto the Doctor’s design, but opposite unto it, and destructive of it. But nothing is here attempted unto that purpose.
To draw any argument from these words applicable unto his design, t must be proved, —
1. That besides the rule of faith, love, and worship given by divine institution, and obligatory unto all the disciples of Christ or all churches, in all times and ages, the apostles gave a rule concerning outward rites, ceremonies, modes of worship, feasts, and fastings, ecclesiastical government, liturgies, and the like, unto which all believers ought to conform, on the penalty of being esteemed schismatics, and dealt withal accordingly; for this only is that wherein we are concerned.
It is manifest that no advantage unto the cause of imposition and uniformity, as it is stated at present, can be taken from these words of the apostle unless these two things be contained in them; but that either of them is so our author doth not say, nor go about, to prove, in his large discourse on this place. I might therefore forbear any farther examination of it without the least disadvantage unto our cause; but, that I may not seem to waive the consideration of any thing that is pretended material, I shall inquire into the particulars of it.
He proceeds, therefore, to answer his own queries; which he judged conducing unto his purpose. The first of them is, “Whether the apostle speaks of different principles or of different practices.” And I find nothing in the discourse ensuing that hath the least respect unto this inquiry, until towards the close of it, where he grants that different apprehensions are intended, such as were accompanied with different practices; but, in order hereunto, he gives us a large account of the scope of the place and the design of the apostle in it. The substance of it is: That the apostle treats concerning Judaical seducers; that the things in difference were the different apprehensions of men about the law, its ceremonies and worship, with the continuation of them, and the different practices that ensued thereon.
Be it so; what is our or his concernment herein? For it is most certain the apostle designed not the imposition of these things on the churches of the Gentiles, nor did urge them unto a uniformity in them, but declared their liberty from any obligation unto them, and advised them to “stand fast in that liberty,” whatever others did practice themselves or endeavour to impose on them. What this conduceth unto his purpose I cannot understand.
But on the occasion of that expression, being “otherwise
minded,” he demands, “What sense can
Neither do I well understand these things, or what is intended in them; for, —
2. What, then, do I intend by being otherwise minded? Even the same that he doth, and nothing else, — namely, different apprehensions about some things in religion, and particularly those concerning the law and its ceremonies; for, —
3. Let it be supposed that the apostle in particular intends dissensions about the law and the observance of its institutions, yet he doth not determine the case from the especial circumstances of that difference, so adjudging the truth unto one of the parties at variance, but from a general rule how the disciples of Christ ought to deport themselves towards one another during the continuation of such differences But, —
4. The truth is, the apostle hath dismissed the case
proposed in the beginning of the chapter,
Wherefore, although I cannot discern how any thing in this discourse hath the least influence into the case in hand, yet to give a little more light unto the context, and to evidence its unserviceableness unto the Doctor’s intention, I shall give a brief account of the Judaical teachers of those days.
The Jews were by this time distributed into three sorts:—
1. Such as, being obdurate in their unbelief and
rejection of the person of Christ, opposed, persecuted, and blasphemed the
gospel in all places. Thus was it with the generality of the nation. And
the teachers of this sort advanced the excellency, necessity, and
usefulness of the law in contradiction unto Christ and the gospel. These
the apostle describes,
2. Such as professing faith in Christ Jesus and
obedience unto the gospel, yet were of the mind that the whole law of Moses
was not only to be continued and observed among the Jews, but also that it
was to be imposed on the Gentiles who were converted unto the faith. They
thought the gospel did not erect a new church-state, with a new kind of
worship, but only was a peculiar way of proselyting men into Judaism;
against which the apostle disputes in his Epistle into the Hebrews,
especially in
3. There were others who, acquiescing in the liberty of the
Gentiles declared by the apostles,
(1.) Such as were confined and limited unto the temple, and unto the land of Canaan; and, —
(2.) Such as might be observed anywhere among the nations.
They acted accordingly. Those who lived at Jerusalem adhered unto the
temple worship; the whole church there did so. Their judgment in these
things is declared,
Hence there were two sorts of churches in those days (if not three) in separation, more or less, from the apostate church of the unbelieving Jews, which yet was not finally taken away:—
1. The church of Jerusalem and those churches of Judea which were of the same mind and communion with them. These continued in the observance of all the law and of the services of the temple, being allowed them by the apostles.
2. Those of the Jews who lived in the nations, and observed all the rites of the law which were not confined unto the land of Canaan. And, —
3. The churches of the Gentiles, which observed none of
these things, forbearing only their liberty in one or two instances, not to
give the others offence. Some differences and disputes happened sometimes
about these things and the practice of them; whereon Peter himself fell
into a mistake,
I judge that in the beginning of the chapter the apostle
intends those of the first sort; and that as well because he calls them
“dogs” and the “concision,” — which answers unto the account he gives of
them,
His second inquiry, p. 168, is, “Whether the rule which the apostle lays down be only a rule of mutual forbearance.” I do not find that I said anywhere that it was only a rule of mutual forbearance, but that the words of the apostle do enjoin a mutual forbearance among those who are differently minded, p. 26. And I must here say (which I desire to do without offence), that there is no need of any farther answer unto that part of the Doctor’s discourse, but a transcription of that which he pretends to oppose; for what is spoken unto that end consists in a perpetual diversion from the argument in hand.
I did not before precisely determine what was the rule
which the apostle doth intend; I only proved sufficiently that it was not
such a rule as is pleaded for by the Doctor. But the meaning of the phrase
and expression is plain enough, Τῷ αὐτῷ
στοιχεῖν κανόνι. It is directly used once more by the apostle,
But saith our author, “The sense, according to
I answer briefly, — 1. The sense is very certain; because it gives the due bounds unto the differences supposed, — namely, such as concern not the substantials of religion.
2. It doth suppose the continuance of these differences, because the apostle doth suppose the same: “If in any thing ye be otherwise minded;” which hinders no kind of endeavours to compose or remove them.
3. The differences intended were not those between them who imposed the observation of the law on the Gentiles as necessary unto salvation, and those by whom they were opposed; for the apostle gives no such rule as this in that case.
4. I do expressly assign those lesser differences,
which the direction here is applicable unto, — namely, those between the
blind sort of Jews mentioned before and the Gentile believers; which the
apostle states and applies the same rule unto,
Page 170, he proceeds unto his last inquiry, which, indeed, is alone pertinent unto his purpose, — namely, “How this rule hath an influence on our case.”
What this rule is, concerning which this inquiry
is made, he doth not declare. Either the precise signification of the rule
in this place, or the direction given with respect unto that rule, may be
intended; that is, the general rule of our walking in our profession of the
gospel, or the especial rule given by the apostle with respect thereunto
1. But then saith the Doctor, “So far as men agree they are bound to join together, as to opinion or communion.” I grant it (though it be not proved from this place), where such a communion is required of them regularly and in a way of duty. And, —
2. Saith he, “That the best Christians are bound to unite with others, though of lower attainments, and to keep within the same rule.” No doubt; howbeit the apostle speaks of no such things in this place, but only that we should all “walk by the same rule,” in what we have “already attained.” Yea, but, —
3. “This rule takes in all such orders which are lawful and
judged necessary to hold the members of a Christian society together.”
What rule doth this? Who shall appoint the orders intended? Who shall
judge of their necessity? Are they of the institution of Christ or his
apostles? Are they determined to be necessary in the Scripture, the rule
of faith? If so, we are agreed. But if by these “orders” he intends such
as men do or may at any time, under pretence of church authority, invent
and impose as necessary, making alterations in the original state and rule
of the church, as also in its worship and discipline, it will be strange to
me if he can find them out either in the rule h re mentioned or the
direction given with reference unto it, seeing such a practice seems to be
plainly condemned in the words themselves. And it is known that this
pretended power of rule or canon making for the unity of the church was
that which
He therefore objects out of my discourse, p. 171, “Let the apostle’s rule be produced, with any probability of proof to be his, and we are all ready to subscribe and conform unto it.” To which he replies, This is the apostle’s rule, to go as far as they can, and if they can go no farther, to sit down quietly and wait for farther instruction, and not to break the peace of the church upon present dissatisfaction, nor to gather new churches out of others, upon supposition of higher attainments.”
Ans. 1. Upon a supposition that those who make and impose these new, unscriptural orders are the church, and that as the church they have authority so to make and impose them, if this be not the rule of the apostle, I believe some men judge it ought so to have been. But, —
2. The apostle’s rule is not that we should go as far as we can, as though there were any thing of dispute and difficulty in the matter; but that “whereto we have already attained,” we should “walk by the same rule.”
3. He doth not intimate any thing about breaking the peace of the church, but only what would do so, by an imposition on one another in differences of lesser moment, whilst the general rule of faith and love is attended unto.
4. “To be quiet, and wait for farther instruction,” is the direction given unto both parties, whilst the differences did continue between them, and that in opposition unto mutual impositions.
5. A church that is really so, or so esteemed, may break the peace with its own members and others as well as they with it; and where the fault is must be determined by the causes of what is done.
6. For what is added about “gathering of churches,” it shall be considered in its proper place. But as unto the application of these things unto the present case, there lies in the bottom of them such an unproved presumption of their being the church, — that is, according unto divine institution, for in their being so in any other sense we are not concerned, — of their church power and authority by whom such orders and rules are made, as we can by no means admit of.
I can more warrantably give this as the apostle’s rule than that of our author: “What you have attained unto in the knowledge of the doctrine and mysteries of the gospel, walk together in holy communion of faith and love; but take heed that you multiply not new causes of divisions and differences, by inventing and imposing new orders in divine worship or the rule of the church, casting them out who agree with you in all things of divine revelation and institution.”
Ans. 1. Let the reader, if he please, consult the place whence these words are taken in my discourse, and he will find this evasion obviated.
2. What is intended by “This rule?” Is it the rule given by the apostle? Who that reads the words can possibly pretend unto any such conception of their meaning? If he understand a rule of his own, I know not what it may or may not include.
3. I deny, and shall for ever deny, that the rule here intended by the apostle doth give the least countenance unto the invention and imposition of things not divinely instituted, not prescribed, not commanded in the word, on the pretence that those who so invent and impose them judge them lawful, and that they have authority so to do.
He objects again unto himself out of my discourse, that “The apostles never gave any such rules themselves about outward modes of worship, with ceremonies, feasts, fasts, liturgies,” etc. Whereunto he replies, “What then?” I say then, —
1. It had been happy for Christians and Christian religion if those who pretended to be their successors had followed their example, and made no such rules at all; that they would not have thought themselves wiser than they, or more careful for the good of the church, or better acquainted with the mind of Christ in these things than they were; for that multiplication of rules, laws, canons, about the things mentioned, and others of an alike nature, which the apostles, never gave any example of or encouragement unto, which afterward ensued, hath been a principal means of altering the state of the church from its original institution, of corrupting its worship, and administering occasion unto scandal and endless strifes.
2. If the apostles gave no such rules themselves,
it may be concluded safely that it was because in their judgment no
such rule was to be given. Other reason hereof cannot be
assigned; for if it might have been done according to the mind of Christ,
and by virtue of the commission which they had from him, innumerable evils
might have been prevented by the doing it. They foresaw what differences
would arise in the church, what divisions the darkness and corrupt
3. Then, I say, we beg the pardon of all who concern themselves herein, that we scruple the complying with such rules in religion and the worship of God as the apostles thought not meet to appoint or ordain.
But he adds, “It is sufficient that they gave this general rule, that all lawful things are to be done for the church’s peace.”
Ans. What is to be done for the church’s peace we
shall afterward consider. “To be done,” is intended of acts of religion in
the worship of God. I say, then, the apostles never gave any such rule as
that pretended. The rule they gave was, that all things which Christ hath
commanded were to be done and observed; and for the doing of any thing else
they gave no rule. Especially, they gave not such a large rule as this,
that might serve the turn and interest of the worst of men in imposing on
the church whatever they esteemed lawful, as (not by virtue of any rule of
the apostles, but in an open rejection of all they gave) it afterward fell
out in the church. This is a rule which would do the work to the purpose
of all that have the reputation of governors in the church, be it the pope
or who it will: for they are themselves the sole judges of what is lawful;
the people, as it is pretended, understand nothing of these things.
Whatever, therefore, they have a mind to introduce into the worship of God,
and to impose on the practice of men therein, is to be done by virtue of
this apostolical rule for the “church’s peace,” provided they judge it
“lawful;” and surely no pope was ever yet so stark mad as to impose things
in religion which he himself judged unlawful. Besides, things may be
lawful in themselves, that is, morally, which yet it is not lawful to
introduce into the worship of God, because not expedient nor for
edification; yea, things may be lawful to be done sometimes, on some
occasions, in the worship of God, which yet it would be unlawful to impose
by virtue of a general binding rule for all times and seasons. Instances
may be multiplied in each kind. Therefore, I say, the apostles never gave
this rule; they opened no such door unto arbitrary imposition; they laid no
such yoke on the necks of the disciples, which might prove heavier, and did
so, than that of the Jewish ceremonies which they had taken away, — namely,
that they were to do and observe all that should by their rulers be imposed
on them as lawful in their judgment. This sovereignty over their
consciences was reserved by the apostles unto the authority of
He adds from my paper, or as my sense, “The apostles gave
rules inconsistent with any determining rule, — namely, of mutual
forbearance,”
1. Notwithstanding this rule of forbearance given by the
apostle expressly,
2. The church wherein such differences do fall out may doctrinally determine of the truth in them, as it is the pillar and ground of truth, supposing them to be of such weight as that the edification of the church is concerned in them; for otherwise there is no need of any such determination, but every one may be left unto his own liberty. There are differences at this day in the church of England in doctrine and practice, some of them, in my judgment, of more importance than those between the same church and us; yet it doth not think it necessary to make any determination of them, no, not doctrinally.
3. If the church wherein such differences fall out be not
able in and of itself to make a doctrinal determination of such
differences, they may and ought to crave the counsel and advice of other
churches
For, — (1.) It was only a doctrinal determination,
without imposition on the practice of any. (2.) It was a determination
against impositions directly. And whereas it is said that it was a
determination contrary to the judgment of the imposers, which shows that
the rule of forbearance, where conscience is alleged both ways, is no
standing rule, — I grant that it was contrary to the judgment of the
imposers, but imposed nothing on them, nor was their practice concerned in
that erroneous judgment. They were not required to do any thing contrary
to their own judgment, and the not doing whereof did reflect on their own
consciences. Wherefore, the whole rule given by the apostles, and the
whole determination made, is, that no impositions be made in the
consciences or practice of the disciples of Christ, in things relating to
his worship, but what were necessary by virtue of divine institution. They
added hereunto, that the Gentiles enjoying this liberty ought to use it
without offence, and were at liberty, by virtue of it, to forbear such
things as wherein they had, or thought they had, a natural liberty, in case
they gave offence by the use of them. And the apostles, who knew the state
of things in the minds of the Jews, and all other circumstances, give an
instance in the things which at that season were to be so forborne. And
whereas this determination was not absolute and obligatory on the whole
case unto all churches, — namely, whether the Mosaical law were to be
observed among Christians, — but some churches were left unto their own
judgment and practice, who esteemed it to be still in force, as the
churches of the Jews; and others left unto their own liberty and practice
also, who judged it not to oblige them; both sides or parties being bound
to continue communion among them in faith and love; there is herein a
perpetual establishment of the rule of mutual forbearance in such cases,
nothing being condemned but impositions on one another, nothing commended
but an abstinence from the use of liberty in the case of scandal or
offence. I had therefore reason to say that the false apostles were the
only imposers, — that is, of things not necessary by virtue of any divine
institution And if the author insinuate that the true apostles were such
imposers also, because of the determination they made of this difference,
he will fail in his proof of it. It is true, they imposed on or charged
the consciences
The last thing which he endeavours an answer unto on this occasion lies in these words: “The Jewish Christians were left unto their own liberty, provided they did not impose on others; and the dissenters at this day desire no more than the Gentile church did, — namely, not to be imposed on to observe those things which they are not satisfied it is the mind of Christ should be imposed on them.” So is my sense, in the places referred unto, reported. Nor shall I contend about it, so as that the last clause be changed; for my words are not, “They are not satisfied it is the mind of Christ that they should be reposed on them,” but, “They were not satisfied it is the mind of Christ they should observe.” This respects the things themselves, the other only their imposition. And one reason against the imposition opposed is, that the things themselves imposed are such as the Lord Christ would not have us observe, because not appointed by himself.
But hereunto he answers two things:—
1. “That it was agreed by all the governors of the Christian church that the Jewish Christians should be left unto their own liberty, out of respect unto the law of Moses, and out of regard unto the peace of the Christian church, which otherwise might have been extremely hazarded.” But, —
(1.) The governors of the Christian church which made the determination insisted on were the apostles themselves.
(2.) There was no such determination made, that the Jews should be left unto their own liberty in this matter, but there was only a connivance at their inclination to bear their old yoke for a season; the determination was only on the other hand, that no imposition of it should be made on the Gentiles.
(3.) The determination itself was no act of church government or power, but a doctrinal declaration of the mind of the Holy Ghost.
(4.) It is well that church-governors once judged that impositions in things not necessary were to be forborne, for the sake of the peace of the church; others, I hope, may in due time be of the same mind.
2. He says, “The false apostles imposing on the Gentile Christians had two circumstances in it, which extremely alter their case from that of our dissenters;” for, —
(1.) “They were none of their lawful governors, but went about as seducers, drawing away the disciples of the apostles from them.” It seems, then, —
[1.] That those who are lawful governors, or pretend themselves so to be, may impose what they please without control, as they did in the Papacy and the councils of it. But, —
(2.) Saith he, “They imposed the Jewish rites as necessary to salvation, and not merely as indifferent things.” And the truth is, so long as they judged them so to be, they are more to be excused in their doctrinal impositions of them than others are who by an act of government, fortified with I know not how many penalties, do impose things which themselves esteem indifferent, and those on whom they are imposed do judge to be unlawful.
Whereas he adds, “That he hath considered all things that are material in my discourse, which seem to take off the force of the argument drawn from this text,” I am not of his mind; nor I believe will any indifferent person be so, who shall compare what I wrote therein with his exceptions against it; though I acknowledge it is no easy thing to discover wherein the force of the pretended argument doth lie That we must walk according unto the same rule in what we have attained; that wherein we differ we must wait on God for teaching and instruction; that the apostles, elders, and brethren at Jerusalem determined from the Scriptures, or the mind of the Holy Ghost therein, that the Jewish ceremonies should not be imposed on the Gentile churches and believers; and that thereon those churches continued in communion with each other who did and did not observe those ceremonies, — are the only principles which, in truth, the Doctor hath to proceed upon. To infer from these principles and propositions that there is a national church of divine institution (for what is not so hath no church-power properly so called, the nature of its power being determined by the authority of its institution or erection); that this church hath power in its governors and rulers to invent new orders, ceremonies, and rites of worship, new canons for the observation of sundry things in the rule of the church and worship of God, which have no spring nor cause but their own invention and prescription, and is authorized to impose the observation of them on all particular churches and believers who never gave their consent unto their invention or prescription; and hereon to declare them all to be wicked schismatics who yield not full obedience unto them in these things, — it requires a great deal of art and skill in the managers of the argument.
Part ii., sect. xxi., p. 176, our
author proceeds to renew his charge of schism, or sinful separation,
against those “who though they agree with us,” saith he, “in the
substantials of religion, yet deny any communion with our church to be
lawful.” But apprehending that the state of the question here insinuated
will not be admitted, and that it would be difficult to find them out who
deny any communion with the church of England to be lawful, he adds, that
he doth not speak of “any improper acts of communion, which
1. Where it is not, there is no evangelical communion at all. Whatever acts of worship or church-order men may agree in the practice of, if the foundation of that agreement be not laid in a joint communion in faith and love, they are neither accepted with God nor profitable unto the souls of men; for, —
2. These are the things, — namely, faith and love, — which enliven all joint duties of church order and worship, are the life and soul of it; and how they should be only improperly that which they alone make other things to he properly, I cannot understand.
3. Where there is no defect in these things, — namely, in
faith and love, — the charge of schism on dissenting in things of lesser
moment is altogether unreasonable. It is to he desired that an overweening
of our differences make us not overlook the things wherein we are agreed.
This is one of the greatest evils that attend this controversy. Men are
forced by their interest to lay more weight on a few outward rites and
ceremonies, which the world and the church might well have spared, had they
not come into the minds of some men none know how, than upon the most
important graces and duties of the gospel. Hence, communion in faith
and love is scarce esteemed worth taking up in the streets, in comparison
of uniformity in rites and ceremonies! Let men be as void of, and remote
from, true gospel faith and love as is imaginable, yet if they comply
quietly with, and have a little zeal for, those outward things, they are to
be approved of as very orderly members of the church! And whatever
evidences, on the other hand, any can or do give of their communion in
faith and love with all that are of that communion, yet if they cannot in
In his procedure hereon, our author seems to embrace occasions of contending, seeking for advantages therein in things not belonging unto the merit of the cause; which I thought was beneath him. From my concession, that some at least of our parochial churches are true churches, he asks, “In what sense? Are they churches rightly constituted, with whom they may join in communion as members?” I think it is somewhat too late now, after all this dispute about the reasons of refraining from their communion, and his severe charge of schism upon us for our so doing, to make this inquiry Wherefore he answers himself. “No; but his meaning is, saith he, ‘that they are not guilty of any such heinous errors in doctrine, or idolatrous practice in worship, as should utterly deprive them of the being and nature of churches;’ ” — which I suppose are my words But then comes in the advantage. “Doth,” saith he, “this kindness belong only unto some of our parochial churches? I had thought that every parochial church was true or false according unto its frame or constitution; which, among us, supposeth the owning the doctrine and worship established in the church of England.” I answer briefly, It is true, every church is true or false according unto its original frame and constitution. This frame and constitution of churches, if it proceed from, and depend upon, the institution of Christ, is true and approvable; if it depend only on a national establishment of doctrine and worship, I know not well what to say unto it. But let any of these parochial churches be so constituted as to answer the legal establishment in the land, yet if the generality of their members are openly wicked in their lives, and they have no lawful or sufficient ministry, we cannot acknowledge them for true churches. Some other things of the like nature do ensue, but I shall not insist on them.
He gathers up, in the next place, the titles of the causes alleged for our refraining communion with those parochial assemblies; which he calls our separation from them. And hereon he inquires, “Whether these reasons be a ground for a separation from a church wherein it is confessed there are no heinous errors in doctrine, or idolatrous practice in worship;” that is, as he before cited my words, “as should utterly deprive them of the being and nature of churches.” And if they be not, then saith he, “Such a separation may be a formal schism, because they set up other churches of their own.”
The rule before laid down, “That all things lawful are to
be done for the church’s peace,” taking in the supposition on which it
proceeds,
I say, therefore, — 1. That though a church, or that which pretends itself on any grounds so to be, do not profess any heinous error in doctrine, nor be guilty of idolatrous practice in worship, destroying its nature and being, yet there may be sufficient reasons to refrain from its communion in church order and worship, and to join in or with other churches for edification; that is, that where such a church is not capable of reformation, or is obstinate in a resolution not to reform itself, under the utmost necessity thereof, it is lawful for all or any of its, members to reform themselves, according to the mind of Christ and commands of the gospel.
2. That where men are no otherwise members of any church but by an inevitable necessity and outward penal laws, preventing their own choice and any act of obedience unto Christ in their joining with such churches, the case is different from theirs whose relation unto any church is founded in their own voluntary choice, as submitting themselves unto the laws, institution, and rule of Christ in that church which we shall make use of afterward.
3. The Doctor might have done well to have stated the true nature of schism, and the formal reason of it, before he had charged a formal schism on supposition of some outward acts only.
4. What is our judgment concerning parochial assemblies, how far we separate from them or refrain communion with them, what are the reasons whereon we do so, hath been now fully declared, and thereunto we must appeal on all occasions; for we cannot acquiesce in what is unduly imposed on us, either as unto principles or practice.
“To show,” as he saith, “the insufficiency of our cause of separation, he will take this way, — namely, to show the great absurdities that follow on the allowance of them;” and adds, “These five especially I shall insist upon:— 1. That it weakens the cause of Reformation; 2. That it hinders all union between the protestant churches; 3. That it justifies the ancient schisms, which have been always condemned by the Christian church; 4. That it makes separation endless; 5. That it is contrary to the obligation that lies on all Christians to preserve the peace and unity of the church.”
I shall begin with the consideration of the absurdities charged by him on our principles and practice.
The first of them is, “That it weakens the cause of the Reformation.” This he proves by long quotations out of some French divines. We are not to expect that they should speak unto our cause, or make any determination in it, seeing to the principal of them it was unknown. “But they say that which is contrary unto our principles.” So they may do, and yet this not weaken the cause of the Reformation; for it is known that they say somewhat also that is contrary to the principles of our episcopal brethren, for which one of them is sufficiently reviled, but yet the cause of Reformation is not weakened thereby.
The first testimony produced is that of
And this very
For the other learned men whom he quotes unto the same purpose, I see not any thing that gives the least countenance unto his assertion that our principles weaken the cause of the Reformation. It is true, they plead other causes of separation from the church of Rome than those insisted on by us with respect unto the church of England; and, indeed, they had been otherwise much to blame, having so many things as they had to plead of greater importance. Did we say that the reasons which we plead are all that can be pleaded to justify the separation of the Reformed churches from the church of Rome, it would weaken the cause of Reformation; for we should then deny that idolatry and fundamental errors in faith were any cause or ground of that separation. However, we know that the imposition of them on the faith and practice of all Christians is more pleaded in justification of a separation from them than the things themselves. But allowing those greater reasons to be pleaded against the Roman communion, as we do, it doth not in the least follow that our reasons for refraining communion with parochial assemblies do weaken the cause of the Reformation.
However, let me not be misinterpreted as unto that
expression of “destroying our faith,” — which the communion required with
the church of England, as unto all the important articles of it, doth not
He closeth his transcription of the words of sundry learned men who have justified the separation of the Reformed churches from the church of Rome, wherein we are not in the least concerned, with an inquiry, “What triumph would the church of Rome make over us, had we no other reasons to justify our separation from them but only those which (as is pretended) we plead in our cause?” I say, whereas we do plead, confirm, and justify all the reasons and causes pleaded for the separation of the Reformed churches from them, not opposing, not weakening any of them by any principle or practice of ours, but farther press the force of the same reasonings and causes in all instances whereunto they will extend, I see neither what cause the Papists have of triumph nor any thing that weakens the cause of the Reformation. He adds farther, “How should we be hissed and laughed at, all over the Christian world, if we had nothing to allege for our separation from the Roman church but such things as these!” I answer, that as the case stands, if we did allege no other reasons but those which we insist on for our refraining communion with our own parochial assemblies, we should deserve to be derided for relinquishing the plea of those other important reasons which the heresies, and idolatries, and tyranny of that church do render just and equal: but if we had no other causes of separation from the church of Rome but what we have for our separation from our parochial assemblies at home, as weak as our allegations are pretended to be, we should not be afraid to defend them against all the Papists in the world; and let the world act like itself in hissing.
Whereas, therefore, the cause of Reformation is not in any thing weakened by our principles, no argument, no reason solidly pleaded to justify the separation from the church of Rome being deserted by us, neither testimony, proof, nor evidence being produced to evince that it is weakened by us, I shall, in the second place, as was before proposed, prove that the whole cause of the Protestants’ separation from the church of Rome is strengthened and confirmed by us:—
There were some general principles on which the Protestants proceeded in their separation from the church of Rome, and which they constantly pleaded in justification thereof.
1. The first was, that the Scripture, the word of God,
is a perfect rule of faith and religious worship; so as that nothing
ought to be
The words of
“Require,” saith he, “of Christians only to believe Christ,
and to call no man master but him only; let those leave claiming of
infallibility
This fundamental principle of the first Reformation we do not only firmly adhere unto, rejecting all those opinions and practices whereby its force is weakened and impaired, but also do willingly suffer the things that do befall us in giving our testimony thereunto. Neither will there ever be peace among the churches of Christ in this world until it be admitted in its whole latitude, especially in that part thereof wherein it excludes all impositions of things not prescribed in the Scripture; for there are but few persons who are capable of the subtlety of those reasonings, which are applied to weaken this principle in its whole extent. All men can easily see this, that the sufficiency of the Scripture in general, as unto all the ends of religion, is the only foundation they have to rest and build upon. They do see, actually, that where men go about to prescribe things to be observed in divine worship not appointed in the Scripture, no two churches have agreed therein, but endless contentions have ensued; that no man can give an instance in particular of any thing that is necessary unto the rule of the church, or the observance of the commands of Christ in the worship of God, that is not contained in the Scripture; and hereon are ready to resolve to call no man master but Christ, and to admit of nothing in religion but what is warranted by his word.
2. The second principle of the Reformation, whereon the
reformers justified their separation from the church of Rome, was this:
“That Christian people were not tied up unto blind obedience unto
church-guides, but were not only at liberty, but also obliged to judge for
themselves as unto all things that they were to believe and practice in
religion and the worship of God.” They knew that the whole fabric of the
Papacy did stand on this basis or dunghill, that the mystery of iniquity
was cemented by this device, — namely, that the people were
ignorant, and to be kept in ignorance, being obliged in all things
unto an implicit obedience unto their pretended guides. And that they
might not be capable of nor fit for any other condition, they took from
them the only means of their instruction unto their duty, and the knowledge
of it; that is, the use of the holy Scripture. But the first reformers did
not only vindicate their
This principle of the Reformation, in like manner, is in no
small degree weakened by many, and so the cause of it.
This principle of the Reformation, in vindication of the
rights, liberties, and privileges of the Christian people, to judge and
choose for themselves in matters of religion, to join freely in those
church-duties which are required of them, without which the work of it had
never
3. Another principle of the Reformation is, “That there was not any catholic, visible, organical, governing church, traduced by succession into that of Rome, whence all church power and order was to be derived.” I will not say that this principle was absolutely received by all the first reformers here in England, yet it was by the generality of them in the other parts of the world; for as they constantly denied that there was any catholic church but that invisible of elect believers, allowing the external denomination of “the church” unto he diffused community of the baptized world, so believing and professing that the pope is antichrist, that Rome is mystical Babylon, the seat of the apostatized church of the Gentiles, devoted to destruction, they could acknowledge no such church-state in the Roman church, nor the derivation of any power and order from it. So far as there is a declension from this principle, so far the cause of the Reformation is weakened, and the principal reason of separation from the Roman church is rejected; as shall be farther manifested if occasion require it.
This principle we do firmly adhere unto; and not only so, but it is known that our fixed judgment concerning the divine institution, nature and order of evangelical churches, is such as is utterly exclusive of the Roman church, as a body organized in and under the pope and his hierarchy, from any pretence unto church state, order, or power. And it may be hence judged who do most weaken the cause of Reformation, we or some of them at least by whom we are opposed.
A second absurdity that he chargeth on our way is, “That it would make union among the protestant churches impossible, supposing them to remain as they are,” sect. xxiv., p. 186. To make good this charge he insists on two things:—
“2. That notwithstanding these things, yet many learned protestant divines have pleaded for union and communion with them; which upon our principles and suppositions they could not have done.” But whether they plead for union and communion with them, by admitting into their churches, and submitting unto those ceremonies and unscriptural impositions, — which is alone unto the Doctor’s purpose, — or whether they judge their members obliged to communicate in local communion with them under those impositions, he doth not declare. But whereas neither we nor our cause are in the least concerned in what the Doctor here insists upon, yet because the charge is no less than that our principles give disturbance unto the peace and union of all protestant churches, I shall briefly manifest that they are not only conducive thereunto, but such as without which that peace and union will never be attained:—
1. It is known unto all, that from the first beginning of the Reformation there were differences among the churches which departed from the communion of the church of Rome. And as this was looked on as the greatest impediment unto the progress of the Reformation, so it was not morally possible that in a work of that nature, begun and carried on by persons of all sorts, in many nations, of divers tongues and languages, none of them being divinely inspired, it should otherwise fall out. God, also, in his holy, wise providence, suffered it so to be, for causes known then to himself; but since, sundry of them have been made manifest in the event. For whereas there was an agreement in all fundamental articles of faith among them and all necessary means of salvation, a farther agreement, considering our sloth, negligence, and proneness of men to abuse security and power, might have produced as evil effects as the differences have done; for those which have been on the one hand, and those which have been on the other, have been, and would have been, from the corrupt affections of the minds of men and their secular interests.
2. These differences were principally in or about some doctrines of faith, whereon some fiery spirits among them took occasion, mutually and unjustly enough, to charge each other with heresy; especially was this done among the Lutherans, whose writings are stuffed with that charge, and miserable attempts to make it good. There were also other differences among them, with respect unto church order, rites, ceremonies, and modes of worship. The church of England, as unto the government of the church and sundry other things, took a way by itself; which at present we do not consider.
3. Considering the agreement in all fundamental
articles of faith
4. After the trial and experience of a hundred and fifty years, it is altogether in vain to be expected that any farther reconciliation or union should be effected between these protestant churches by either party’s relinquishment of the doctrines they have so long taught, professed, and contended for, or of their practice in divine worship, which they have so long been accustomed unto. We may as well expect that a river should run backwards as expect any such things.
In this state of things, I say, the principles we proceed upon are the most useful unto the procuring of peace and union among these churches, in the state wherein they are, and without which it will never be effected. I shall, therefore, give an account of those of them which are of this nature and tendency:—
1. And the first is, the absolute necessity of a
general reformation in life and manners of all sorts of persons belonging
unto these churches. It is sufficiently known what a woful condition
the profession even of the protestant religion is fallen unto. How little
evidence is there left of the power of evangelical grace working in the
hearts of men! What little diligence in the duties of holiness and
righteousness! What a deluge of all sorts of vices hath overwhelmed the
nations! And what indications there are of the displeasure of God against
us on the account of these things! Who doth not almost tremble at them?
2. That all these differing churches, and whilst these differences do continue, be taught to prefer their general interest, in opposition unto the kingdom of Satan and Antichrist in the world, before the lesser things wherein they differ, and those occasional animosities that will ensue upon them. It hath been observed in many places that the nearer some men or churches come together in their profession, the more distant they are in their affections; as the Lutherans in many places do more hate the Calvinists than the Papists. I hope it is not so among us. This makes it evident that the want of necessary peace and union among churches cloth not proceed from the things themselves wherein they differ, but from the corrupt lusts and interests of the persons that differ. This evil can no otherwise be cured but by such a reformation as shall, in some measure, reduce primitive simplicity, integrity, and love, such as were among the churches of the converted Jews and Gentiles, when they walked according unto the same rule in what they had attained, forbearing one another in love as unto the things wherein they differed. Until this also be effected, all endeavours for farther union, whilst these differences continue (as they are like to do, unless the whole frame of things in Europe should be changed by some great revolution), will be fruitless and useless.
Were this conscientiously insisted on, out of a pure love
unto Jesus Christ, with zeal for his glory, it would not only be of more
use than innumerable wrangling disputes about the points in difference, but
more than he exactest methods in contriving formularies of consent,
3. That all communion of churches, as such, consists in the communion of faith and love, in the administration of the same sacraments, and common advice in things of common concernment. All these may be observed when, for sundry reasons, the members of them cannot have local, presential communion in some ordinances with each church distinctly. If this truth were well established and consented unto, men might be easily convinced that there is nothing wanting unto that evangelical union among churches which the gospel requires, but only their own humble, holy, peaceable, Christian walking in their several places and stations. But where men put their own interests and possession of present advantages, clothed under the pretence of things necessary thereunto, into conditions of communion, or divest it of that latitude wherein Christ hath left it, by new limitations of their own, it will never be attained on the true evangelical principles that it must proceed upon; for however any may be displeased with it, I must assert and maintain that there is nothing required by our Lord Jesus Christ unto this end of the communion of churches, nor to any other end of church order or worship whatever, but that only in whose observance and performance there is an actual exercise of evangelical grace in obedience unto him.
4. That all private members of these several churches which agree in the communion before mentioned be left unto their own liberty and consciences to communicate in any of these churches, either occasionally or in a fixed way and manner. Neither orders nor compulsory decrees will be useful in this matter, in comparison of their own declared liberty. And so it was among the primitive churches.
5. Where men are invincibly hindered from total
communion with any church, by impositions which they cannot comply
withal without sin; or, by continuing in it, are deprived of the due means
of their edification, the churches whereunto they did belong refusing all
reformation; it is lawful for them, in obedience unto the law of Christ, to
reform themselves, and to make use of the means appointed by him for their
edification, abiding constantly in the communion of all true churches
before described. I confess this is that which we cannot digest, — namely,
an imagination that the Lord Jesus Christ hath
These are the premises whereon we proceed in all that we do; and they are so far from being obstructive of the peace and union of the protestant churches, as that without them they will never be promoted nor attained. And I do beg of this worthy person that he would not despise these things, but know assuredly that nothing would be so effectual to procure the union he desireth as a universal reformation of all sorts of persons, according unto the rule and law of Christ; which, it may be, no man hath greater ability and opportunity in conjunction for than himself: for woe be unto us, if, whilst we contend about outward peace in smaller things, we neglect to make peace with God, and so expose ourselves and the whole nation unto his desolating judgments, which seem already to be impendent over us!
The third absurdity which he chargeth on our practice is, “That it will justify the ancient schisms, which have been always condemned in the Christian church;” and in the management of this charge he proceedeth, if I mistake not, with more than ordinary vehemency and severity, though it be a matter wherein we are least of all concerned.
To make effectual this charge, he first affirms in general, “That, setting aside a few things, they pleaded the same reasons for their separation as I do for ours;” which how great a mistake it is shall be manifested immediately. Secondly, He gives instances in several schisms that were so condemned by the Christian church, and whose practice is justified by us.
In answer hereunto, I shall first premise some things in general, showing the insufficiency of this argument to prove against us the charge of schism, and then consider the instances produced by him. I say, —
1. In times of decay, the declining times of
churches or states, it cannot be but that some will be uneasy in their
minds, although they know not how to remedy what is amiss, nor, it may be,
fix on the particulars which are the right and true causes of the state
which they find troublesome unto them; and whilst it is so with them, it is
not An account of these
schisms is given by
2. To evidence that we give the least countenance unto the ancient schisms, or do contract the guilt with the authors of them, the thing aimed at, there are three things incumbent on him to prove:—
(1.) That our parochial churches, from whom we do
refrain actual
Wherefore, unless the church from which they separated, which was the whole catholic church in the world not agreeing and acting with them, and those parochial assemblies from whose communion we refrain, are the same and of the same consideration, nothing can be argued from those ancient schisms against us, nor is any countenance given by us unto them; for if it be asked of us, whether it be free or lawful for believers to join in society and full communion with other churches besides those that are of our way and especial communion, we freely answer that we no way doubt of it, nor do judge them for their so doing.
(2.) It must be proved, unto the end proposed, that the occasions and reasons of their separation of old were the same, or of the same nature only, with those which we plead for our refraining communion from parochial assemblies. Now, though the Doctor here makes a flourish with some expressions about zeal, discipline, purity of the church, edification (which he will not find in any of their pretences), yet in truth there is not one thing alleged wherein there is a coincidence between the occasions and reasons pleaded by them and ours.
(3.) It ought, also, to be proved that the separation which is charged on us is of the same nature with that charged on them of old; for otherwise we cannot be said to give any countenance unto what they did: for it is known they so separated from all other churches in the world as to confine the church of Christ unto their own party, to condemn all others, and to deny salvation unto all that abode in their communion; which the Donatists did with the greatest fierceness. This was that which, if any thing, did truly and properly constitute them schismatics; as it doth those also who deny at this day church-state and salvation unto such churches as have not diocesan bishops. Now, there is no principle in the world that we do more abhor. We grant a church-state unto all, however it may be defective or corrupted, and a possibility of salvation unto all their members, which are not gathered in pernicious errors, overthrowing the foundation, nor idolatrous in their worship, and who have a lawful ministry, with sufficient means for their edification, though low in its measure and degrees. We judge none but with respect unto our own duty, as unto the impositions attempted to be laid on us, and the acts of communion required of us, which we cannot avoid; nor can any man else, let him pretend what he will to the contrary, avoid the making of a judgment for himself in these things, unless he be brutishly. These things are sufficient to evidence that there is not the least countenance given unto the ancient schisms by any principles of ours; yet I shall add some farther considerations, on the instances he gives unto the same purpose.
The first is that of the Novatians, whose pretences were
the discipline and purity of the churches; wherein he says, “There was a
concurrence of
This error endeavoured to be imposed on all churches, this
false pretence in matter of fact, with the following pride in the
condemnation of all other churches, denying unto them the lawful use of the
sacraments, and rebaptizing them who were baptized in them, do, if we nay
believe the Doctor herein, contain all my pleas for the forbearance
Of the Meletians, whom he reckons up in the next place, no
certain account can be given.
All things are in like manner uncertain concerning
This instance, and some others of an alike nature, the
Doctor affirms that he produced in his sermon, but that “they were gently
passed over by myself and Mr B.” I confess I took no notice of them,
because I was satisfied that the cause under consideration was no way
concerned in them. And the Doctor might to as good purpose have instanced
in forty other schisms, made for the most part by the ambition of bishops,
in the churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Rome, and sundry
other places; yea, in that made by
The story of the Luciferians is not worth repeating. In
short,
I had almost missed the instance of the Donatists, but the
story of them is so well known that it will not bear the repetition; for
although there be no mention of them in
Upon the consideration of these schisms the Doctor
concludes, “That, on these grounds, there hath scarce been any considerable
schism in the Christian church but may be justified upon
All that is of argument in this story is this: That there
were of old some bishops, with one or two who would have been bishops and
could not, who, to exalt and countenance themselves against those who were
preferred to bishoprics before them and above them, invented and maintained
false doctrinal principles, the confession whereof they would have imposed
on other churches; and because they were not admitted, they separated at
once from all other churches in the world but their own, condemning them as
no churches, as not having the sacraments or means of salvation; for which
they were condemned as schismatics: therefore, those who own not subjection
to diocesan bishops by virtue of any institution or command of Christ, who
refrain communion from parochial assemblies, because they cannot,
But we have fixed grounds whereon to try, examine, judge,
and condemn all schisms that are justly so called, — all such as those
before mentioned. If separations arise and proceed from principles of
false doctrine and errors, like those of the Novatians and Donatists; if
they are occasioned by ambition and desire of pre-eminence, like those that
fell out among the bishops of those days, when their parishes and claims
were not regulated by the civil power as now they are; if they do so from a
desire to impose principles and practices not warranted in the Scripture on
others, as it was with
Our author adds, [in the fourth
place,] sect. xxvi. p. 197, “Another argument against this course of
separation is, that these grounds will make separation endless; which is to
suppose all the exhortations of the Scripture to peace and unity among
Christians useless.” But why so? Is there nothing in the authority of
Christ and the sense of the account which is to be given unto him, nothing
in the rule of the word, nothing in the work of the ministry and exercise
of gospel discipline, to keel professed disciples of Christ unto their
duty, and within the bounds of order divinely prescribed unto them, unless
they are fettered and staked down with human laws and constitutions?
Herein I confess I differ, and shall do so whilst I am in this world, from
our reverend author and others. To say, as he doth (upon a supposition of
the taking away of human impositions, laws, and canons), that “there are no
bounds set unto separation but what the fancies of men will dictate unto
them,” is dishonourable unto the gospel, and somewhat more. To suppose
that the authority of Christ, the rule of the word, and the work of the
ministry, are not sufficient to prescribe bounds unto separation,
efficaciously affecting the consciences of believers,
The remainder of his discourse on this head consists in a
lepid dramatical oration, framed and feigned for one of his opposers,
wherein he makes him undertake the patronage of schism before
1. That the imposition on him of extenuating the guilt of any real schism is hat which none of his words do give the least countenance unto.
2. That he Doctor’s attempt, in his feigned oration, to
accommodate his principles or ours unto the case of the Donatists, for
their justification (the weakness whereof is evident to every one who knows
any thing of the case of the Donatists), is such an instance
We come at length, in the fifth place, sect. xxviii., p. 209, unto that which is indeed of more importance duly to be considered than all that went before; for, as our author observes, it is that “wherein the consciences of men are concerned.” This argument, therefore, he takes from the obligation which lies upon all Christians to preserve the peace and unity of the church. For the confirmation of this argument, and the application of it unto the case of them who refrain from total communion with our parochial assemblies, — which alone is the case in hand, — he lays down sundry suppositions, which I shall consider in their order, although they may be all granted without any disadvantage unto our cause. But they will be so the better when they are rightly stated:— His first supposition is, “That Christians are under the strictest obligations to preserve the peace and unity of the church.” This being the foundation of all that follows, it must be rightly stated; and to that end three things may be inquired into:— 1. What is that church whose peace and unity we are obliged to preserve; for there are those who lay the firmest claim unto the name, power, and privileges of the church, with whom we are obliged to have neither peace nor unity in the worship of God. 2. What is that peace and unity which we are so obliged to preserve. 3. By what means they are to be preserved.
1. (1.) We are obliged to “follow peace with all men,” to “seek peace and pursue it,” and “if it be possible, to live peaceably with all men.”
(2.) There is a peculiar obligation upon us to seek the peace and prosperity of the whole visible church of Christ on earth, and therein, as we have opportunity, to do good unto the whole household of faith. And, considering what differences, what divisions, what exasperations there are among professors of the name of Christ all the world over, to abide steadfast in seeking the good of them all, and doing good unto them as we have opportunity, is as evident an indication of gospel love as any thing else whatever can be.
(3.) As unto particular churches, there is an
especial obligation upon us to preserve their peace and unity, from our own
voluntary consent to walk in them, in obedience unto the commands of
Christ. Where this is not, we are left unto the general obligation of
seeking the peace of all men, and of the whole professing church in an
especial manner, but have no other peculiar obligation thereunto: for being
cast into churches of this or that form, merely by human constitution and
laws, or by inveterate traditions, lays no new obligation
2. It may be inquired, what is that peace and unity of the church that we are bound to preserve. There may be an agreement, with some kind of peace and unity, in evil. They are highly pretended unto in the church of Rome; but they are so in idolatry, superstition, and heresy. There may be peace and unity in any false and heretical church, — the unity of Simeon and Levi, brethren in evil. But the peace and unity which we are obliged to observe in particular churches is the consent and agreement of the church in general, and all the members of it, walking under the conduct of this guide in a due observation of all the institutions and commands of Christ, performing towards the whole and each other the mutual duties required by him, from a principle of faith and love. This, and this alone, is that unity and peace which we are peculiarly obliged to preserve in particular churches; what is more than this relates unto the general commands of love, unity, and peace, before mentioned.
3. Wherefore this states the means whereby we are to preserve this peace and unity: for we are not to endeavour it, — (1.) By a neglect or omission of the observance of any of the commands of Christ; nor, (2.) By doing or practising any thing in divine worship which he hath not appointed; nor, (3.) By partaking in other men’s sins, through a neglect of our own duty; nor, (4.) By foregoing the means of our own edification, which he commands us to make use of; — for these things have no tendency to the preservation of that peace. And his third supposition is, “That nothing can discharge a Christian from the obligation to communion with his fellow-members, but what is allowed by Christ or his apostles as a sufficient reason of it.” It is fully agreed unto, where a man is a member of any church of divine institution by his own consent and virtual consideration, nothing can discharge him from communion with that church but what is allowed by Christ as a sufficient reason for it.
But a little farther inquiry may be made into these things.
It was before asserted that all things lawful were to be done for the
preservation of the peace of the church. Here it is pleaded that there are
many obligations on us to preserve its peace and unity. I desire to know
unto whom these rules are obligatory, — who they are that ought to yield
obedience unto them. If it be said that these rules are not prescribed
unto the rulers and guides of the church, but unto them only who are under
their conduct, I desire a proof of it, for at the first view it is very
absurd; for as the preservation of the
Now, things that are not necessary in themselves, nor necessary to be observed by a just scandal and offence in case of their omission, are things that may be lawfully forborne. Suppose, now, the rules insisted on to be given principally and in the first place unto the rulers of the church, I desire to know whether they are not obliged by them, for the preservation of the peace and unity of the church, to forbear the imposition of such things on the practice of the whole church in the worship of God as, being no way necessary in themselves, nor such whose omission or the omission of whose imposition, can give scandal or offence unto any. If they are obliged by them so to do, it will be evident where the blame of the division amongst us must lie. To say they are not obliged hereunto by virtue of these rules, is to say that although the preservation of the peace and unity of the church be incumbent on them in a particular manner, — and the chief of them can assign no other end of the office they lay claim unto but only its expediency, or, as is pretended, its necessity unto the preservation of the peace and unity of the church, — yet they are not, by virtue of any divine rules, obliged thereunto. But it seems to me somewhat unequal, that in this contest about the preservation of the peace of the church, we should be bound by rules to do all that we can, whatever it be, and those who differ from us be left absolutely at their liberty, so as not to be obliged to forbear what they may lawfully so do. But to proceed.
Upon these suppositions, and in the confirmation of them,
the Doctor produceth a passage out of
“We shall also judge them who make schisms, being vain, ‘qui sunt immanes,’ or ‘inanes,’ not having the love of God, rather considering their own profit than the unity of the church, — who, for small or any causes, rend and divide the glorious body of Christ, and as much as in them lies destroy it, speaking peace but designing war, straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel; for there can be no rebuke of things by them, to equal the mischief of schism,” lib. iv. cap. 62.
I know not why he should give us such a severe charge for
the impartial consideration of these words, — that as we love our souls, we
should impartially and without prejudice consider them. We hope that, out
of love to the truth, the glory of Christ, and care of our own souls, we do
so consider, and have long since so considered, whatever belongs unto the
cause wherein we engaged, and the oppositions that are made unto it; nor
will we be offended with any that shall yet call on us to persist and
proceed in the same way: but why such a charge should be laid on us with
respect unto these words of
Besides, what are we concerned in them? Is every
separation from a church a schism? Our author shows the contrary
immediately. Is refraining communion in a church-state not of divine
institution, and in things not prescribed by the Lord Christ in the worship
of God, [yet] holding communion in faith and love with all the true
churches of Christ in the world, a damnable schism, or any schism
at all? Hath the reverend author in his whole book once attempted to prove
it to be so, though this be the whole of the matter in difference between
us? Is our forbearance of communion in parochial assemblies, upon the
reasons before pleaded, especially that of human impositions, of the same
nature with the schism from the whole catholic church, without pretence of
any such impositions? Doth he judge us to be such as have no love unto
God, such as prefer our own profit before the unity of the church? I
heartily wish and pray that he may never have a share in that profit and
advantage which we have made unto ourselves by our principles and practice.
Poverty, distress, ruin to our families, dangers, imprisonments,
revilings, with
It may not be impertinent on this occasion to desire of some others that, as they love their own souls, and have compassion for the souls of other men, they would seriously consider what state and condition things are come unto in the church of England; — how much ignorance, profaneness, sensuality, do spread themselves over the nation; what neglect of the most important duties of the gospel, yea, what scoffing at the power of religion, doth abound amongst us; what an utter decay and loss there is of all the primitive discipline of the church what multitudes are in the way of eternal ruin, for want of due instruction and example from them who should lead them; how great necessity there is of a universal reformation, and how securely negligent of it all sorts of persons are; what have been the pernicious effects of imposing things unnecessary and unscriptural on the consciences and practices of men in the worship of God, whereby the church hath been deprived of the labour of so many faithful ministers, who might have at least assisted in preventing that decay of religion, which every day increaseth among us; how easy a thing it were for them to restore evangelical peace and unity amongst all Protestants, without the loss of their ministry, without the diminution of their dignity, without deprivation of any part of their revenues, without the neglect of any duty, without doing any thing against their light and consciences, with respect unto any divine obligation; — and thereon set themselves seriously to endeavour the remedy of these and other evils of the like nature, under a sense of that great account which they must shortly give before the judgment-seat of Jesus Christ.
He proceeds to consider the cases wherein the Scripture allows of separation; which he affirms to be three:—
The second is, in case of false doctrine being imposed instead of true; which he confirms with sundry instances. But there is a little difficulty in this case; for, —
1. It is uncertain when a doctrine may be said to be imposed. Is it when it is taught and preached by the guides and governors of the church, or any of them, without control? If so, then is such preaching a sufficient cause of separation, and will justify them who do at present separate from any church whose ministers preach false doctrine. How false doctrine can be otherwise imposed I know not, unless it be by exacting an express confession of it as truth.
2. What false doctrine it is, which is of this importance as to justify separation, is not easily determinable.
3. If the guides and governors of the church do teach this
false doctrine, who shall judge of it, and determine it so to be, and that
ultimately, so as to separate from a church thereon? Shall the people do
it themselves? are they meet, are they competent for it? are they to make
such a judgment on the doctrine of their guides? do they know what is
heresy? have they read
The third is, in case men make things indifferent necessary to salvation, and divide the church on that account. But, —
1. I know not which is to precede or go before, their division of the church or the just separation, nor how they are to be distinguished; but it was necessary to be so expressed.
2. There are two things in such an imposition, — first, The practice of things imposed; secondly, The judgment of them that impose them. The former alone belongs unto them who are imposed on; and they may submit unto it without a compliance with the doctrine, as many did in the apostles’ days. For the judgment of the imposers, it was their own error and concernment only.
3. Why is not the imposing of things indifferent, so as to make the observation of them necessary unto men’s temporal salvation in this world, so as that the refusal of it shall really affect the refusers with trouble and ruin, as just a cause of separation as the imposing of them as necessary unto eternal salvation, which shall never affect them?
4. This making things indifferent necessary unto salvation,
and as such imposing of them on others, is a thing impossible, that never
was nor ever can be; for it is the judgment of the imposers that is spoken
of, and to judge things indifferent in themselves to be in
In his following discourse concerning miscarriages in churches, where no separation is enjoined, we are not at all concerned, and therefore shall not observe the mistakes in it, which are not a few.
But may there not be other causes of peaceable withdrawing from the communion of a church besides those here enumerated?
1. Suppose a church should impose the observation of Judaical ceremonies, and make their observation necessary, though not to salvation, yet unto the order and decency of divine worship, it may declare them to be in themselves indifferent, but yet make them necessary to be observed.
Or, —
2. Suppose a church should be so degenerated in the life and conversation of all its members, that, being immersed in various sins, they should have only a form of godliness, but deny the power of it; the rule of the apostle being to avoid and turn away from them.
3. Suppose a church be fallen into such decays in faith, love, and fruits of charity, as that the Lord Jesus Christ by his word declares his disapprobation of it; and in that state refuses to reform itself, and persecutes them who would reform themselves. Or, —
4. Suppose the ministry of any church be such as is insufficient and unable to dispense the word and sacraments unto edification, so as theft the whole church may perish as unto any relief by or from the administration of the ordinances of the gospel. I say, in these and such other cases, a peaceable withdrawing from the communion of such churches is warrantable by the rule of the Scripture.
The third part of the Doctor’s discourse he designs to examine the pleas, as he speaks, for separation; and these he refers to four heads whereof the first respects the constitution of the church. And those which relate hereunto are four also:— 1. That parochial churches are not of Christ’s institution; 2. That diocesan churches are unlawful; 3. That our national church hath no foundation; 4. That the people are deprived of their right in the choice of their pastors.
The first of these, — namely, that our parochial churches
are not of Christ’s institution, — he begins withal, and therein I am alone
called
If he say or intend that there are many things in their parochial churches observed, practised, and imposed on all their members, in and about the worship of God, which are not of divine institution, we grant it to be our judgment, and part of our plea in this case. But this is not at all spoken unto.
Wherefore, the greatest part of the ensuing discourse on this head is spent in perpetual diversions from the state of the case under consideration, with an attempt to take advantage for some reflections, or an appearance of success, from some passages and expressions belonging nothing at all unto the merit of the cause; — a course which I thought so learned a person would not have taken in a case wherein conscience is so nearly concerned.
Some mistakes occurring in it have been already rectified, as that wherein he supposeth that my judgment is for the democratical government of the church; as also what he allegeth in the denial of the gradual declension of the primitive churches from their first original institution, hath been examined.
I shall, therefore, plainly and directly propose the things which I assert and maintain in this part of the controversy, and then consider what occurs in opposition unto them, or otherwise seems to be of any force towards the end in general of charging us with schism; and they are these that follow:—
1. Particular churches or congregations, with their order and rule, are of divine institution, and are sufficient unto all the ends of evangelical churches. I take churches and congregations in the same sense and notion as the church of England doth, defining the church by a congregation of believers; otherwise there may be occasional congregations that are not stated churches.
2. Unto these churches there is committed by Christ himself all the ordinary power and privileges that belong unto any church under the gospel; and of them is required the observance of all church duties, which it is their sin to omit.
3. There is no church of any other form, kind, nature,
or constitution that is of divine institution. Things may be
variously ordered
4. Such churches whose frame, constitution, and power are destructive of the order, liberty, power, privileges, and duties of particular churches, are so far contrary unto divine institution, and not to be complied withal.
Hereon we affirm, that whereas we are excluded from total communion in our parochial assemblies, by the imposition of things unto us unlawful and sinful as indispensable conditions of their communion, and cannot comply with them in their rule and worship on the reasons before alleged, it is part of the duty we owe to Jesus Christ to gather ourselves into particular churches or congregations for the celebration of divine worship, and the observation, doing, or performance of all his commands. These are the things which in this case we adhere unto, and which must all of them be overthrown before any colour can be given unto any charge of schism against us; and what is spoken unto this purpose in the Doctor’s discourse we shall now consider. Only, I desire the reader to remember that all these principles or assertions are fully confirmed in the preceding discourse.
That which first occurs in the treatise under consideration unto the point in hand is the exception put in unto a passage in my former discourse, which is as follows:—
“We do not say that because communion in ordinances should be only in such churches as Christ hath instituted, that therefore it is lawful and necessary to separate from parochial churches; but if it be on other grounds necessary so to separate or withhold communion from them, it is the duty of them that do so to join themselves in or unto some other particular congregation.”
I have not observed any occasion wherein the Doctor is more vehement in his rhetoric than he is on that of this passage, which yet appears to me to be good sense and innocent.
1. Hereunto he says, p. 221, —
“That this is either not to the business, or it is a plain giving up of the cause of Independency.” If he judge that it is “not to the business,” I cannot help it, and he might, as I suppose, have done well to have taken no notice of it, as I have dealt with many passages in his discourse; but if it be “a giving up of the cause of Independency,” I say, whatever that be, let whoso will take it, and dispose of it as it seems good unto them. But in proof hereof he says, —
“Wherefore did the dissenting brethren so much insist upon
their
I answer, —
(1.) If any did in those times plead for separate congregations, let them answer for themselves; I was none of them. They did, indeed, plead for distinct congregations, exempt in some few things from a penal rule then endeavoured by some to be imposed on all. But there was no such difference nor restraint of communion between any of them as is at present between us and parochial churches.
(2.) It is very possible that there may be other reasons of forbearing a conjunction in some acts of church-rule, which was all that was pleaded for by the dissenting brethren, than those which are alleged against total communion with parochial churches, in worship, order, and discipline.
2. He adds, secondly, “But if he insists on those things common to our church with other reformed churches, then they are such things as he supposes contrary to the first institution of churches,” etc.
I fear I do not well understand what this means, nor what it tends unto; but according as I apprehend the sense of it, I say, —
(1.) I insist principally on such things as are not common unto them with other reformed churches, but such as are peculiar unto the church of England. These vary the terms and practices of our communion between them and it.
(2.) The things we except against in parochial churches are not contrary to their first institution as parochial, — which, as hath been proved, is the only kind of churches that is of divine institution, — but are contrary unto what is instituted to be done and observed in such churches: which one observation makes void all that he would infer from the present suppositions; as, —
3. He inquireth hereon, “What difference there is between separating from our churches because communion in ordinances is only to be enjoyed in such churches as Christ hath instituted, and separating from them because they have things repugnant unto the first institution of churches.”
The Doctor, I fear, would call this sophistry in another, or at least complain theft it is somewhat oddly and faintly expressed. But we shall consider it as it is:—
(1.) Separation from parochial churches, because communion in ordinances is only to be enjoyed in such churches as Christ hath instituted, is denied by us; it is so in the assertion opposed by him, and I do not know whether it be laid down by him as that which we affirm or which we deny.
(2.) There is great ambiguity in the latter clause, of
“Separating
4. But he after saith, “Is not this the primary reason of separation, Because Christ hath appointed unalterable rules for the government of his church, which are not to be observed in parochial churches?”
I answer, No, it is not so; for there may be an omission, at least for a season, in some churches, of some rules that Christ hath appointed in the government of his church (and we judge his rules as unto right unalterable), which may not be a just cause of separation. So the church of the Jews continued a long time in the omission of the observance of the feast of tabernacles. But the principal reason of the separation we defend is the practising and imposing of sundry things in the worship of the church not of divine institution, yea, in our judgment contrary thereunto, and the framing of a rule of government of men’s devising, to be laid on all the members of them; this is the primary cause pleaded herein.
But because the Doctor proposeth a case on those suppositions, whereon he seems to lay great weight, — though, indeed, however it be determined, it conduceth nothing unto his end, but argues only some keenness of spirit against them whom he opposeth, — I shall at large transcribe the whole of it:—
“Let us, then,” saith he, “(1.) suppose that Christ hath,
by unalterable rules, appointed that a church shall consist only of such a
number of men as may meet in one congregation so qualified; and that those,
by entering into covenant with each other” (whereof we shall treat
hereafter), “become a church and choose their officers, who are to teach,
and admonish, and administer sacraments, and to exercise discipline, by the
consent of the congregation. And let us (2.) suppose such a church not yet
gathered, but there lies fit matter for it dispersed up and down in several
parishes. (3.) Let us suppose
The whole design hereof is to prove that we do not withhold communion from their parochial assemblies because of the things that are practised and imposed in them in the worship of God and church-rule, but because of a necessity apprehended of setting up congregational churches. I answer, —
1. We know it is otherwise, and that we plead the true reason, and that which our consciences are regulated by, in refraining from their communion; and it is in vain for him or any man else to endeavour so to bird-lime our understandings by a multiplicity of questions, as to make us think we do not judge what we do judge, or do not do what we know ourselves well enough to do. If we cannot answer sophisms against motion, we can yet rise up and walk.
2. These things are consistent, and are not capable of being opposed one to the other, — namely, that we refrain communion on the reasons alleged, and thereon judge it necessary to erect congregational churches; which we should have no occasion to do were not we excluded from communion in parochial assemblies, as we are.
3. The case being put unto me, I answer plainly unto the Doctor’s last supposition, whereon the whole depends, that if those things which we except against as being unduly practised and imposed in parochial assemblies were removed and taken away, I would hold communion with them, all the communion that any one is obliged to hold with any church, and would in nothing separate from them. This spoils the whole case. But then he will say, I am no Independent. I cannot help that; he may judge as he sees cause, for I am “nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri,” designing to be the disciple of Christ alone.
4. But ye suppose that in such churches, all the things excepted against being removed, there is yet a defect in some unalterable rule that concern the government of the churches, that they answer not in all things the strictness laid down in the Doctor’s first supposition (although it is certain that if not all of them absolutely, yet the most of them, and of the most importance, would be found virtually in parochial assemblies upon the removal of the things excepted against), the inquiry is, what I would do then, or whether I would not set up a congregational church gathered out of other churches. I answer, I tell you plainly what I would do.
(1.) If I were joined unto any such church as wherein there were a defect in any of the rules appointed by Christ for its order and government, I would endeavour peaceably, according as the duties of my state and calling did require, to introduce the practice and observance of them.
5. Suppose that from these defects should arise not only a real obstruction unto edification, but also a necessity of practising some things unlawful to be observed, wherein no forbearance could be allowed, I would not condemn such a church, I would not separate from it, would not withdraw from acts of communion with it which were lawful, but I would peaceably join in fixed personal communion with such a church as is free from such defects; and if this cannot be done without the gathering of a new church, I see neither schism nor separation in so doing.
Wherefore, notwithstanding all the Doctor’s questions, and his case founded on as many suppositions as he was pleased to make, it abides firm and unshaken, that the ground and reason of our refraining communion from parochial assemblies is the practice and imposition of things not lawful for us to observe in them. And it is unduly affirmed, p. 223, that upon my grounds, “Separation is necessary, not from the particular conditions of communion with them, but because parochial churches are not formed after the congregational way;” for what form of churches they have, be it what it will, it is after the congregational way. And it is more unduly affirmed, and contrary unto the rules of Christian charity, that this plea of ours is “a necessary piece of art to keep fair with the presbyterian party;” for as we design to “keep fair,” as it is called, with no parties, but only so far as truth and Christian love require, — and so we design it with all parties whatsoever, — so the plea hath been always insisted on by us, and was the cause of nonconformity in multitudes of our persuasion, before they had any opportunity to gather any congregational churches according to the rule of the gospel. Such things will never help nor adorn any cause in the issue.
But he presseth the due consideration of this art (that, as
I suppose, they may avoid the snare of it) on the Presbyterians, by minding
them what was done in former times, “in the debate of the dissenting
brethren, and the setting up of congregational churches in those days.”
For saith he, “Have those of the congregational way since altered their
judgment? Hath
2. When they begin in good earnest to reform themselves, and to take away the unsufferable conditions of communion excepted against, they may k now more of my judgment, if I am alive (which I do not believe I shall be), as unto separation; though I have spoken unto it plainly enough already.
3. It can not be said that the churches of the Independents were gathered out of presbyterian churches, for the presbyterian government was never here established; and each party took liberty to reform themselves acceding to their principles, wherein there was some difference.
4. Had he presbyterian government been settled at the king’s restoration by the encouragement and protection of the practice of it, without a rigorous imposition of every thing supposed by any to belong thereunto, or a mixture of human constitutions, if there had any appearance of a schism or separation continued between the parties, I do judge they would have been both to blame: for as it cannot be expected that all churches, and all persons in them, should agree in all principles and practices belonging unto church-order, — nor was it so in the days of the apostles, nor ever since among any true churches of Christ, — so all the fundamental principles of church-communion would have been so fixed and agreed upon between them, and all offences in worship so removed, as that it would have been a matter of no great art absolutely to unite them, or to maintain a firm communion among them; no more than in the days of the apostles and the primitive times, in reference to the differences that were among churches in those days, for they allowed distinct communion upon distinct apprehensions of things belonging unto church order or worship, all keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. If it shall be asked, then, Why did they not formerly agree in the assembly? I answer, (1.) I was none of them, and cannot tell; (2.) They did agree, in my judgment, well enough, if they could have thought so; and farther I am not concerned in the difference.
It is therefore notorious, that occasion is given unto our
refraining free communion with parochial churches by the unwarrantable
imposition of things not lawful for us to observe, both in church order
His second exception is unto a saying which I quoted out of
The first is this: “Those voluntary congregations over
which the apostles were set were no limited congregations of any one
particular church; but those congregations over which the apostles were set
are those of which
Ans. 1. Whereas this argument seems to be cast into the form of a syllogism, I could easily manifest how asyllogistical it is, did I delight to contend with him or any else. But, —
2. The conclusion which he infers is directly what I plead for, — namely, that all the churches under the care of the apostles were voluntary congregations.
3. There is a fallacy in that expression, “No limited
congregations of any one particular church.” No such thing is pretended;
but particular churches are congregations. Such were all the churches over
which the apostles were set; and therefore
His second argument, which is no less ambiguous, no less a
rope of sand, than the former, is this: “Those voluntary congregations over
whom the apostles appointed pastors, after their decease were no particular
congregations in one city. But those of whom
Ans. 1. What this is designed to prove or disprove,
or how it doth either of them, I do not understand; but I deny the
proposition. The voluntary congregations over whom the apostles appointed
pastors were all of them particular congregations, either
2. Not to engage
Our author in the next place opposeth what I affirmed of the gradual deviation of the churches after the apostles from the rule of their first institution, which hath been already accounted for.
Sect. iv. p. 224. Upon an occasional expression of mine
about the church of Carthage in See his “Brief Vindication of the Nonconformists,” etc. vol. xii.
of his works.
I thought no man who is so conversant in the writings of
1. That the church of Carthage was at that time a particular church. There was no more church but one in that city. Many occasional meetings and assemblies in several places for divine exercises and worship there were; but stated churches, with officers of their own, members peculiarly belonging unto them, discipline among them, such as our reverend author doth afterward affirm and describe our parochial churches to be, there were none, nor is it pretended that there were.
2. That in this one church there were many presbyters
or elders, who ruled the whole body or community of it by common
advice and counsel. Whether they were all of them such as laboured in the
word and doctrine, with the administration of the sacraments, or attended
3. That among those elders, in that one church, there was one peculiarly called the bishop, who did constantly preside amongst them in all church-affairs, and without whom ordinarily nothing was done; as neither did he any thing without the advice of the elders and consent of the people. How far this may be allowed for order’s sake is worth consideration; of divine institution it is not. But where there are many elders, who have equal interest in and right unto the rule of the whole church, and the administration of all ordinances, it is necessary unto order that one do preside in their meetings and consultations, whom custom gave some pre-eminence unto.
4. That the people were ruled by their own consent; and that in things of greatest importance, as the choice of their officers, the casting out and the receiving in of lapsed members, [they] had their suffrage in the determination of them.
5. That there was no imposition of liturgies, or ceremonies, or any human invention, in the worship of God, on the church or any members of it, the Scripture being the sole acknowledged rule in discipline and worship.
This was the state and order of the church of Carthage in those days; and although there were some alterations in it from the first divine institution of churches, yet I heartily wish that there were no more difference amongst us than what would remain upon a supposition of this state.
For what remains of the opposition made unto what I had asserted concerning congregational or particular churches, I may refer the Doctor and the reader unto what hath been farther pleaded concerning them in the preceding discourse; nor am I satisfied that he hath given any sufficient answer unto what was before alleged in the vindication, but hath passed by what was most pregnant with evidence unto he truth, and by a mistake of my mind or words diverts very much from the state of the question, which is no other but what I laid down before; yet I will consider what is material in the whole of his discourse on this subject.
Sect. v. p. 234. He says, I affirm that as to the “matter
of fact concerning the institution of congregational churches, it seems
evidently exemplified in the Scripture;” for which I refer the reader unto
what is now again declared in the confirmation of it. And he adds, “The
matter of fact is, that when churches grew too big for one
But the Doctor, I presume, makes this observation rather artificially, to prevent an objection against his main hypothesis, than with any design o strengthen it thereby; for he cannot but know how frequently it is pleaded in opposition unto any national church-state, as unto its mention in the Scripture; for he that shall speak of the churches in Essex, Suffolk, Hertfordshire, and so of other counties, without the least intimation of any general church unto which they should belong, would be judged to speak rather the independent than the episcopal dialect.
But, saith he, p. 236, “I cannot but wonder what
But this was not the thing to be proved, nor did I propose it to confirmation nor assert it, but have proved the contrary unto the end of the second century. This only I assert, that every church in one city was only one church; and nothing is offered by the Doctor to the contrary, yea, he affirms the same.
But, saith he, sect. vi. p. 237, “
All the difficulty wherewith our assertion is accompanied
ariseth from the multiplication of believers and the increase of churches,
in the apostles’ time or presently after; for this seems to be so great
1. Whatever difficulty may seem to be in this matter, yet in point of fact so it was; there was no church before the end of the second century of any other species, nature, or kind, but a particular congregational church only, as hath been proved before. Let any one instance be produced of a church of one denomination, national, provincial, or diocesan, or of any other kind than that which is congregational, and I will give over this contest. But when a matter of fact is certain, it is too late to inquire how it might be. And on this occasion I shall add, that if in that space of time, — namely, before the end of the second century, — any proof or undoubted testimony can be produced of the imposition of the necessary use of liturgies, or of stated ceremonies of [or?] the practice of church-discipline, consistent with that now in use in the church of England, it will go a great way in the determination of the whole controversy between us.
2. The admirable prevalency of the gospel in those days consisted principally in its spreading itself all the world over, and planting seminaries for farther conversions in all nations. It did, indeed, prevail more some cities and towns than in others, — in some places many were converted, in others the tender of it was utterly rejected; howbeit it prevailed not unto the gathering of such great numbers into any church solely as might destroy or be inconsistent with its congregational institution. For not all, not, it may be, half, not sometimes a third part of them who made some profession of the truth, and attended unto the preaching of the word, and many of whom underwent martyrdom, were admitted as complete members of the church, unto all the parts of its communion. Hence there were many who upon a general account were esteemed Christians, and that justly, where the churches were but small.
3. It doth not appear that in the next age after the
apostles the churches were anywhere so increased in number as to bear the
least proportion with the inhabitants of the cities and towns wherein they
were. The church of Smyrna, in the days of
4. As for the church of Jerusalem in particular,
notwithstanding the great number of its original converts, — who probably
were many of them strangers occasionally present at the feast of Pentecost,
and there instructed in the knowledge of the truth, that they might, in the
several countries whither they immediately returned, be instruments of the
propagation of the gospel, — it is certain that many years after it
consisted of no greater multitude than could come together in one place to
the management of church-affairs,
Sect. vii. p. 239. He quotes another saying of mine, —
namely, that I “cannot discern the least necessity of any positive rule or
direction in this matter, seeing the nature of the thing and the duty of
man do indispensably require it.” And hereon he attempts to make
advantage, in opposition unto another saying, as he supposeth, of mine, —
namely, “that the institution of churches, and the rules for their disposal
and government throughout the world are the same, stated and unalterable;”
from whence he makes many inferences to countenance him in his charge of
schism. But why should we contend fruitlessly about these things? Had he
been pleased to read a little farther on the same page, he would have seen
that I affirm the institution itself to be a plain command, which,
considering the nature of the duties required of men in church-relation, is
sufficient to oblige them thereunto, without any new revelation unto that
purpose which renders all his queries, exceptions, and inferences of no
use. For I do not speak in that place of the original institution of
churches, whose laws and rules are universal and unalterable, but
The like I must say of his following discourse, p. 241, concerning churches in private families, wherewith I am dismissed. I do grant that a church may be in a family; there was so in the family of Abraham before the law. And if a family do consist of such numbers as may constitute a church meet for the duties required of it, and the privileges intrusted with it, — if it hath persons in it furnished with gifts and graces fit for the ministerial office, and they be lawfully called and set apart thereunto, — I see no reason why they should not be a church although they should be all in the same family. But what is this to the imprisoning of all religious worship in private families, that never were churches, nor can so be, with the admission of some others which our author would justify from this concession, I know not. But it is easy to see what our condition should always be if some men’s power did answer their desires.
But the will of God be done!
I shall not farther concern myself to consider things charged but not proved, repeated but not confirmed, depending on a misunderstanding or misapprehension of words wherein the merit of the cause is not concerned.
That which I first undertook, was a vindication of the nonconformists from the charge of the guilt of schism. And this I engaged in for no other reason but to remove, as far as in me lay, the obstruction that seemed to be cast by the Doctor’s sermon unto the uniting of all Protestants in the same common interest against Popery; for although the design might be good, as I hope it was, and he might judge well of the seasonableness of what he proposed unto its end, yet we found it (it may be from the circumstances of it, as unto time and place) to be of a contrary tendency, to the raising of new disputes, creating of new jealousies, and weakening the hands of multitudes who were ready and willing to join entirely in opposition unto Popery, and [in] the defence of the protestant religion. For if a party of soldiers (as the Doctor more than once alludes unto that sort of men) should be drawing up in a field with others, to oppose a common enemy, [and if] some persons of great authority and command in the army should go unto them, and declare that they were not to be trusted, that they themselves were traitors and enemies, fit to be destroyed when the common enemy was despatched or reconciled; it would certainly abate of their courage and resolution, in what they were undertaking with no less hazard, than any others in the army.
I have here again unto the same end vindicated the
principles of the former vindication, with what brevity I could; for the
truth is, I meet
The true nature
of
a gospel church and its government.
[The second part.]
Wherein these following particulars are distinctly handled:—
I. The subject-matter of the church.
II. The formal cause
of a particular church.
III. Of the polity, rule, or discipline of the
church in general.
IV. The officers of the church.
V. The duty of
pastors of churches.
VI. The office of teachers in the church.
VII.
Of the rule of the church, or of ruling elders.
VIII. The nature of
church polity or rule, with the duty of elders.
IX. Of deacons.
X.
Of excommunication.
XI. Of the communion of churches.
M.DC.LXXXIX
On the ground of some statements in
the following treatise, which was published in 1689, it has been gravely
argued that the author returned to the Presbyterianism of his early days
before he died. In the “Inquiry concerning Evangelical Churches,” (see
vol. xv.), which forms the first part of this work,
That he should differ from both parties on some points is
not surprising when we mark how carefully he has thought out his own views,
from Scripture, giving a freshness and originality of colouring to his
treatises on church-government which render them to the present day
peculiarly interesting and worthy of consultation. It is only, however, by
a process of torture to which no man’s language should be subjected that
The church of Christ, according as
it is represented unto us, or described by the Holy Spirit of God, in the
Old and New Testament, hath but a twofold consideration, — as catholic and
mystical, or as visible and organized in particular congregations. The
catholic church is the whole mystical body of Christ, consisting of all the
elect which are purchased and redeemed by his blood, whether already called
or uncalled, militant or triumphant; and this is the church that God gave
him to be head unto, which is his body and his fullness, and, by union with
him, Christ mystical,
In order, therefore, unto the completing this great and mystical body, Christ hath his particular visible churches and assemblies in this world; wherein he hath ordained ordinances and appointed officers for the forementioned glorious ends and purposes.
There is no other sort of visible church of Christ organized, the subject of the aforesaid institutions spoken of, but a particular church or congregation (either in the Old or New Testament), where all the members thereof do ordinarily meet together in one place to hold communion one with another in some one or more great ordinances of Christ. The first churches were economic, when the worship of God was solemnly performed in the large families of the antediluvian and postdiluvian patriarchs, where, no doubt, all frequently assembled to the sacrifices as then offered, and other parts of worship then in use.
After the descent of a numerous progeny from Abraham’s
loins, God takes them to himself in one visible body, a national but
congregational church, into which he forms them four hundred and thirty
years after the promise, in the wilderness; and although all Abraham’s
natural posterity, according to the external part of the promise made to
him, were taken into visible church fellowship, so that it became a
national church, yet it was such a national church always, in the
wilderness and in the Holy Land, as was congregational, for it was but one
congregation during the tabernacle or temple state, first or second. They
were always bound to assemble at the tabernacle or temple thrice at least
every year; hence the tabernacle was still called “The tabernacle of the
congregation.” They were to have but one
Lastly, When Christ had divorced this people, abolished their Mosaical constitution by breaking their staff of beauty and their staff of bands, he erects his gospel church, calls in disciples by his ministry, forms them into a body, furnisheth them with officers and ordinances, and after he had suffered, rose again, and continued here forty days, — in which time he frequently appeared to them and acquainted them with his will, — ascends unto his Father, sends his Spirit in a plentiful manner at Pentecost, whereby most of them were furnished with all necessary miraculous gifts, to the promoting the glory and interest of Christ among Jews and Gentiles.
Hence the whole evangelical ministry was first placed in the church of Jerusalem (so far as extraordinary, or such a part of it as was [not] to descend to churches of after ages); neither were they placed as abiding or standing officers in any other church, as we find. In this church they acted as the elders thereof; and from this church they were, it is very likely, solemnly sent, by fasting and prayer, to the exercise of their apostolic function in preaching, healing, and working miracles, gathering churches, and settling officers in them, even so as Paul and Barnabas were sent forth by the church of Antioch.
Their distinguishing apostolic office and charge (from which the evangelist differed but little) was to take care of all the churches, — not to sit down as standing pastors to all or any particular congregation, but at the first planting to gather, to direct, and confirm them, in practice of their doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread, and in prayer. Wherefore this apostolic care committed to them proves nothing either of the catholic authority claimed by an œcumenic pastor, or that charge of many congregations claimed by diocesan bishops.
Whence it is most evident that all church-officers, so far as they had any pastoral or episcopal office, were given to a particular congregation as the πρῶτον δεκτικόν. We read of no pastors of many congregations, nor of any church made up of many congregations, to which officers were annexed, nor of any representative church, as some would have.
That apostolic power did descend to successors we utterly deny, it being not derivable; for none after them could say they had been eye-witnesses of our Lord before or after his resurrection, none since so qualified by an extraordinary measure of the Spirit for preaching and working miracles, and none but the pope challenges such an extensive care for and power over all churches. That which descends from them to the ordinary ministry is a commission to preach and baptize: and why not to head, it being always, in the commission that Christ gave, a pastoral relation or presbytership which was included in their apostleship, and exercised toward the church of Jerusalem? Such presbytership John and Peter both had. Hence there remains no other successors “jure” to the apostles but ordinary pastors and teachers.
These are relative officers, and are always in and to some
particular congregations; we know of no catholic visible church that any
pastors are ordained to. 1. The Scripture speaks of no church as catholic
visible. 2. The thing itself is but a chimera of some men’s brains, it is
not “in rerum natura;” for if a
catholic visible church be all the churches that I see at a time, I am not
capable of seeing many more than what can assemble in one place. And if it
be meant of all the churches actually in being, how are they visible to me?
where can they be seen in one place? I may as well call all the cities and
corporations in the world the catholic visible city or corporation, which
all rational men would call nonsense. Besides, if all organized churches
could be got together, it is not catholic in respect of saints militant,
much less of triumphant; for many are no church members that are Christ’s
members, and many visible members are no true members
Again: to a catholic visible church constituted should be a
catholic visible pastor or pastors; for as the church is, such is the
pastor and officers. To the mystical church Christ is the mystical head
and pastor; he is called “The chief Pastor,”
But every church-officer under Christ is a visible relate, and the correlate must he such, whence the church must he visible to which he is an officer. It is absurd to say a man is a visible husband to an invisible wife; the relate and correlate must be “ejusdem naturæ.” It is true, Christ is related to the church as mystical head, but it is in respect of the church in its mystical nature, for Christ hath substituted no mystical officers in his church.
There is a great deal of difference between the mystical and external visible church, though the latter is founded upon it and for the sake of it. It is founded upon it as taking its true spiritual original from it, deriving vital spirits from it by a mystical union to and communion with Christ and his members; — and it is for the sake of it; all external visible assemblies, ministers, ordinances, are for the sake of the mystical body of Christ, for calling in the elect, and the edifying of them to that full measure of stature they are designed unto.
But the different consideration lies in these things, —
That the mystical church doth never fail, neither is diminished by any shocks of temptation or suffering that, in their visible profession, any of them undergo; whereas visible churches are often broken, scattered, yea, unchurched, and many members fall of the grace of God by final apostasy. Likewise Christ’s mystical church is many times preserved in that state only, or mostly, when Christ hath not a visible organized church, according to institution, to be found on the face of the earth. So it was with his church often under the old testament dispensation: as in Egypt; in the days of the judges, when the ark was carried away by the Philistines; in the days of Manasseh and other wicked kings; and especially in Babylon. In such times the faithful ones were preserved without the true sacrifices, the teaching priest, and the law. So hath it been in the days of the new testament, in divers places, under the draconic heathen persecutions, and afterward in the wilderness state of the church, under the antichristian usurpations and false worship. Which mystical state is the place prepared of God to hide the seed of the woman in from the dragon’s rage for the space of one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
Again: unto this mystical church is only essentially
necessary a mystical union unto the Lord Jesus Christ, by the gift of the
Father, acceptation and covenant-undertaking of the Son: the powerful and
efficacious work of the Spirit of the
But of these he hath a special regard, as to their foundation, matter, constitution, and order. He gives forth an exact pattern from mount Zion, as of that typical tabernacle from mount Sinai of old.
1. The foundation part of a visible church is the credible
profession of faith and holiness, wherein the Lord Jesus Christ is the
corner-stone,
This is a society that Christ hath given power to, to choose a pastor and other officers of Christ’s institution, and enjoy all ordinances, the word, sacraments, and prayer, as Christ hath appointed.
Hence a visible church must needs be a separate
congregation; separation is a proper and inseparable adjunct thereof. The
apostle speaks of church-membership,
Hence, as it is separate from all such impurities as are
without, so Christ hath furnished it with sufficient power and means to
keep itself pure, and therefore hath provided ordinances and ministers for
that end and purpose; for the great
Purity cannot be maintained without order. A disorderly society will corrupt within itself; for by disorder it is divided. By divisions the joints and bands are broken, not only of love and affection, but of visible conjunction; so that, roots of bitterness and sensual separation arising, many are defiled.
It is true, there may be a kind of peace and agreement in a society that is a stranger to gospel order; when men agree together to walk according to a false rule, or in a supine and negligent observation of the true rule. There may be a common connivance at each one to walk as he listeth; but this is not order, but disorder by consent. Besides, a church may, for the most part, walk in order when there are breaches and divisions. Some do agree to walk according to the rule, when others will deviate from it. It is orderly to endeavour to reduce those that walk not orderly, though such just undertakings seem sometimes grounds of disturbance and causes of convulsion in the whole body, threatening even its breaking in pieces; but yet this must be done to preserve the whole.
The word translated “order,”
That order may be in a church of Christ, the rules of the
gospel must be known, and that by officers and people. They that are
altogether ignorant of the rule, or negligent in attending it, or doubtful,
and therefore always contending about it, will never walk according to it.
Hence it is the great duty of ministers to study order well, and acquaint
the people with it. It is greatly to be bewailed that so few divines bend
their studies that way. They content themselves only with studying and
preaching the truths that concern faith in the Lord Jesus, and the mere
moral part of holiness; but as to gospel churches or instituted worship,
they generally in their doctrine and practice let it alone, and administer
sacraments as indefinitely as they preach, and care not to stand related to
one people more than another, any further than maintained by them.
Likewise many good people are as great strangers to gospel churches and
order, and, as their ministers, have a great averseness to both, and look
upon it as schism and faction. And this is the great reason of the
readiness of both to comply with rules of men for making churches (canons
established by human laws), being carried away (if they would speak the
truth) by corrupt, Erastian principles, that Christ hath left the church to
be altogether guided and governed by laws of magistratic sanction.
Reformation from the gross, idolatrous part of antichristianism was engaged
in with some heroic courage and resolution; but the coldness and
indifference of Protestants to any farther progress almost ever since is
not a little to be lamented. Many think it enough that the foundation of
the house is laid in purity of doctrine (and it is well if that were not
rather written in the books than preached in pulpits at this day), but how
little do they care to set their hands to building the house! Sure a great
matter it is, from that spiritual slothfulness that many are fallen under,
as likewise from being ready to sink under the great discouragements laid
before them by the adversaries of Judah, when they find the children of the
spiritual captivity
This hastening glory we should endeavour to meet and fetch
in by earnest prayers and faithful endeavours to promote the great work of
our day. The pattern is of late years given forth with much clearness by
models such as God hath set up in this latter age in the wilderness, and
sheltered by “cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by
night; for upon all the glory hath been a defence,” yea, and it hath been
“a tabernacle for a shadow in the daytime from the heat, and for a place of
refuge, and for a covert from the storm and from the rain.” Neither have
we been left to act by the examples or traditions of men. We have had a
full manifestation of the revealed mind and will of Christ, with the
greatest evidence and conviction, God having in these latter times raised
up many most eminent instruments for direction and encouragement unto his
people, which he furnished accordingly with great qualifications to this
end and purpose, that the true original, nature, institution, and order, of
evangelical churches might be known, distinguished, prized, and adhered to,
by all that know the name of Christ, and would be followers of him as his
disciples, in obedience to all his revealed mind and will; amongst which
faithful and renowned servants of Christ the late author of this most
useful and practical treatise hath approved himself to be one of the chief.
I need say nothing of his steadfast piety, universal learning,
indefatigable labours, in incessant vindication of the doctrines of the
gospel (of greatest weight) against all oppositions made thereto by men of
corrupt minds. His surviving works will always be bespeaking his
honourable remembrance amongst all impartial lovers of the truth. They
that were acquainted with him, knew how much the state and standing of the
churches of Christ under the late sufferings and strugglings for
reformation were laid to heart by him, and therefore how he put forth his
utmost strength to assist, aid, comfort, and support the sinking spirits of
the poor saints and people of God, even wearied out with long and repeated
persecutions. It is to be observed that this ensuing treatise was
occasioned by one of the last and most vigorous assaults made upon separate
and congregational churches by a pen dipped in the gall of that persecuting
spirit under which God’s people groaned throughout this land. He then
wrote an elaborate account
J. C. The initials probably of
The true nature of a gospel church and its government.
The church may be considered either as unto its essence, constitution, and being, or as unto its power and order, when it is organized. As unto its essence and being, its constituent parts are its matter and form. These we must inquire into.
By the matter of the church, we understand the persons whereof the church doth consist, with their qualifications; and by its form, the reason, cause, and way of that kind of relation among them which gives them the being of a church, and therewithal an interest in all that belongs unto a church, either privilege or power, as such.
Our first inquiry being concerning what sort of persons our
Lord Jesus Christ requireth and admitteth to be the visible subjects of his
kingdom, we are to be regulated in our determination by respect unto his
honour, glory, and the holiness of his rule. To reckon such persons to be
subjects of Christ, members of his body, such as he requires and owns (for
others are not so), who would not be tolerated, at least not approved, in a
well-governed kingdom or commonwealth of the world, is highly dishonourable
unto him,
Some things, therefore, are to be premised unto what shall be offered unto the right stating of this inquiry; as, —
1. That if there be no more required of any, as unto
personal qualifications, in a visible, uncontrollable profession,
to constitute them subjects of Christ’s kingdom and members of his church,
2. That whereas regeneration is expressly required
in the gospel to give a right and privilege unto an entrance into the
church or kingdom of Christ,
3. Of this regeneration baptism is the symbol, the sign,
the expression, and representation,
4. God alone is judge concerning this regeneration, as unto
its internal, real principle and state in the souls of men,
1. Such as from whom we are obliged to withdraw or
withhold communion can be no part of the matter constituent of a
church, or are not meet members for the first constitution of it,
2. Such as, being in the fellowship of the church, are to
be admonished of any scandalous sin, which if they repent not of
they are to be cast out of the church, are not meet members for the
original constitution of a church,
3. They are to be such as visibly answer the
description given of
4. They must be such as do make an open profession of
the subjection of their souls and consciences unto the authority of Christ
in the gospel, and their readiness to yield obedience unto all his
commands,
(1.) There is required unto it a competent
knowledge of the doctrines and mystery of the gospel, especially
concerning the person and offices of Christ. The confession
hereof was the ground whereon he granted the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
or all church-power, unto believers,
(3.) An instruction in and consent unto the doctrine of
self-denial and bearing of the cross, in a particular manner; for this
is made indispensably necessary by our Saviour himself unto all that will
be his disciples,
(4.) Conviction and confession of sin, with the way of
deliverance by Jesus Christ, is that “answer of a good conscience”
that is required in the baptism of them that are adult,
(5.) Unto this profession is required the constant
performance of all known duties of religion, both of piety in the
public and private
(6.) A careful abstinence from all known sins,
giving scandal or offence either unto the world or unto the church of God,
And the gospel requires that this confession be made (“with the mouth confession is made unto salvation”) against, — (1.) Fear; (2.) Shame; (3.) The course of the world; (4.) The opposition of all enemies whatever.
Hence it appears that there are none excluded from an entrance into the church-state but such as are either, — (1.) Grossly ignorant; or, (2.) Persecutors or reproachers of those that are good, or of the ways of God wherein they walk; or, (3.) Idolaters; or, (4.) Men scandalous in their lives, in the commission of sins or omission of duties, through vicious habits or inclinations; or, (5.) Such as would partake of gospel privileges and ordinances, yet openly avow that they will not submit unto the law and commands of Christ in the gospel; concerning whom and the like the Scripture rule is peremptory, “From such turn away.”
And herein we are remote from exceeding the example and care of the primitive churches; yea, there are but few, if any, that arrive unto it. Their endeavour was to preach unto all they could, and they rejoiced in the multitudes that came to hear the word; but if any did essay to join themselves unto the church, their diligence in their examination and instruction, their severe inquiries into their conversation, their disposing of them for a long time into a state of expectation for their trial, before their admittance, were remarkable; and some of the ancients complain that the promiscuous admittance of all sorts of persons that would profess the Christian religion into church-membership, which took place afterward, ruined all the beauty, order, and discipline of the church.
The things ascribed unto those who are to be esteemed the
proper subject-matter of a visible church are such as, in the judgment of
charity, entitle them unto all the appellations of “saints, called,
sanctified,” — that is, visibly and by profession, — which are given unto
the members of all the churches in the New Testament, and which must be
answered in those who are admitted into that privilege, if we do not wholly
neglect our only patterns. By these things, although they should any of
them not be real living members of the mystical body of Christ, unto whom
he is a head of spiritual and vital influence, yet are they meet members of
that body of Christ unto which he is a head of rule and government, as also
meet to be esteemed subjects of his kingdom; and none are excluded but such
as concerning whom rules are given either to withdraw from them or to cast
them out of church-society, or are expressly excluded by
Divines of all sorts do dispute, from the Scripture and the
testimonies of the ancients, that hypocrites and persons unregenerate may
be true members of visible churches; and it is a matter very easy to he
proved, nor do I know any by whom it is denied: but the only question is,
that whereas, undoubtedly, profession is necessary unto all
church-communion, whether, if men do profess themselves hypocrites in state
and unregenerate in mind, that profession do sufficiently qualify
them for church-communion; and whereas there is a double profession, one by
words, the other by works, as the apostle declares,
There is nothing more certain in matter of fact than that evangelical churches, at their first constitution, were made up and did consist of such members as we have described, and no others; nor is there one word in the whole Scripture intimating any concession or permission of Christ to receive into his church those who are not so qualified. Others have nothing to plead for themselves but possession; which, being “malæ fidei,” ill obtained and ill continued, will afford them no real advantage when the time of trial shall come. Wherefore it is certain that such they ought to be. No man, as I suppose, is come unto that profligate sense of spiritual things as to deny that the members of the church ought to be visibly holy: for if so, they may affirm that all the promises and privileges made and granted to the church do belong unto them who visibly live and die an their sins; which is to overthrow the gospel And if they ought so to be, and were so at first, when they are not so openly and visibly, there is a declension from the original constitution of churches, and a sinful deviation in them from the rule of Christ.
Upon the Roman emperors’ embracing Christian religion, whereby not only outward peace and tranquillity was secured unto the church, but the profession of Christian religion was countenanced, encouraged, honoured, and rewarded, the rule, care, and diligence of the churches, about the admission of members, were in a great measure relinquished and forsaken. The rulers of the church began to think that the glory of it consisted in its numbers, finding both their own power, veneration, and revenue increased thereby. In a short time, the inhabitants of whole cities and provinces, upon a bare, outward profession, were admitted into churches. And then began the outward court, — that is, all that which belongs unto the outward worship and order of the church, — to be trampled on by the Gentiles, not kept any more to the measure of Scripture rule, which thenceforth was applied only to the temple of God and them that worshipped therein: for this corruption of the church, as to the matter of it, was the occasion and means of introducing all that corruption in doctrine, worship, order, and rule, which ensued, and ended in the great apostasy; for whatever belonged unto any of these things, especially those that consist in practice, were accommodated unto the state of the members of the churches. And such they were as stood in need of superstitious rites to be mixed with their worship, as not understanding the power and glory of that which is spiritual; such as no interest in church-order could be committed unto, seeing they were not qualified to bear any share in it; such as stood in need of a rule over them with grandeur and power, like unto that among the Gentiles, Wherefore, the accommodation of all church concerns unto the state and condition of such corrupt members as churches were filled with, and at length made up of, proved the ruin of the church in all its order and beauty.
But so it fell out, that in the protestant reformation of
the church
But this method was designed, in the holy, wise providence of God, for the good and advantage of the church, in a progressive reformation, as it had made a gradual progress into its decay; for had the reformers, in the first place, set themselves to remove out of the church such as were unmeet for its communion, or to have gathered out of them such as were meet members of the church, according to its original institution, it would, through the paucity of the number of those who could have complied with the design, have greatly obstructed, if not utterly defeated, their endeavour for the reformation of doctrine and worship. This was that which, in the preaching of the gospel and the profession of it, God hath since made effectual, in these nations especially, and in other places, to turn multitudes “from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto himself, translating them into the kingdom of his dear Son.” Hereby way is made for a necessary addition unto the work of reformation, if not to the closing of it, which could not at first be attained unto nor well attempted, — namely, the reduction of churches, as unto their matter, or the members of them, unto the primitive institution.
The sum of what is designed in this discourse is this
only:— We desire no more to constitute church-members, and we can desire no
less, than what, in the judgment of charity, may comply with the union that
is between Christ the head and the church,
Our present inquiry yet remaining on these considerations is, What is our duty in point of communion with such churches as are made up or composed of members visibly unholy, or such as comply not with the qualifications that are, by the rules of the gospel, indispensably required to give unto any a regular entrance into the church, with a participation of its privileges; for it is in vain to expect that such churches will reform themselves by any act, duty, or power of their own, seeing the generality of them are justly supposed averse from and enemies unto any such work. I answer, therefore, —
1. It must be remembered that communion with particular churches is to be regulated absolutely by edification. No man is or can be obliged to abide in or confine himself unto the communion of any particular church any longer than it is for his edification. And this liberty is allowed unto all persons by the church of England; for allow a man to be born in such a parish, to be baptized in it, and there educated, yet if at any time he judge that the ministry of the parish is not useful unto his edification, he may withdraw from the communion in that parish by the removal of his habitation, it may be to the next door. Wherefore —
2. If the corruption of a church, as to the matter of it, be such as that, —
(1.) It is inconsistent with and overthroweth all that communion that ought to be among the members of the same church, in love without dissimulation (whereof we shall treat afterward);
(2.) If the scandals and offences which must of necessity abound in such churches be really obstructive of edification;
(3.) If the ways and walking of the generality of their members be dishonourable unto the gospel and the profession of it, giving no representation of the holiness of Christ or his doctrine;
It is the duty of every man who takes care of his own present edification and the future salvation of his soul peaceably to withdraw from the communion of such churches, and to join in such others where all the ends of church-societies may in some measure be obtained. Men may not only do so, because all obligation unto the use of means for the attaining of such an end doth cease when the means are not suited thereunto, but obstructive of its attainment, but also because the giving of a testimony hereby against the declension from the rule of Christ in the institution of churches, and the dishonour that by this means is inflicted on the gospel, is necessary unto all that desire to acquit themselves as loyal subjects unto their Lord and King. And it cannot be questioned, by any who understand the nature, use, and end of evangelical churches, but that a relinquishment of the rule of the gospel in any of them, as unto the practice of holiness, is as just a cause of withdrawing communion from them as their forsaking the same rule in doctrine and worship.
It may be some will judge that sundry inconveniencies will ensue on this assertion, when any have a mind to practice according unto it; but when the matter of fact supposed is such as is capable of an uncontrollable evidence, no inconvenience can ensue on the practice directed unto, any way to be compared unto the mischief of obliging believers to abide always in such societies, to the ruin of their souls.
Two things may be yet inquired into, that relate unto this part of the state of evangelical churches; as, —
1. Whether a church may not, ought not, to take under
its conduct, inspection, and rule, such as are not yet meet to be
received into full communion, such as are the children and servants of
those who are complete members of the church? Ans. No doubt the
church, in its officers, may and ought so to do, and it is a great evil
when it is neglected. For, — (1.) They are to take care of
parents and masters as such, and as unto the discharge of
their duty in their families; which without an inspection into the
condition of their children and servants, they cannot do.
(2.) Households were constantly reckoned unto the church when the
heads of the families were entered into covenant,
The duty of the church towards this sort of persons consists, — (1.) In prayer for them; (2.) Catechetical instruction of them according unto their capacities; (3.) Advice to their parents concerning them; (4.) Visiting of them in the families whereunto they do belong; (5.) Encouragement of them, or admonition, according as there is occasion; (6.) Direction [of them] for a due preparation unto the joining themselves unto the church in full communion; (7.) Exclusion of them from a claim unto the participation of the especial privileges of the church, where they render themselves visibly unmeet for them and unworthy of them.
The neglect of this duty brings inconceivable prejudice
unto churches, and if continued in will prove their ruin; for they are not
to be preserved, propagated, and continued, at the easy rate of a constant
supply by the carnal baptized posterity of those who do at any time, justly
or unjustly, belong unto them, but they are to prepare a meet supply of
members by all the spiritual means whose administration they are intrusted
withal And, besides, one end of churches is to preserve the covenant of God
in the families once graciously taken thereinto. The neglect, therefore,
herein is carefully to be watched against. And it doth arise, — (1.) From
an ignorance of the duty in most that are concerned in it. (2.)
From the paucity of officers in most churches, both teaching and
ruling, who are to attend unto it. (3.) The want of a teacher or
catechist in every church, who should attend only unto the instruction
of this sort of persons. (4.) Want of a sense of their duty in
parents and masters, — [1.] In not valuing aright the great
privilege of having their children and servants under the inspection,
care, and blessing of the church; [2.] In not instilling into them
a sense of it, with the duties that are expected from them on the account
of their relation unto the church; [3.] In not bringing them duly
into the church assemblies;
Where churches are complete in the kind and number of their officers, sufficient to attend unto all the duties and occasions of them; where whole families, in the conjunction of the heads of them unto the church, are dedicated unto God, according unto the several capacities of those whereof they do consist; where the design of the church is to provide for its own successive continuation, in the preservation of the interest of God’s covenant in the families taken thereinto; where parents esteem themselves accountable unto God and the church as unto the relation of their children thereunto, — there is provision for church-order, usefulness, and beauty, beyond what is usually to be observed.
2. The especial duty of the church in admission of
members in the time of great persecution may be a little inquired
into. And, — (1.) It is evident that, in the apostolical and
primitive times, the churches were exceeding careful not to admit
into their society such as by whom they might be betrayed unto the rage of
their persecuting adversaries; yet, notwithstanding all their care, they
could seldom avoid it, but that when persecution grew severe some or other
would fall from them, either out of fear, with the power of temptation, or
by a discovery of their latent hypocrisy and unbelief, unto their great
trial and distress. However, they were not so scrupulous herein, with
respect unto their own safety, as to exclude such as gave a tolerable
account of their sincerity, but, in the discharge of their duty, committed
themselves unto the care of Jesus Christ. And this is the rule whereby we
ought to walk on such occasions. Wherefore, (2.) On supposition of the
establishment of idolatry and persecution here, or in any place, as it was
of old, under first the pagan, and afterward the antichristian tyranny, the
church is obliged to receive into its care and communion all such as, —
[1.] Flee from idols, and are ready to confirm their testimony
against them with suffering; [2.] Make profession of the truth of
the gospel of the doctrine of Christ, especially as unto his person and
offices; are, [3.] Free from scandalous sins; and, [4.] Are
willing to give up themselves unto the rule of Christ in the
church, and a subjection unto all his ordinances and institutions therein:
for in such a season, these things are so full an indication of sincerity
as that, in the judgment
The way or means whereby such persons as are described in the foregoing chapter may become a church, or enter into a church-state, is by mutual confederation or solemn agreement for the performance of all the duties which the Lord Christ hath prescribed unto his disciples in such churches, and in order to the exercise of the power wherewith they are intrusted according unto the rule of the word.
For the most part, the churches that are in the world at present know not how they came so to be, continuing only in that state which they have received by tradition from their fathers, Few there are who think that any act or duty of their own is required to instate them in church order and relation. And it is acknowledged that there is a difference between the continuation of a church and its first erection; yet that that continuation may be regular, it is required that its first congregating (for the church is a congregation) was so, as also that the force and efficacy of it be still continued. Wherefore the causes of that first gathering must be inquired into.
The churches mentioned in the New Testament, planted or
gathered by the apostles, were particular churches, as hath been proved.
These churches did consist each of them of many members; who were so
members of one of them as that they were not members of another. The
saints of the church of Corinth were not members of the church at Philippi.
And the inquiry is, how those believers in one place and the other became
to be a church, and that distinct from all others? The Scripture affirms
in general that they gave up themselves unto the Lord and unto the
apostles, who guided them in these affairs, by the will of God,
That it is the will and command of our Lord Jesus Christ
that all his disciples should be joined in such societies, for the duties
and ends of them prescribed and limited by himself, hath been proved
sufficiently before. All that are discipled by the word are to be taught
to do and observe all his commands,
Were there no other order in particular churches, no other discipline to be exercised in them, nor rule over them, no other duties, no other ends assigned unto them, but what are generally owned and practised in parochial assemblies, the preaching of the word within such a precinct of cohabitation, determined by civil authority, might constitute a church. But if a church be such a society as is intrusted in itself with sundry powers and privileges depending on sundry duties prescribed unto it; if it constitute new relations between persons that neither naturally nor morally were before so related, as marriage doth between husband and wife; if it require new mutual duties and give new mutual rights among themselves, not required of them either as unto their matter or as unto their manner before, — it is vain to imagine that this state can arise from or have any other formal cause but the joint consent and virtual confederation of those concerned unto these ends: for there is none of them can have any other foundation; they are all of them resolved into the wills of men, bringing themselves under an obligation unto them by their voluntary consent. I say, unto the wills of men, as their formal cause; the supreme efficient cause of them all being the will, law, and constitution of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Thus it is in all societies, in all relations that are not merely natural (such as between parents and children, wherein the necessity of powers and mutual duties is predetermined by a superior law, even that of nature), wherein powers, privileges, and mutual duties, are established, as belonging unto that society. Nor, after its first institution, can any one be incorporated into it, but by his own consent and engagement to observe the laws of it: nor, if the nature and duties of churches were acknowledged, could there be any couldst in this matter; for the things ensuing are clear and evident:—
1. The Lord Christ, by his authority, hath appointed and instituted this church-state, as that there should be such churches; as we have proved before.
2. That, by his word or law, he hath granted powers and
privileges
3. That therefore he doth require and command all his disciples to join themselves in such church-relations as we have proved, warranting them so to do by his word and command. Wherefore, —
4. This joining of themselves, whereon depend all their interest in church powers and privileges, all their obligation unto church duties, is a voluntary act of the obedience of faith unto the authority of Christ; nor can it be any thing else.
5. Herein do they give themselves unto the Lord
and to one another, by their officers, in a peculiar manner,
according to the will of God,
6. To “give ourselves unto the Lord,” — that is, unto the Lord Jesus Christ, — is expressly to engage to do and observe all that he hath appointed and commanded in the church, as that phrase everywhere signifieth in the Scripture; as also “joining ourselves unto God,” which is the same.
7. This resignation of ourselves unto the will, power, and
authority of Christ, with an express engagement made unto him of doing and
observing all his commands, hath the nature of a covenant on our
part; and it hath so on his, by virtue of the promise of his especial
presence annexed unto this engagement on our part,
8. For whereas there are three things required unto a covenant between God and man, — (1.) That it be of God’s appointment and institution; (2.) That upon a prescription of duties there be a solemn engagement unto their performance on the part of men; (3.) That there be especial promises of God annexed thereunto, in which consists the matter of confederation, whereof mutual express restipulation is the form, — they all concur herein.
9. This covenant which we intend is not the covenant of grace absolutely considered; nor are all the duties belonging unto that covenant prescribed in it, but the principal of them, as faith, repentance, and the like, are presupposed unto it; nor hath it annexed unto it all the promises and privileges of the new covenant absolutely considered: but it is that which is prescribed as a gospel duty in the covenant of grace, whereunto do belong all the duties of evangelical worship, all the powers and privileges of the church, by virtue of the especial promise of the peculiar presence of Christ in such a church.
10. Whereas, therefore, in the constitution of a church,
believers do give up themselves unto the Lord, and are bound solemnly to
engage themselves to do and observe all the things which Christ hath
commanded to be done and observed in that state, whereon he hath
promised to be present with them and among them in an especial
11. Besides, as we have proved before, there are many
mutual duties required of all which join in church-societies, and
powers to be exercised and submitted unto, whereunto none can be obliged
without their own consent. They must give up themselves unto one another,
by the will of God; that is, they must agree, consent, and engage among
themselves, to observe all those mutual duties, to use all those
privileges, and to exercise all those powers, which the Lord Christ hath
prescribed and granted unto his church. See
12. This completes the confederation intended, which is the formal cause of the church, and without which, either expressly or virtually performed, there can be no church-state.
13. Indeed, herein most men deceive themselves, and think they do not that, and that it ought to be done, and dispute against it as unlawful or unnecessary, which for the substance of it they do themselves, and would condemn themselves in their own consciences if they did it not. For unto what end do they join themselves unto parochial churches and assemblies? to what end do they require all professors of the protestant religion so to do, declaring it to be their duty by penalties annexed unto its neglect? Is it not that they might yield obedience unto Christ in their so doing? is it not to profess that they will do and observe all whatsoever he commands them? is it not to do it in that society, in those assemblies, whereunto they do belong? is there not therein virtually a mutual agreement and engagement among them unto all those ends? It must be so with them who do not in all things in religion fight uncertainly, as men beating the air.
14. Now, whereas these things are, in themselves and for the substance of them, known gospel duties, which all believers are indispensably obliged unto, the more express our engagement is concerning them, the more do we glorify Christ in our profession, and the greater sense of our duty will abide on our consciences, and the greater encouragement be given unto the performance of mutual duties, as also the more evident will the warranty be for the exercise of church-power. Yet do I not deny the being of churches unto those societies wherein these things are virtually only observed, especially in churches of some continuance, wherein there is at least an implicit consent unto the first covenant constitution.
15. The Lord Christ having instituted and appointed
officers, rulers, or leaders, in his church (as we shall see in the next
place), to look unto the discharge of all church-duties among the members
16. Wherefore the formal cause of a church consisteth in an obediential act of believers, in such numbers as may be useful unto the ends of church-edification, jointly giving up themselves unto the Lord Jesus Christ, to do and observe all his commands, resting on the promise of his especial presence thereon, giving and communicating, by his law, all the rights, powers, and privileges of his church unto them; and in a mutual agreement among themselves jointly to perform all the duties required of them in that state, with an especial subjection unto the spiritual authority of rules and rulers appointed by Christ in that state.
17. There is nothing herein which any man who hath a conscientious sense of his duty, in a professed subjection unto the gospel, can question, for the substance of it, whether it be according to the mind of Christ or no; and whereas the nature and essential properties of a divine covenant are contained in it, as such it is a foundation of any church-state.
18. Thus under the old testament, when God would take the
posterity of Abraham into a new, peculiar church-state, he did it
by a solemn covenant. Herein, as he prescribed all the duties of
his worship to them, and made them many blessed promises of his presence,
with powers and privileges innumerable, so the people solemnly covenanted
and engaged with him that they would do and observe all that he had
commanded them; whereby they coalesced into that church-state which abode
unto the time of reformation. This covenant is at large declared,
19. This was that covenant which was to be
abolished, whereon the church-state that was built thereon was
utterly taken away; for hereon the Hebrews ceased to be the peculiar church
of God, because the covenant whereby they were made so was abolished and
taken away, as the apostle disputes at large,
20. Upon the removal, therefore, of this covenant, and the church-state founded thereon, all duties of worship and church-privileges were also taken away (the things substituted in their room being totally of another kind). But the covenant of grace, as made with Abraham, being continued and transferred unto the gospel worshippers, the sign or token of it given unto him is changed, and another substituted in the room thereof. But whereas the privileges of this church-covenant were in themselves carnal only, and no way spiritual but as they were typical, and the duties prescribed in it were burdensome, yea, a yoke intolerable, the apostle declares in the same place that the new church-state, whereinto we are called by the gospel, hath no duties belonging unto it but such as are spiritual and easy, but withal hath such holy and eminent privileges as the church could no way enjoy by virtue of the first church-covenant, nor could believers be made partakers of them before that covenant was abolished. Wherefore, —
21. The same way for the erection of a church-state for the participation of the more excellent privileges of the gospel, and performance of the duties of it, for the substance of it, must still be continued; for the constitution of such a society as a church is, intrusted with powers and privileges by a covenant or mutual consent, with an engagement unto the performance of the duties belonging unto it, hath its foundation in the light of nature, so far as it hath any thing in common with other voluntary relations and societies, was instituted by God himself as the way and means of erecting the church-state of the old testament, and consisteth in the performance of such duties as are expressly required of all believers.
I. The things last treated of
concern the essence of the church, or the essential constituent parts
of it, according unto the appointment
That which we intend, on various considerations and in divers respects, is called the power or authority, the polity, the rule, the government, and the discipline of the church. The formal nature of it is its authority or power; its polity is skill and wisdom to act that power unto its proper ends; its rule is the actual exercise of that power, according unto that skill and wisdom; its government is the exercise and application of that authority, according unto that skill, towards those that are its proper objects; and it is called its discipline principally with respect unto its end. Yet is it not material whether these things are thus accurately distinguished; the same thing is intended in them all, which I shall call the rule of the church.
II. The rule of the church is, in general, the exercise of the power or authority of Jesus Christ, given unto it, according unto the laws and directions prescribed by himself, unto its edification. This power in actu primo, or fundamentally, is in the church itself; in actu secundo, or its exercise, in them that are especially called thereunto. Whether that which is now called the rule of the church by some, being a plain secular dominion, have any affinity hereunto, is justly doubted. That it is in itself the acting of the authority of Christ, wherein the power of men is ministerial only, is evident: for, — 1. All this authority in and over the church is vested in him alone; 2. It is over the souls and consciences of men only, which no authority can reach but his, and that as it is his; whereof we shall treat more afterward.
The sole end of the ministerial exercise of this power and
rule, by virtue thereof, unto the church, is the edification of itself,
III. This is the especial nature and especial end of all
power granted by Jesus Christ unto the church, namely, a ministry unto
edification, in opposition unto all the ends whereunto it hath been
abused; for it hath been so unto the usurpation of a dominion over the
persons and consciences of the disciples of Christ, accompanied with
secular grandeur, wealth, and power. The Lord Christ never
All the pleas of the Romanists are utterly insufficient to secure their papal domination from this sword of the mouth of the Lord Jesus; for whereas their utmost pretence and defence consists in this, that it is not dominion and power absolutely that is forbidden, but the unlawful, tyrannical, oppressive exercise of power, such as was in use among the princes of the Gentiles, never was there any dominion in the world, no, not among the Gentiles, more cruel, oppressive, and bloody than that of the pope’s hath been. But it is evident that our Lord Jesus Christ doth not in the least reflect on the rule or government of the kings and princes of the Gentiles, which was good and gracious; yea, he speaks of them in an especial manner whom their subjects, for their moderate and equal rule, with their usefulness unto their countries, called εὐεργέται, or “benefactors.” Their rule, as unto the kind and administration of it in the kingdoms of the world, he approves of. And such a power or pre-eminence it was, — namely, good and just in itself, not tyrannical and oppressive, — that the two disciples desired in his kingdom; which gave occasion unto this declaration of the nature of his kingdom and the rule thereof. For in this power or dominion two things may be considered:— 1. The exercise of it over the persons, goods, and lives of men, by courts, coercive jurisdictions, processes of law, and external force in punishments; 2. The state, grandeur, pre-eminence, wealth, exaltation above others, which are necessary unto the maintenance of their authority and power. Both these, in the least participation of them, in the least degree whatever, are forbidden by our Saviour to be admitted in his kingdom, or to have any place therein, on what pretence soever. He will have nothing of lordship, domination, pre-eminence in lordly power, in his church. No courts, no coercive jurisdictions, no exercise of any human authority, doth he allow therein; for by these means do the princes of the Gentiles, those that are the benefactors of their countries, rule among them. And this is most evident from what, in opposition hereunto, he prescribes unto his own disciples, the greatest, the best in office, grace, and gifts, namely, a ministry only to be discharged in the way of service. How well this great command and direction of our Lord Jesus Christ hath been, and is, complied withal by those who have taken on them to be rulers in the church is sufficiently known.
It hence follows that the introduction of human authority
into the rule of the church of Christ, in any kind, destroyeth the nature
of it, and makes his kingdom to be of this world, and some of his disciples
to be, in their measure, like the princes of the Gentiles; nor is it,
ofttimes, from themselves that they are not more like them than they are.
The church is the house of Christ, his family, his kingdom. To act any
power, in its rule, which is not his, which derives not from him, which is
not communicated by his legal grant; or to act any power by ways,
processes, rules, and laws, not of his appointment, — is an invasion of his
right and dominion. It can no otherwise be, if the church be his family,
his house, his kingdom; for what father would endure that any power should
be exercised in his family, as to the disposal of his children and estate,
but his own? what earthly prince will bear with such an intrusion into his
rights and dominion? Foreign papal power is severely excluded here in
England, because it intrenches on the rights of the crown, by the exercise
of an authority and jurisdiction not derived from the king, according unto
the law of the land; and we should do well to take care that at the same
time we do not encroach upon the dominion of Christ by the exercise of an
authority not derived from him, or by laws and rules not enacted by him,
but more foreign unto his kingdom than the canon law or the pope’s rule is
unto the laws of this nation, lest we fall under the statute of præmunire,
The persons concerned in this rule of the church, both those that rule and those that are to be ruled, as unto all their civil and political concerns in this world, are subject unto the civil government of the kingdoms and places wherein they inhabit, and there are sundry things which concern the outward state and condition of the church that are at the disposal of the governors of this world; but whereas the power to be exercised in the church is merely spiritual as unto its objects, which are the consciences of men, and as unto its ends, which are the tendency of their souls unto God, their spiritual obedience in Christ, and eternal life, it is a frenzy to dream of any other power or authority in this rule but that of Christ alone.
To sum up this discourse: If the rulers of the church, the
greatest of them, have only a ministerial power committed unto them, and
are precisely limited thereunto; if in the exercise thereof they are
IV. Whereas, therefore, there is a power and authority for its rule unto edification given and committed by the Lord Christ unto his church, I shall proceed to inquire how this power is communicated, what it is, and to whom it is granted; which shall be declared in the ensuing observations:—
1. There was an extraordinary church-power
committed by the Lord Jesus Christ unto his apostles, who in their own
persons were the first and only subject of it. It was not granted unto
the church, by it to be communicated unto them, according unto any
rules prescribed thereunto; for their office, as it was apostolical, was
antecedent unto the existence of any gospel church-state, properly so
called, neither had any church the least concurrence or influence into
their call or mission. Howbeit, when there was a church-state, the
churches being called and gathered by their ministry, they were given unto
the church, and placed in the church for the exercise of all office with
power, unto their edification, according to the rules and laws of their
constitution,
2. This power is ceased in the church. It is so,
not by virtue of any law or constitution of Christ, but by a cessation of
those actings whence it did flow and whereon it did depend. For unto this
apostolical office and power there were required, — (1.) An immediate
personal call from Christ himself; (2.) A commission equally
extensive unto all nations, for their conversion, and unto all
churches An allusion to a saying of
3. Least of all, in the ordinary state of the church, and the continuation thereof, hath the Lord Christ appointed a vicar, or rather, as is pretended, a successor, with a plenitude of all church-power, to be by him parcelled out unto others, This is that which hath overthrown all church rule and order, introducing Luciferian pride and antichristian tyranny in their room. And whereas the only way of Christ’s acting his authority over the churches, and of communicating authority unto them, to be acted by them in his name, is by his word and Spirit, which he hath given to continue in his church unto that end unto the consummation of all things, the pope of Rome placing himself in his stead for these ends, doth thereby “sit in the temple of God, and show himself to be God.” But this is sufficiently confuted among all sober Christians; and those who embrace it may be left to contend with the Mohammedans, who affirm that Jesus left John the Baptist to be his successor, as Ali succeeded unto Mohammed.
4. All those by whom the ordinary rule of the church is to
be exercised unto its edification are, as unto their office and power,
given unto the church, set or placed in it, not as “lords of their
faith, but as helpers of their joy,”
V. These things being thus premised in general concerning church-power, we must treat yet particularly of the communication of it from Christ, and of its distribution as unto its residence in the church:—
1. Every individual believer hath power
or right given unto him, upon his believing, to become a son of God,
2. Wherever there are “two or three” of these believers
(the smallest number), right or power is granted unto them
actually to meet together in the name of Christ for their mutual
edification; whereunto he hath promised his presence among them,
3. Where the number of believers is increased so as that
they are sufficient, as unto their number, to observe and perform all
church-duties in the way and manner prescribed for their performance, they
have right and power granted unto them to make a joint solemn
confession of their faith, especially as unto the person of Christ and
his mediation,
This, therefore, is the church essential and homogeneal, unto which the Lord Christ hath granted all that church-power which we inquire after, made it the seat of all ordinances of his worship, and the tabernacle wherein he will dwell; nor, since the ceasing of extraordinary officers, is there any other way possible for the congregating of any church than what doth virtually include the things we have mentioned.
4. But yet this church-state is not complete, nor are the ends of its institution attainable in this state, for the Lord Christ hath appointed such things in and unto it which in this state it cannot observe; for he hath given authority unto his church, to be exercised both in its rule and in the administration of his solemn ordinances of worship. The things before mentioned are all of them acts of right and power, but not of authority.
5. Wherefore the Lord Christ hath ordained
offices, and appointed officers to be established in the church,
6. Therefore unto the church, in the state before described, right and power is granted by Christ to call, choose, appoint, and set apart, persons made meet for the work of the offices appointed by him, in the ways and by the means appointed by him. Nor is there any other way whereby ordinary officers may be fixed in the church, as we have proved before, and shall farther confirm afterward.
That which hereon we must inquire into is, How, or by what means, or by what acts of his sovereign power, the Lord Christ doth communicate office-power, and therewith the office itself, unto any persons, whereon their authority is directly from him; and what are the acts or duties of the church in the collation of this authority.
The acts of Christ herein may be reduced unto these heads:—
1. He hath instituted and appointed the offices themselves,
and made a grant of them unto the church, for its edification; as
also, he hath determined and limited the powers and duties of the officers.
It is not in the power of any, or of all the churches in the world, to
appoint any office or officer in the church that Christ hath not appointed;
and where there are any such, they can have no church-authority,
2. By virtue of his relation unto the church as its head,
of his kingly power over it and care of it, whereon the continuation and
edification of the church in this world do depend, wherever he hath a
church called, he furnisheth some persons with such gifts, abilities, and
endowments as are necessary to the discharge of such offices, in the
powers, works, and duties of them; for it is most unquestionably evident,
both in the nature of the thing itself and in his institution, that there
are some especial abilities and qualifications required to the discharge of
every church-office. Wherefore, where the Lord Christ doth not communicate
of these abilities in such a measure as by virtue of them church-order may
be observed, church-power exercised, and all church-ordinances administered
according to his mind, unto the edification of the church, it is no more in
the power of men to constitute officers than to erect and create an office
in the church,
This collation of spiritual gifts and abilities for office by Jesus Christ unto any doth not immediately constitute all those, or any of them, officers in the church, on whom they are collated, without the observation of that method and order which he hath appointed in the church for the communication of office-power; yet is it so prerequisite thereunto, that no person not made partaker of them in the measure before mentioned can, by virtue of any outward rite, order, or power, be really vested in the ministry.
3. This communication of office-power on the part of Christ
consists in his institution and appointment of the way and means
whereby persons gifted and qualified by himself ought to be actually
admitted into their offices, so as to administer the powers and perform the
duties of them; for the way of their call and ordination, whereof we shall
speak afterward, is efficacious unto this end of communicating office-power
merely from his institution and appointment of it, and what is not so can
have no causal influence into the communication of this power. For
although sundry things belonging hereunto are directed by the light of
nature, as it is that where one man is set over others in power and
authority, which before he had no natural right unto, it should be by their
own consent and choice; and some things are of a moral nature, as that
especial prayer be used in and about affairs that need especial divine
assistance and favour; and there may be some circumstances of outward
actions herein not to be determined but by the rule of reason on the
present posture of occasions, — yet nothing hath any causal influence into
the
4. He hath hereon given commands unto the whole church to submit themselves unto the authority of these officers in the discharge of their office, who are so appointed, so prepared or qualified, so called by himself, and to obey them in all things, according unto the limitations which himself also hath given unto the power and authority of such officers; for they who are called unto rule and authority in the church by virtue of their office are not thereon admitted unto an unlimited power, to be exercised at their pleasure in a lordly or despotical manner, but their power is stated, bounded, limited, and confined, as to the objects of it, its acts, its manner of administration, its ends, and as unto all things wherein it is concerned. The swelling over these banks by ambition, the breaking up of these bounds by pride and love of domination, by the introduction of a power over the persons of men in their outward concerns, exercised in a legal, coercive, lordly manner, are sufficient to make a forfeiture of all church-power in them who are guilty of them. But after that some men saw it fit to transgress the bounds of power and authority prescribed and limited unto them by the Lord Christ, — which was really exclusive of lordship, dominion, and all elation above their brethren, leaving them servants to the church for Christ’s sake, — they began to prescribe bounds unto themselves, such as were suited unto their interest, which they called rules or canons, and never left enlarging them at their pleasure until they instated the most absolute tyranny in and over the church that ever was in the world.
By these ways and means doth the Lord Christ communicate office-power unto them that are called thereunto; whereon they become not the officers or ministers of men, no, not of the church, as unto the actings and exercise of their authority, but only as the good and edification of the church is the end of it, but the officers and ministers of Christ himself.
It is hence evident, that, in the communication of
church-power in office unto any persons called thereunto, the work and duty
of the church consists formally in acts of obedience unto the commands of
Christ. Hence it doth not give unto such officers a power or authority
that was formally and actually in the body of the community by virtue of
any grant or law of Christ, so as that they should receive and act the
power of the church by virtue of a delegation from them; but only they
design, choose, and set apart the individual persons, who thereon are
intrusted with office-power by Christ himself, according as was before
declared. This is the power and right given unto the church, essentially
considered, with respect unto their officers, — namely, to design, call,
choose, and set apart, the persons,
We need not, therefore, trouble ourselves with the disputes about the first subject of church-power, or any part of it; for it is a certain rule, that, in the performance of all duties which the Lord Christ requires, either of the whole church or of any in the church, especially of the officers, they are the first subject of the power needful unto such duties who are immediately called unto them. Hereby all things come to be done in the name and authority of Christ; for the power of the church is nothing but a right to perform church-duties in obedience unto the commands of Christ and according unto his mind. Wherefore all church-power is originally given unto the church essentially considered, which hath a double exercise; — first, in the call or choosing of officers; secondly, in their voluntary acting with them and under them in all duties of rule. 1. All authority in the church is committed by Christ unto the officers or rulers of it, as unto all acts and duties whereunto office-power is required; and, 2. Every individual person hath the liberty of his own judgment as unto his own consent or dissent in what he is himself concerned.
That this power, under the name of “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” was originally granted unto the whole professing church of believers, and that it is utterly impossible it should reside in any other, who is subject unto death, or if so, be renewed upon any occasional intermission, is so fully proved by all Protestant writers against the Papists that it needs not on this occasion be again insisted on.
VI. These things have been spoken concerning the polity of the church in general, as it is taken objectively for the constitution of its state and the laws of its rule. We are in the next place to consider it subjectively, as it is a power or faculty of the minds of men unto whom the rule of the church is committed; and in this sense it is the wisdom or understanding of the officers of the church to exercise the government in it appointed by Jesus Christ, or to rule it according to his laws and constitutions. Or,
This wisdom is a spiritual gift,
Unto the attaining of this wisdom are required, — 1.
Fervent prayer for it,
How much this wisdom hath been neglected in church-government, yea, how much it is despised in the world, is evident unto all. It is skill in the canon law, in the proceedings of vexatious courts, with the learning, subtilty, and arts, which axe required thereunto, that is looked on as the only skill to be exercised in the government of the church. Without this a man is esteemed no way meet to be employed in any part of the church-government; and according as any do arrive unto a dexterity in this polity, they are esteemed eminently useful. But these things belong not at all unto the government of the church appointed by Christ; nor can any sober man think in his conscience that so they do. What is the use of this art and trade as unto political ends we inquire not. Nor is the true wisdom required unto this end, with the means of attaining of it, more despised, more neglected, by any sort of men in the world, than by those whose pretences unto ecclesiastical rule and authority would make it most necessary unto them.
Two things follow on the supposition laid down:—
1. That the wisdom intended is not promised unto all the members of the church in general, nor are they required to seek for it by the ways and means of attaining it before laid down, but respect is had herein only unto the officers of the church. Hereon dependeth the equity of the obedience of the people unto their rulers; for wisdom for rule is peculiarly granted unto them, and their duty it is to seek after it in a peculiar manner. Wherefore those who, on every occasion, are ready to advance their own wisdom and understanding in the affairs and proceedings of the church against the wisdom of the officers of it are proud and disorderly.
I speak not this to give any countenance unto the outcries of some, that all sorts of men will suppose themselves wiser than their rulers, and to know what belongs unto the government of the church better than they; whereas the government which they exercise belongs not at all unto the rule of the church, determined and limited in the Scripture, as the meanest Christian can easily discern; nor is it pretended by themselves so to do: for they say that the Lord Christ hath prescribed nothing herein, but left it unto the will and wisdom of the church to order all things as they see necessary, which church they are. Wherefore, if that will please them, it shall be granted, that in skill for the management of ecclesiastical affairs according to the canon law, with such other rules of the same kind as they have framed, and in the legal proceedings of ecclesiastical courts, as they are called, there are none of the people that are equal unto them or will contend with them.
2. It hence also follows that those who are called unto
rule in the
The church is considered either as it is essential, with respect unto its nature and being, or as it is organical, with respect unto its order.
The constituent causes and parts of the church, as unto its essence and being, are its institution, matter, and form, whereof we have treated.
Its order as it is organical is founded in that communication of power unto it from Christ which was insisted on in the foregoing chapter.
The organizing of a church is the placing or implanting in it those officers which the Lord Jesus Christ hath appointed to act and exercise his authority therein. For the rule and government of the church are the exertion of the authority of Christ in the hands of them unto whom it is committed, that is, the officers of it; not that all officers are called to rule, but that none are called to rule that are not so.
The officers of the church in general are of two sorts,
“bishops and deacons,”
The bishops or elders are of two sorts:— l. Such as have authority to teach and administer the sacraments, which is commonly called the power of order; and also of ruling, which is called a power of jurisdiction, corruptly: and, 2. Some have only power for rule; of which sort there are some in all the churches in the world.
Those of the first sort are distinguished into pastors and teachers.
The distinction between the elders themselves is not like that between elders and deacons, which is as unto the whole kind or nature of the office, but only with respect unto work and order, whereof we shall treat distinctly.
The first sort of officers in the church are bishops or
elders, concerning whom there have been mighty contentions in the late ages
of the church. The principles we have hitherto proceeded on discharge us
from any especial interest or concernment in this controversy; for if there
be no church of divine or apostolical constitution, none in
Indeed, strife about power, superiority, and jurisdiction
over one another, amongst those who pretend to be ministers of the gospel,
is full of scandal. It started early in the church, was extinguished by
the Lord Christ in his apostles, rebuked by the apostles in all others,
If men would but a little seriously consider what there is in that care of souls, even of all them over whom they pretend church power, rule, or jurisdiction, and what it is to give an account concerning them before the judgment-seat of Christ, it may be it would abate of their earnestness in contending for the enlargement of their cures.
The claim of episcopacy, as consisting in a rank of persons
distinct from the office of presbyters, is managed with great variety. It
is not agreed whether they are distinct in order above them, or only as
unto a certain degree among them of the same order. It is not determined
what doth constitute that pretended distinct order, nor wherein that degree
of pre- eminence in the same order doth consist, nor what basis it stands
upon. It is not agreed whether this order of bishops hath any church-power
appropriated unto it, so as to be acted singly by themselves alone, without
the concurrence of the presbyters, or how far that concurrence is necessary
in all acts of church order or power. There are no bounds or limits of the
dioceses which they claim the rule in and over, as churches whereunto they
are peculiarly related, derived either from divine institution or
tradition, or general rules of reason respecting both or either of them, or
from the consideration of gifts and abilities, or any thing else wherein
church-order or edification is concerned. Those who plead for diocesan
episcopacy will not proceed any farther but only that there is, and ought
to be, a superiority in bishops over presbyters in order or degree; but
whether this must be over presbyters
But yet, because it is necessary unto the clearing of the evangelical pastoral office, which is now under consideration, unto what hath been pleaded before about the non-institution of any churches beyond particular congregations, which is utterly exclusive of all pretences of the present episcopacy, I shall briefly, as in a diversion, add the arguments which undeniably prove that in the whole New Testament bishops and presbyters, or elders, are every way the same persons, in the same office, have the same function, without distinction in order or degree; which also, as unto the Scripture, the most learned advocates of prelacy begin to grant:—
1. The apostle describing what ought to be the
qualifications of presbyters or elders, gives this reason of it,
Because a bishop must be so:
2. There were Many bishops in one city, in one
particular church:
3. The apostle, being at Miletus, sent to Ephesus for the
elders of the church to come unto him; that is, the elders of the church at
Ephesus, as hath been elsewhere undeniably demonstrated,
4. The apostle Peter writes unto the “elders” of the
churches that they should “feed the flock,” ἐπισκοποῦντες, “taking the oversight,” or exercising
the office and function of bishops over it; and that not as “lords,” but as
“ensamples” of humility, obedience, and holiness, to the whole flock,
5. The substance of these and all other instances or
testimonies of the same kind is this: Those whose names are the same,
equally common and applicable unto them all, whose function is the same,
whose qualifications and characters are the same, whose duties, account,
and reward are the same, concerning whom there is in no one
I do acknowledge, that where a church is greatly increased, so as that there is a necessity of many elders in it for its instruction and rule, decency and order do require that one of them do, in the management of all church-affairs, preside, to guide and direct the way and manner thereof: so the presbyters at Alexandria did choose one from among themselves that should have the pre-eminence of a president among them. Whether the person that is so to preside be directed unto by being first converted, or first ordained, or on the account of age, or of gifts and abilities, whether he continue for a season only, and then another be deputed unto the same work, or for his life, are things in themselves indifferent, to be determined according unto the general rules of reason and order, with respect unto the edification of the church.
I shall never oppose this order, but rather desire to see it in practice, — namely, that particular churches were of such an extent as necessarily to require many elders, both teaching and ruling, for their instruction and government; for the better observation of order and decency in the public assemblies; for the fuller representation of the authority committed by Jesus Christ unto the officers of his church; for the occasional instruction of the members in lesser assemblies, which, as unto some ends, may be stated also; with the due attendance unto all other means of edification, as watching, inspecting, warning, admonishing, exhorting, and the like: and that among these elders one should be chosen by themselves, with the consent of the church, not into a new order, not into a degree of authority above his brethren, but only unto his part of the common work in a peculiar manner, which requires some kind of precedency. Hereby no new officer, no new order of officers, no new degree of power or authority, is constituted in the church; only the work and duty of it is cast into such an order as the very light of nature doth require.
But there is not any intimation in the Scripture of the least imparity or inequality, in order, degree, or authority, among officers of the same sort, whether extraordinary or ordinary. The apostles were all equal; so were the evangelists, so were elders or bishops, and so were deacons also. The Scripture knows no more of an archbishop, such as all diocesan bishops are, nor of an archdeacon, than of an archapostle, or of an archevangelist, or an archprophet. Howbeit it is evident that in all their assemblies they had one who did preside in the manner before described; which seems, among the apostles, to have been the prerogative of Peter.
The brethren also of the church may be so multiplied as
that the
The first officer or elder of the church is the
pastor. A pastor is the elder that feeds and rules the flock,
It is not my present design or work to give a full account of the qualifications required in persons to be called unto this office, nor of their duty and work, with the qualities or virtues to be exercised therein; it would require a large discourse to handle them practically, and it hath been done by others. It were to be wished that what is of this kind expressed in the rule, and which the nature of the office doth indispensably require, were more exemplified in practice than it is. But some things relating unto this officer and his office, that are needful to be well stated, I shall treat concerning.
The name of a pastor or shepherd is
metaphorical. It is a denomination suited unto his work, denoting the same
office and person with a bishop or elder, spoken of absolutely, without
limitation unto either teaching or ruling; and it seems to be used or
applied unto this office because it is more comprehensive of and
instructive in all the duties, that belong unto it than any other name
whatever, nay, than all of them put together. The grounds and reasons of
this metaphor, or whence the church is called a flock, and whence God
termeth himself the shepherd of the flock; whence the sheep of this flock
are committed unto Christ, whereon he becomes “the good shepherd that lays
down his life for the sheep,” and the prince of
Whereas, therefore, this name or appellation is taken from and includes in it love, care, tenderness, watchfulness, in all the duties of going before, preserving, feeding, defending the flock, the sheep and the lambs, the strong, the weak, and the diseased, with accountableness, as servants, unto the chief Shepherd, it was generally disused in the church, and those of bishops or overseers, guides, presidents, elders, which seem to include more of honour and authority, were retained in common use; though one of them at last, namely, that of bishops, with some elating compositions and adjuncts of power, obtained the pre-eminence. Out of the corruption of these compositions and additions, in archbishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, and the like, brake forth the cockatrice of the church, — that is, the pope.
But this name is by the Holy Ghost appropriated unto the
principal ministers of Christ in his church,
Of pastoral feeding there are two parts:— 1.
Teaching or instruction; 2. Rule or discipline. Unto
these two heads may all the acts and duties of a shepherd toward his flock
be reduced; and both are intended in the term of “feeding,”
These works of teaching and ruling may be distinct in several officers, namely, teachers and rulers; but to divide them in the same office of pastors, that some pastors should feed by teaching only, but have no right to rule by virtue of their office, and some should attend in exercise unto rule only, not esteeming themselves obliged to labour continually in feeding the flock, is almost to overthrow this office of Christ’s designation, and to set up two in the room of it, of men’s own projection.
Of the call of men unto this office so many things have been spoken and written by others at large that I shall only insist, and that very briefly, on some things which are either of the most important consideration or have been omitted by others; as, —
The qualifications of Christ unto, and the gracious qualities of his mind and soul in, the discharge of his pastoral office, may be referred unto five heads:—
(1.) That furniture with spiritual gifts and
abilities by the communication of the Holy Ghost unto him in an
unmeasurable fullness, whereby he was fitted for the discharge of his
office. This is expressed with respect unto his undertaking of it,
(2.) Compassion and love to the flock were
gloriously eminent in this “great Shepherd of the sheep.” After other
evidences hereof, he gave them that signal confirmation in laying down his
life for them. This testimony of his love he insists upon himself,
(3.) There is and was in this great Shepherd a
continual watchfulness over the whole flock, to keep it, to
preserve it, to feed, to lead, and cherish it, to purify and cleanse it,
until it be presented unspotted unto God. He doth never slumber nor sleep;
he watereth his vineyard every moment; he keeps it night and day, that none
may hurt it; he loseth nothing of what is committed to him. See
(5.) As he was absolutely in himself “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,” so a conformity unto him in these things, and that in some degree of eminency above others, is required in them who are called unto this office.
2. Again; none can or may take this office upon him, or discharge the duties of it, which are peculiarly its own, with authority, but he who is called and set apart thereunto according to the mind of Jesus Christ. The continuation of all church order and power, of the regular administration of all sacred ordinances, yea, of the very being of the church as it is organical, depends on this assertion. Some deny the continuation of the office itself, and of those duties which are peculiar unto it, as the administration of the sacraments; some judge that persons neither called nor set apart unto this office may discharge all the duties and the whole work of it; some, that a temporary delegation of power unto any by the church is all the warranty necessary for the undertaking and discharge of this office. Many have been the contests about these things, occasioned by the ignorance and disorderly affections of some persons. I shall briefly represent the truth herein, with the grounds of it, and proceed to the consideration of the call itself, which is so necessary:—
(1.) Christ himself, in his own person and by his own
authority, was the author of this office. He gave it, appointed
it, erected it in the church, by virtue of his sovereign power and
authority,
(2.) He appointed this office for continuance, or
to abide in the church unto the consummation of all things,
(3.) On this office and the discharge of it he hath laid
the whole weight of the order, rule, and edification of his
church, in his name
(4.) The Lord Christ hath given commands unto the
church for obedience unto those who enjoy and exercise this office among
them. Now, all these commands are needless and superfluous, nor can any
obedience be yielded unto the Lord Christ in their observance, unless there
be a continuation of this office. And the church loseth as much in grace
and privilege as it loseth in commands; for in obedience unto the commands
of Christ doth grace in its exercise consist,
(5.) This office is accompanied with power and authority, which none can take or assume to themselves. All power and authority, whether in things spiritual or temporal, which is not either founded in the law of nature or collated by divine ordination, is usurpation and tyranny; no man can of himself take either sword. To invade an office which includes power and authority over others is to disturb all right, natural, divine, and civil. That such an authority is included in this office is evident, — [1.] From the names ascribed unto them in whom it is vested; as pastors, bishops, elders, rulers, all of them requiring it. [2.] From the work prescribed unto them, which is feeding by rule and teaching. [3.] From the execution of church-power in discipline, or the exercise of the keys of the kingdom of heaven committed unto them. [4.] From the commands given for obedience unto them, which respect authority. [5.] From their appointment to be the means and instruments of exerting the authority of Christ in the church, which can be done no other way.
(6.) Christ hath appointed a standing rule of the calling of men unto this office, as we shall see immediately; but if men may enter upon it and discharge it without any such call, that rule, with the way of the call prescribed, is altogether in vain; and there can be no greater affront unto the authority of Christ in his church than to act in it in neglect of or in opposition unto the rule that he hath appointed for the exercise of power in it.
(7.) There is an accountable trust committed unto
those who undertake this office. The whole flock, the ministry itself, the
truths
(8.) There are, unto the discharge of this office,
especial promises granted and annexed of present assistances and
future eternal rewards,
(9.) The general force of the rule,
(10.) Whoever, therefore, takes upon him the pastoral office without a lawful outward call, doth take unto himself power and authority without any divine warranty, which is a foundation of all disorder and confusion; interests himself in an accountable trust no way committed unto him; hath no promise of resistance in or reward for his work, but engageth in that which is destructive of all church-order, and consequently of the very being of the church itself.
(11.) Yet there are three things that are to be
annexed unto this assertion, by way of limitation; as, — [1.] Many things
performed by virtue of office, in a way of authority, may be
performed by others not called to office, in a way of charity.
Such are the moral duties of exhorting, admonishing, comforting,
instructing, and praying with and for one another. [2.] Spiritual
gifts may be exercised unto the edification of others without
office-power, where order and opportunity do require it. But the constant
exercise of spiritual gifts in preaching, with a refusal of undertaking a
ministerial office, or without design so to do upon a lawful call, cannot
be approved. [3.] The rules proposed concern only ordinary cases,
and the ordinary state
(12.) The call of persons unto the pastoral office is an act and duty of the church. It is not an act of the political magistrate, not of the pope, not of any single prelate, but of the whole church, unto whom the Lord Christ hath committed the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And, indeed, although there be great differences about the nature and manner of the call of men unto this office, yet none who understands aught of these things can deny but that it is an act and duty of the church, which the church alone is empowered by Christ to put forth and exert. But this will more fully appear in the consideration of the nature and manner of this call of men unto the pastoral office, and the actings of the church therein.
The call of persons unto the pastoral office in the church consists of two parts, — first, Election; secondly, Ordination, as it is commonly called, or sacred separation by fasting and prayer. As unto the former, four things must be inquired into:— I. What is previous unto it, or preparatory for it; II. Wherein it doth consist; III. Its necessity, or the demonstration of its truth and institution; IV. What influence it hath into the communication of pastoral office-power unto a pastor so chosen.
I. That which is previous unto it is the meetness of the person for his office and work that is to be chosen. It can never be the duty of the church to call or choose an unmeet, an unqualified, an unprepared person unto this office. No pretended necessity, no outward motives, can enable or warrant it so to do; nor can it by any outward act, whatever the rule or solemnity of it be, communicate ministerial authority unto persons utterly unqualified for and incapable of the discharge of the pastoral office according to the rule of the Scripture. And this has been one great means of debasing the ministry and of almost ruining the church itself, either by the neglect of those who suppose themselves intrusted with the whole power of ordination, or by impositions on them by secular power and patrons of livings, as they are called, with the stated regulation of their proceedings herein by a defective law, whence there hath not been a due regard unto the antecedent preparatory qualifications of those who are called unto the ministry.
Two ways is the meetness of any one made known and to be
judged of:— 1. By an evidence given of the qualifications in him
before mentioned. The church is not to call or choose any one to office
who is not known unto them, of whose frame of spirit and walking they have
not had some experience; not a novice, or one lately come unto them. He
must be one who by his ways and walking hath obtained a good report, even
among them that are without, so far as he is known, unless they be enemies
or scoffers;
II. As to the nature of this election, call, or choice of a person known, tried, and judged meetly qualified for the pastoral office, it is an act of the whole church; that is, of the fraternity with their elders, if they have any; for a pastor may be chosen unto a church which hath other teachers, elders, or officers, already instated in it. In this case their concurrence in the choice intended is necessary, by way of common suffrage, not of authority or office-power; for election is not an act of authority, but of liberty and power, wherein the whole church in the fraternity is equal. If there be no officers stated in the church before, as it was with the churches in the primitive times, on the first ordination of elders among them, this election belongs unto the fraternity.
III. That, therefore, which we have now to prove is this,
that it is the mind and will of Jesus Christ that meet persons should be
called unto the pastoral office (or any other office in the church) by
the election and choice of the church itself whereunto they are
called, antecedently unto a sacred, solemn separation unto their respective
offices; for under the old testament there were three ways whereby men were
called unto office in the church:— 1. They were so extraordinarily and
immediately, by the nomination and designation of God himself: so
Aaron was called unto the priesthood; and others
The first of these ways was repeated in the foundation of
the evangelical church. Christ himself was called unto his office
by the Father, through the unction of the Spirit,
The first instance of the choice of a church-officer had a mixture in it of the first and last ways, in the case of Matthias. As he was able to be a church-officer, he had the choice and consent of the church; as he was to be an apostle or an extraordinary officer, there was an immediate divine disposition of him into his office; — the latter, to give him apostolical authority; the former, to make him a precedent of the future actings of the church in the call of their officers.
I say, this being the first example and pattern of
the calling of any person unto office in the Christian church-state,
wherein there was an interposition of the ordinary actings of men, is
established as a rule and precedent, not to be changed, altered, or
departed from, in any age of the church whatever. It is so as unto what
was of common right and equity, which belonged unto the whole church. And
Whereas what is here recorded was in the call of an apostle, it strengthens the argument which hence we plead; for if in the extraordinary call of an apostle it was the mind of Christ that the fraternity or multitude should have the liberty of their suffrage, how much more is it certainly his mind, that in the ordinary call of their own peculiar officers, in whom, under him, the concernment is their own only, this right should be continued unto them!
The order of the proceeding of the church herein is
distinctly declared; for, — 1. The number of the church at that time, —
that is, of the men, — was about an hundred and twenty,
I say not that these things were done by the disciples in distinction from Peter and the rest of the apostles, but in conjunction with them. Peter did nothing without them, nor did they any thing without him.
The exceptions of
This blessed example, given us by the wisdom of the apostles, yea, of the Spirit of God in them, being eminently suited unto the nature of the thing itself, as we shall see immediately, and compliant with all other directions and apostolical examples in the like case, is rather to be followed than the practice of some degenerate’ churches, who, to cover the turpitude of their acting in deserting this example and rule, do make use of a mock show and pretence of that which really they deny, reject, and oppose.
The second example we have of the practice of the apostles
in this case, whereby the preceding rule is confirmed, is given us
1. That the institution of the office itself was of apostolical authority, and that fullness of church-power wherewith they were furnished by Jesus Christ.
2. That they did not exert that authority but upon such
reasons of it as were satisfactory to the church; which they declare,
3. That the action is ascribed to the twelve in general,
without naming any person who spake for the rest; which renders the
pretence of the Romanists from the former place, where Peter is said to
have spoken unto the disciples, — whereon they would have the actings of
the church which ensued thereon to have been by his concession and grant,
not of their own right, — altogether vain; for the rest of the apostles
were as much interested and concerned in what
4. That the church was greatly multiplied [at] that time,
on the account of the conversion unto the faith recorded in
5. This whole multitude of the church, — that is, the
“brethren,”
6. They judged on the whole matter proposed unto them, and
gave their approbation thereof, before they entered upon the practice of
it:
7. The qualifications of the persons to be chosen unto the
office intended are declared by the apostles:
8. These qualities the multitude were to judge upon; and so, absolutely, of the meetness of any for this office.
9. The choice is wholly committed and left unto them by the
apostles, as that which of right did belong unto them, “Look ye out among
you;” which they made use of, choosing them unto the office by their common
suffrage,
10. Having thus chosen them, they presented them as their
chosen officers unto the apostles, to be by them set apart unto the
exercise of their office by prayer and imposition of hands,
It is impossible there should be a more evident, convincing instance and example of the free choice of ecclesiastical officers by the multitude or fraternity of the church than is given us herein, Nor was there any ground or reason why this order and process should be observed, why the apostles would not themselves nominate and appoint persons whom they saw and knew meet for this office to receive it, but that it was the right and liberty of the people, according to the mind of Christ, to choose their own officers, which they would not abridge nor infringe.
So was it then, οὕτω καὶ νῦν
γίνεσθαι ἔδει, saith
The only objection usually insisted on, — that is, by
Nothing can be weaker than this pretence or evasion; for, — (1.) The question is concerning the calling of persons unto office in the church in general, whereof we have here a rule whereunto no exception is any way entered. (2.) This cannot be fairly pleaded by them who appoint deacons to preach, baptize, and officiate publicly in all holy things, excepting only the administration of the eucharist. (3.) If the people are meet and able to judge of them who are of “honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom,” which is here required of them, they are able to judge who are meet to be their pastors. (4.) The argument holds strongly on the other side, namely, that if it be right and equal, if it be of divine appointment and apostolical practice, that the people should choose those who were to collect and distribute their charitable benevolence because of their concernment therein, much more are they to enjoy the same liberty, right, and privilege, in the choice of their pastors, unto whom they commit the care of their souls, and submit themselves unto their authority in the Lord.
Thirdly. Accordingly they did use the same liberty in the
choice of their elders:
But because it is some men’s interest to entangle things plain and clear enough in themselves, I shall consider the objection unto this reddition of the words. The whole of it lies against the signification, use, and application of χειροτονήσαντες. Now, although we do not here argue merely from the signification of the word, but from the representation of the matter of fact made in the context, yet I shall observe some things sufficient for the removal of that objection; as, —
1. The native signification of χειροτονέω, by virtue of its composition, is to “lift
up” or “stretch forth the hands,” or a hand. And hereunto the LXX. have
respect,
2. The first constant use of it in things political or
civil, and so consequently ecclesiastical, is to choose, elect, design, or
create any person an officer, magistrate, or ruler, by suffrage or common
consent of those concerned. And this was usually done with making bare the
hand and arm with lifting up, as
He is a great stranger unto these things who knoweth not
that among the Greeks, especially the Athenians, from whom the use of this
word is borrowed or taken, χειροτονία
was an act ὅλης τῆς ἐκκλησίας “of the
whole assembly” of the people in the choice of their officers and
magistrates. Χειροτονέω is “by common
suffrage to decree and determine of any thing, law, or order;” and when
applied unto persons, it signifies their choice and designation to office.
So is it used in the first sense by This passage is not in the first
Philippic, though in that speech χειροτονέω occurs frequently in the sense referred to.
3. The word is but once more used in the New Testament,
4. It is acknowledged that after this was the common use of
the word, it was applied to signify the thing itself, and not the manner of
doing it. Hence it is used sometimes for the obtaining or collation of
authority, or dignity, or magistracy, any manner of way, though not by
election: “to appoint, to create.” But this was, by an abusive application
of the word, to express the thing itself intended without regard unto its
signification and proper use. Why such a use of it should be here admitted
no reason can be given; for in all other places on such occasions, the
apostles did admit and direct the churches to use their liberty in their
choice. So
5. That which alone is objected hereunto, by
The same authors contend that the liberty of choosing their own officers or elders, such as it was, was granted unto them or permitted by way of condescension for a season, and not made use of by virtue of any right in them thereunto. But this permission is a mere imagination. It was according to the mind of Christ that the churches should choose their own elders, or it was not. If it were not, the apostles would not have permitted it; and if it were, they ought to ordain it and practice according to it, as they did. Nor is such a constant apostolical practice, proposed for the direction of the church in all ages, to be ascribed unto such an original as condescension and permission: yea, it is evident that it arose from the most fundamental principles of the constitution and nature of the gospel churches, and was only a regular pursuit and practice of them; for, —
First, The calling of bishops, pastors, or elders, is an act of the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. But these keys are originally and properly given unto the whole church, unto the elders of it only ministerially, and as unto exercise. Pastors are eyes to the church. But God and nature design, in the first place, light to the whole body, to the whole person; thereunto it is granted both subjectively and finally, but actually it is peculiarly seated in the eye. So is it in the grant of church-power; it is given to the whole church, though to be exercised only by its elders.
That the grant of the keys unto Peter was in the person and
as
Unto whom these keys are granted, they, according to their distinct interests in that grant, have the right and power of calling their bishops, pastors, or elders; for in the exercise of that trust and power it doth consist. But this is made unto the whole church; and as there are in a church already constituted several sorts of persons, as some are elders, others are of the people only, this right resideth in them and is acted by them according to their respective capacities, as limited by the light of nature and divine institution; which is, that the election of them should belong unto the body of the people, and their authoritative designation or ordination unto the elders. And when in any place the supreme magistrate is a member or part of the church, he hath also his peculiar right herein.
That the power of the keys is thus granted originally and fundamentally unto the whole church is undeniably confirmed by two arguments:—
1. The church itself is the wife, the spouse, the bride,
the queen of the husband and king of the church, Christ Jesus,
2. The power of the keys as unto binding and loosing, and
consequently as unto all other acts thence proceeding, is expressly granted
unto the whole church:
Secondly, This right, exemplified in apostolical
practice, is comprehended in the commands given unto the church or
body of the people with respect unto teachers and rulers of all sorts: for
unto them it is in a multitude of places given in charge that they should
discern and try false prophets, flee from them, try spirits, or such as
pretend spiritual gifts or offices, reject them who preach false doctrine,
to give testimony unto them that are to be in office, with sundry other
things of the like nature; which all of them do suppose, or cannot be
discharged without, a right in them to choose the worthy and reject the
unworthy, as
What is objected hereunto from the unfitness and disability
of the people to make a right judgment concerning them who are to be their
pastors and rulers labours with a threefold weakness: for, — 1. It reflects
dishonour upon the wisdom of Christ, in commanding them the
observance and discharge of such duties as they are no way meet for. 2. It
proceeds upon a supposition of that degenerate state of churches
in their members, as to light, knowledge, wisdom, and holiness, which they
are for the most part fallen into; which must not be allowed to have the
force of argument in it, when it is to be lamented and ought to be
reformed. 3. It supposeth that there is no supply of assistance
provided for the people in the discharge of their duty, to guide and direct
them therein; which is otherwise, seeing the elders of the church wherein
any such election
Thirdly, The church is a voluntary society.
Persons otherwise absolutely free, as unto all the rules, laws, and ends of
such a society, do of their own wills and free choice coalesce into it.
This is the original of all churches, as hath been declared. “They first
gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God,”
Not
attainable? — Ed.
On these suppositions, in a society absolutely
voluntary, among
And the first is, That there be some among them that are
fitted and qualified for the discharge of such an office in a
peculiar manner above others. This is previous unto all government, beyond
that which is purely natural and necessary: “Principio rerum, gentium nationumque imperium penes reges
erat; quos ad fastigium hujus majestatis, non ambitio popularis, sed
spectata inter bonos moderatio provehebat,”
Secondly, Whereas there is a new relation to be made or created between a pastor, bishop, or elder, and the church, which was not before between them (a bishop and a church, a pastor and a flock, are relata), it must be introduced at the same time by the mutual voluntary acts of one another, or of each party; for one of the relata can, as such, have no being or existence without the other. Now, this can no otherwise be but by the consent and voluntary subjection of the church unto persons so antecedently qualified for office, according to the law and will of Christ; for it cannot be done by the delegation of power and authority from any other superior or equal unto them that do receive it. Neither the nature of this power, which is incapable of such a delegation, nor the relation unto Christ of all those who are pastors of the church, will admit of an interposition of authority by way of delegation of power from themselves in other men; which would make them their ministers and not Christ’s. Nor is it consistent with the nature of such a voluntary society. This, therefore, can no way be done but by free choice, election, consent, or approbation. It cannot, I say, be so regularly. How far an irregularity herein may vitiate the whole call of a minister we do not now inquire.
Now, this choice or election doth not communicate a power
from them that choose unto them that are chosen, as though such a power as
that whereunto they are called should be formally inherent in the choosers
antecedent unto such choice; for this would make those that are chosen to
be their ministers only, and to act all things in their name and by virtue
of authority derived from them. It is only an instrumental, ministerial
means to instate them in that power and authority which is given unto such
officers by the constitution and laws of Christ, whose ministers thereon
they are. These gifts,
Thirdly, It is required that persons so chosen, so submitted unto, be [al]so solemnly separated, dedicated unto, and confirmed in their office by fasting and prayer. As this is consonant unto the light of nature, which directs unto a solemnity in the susception of public officers, whence proceeds the coronation of kings, which gives them not their title, but solemnly proclaims it, which on many accounts is unto the advantage of government, — so it is prescribed unto the church in this case by especial institution. But hereof I shall speak further immediately.
This order of calling men unto the pastoral once, namely, by their previous qualifications for the ministry, whereby a general designation of the persons to be called is made by Christ himself, the orderly choice or election of them in a voluntary subjection unto them in the Lord, according to the mind of Christ, by the church itself, followed with solemn ordination, or setting apart unto the office and discharge of it by prayer with fasting, all in obedience unto the commands and institution of Christ, whereunto the communication of office-power and privilege is by law-constitution annexed, is suited unto the light of reason in all such cases, the nature of gospel societies in order or churches, the ends of the ministry, the power committed by Christ unto the church, and confirmed by apostolical practice and example.
Herein we rest, without any further dispute, or limiting the formal cause of the communication of office-power unto any one act or duty of the church, or of the bishops or elders of it. All the three things mentioned are essential thereunto; and when any of them are utterly neglected, — where they are neither formally nor virtually, — there is no lawful, regular call unto the ministry according to the mind of Christ.
This order was a long time observed in the ancient church
inviolate, and the footsteps of it may be traced through all ages of the
church, although it first gradually decayed, then was perverted and
corrupted, until it issued (as in the Roman church) in a pageant and show,
instead of the reality of the things themselves: for the trial and
approbation of spiritual endowments, previously necessary unto the call of
any, was left unto the pedantic examination of the bishop’s domestics, who
knew nothing of them in themselves; the election and approbation of the
people was turned into a mock show in the sight of God and men, a deacon
calling out that if any had objections against him who was to be ordained,
they should come forth and speak, whereunto another cries out of a corner,
by compact,
But from the beginning it was not so. And some few instances of the right of the people, and the exercise of it in the choice of their own pastors, may be touched on in our passage:—
The testimony given by
1. It was not a simple epistle of his own more ordinary
occasions, but a determination upon a weighty question, made by a synod of
bishops or elders, in whose name, as well as that of
2. He doth not only assert the right of the people to choose worthy persons to be their bishops, and reject those that are unworthy, but also industriously proves it so to be their right by divine institution and appointment.
3. He declares it to be the sin of the people, if they neglect the use and exercise of their right and power in rejecting and withdrawing themselves from the communion of unworthy pastors, and choosing others in their room.
4. He affirms that this was the practice not only of the
churches
“Nec sibi plebs blandiatur, quasi immunis esse a contagio delicti possit cum sacerdote peccatore communicans, et ad injustum et illicitum præpositi sui episcopatum consensum suum commodans … Propter quod plebs obsequens præceptis Dominicis et Deum metuens, a peccatore præposito separare se debet, nec se ad sacrilegi sacerdotis sacrificia miscere; quando ipsa maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi, quod et ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere;” — “For this cause the people, obedient to the commands of our Lord and fearing God, ought to separate themselves from a wicked bishop, nor mix themselves with the worship of a sacrilegious priest; for they principally have the power of choosing the worthy priests and rejecting the unworthy, which comes from divine authority (or appointment),” as he proves from the Old and New Testament. Nothing can be spoken more fully representing the truth which we plead for. He assigns unto the people a right and power of separating from unworthy pastors, of rejecting or deposing them, and that granted to them by divine authority.
And this power of election in the people he proves from the
apostolical practice before insisted on: “Quod postea secundum divina magisteria observatur in Actis
Apostolorum, quando in ordinando in locum Judæ apostolo, Petrus ad plebem
loquitur. ‘Surrexit,’ inquit, ‘Petrus in medio discentium, fuit autem
turba hominum forte centum viginti.’ Nec hoc in episcoporum tantum et
sacerdotum, sed in diaconorum ordinationibus observasse apostolos
animadvertimus de quo et ipso in actis eorum scriptum est. ‘Et
convocarunt,’ inquit, ‘illi duodecim totam plebem discipulorum, et dixerunt
eis,’ ” etc.; — “According unto the divine commands, the same course
was observed in the Acts of the Apostles;” whereof he gives instances in
the election of Matthias,
And afterward, speaking of ordination “de universæ fraternitatis suffragio,” “by the suffrage of the whole brotherhood of the church,” he says, “Diligenter de traditione divina, et apostolica observatione servandum estet tenendum apud nos quoque et fere per universas provincias tenetur;” — “According to which divine tradition and apostolical practice, this custom is to be preserved and kept amongst us also, as it is almost through all the provinces.”
Those who are not moved with his authority, yet I think have reason to believe him in a matter of fact of what was done everywhere, or almost everywhere, in his own days; and they may take time to answer his reasons when they can, which comprise the substance of all that we plead in this case.
The pretence also of
Indeed, the concessions that are made, that this ancient practice of the church in the people’s choosing their own officers (which to deny is all one as to deny that the sun gives light at noon-day), is, as unto its right, by various degrees transferred unto popes, patrons, and bishops, with a representation in a mere pageantry of the people’s liberty to make objections against them that are to be ordained, are as fair a concession of the gradual apostasy of churches from their original order and constitution as need be desired.
This power and right which we assign unto the people is not to act itself only in a subsequent consent unto one that is ordained, in the acceptance of him to be their bishop or pastor. How far that may salve the defect and disorder of the omission of previous election, and so preserve the essence of the ministerial call, I do not now inquire. But that which we plead for is the power and right of election, to be exercised previously unto the solemn ordination or setting apart of any unto the pastoral office, communicative of office-power in its own kind unto the person chosen.
This is part of that contest which for sundry ages filled
most countries of Europe with broils and disorders; neither is there yet an
end put unto it. But in this present discourse we are not in the least
concerned in these things; for our inquiry is, what state and order of
church-affairs is declared and represented to us in the Scripture; and
therein there is not the least intimation of any of those things from
whence this controversy did arise and whereon it doth depend. Secular
endowments, jurisdictions, investiture, rights of
And this we affirm to be agreeable unto natural reason and equity, to the nature of churches in their institution and ends, to all authority and office- power in the church necessary unto its edification, with the security of the consciences of the officers themselves and the preservation of due respect and obedience unto them, and constituted by the institution of Christ himself in his apostles and the practice of the primitive church. Wherefore, the utter despoiling of the church, of the disciples, of those gathered in church-societies by his authority and command, of this right and liberty, may be esteemed a sacrilege of a higher nature than sundry other things which are reproached as criminal under that name.
And if any shall yet further appear to justify this deprivation of the right laid claim unto, and the exclusion of the people from their ancient possession, with sobriety of argument and reason, the whole cause may be yet further debated, from principles of natural light and equity, from maxims of law and policy, from the necessity of the ends of church-order and power, from the moral impossibility of any other way of the conveyance of ecclesiastical office-power, as well as from evangelical institution and the practice of the first churches.
It will be objected, I know, that the restoration of this liberty unto the people will overthrow that jus patronatus, or right of presenting unto livings and preferments which is established by law in this nation, and so, under a pretence of restoring unto the people their right in common, destroy other men’s undoubted rights in their own enclosures.
IV. But this election of the church doth not actually and
immediately instate the person chosen in the office whereunto he is chosen,
nor give actual right unto its exercise. It is required, moreover, that he
be solemnly set apart unto his office in and by the church with fasting and
prayer. That there should be some kind of peculiar prayer in the
dedication of any unto the office of the ministry is a notion that could
never be obliterated in the minds of men concerned in these things, nor
cast out of their practice. Of what sort they have been amongst many we do
not now inquire. But there hath been less regard unto the other duty,
namely, that these prayers should
The conduct of this work belongs unto the elders or officers of the church wherein any one is to be so ordained. It did belong unto extraordinary officers whilst they were continued in the church, and upon the cessation of their office it is devolved on the ordinary stated officers of the church. It is so, I say, in case there be any such officer before fixed in the church whereunto any one is to be only ordained; and in case there be none, the assistance of pastors or elders of other churches may and ought to be desired unto the conduct and regulation of the duty.
It is needless to inquire what is the authoritative influence of this ordination into the communication of office or office-power, whilst it is acknowledged to be indispensably necessary, and to belong essentially unto the call unto office; for when sundry duties, as these of election and ordination, are required unto the same end, by virtue of divine institution, it is not for me to determine what is the peculiar efficacy of the one or the other, seeing neither of them without the other hath any at all.
Hereunto is added, as an external adjunct, imposition of hands, significant of the persons so called to office in and unto the church; for although it will be difficultly proved that the use of this ceremony was designed unto continuance, after a cessation of the communication of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, whereof it was the sign and outward means in extraordinary officers, yet we do freely grant it unto the ordinary officers of the church, provided that there be no apprehension of its being the sole authoritative conveyance of a successive flux of office-power, which is destructive of the whole nature of the institution.
And this may at present suffice, as unto the call of meet
persons unto the pastoral office; and, consequently, any other office in
the church. The things following are essentially necessary unto it, so as
that authority and right to feed and rule in the church in the name of
Christ, as an officer of his house, may be given unto any one thereby, by
virtue of his law and the charter granted by him unto the church itself.
The first, is, That antecedently unto any actings of the church towards
such a person with respect unto office, he be furnished by the Lord Christ
himself with graces, and gifts, and abilities,
for the discharge of the office whereunto he is to be called. This divine
designation of the person to be called rests on the kingly office and care
of Christ towards his church. Where this is wholly wanting, it is not in
the power of any church under heaven, by virtue of any outward order or
act, to communicate pastoral or ministerial power unto any person whatever.
Secondly, There is to be an exploration or trial of those
gifts and abilities as unto their
This is that order which the rule of the Scripture, the example of the first churches, and the nature of the things themselves, direct unto; and although I will not say that a defect in any of these, especially if it be from unavoidable hindrances, doth disannul the call of a person to the pastoral office, yet I must say that where they are not all duly attended unto, the institution of Christ is neglected, and the order of the church infringed. Wherefore, —
The plea of the communication of all authority for office, and of office itself, solely by a flux of power from the first ordainers, through the hands of their pretended successors in all ages, under all the innumerable miscarriages whereunto they are subject, and have actually fallen into, without any respect unto the consent or call of the churches, by rules, laws, and orders foreign to the Scripture, is contrary to the whole nature of evangelical churches and all the ends of their institution, as shall be manifested, if it be needful.
We have declared the way whereby pastors are given unto and instated in the church; that which should ensue is an account of their work and duty in the discharge of their office: but this hath been the subject of many large discourses, both among the ancient writers of the church and of late; I shall therefore only touch on some things that are of most necessary consideration:—
1. The first and principal duty of a pastor is to feed
the flock by diligent preaching of the word. It is a promise relating
to the new testament, that God would give unto his church “pastors
according to his own heart, which should feed them with knowledge and
understandings”
This work and duty, therefore, as was said, is essential unto the office of a pastor. A man is a pastor unto them whom he leads by pastoral teaching, and to no more; and he that doth not so feed is no pastor. Nor is it required only that he preach now and then at his leisure, but that he lay aside all other employments, though lawful, all other duties in the church, as unto such a constant attendance on them as would divert him from this work, that he give himself unto it, — that he be in these things labouring to the utmost of his ability. Without this no man will be able to give a comfortable account of the pastoral office at the last day.
There is, indeed, no more required of any man than God giveth him ability for. Weakness, sickness, bodily infirmities, may disenable men from the actual discharge of this duty in that assiduity and frequency which are required in ordinary cases; and some may, through age or other incapacitating distempers, be utterly disabled for it, — in which case it is their duty to lay down and take a dismission from their office, or, if their disability be but partial, provide a suitable supply, that the edification of the church be not prejudiced; — but for men to pretend themselves pastors of the church, and to be unable for, or negligent of, this work and duty, is to live in open defiance of the commands of Christ.
We have lived to see and hear of reproachful scorn and contempt cast upon laborious preaching, — that is, “labouring in the word and doctrine,” and all manner of discouragements given unto it, with endeavours for its suppression in sundry instances; yea, some have proceeded so far as to declare that the work of preaching is unnecessary in the church, so to reduce all religion to the reading and rule of the liturgy. The next attempt, so far as! know, may be to exclude Christ himself out of their religion; which the denial of a necessity of preaching the gospel makes an entrance into, yea, a good progress towards.
Sundry things are required unto this work and duty of
pastoral preaching; as, — (1.) Spiritual wisdom and understanding
in the
All these things seem common, obvious, and universally acknowledged; but the ruin of the ministry of the most for the want of them, or from notable defects in them, is or may be no less evidently known. And the very naming of them (which is all at present which I design) is sufficient to evidence how great a necessity there is incumbent on all pastors of churches to give themselves unto the word and prayer, to labour in the word and doctrine, to be continually intent on this work, to engage all the faculties of their souls, to stir up all their graces and gifts, unto constant exercise in the discharge of their duty; for “who is sufficient for these things?” And as the consideration of them is sufficient to stir up all ministers unto fervent prayer for supplies of divine aid and assistance for that work which in their own strength they can no way answer, so is it enough to warn them of the avoidance of all things that would give them a diversion or avocation from the constant attendance unto the discharge of it.
When men undertake the pastoral office, and either judge it not their duty to preach, or are not able so to do, or attempt it only at some solemn seasons, or attend unto it as a task required of them, without that wisdom, skill, diligence, care, prudence, zeal, and compassion, which are required thereunto, the glory and use of the ministry will be utterly destroyed.
2. The second duty of a pastor towards his flock is
continual fervent prayer for them,
It were much to be desired that all those who take upon
them this pastoral office did well consider and understand how great and
necessary a part of their work and duty doth consist in their continual
fervent prayer for their flocks; for besides that it is the only
3. The administration of the seals of the covenant
is committed unto them, as the stewards of the house of Christ; for unto
them the authoritative dispensation of the word is committed, whereunto the
administration of the seals is annexed; for their principal end is the
peculiar confirmation and application of the word preached. And herein
there are three things that they are to attend unto:— (1.) The
times and seasons of their administration unto the church’s
edification, especially that of the Lord’s supper, whose frequency is
enjoined. It is the duty of pastors to consider all the necessary
circumstances of their administration, as unto time, place, frequency,
order, and decency. (2.) To keep severely unto the institution of
Christ, as unto the way and manner of their administration. The gradual
introduction of uninstituted rites and ceremonies into the church
celebration of the ordinance of the Lord’s supper ended at length in the
idolatry of the mass. Herein, then, alone, and not in bowing, cringing,
and vestments, lies the glory and beauty of these administrations, namely,
that they are compliant with and expressive of the institution of Christ,
nor is any thing done in them but in express obedience unto his authority.
“I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,” saith
the apostle in this case,
But here it is inquired by some, “Whether, in case a church have no pastor at present, or a teaching elder with pastoral power, it may not delegate and appoint the administration of these especial ordinances unto some member of the church at this or that season, who is meetly qualified for the outward administration Of them?” which, for the sake of some, I shall examine.
No church is complete in order without teaching
officers,
A church not complete in order cannot be complete in
administrations, because the power of administrations depends upon the
power of order proportionably; that is, the power of the church depends
The order of the church is twofold, — as essential, and as organical. The order of the church as essential, with its power thence arising, is, — first, For its preservation; secondly, For its perfection. (1.) For its preservation in admission and exclusion of members; (2.) For its perfection in the election of officers.
No part of this power, which belongs to the church as essentially considered, can be delegated, but must be acted by the whole church. They cannot delegate power to some to admit members, so as it should not be an act of the whole church. They cannot delegate power to any to elect officers, nor any thing else which belongs to them as a church essentially. The reason is, things that belong unto the essence of any thing belong unto it formally as such, and so cannot be transferred.
The church, therefore, cannot delegate the power and authority inquired after, should it be supposed to belong to the power of order as the church is essentially considered; which yet it doth not.
If the church may delegate or substitute others for the
discharge of all ordinances whatsoever without elders or pastors, then it
may perfect the saints and complete the work of the ministry without them,
which is contrary to
A particular church, in order as organical, is the adequate subject of all ordinances, and not as essential; because as essential it never doth nor can enjoy all ordinances, namely, the ministry in particular, whereby it is constituted organical. Yet, on this supposition, the church, as essentially considered, is the sole adequate subject of all ordinances.
Though the church be the only subject, it is not the only object of gospel ordinances, but that is various. For instance, —
(1.) The preaching of the word: its first object is the world, for conversion; its next, professors, for edification.
(2.) Baptism: its only object is neither the world nor the members of a particular church, but professors, with those that are reckoned to them by God’s appointment, — that is, their infant seed.
(3.) The supper: its object is a particular church only, which is acknowledged, and may be proved by the institution, one special end of it, and the necessity of discipline thereon depending.
There are no footsteps of any such practice among the churches of God who walked in order, neither in the Scripture nor in all antiquity.
But it is objected, by those who allow this practice, “That if the church may appoint or send a person forth to preach, or appoint a brother to preach unto themselves, then they may appoint him to administer the ordinance of the supper.”
Ans. Here is a mistake in the supposition. The church, — that is, the body of it, — cannot send out any brother authoritatively to preach. Two things are required thereunto, collation of gifts and communication of office; neither of which the church, under that consideration, can do to one that is sent forth. But where God gives gifts by his Spirit and a call by his providence, the church only complies therewith, not in communicating authority to the person, but in praying for a blessing upon his work.
The same is the case in desiring a brother to teach among them. The duty is moral in its own nature; the gifts and call are from God alone; the occasion of his exercise is only administered by the church.
It is further added, by the same persons, “That if a brother, or one who is a disciple only, may baptize, then he may also administer the Lord’s supper, being desired of the church.”
Ans. The supposition is not granted nor proved; but there is yet a difference between these ordinances, — the object of the one being professors, as such, at large; the object of the other being professors, as members of a particular church. But to return, —
4. It is incumbent on them to preserve the truth or
doctrine of the gospel received and professed in the church, and to
defend it against all opposition. This is one principal end of the
ministry, one principal means of the preservation of the faith once
delivered unto the saints. This is committed in an especial manner unto
the pastors of the churches, as the apostle frequently and emphatically
repeats the charge of it unto Timothy, and in him unto all to whom the
dispensation of the word is committed,
Sundry things are required hereunto; as, — (1.) A
clear, sound, comprehensive knowledge of the entire doctrine of the
gospel, attained by all means useful and commonly prescribed unto that
end, especially by diligent study of the Scripture, with fervent prayer for
illumination and understanding. Men cannot preserve that for others which
they are ignorant of themselves. Truth may be lost by weakness as well as
by wickedness. And the defect herein, in many, is deplorable. (2.)
Love of the truth which they have so learned and comprehended.
Unless we look on truth as a pearl, as that which is valued at any rate,
bought with any price, as that which is better than all the world, we shall
not endeavour its preservation with that diligence which is required. Some
are ready to part with truth at an easy rate, or to grow indifferent about
it; whereof we have multitudes of examples in the days wherein we live. It
were easy to give instances of sundry important evangelical truths, which
our forefathers in the faith contended for with all earnestness, and were
ready to seal with their blood, which are now utterly disregarded and
opposed, by some who pretend to succeed them in their profession. If
ministers have not a sense of that power of truth in their own souls, and a
taste of its goodness, the discharge of this duty is not to be expected
from them. (3.) A conscientious care and fear of giving countenance or
encouragement unto novel opinions, especially such as oppose any truth
of whose power and efficacy experience hath been had among them that
believe. Vain curiosity, boldness in conjectures, and readiness to vent
their own conceits, have caused no small trouble and damage unto the
church. (4.) Learning and ability of mind to discern and disprove the
oppositions of the adversaries of the truth, and thereby to stop their
mouths and convince gainsayers. (5.) The solid confirmation of the
most important truths of the gospel, and whereinto all others are
resolved, in their teaching and ministry. Men may and do ofttimes
prejudice, yea, betray the truth, by the weakness of their pleas for it.
(6.) A diligent watch
It is evident what learning, labour, study, pains, ability, and exercise of the rational faculties, are ordinarily required unto the right discharge of these duties; and where men may be useful to the church in other things, but are defective in these, it becomes them to walk and act both circumspectly and humbly, frequently desiring and adhering unto the advices of them whom God hath intrusted with more talents and greater abilities.
5. It belongs unto their charge and office diligently to
labour for the conversion of souls unto God. The ordinary means
of conversion is left unto the church, and its duty it is to attend unto
it; yea, one of the principal ends of the institution and preservation of
churches is the conversion of souls, and when there are no more to be
converted, there shall be no more church on the earth. To enlarge the
kingdom of Christ, to diffuse the light and savour of the gospel, to be
subservient unto the calling of the elect, or gathering all the sheep of
Christ into his fold, are things that God designs by his churches in this
world. Now, the principal instrumental cause of all these is the preaching
of the word; and this is committed unto the pastors of the churches. It is
true, men may be, and often are, converted unto God by their occasional
dispensation of the word who are not called unto office; for it is the
gospel itself that is the “power of God unto salvation,” by whomsoever it
is administered, and it hath been effectual unto that end even in the
necessary occasional teaching of women: but it is so, frequently, in the
exercise of spiritual gifts by them who are not stated officers of the
church,
The good shepherd will leave the ninety and nine sheep, to seek after one that wanders; and we may certainly leave a few for a season, to seek after a great multitude of wanderers, when we are called thereunto by divine providence: and I could heartily wish that we might have a trial of it at this time.
The ministers who have been most celebrated, and that deservedly, in the last ages, in this and the neighbour nations, have been such as whose ministry God made eminently successful unto the conversion of souls. To affirm that they did not do their work as ministers, and by virtue of their ministerial office, is to cast away the crown and destroy the principal glory of the ministry. For my own part, if I did not think myself bound to preach as a minister, and as a minister authorized in all places and on all occasions, when I am called thereunto, I think I should never preach much more in this world. Nor do I know at all what rule they walk by who continue public constant preaching for many years, and yet neither desire nor design to be called unto any pastoral office in the church. But I must not here insist on the debate of these things.
6. It belongs unto them, on the account of their pastoral
office, to be ready, willing, and able, to comfort, relieve, and
refresh, those that are tempted, tossed, wearied with fears and
grounds of disconsolation, in times of trial and desertion. “The tongue of
the learned” is required in them, “that they should know how to speak a
word in season to him that is weary.” One excellent qualification of our
Lord Jesus Christ, in the discharge of his priestly office now in heaven,
is, that he is touched with a sense of our infirmities, and knows how to
succour them that are tempted. His whole flock in this world are a company
of tempted ones; his own life on the earth he calls “the time of his
temptation;” and those who have the charge of his flock under him ought to
have a sense of their infirmities, and endeavour in an especial manner to
succour them that are tempted.
(1.) To be able rightly to understand the various cases that will occur of this kind, from such principles and grounds of truth and experience as will bear a just confidence in a prudent application unto the relief of them concerned; [to have] “the tongue of the learned, to know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary.” It will not be done by a collection and determination of cases, which yet is useful in its place; for hardly shall we meet with two cases of this kind that will exactly be determined by the same rule, all manner of circumstances giving them variety: but a skill, understanding, and experience, in the whole nature of the work of the Spirit of God on the souls of men, of the conflict that is between the flesh and the Spirit, of the methods and wiles of Satan, of the wiles of principalities and powers or wicked spirits in high places, of the nature, and effects, and ends of divine desertions, with wisdom to make application out of such principles, or fit medicines and remedies unto every sore and distemper, are required hereunto. These things are by some despised, by some neglected, by some looked after only in stated cases of conscience, in which work it is known that some have horribly debauched their own consciences and [those of] others, to the scandal and ruin of religion, so far as they have prevailed. But not to dispute how far such helps as books written on cases of conscience may be useful herein, — which they may be greatly unto those who know how to use them aright, — the proper ways whereby pastors and teachers must obtain this skill and understanding are, by diligent study of the Scriptures, meditation thereon, fervent prayer, experience of spiritual things, and temptations in their own souls, with a prudent observation of the manner of God’s dealing with others, and the ways of the opposition made to the work of his grace in them. Without these things, all pretences unto this ability and duty of the pastoral office are vain; whence it is that the whole work of it is much neglected.
(3.) To bear patiently and tenderly with the weakness, ignorance, dulness, slowness to believe and receive satisfaction, yea, it may be, impertinencies, in them that are so tempted. These things will abound amongst them, partly from their natural infirmities, many being weak, and perhaps froward, but especially from the nature of their temptations, which are suited to disorder and disquiet their minds, to fill them with perplexed thoughts, and to make them jealous of every thing wherein they are spiritually concerned; and if much patience, meekness, and condescension, be not exercised wards them, they are quickly turned out of the way.
In the discharge of the whole pastoral office, there is not any thing or duty that is of more importance, nor wherein the Lord Jesus Christ is more concerned, nor more eminently suited unto the nature of the office itself, than this is. But whereas it is a work or duty which, because of the reasons mentioned, must be accompanied with the exercise of humility, patience, self-denial, and spiritual wisdom, with experience, with wearisome diversions from other occasions, those who had got of old the conduct of the souls of men into their management turned this whole part of their office and duty into an engine they called “auricular confession;” whereby they wrested the consciences of Christians to the promotion of their own ease, wealth, authority, and ofttimes to worse ends.
7. A compassionate suffering with all the members
of the church in all their trials and troubles, whether internal or
external, belongs unto them in the discharge of their office; nor is there
any thing that renders them more like unto Jesus Christ, whom to represent
unto the church is their principal duty. The view and consideration, by
faith, of the glory of Christ in his compassion with his suffering members,
is the principal spring of consolation unto the church in all its
distresses. And the same spirit, the same mind herein, ought, according to
their measure, to be in all that have the pastoral office committed unto
them. So the apostle expresseth it in himself, “Who is weak, and I am not
weak? who is offended, and I burn not?”
8. Care of the poor and visitation of the sick are parts of this duty, commonly known, though commonly neglected.
9. The principal care of the rule of the church is incumbent on the pastors of it. This is the second general head of the power and duty of this office, whereunto many things in particular do belong. But because I shall treat afterward of the rule of the church by itself distinctly, I shall not here insist upon it.
10. There is a communion to be observed among all the churches of the same faith and profession in any nation. Wherein it doth consist, and what is required thereunto, shall be afterward declared. The principal care hereof, unto the edification of the churches, is incumbent on the pastors of them. Whether it be exercised by letters of mutual advice, of congratulation or consolation, or in testimony of communion with those who are called to office in them, or whether it be by convening in synods for consultation of their joint concernments (which things made up a great part of the primitive ecclesiastical polity), their duty it is to attend unto it and to take care of it.
11. That wherewith I shall close these few instances of the
pastoral charge and duty is that without which all the rest will neither be
useful unto men nor be accepted with the great shepherd, Christ Jesus; and
that is, a humble, holy, exemplary conversation, in all godliness and
honesty. The rules and precepts of the Scripture, the examples of
Christ and his apostles, with that of the bishops or pastors of the
primitive churches, and the nature of the thing itself, with the religion
which we do profess, do undeniably prove this duty to be necessary and
indispensable in a gospel ministry. It were an easy thing to fill up a
volume with ancient examples unto this purpose, with testimonies of the
Scripture and first writers among Christians, with examples of public and
private miscarriages herein, with evident demonstration that the ruin of
Christian religion in most nations where it hath been professed, and so of
the nations themselves, hath proceeded from the ambition, pride, luxury,
uncleanness, profaneness, and otherwise vicious conversations, of those who
have been called the “clergy.” And in daily observation, it is a thing
written with the beams of the sun, that whatever else be done in churches,
if the pastors of them, or those who are so esteemed, are not exemplary in
gospel obedience and holiness, religion will not be carried on and
To handle this property or adjunct of the pastoral office,
it were necessary distinctly to consider and explain all the qualifications
assigned by the apostle as necessary unto bishops or elders, evidenced as
previously necessary unto the orderly call of them unto this office,
These are some instances of the things wherein the office-duty of pastors of the church doth consist They are but some of them, and these only proposed, not pursued and pressed with the consideration of all those particular duties, with the manner of their performance, way of management, motives and enforcements, defects and causes of them; which would require a large discourse. These may suffice unto our present purpose; and we may derive from them the ensuing brief considerations:—
1. A due meditation and view of these things, as proposed in the Scripture, is enough to make the wisest, the best of men, and the most diligent in the discharge of the pastoral office, to cry out with the apostle, “Who is sufficient for these things?” This will make them look well to their call and entrance into this office, as that alone which will bear them out and justify them in the susception of it; for no sense of insufficiency can utterly discourage any in the undertaking of a work which he is assured that the Lord Christ calls him unto, for where he calls to a duty, he gives competent strength for the performance of it. And when we say, under a deep sense of our own weakness, “Who is sufficient for these things?” he doth say, “My grace is sufficient for you.”
2. Although all the things mentioned do plainly, evidently, and undeniably, belong unto the discharge of the pastoral office, yet, in point of fact, we find, by the success, that they are very little considered by the most that seek after it. And the present ruin of religion, as unto its power, beauty, and glory, in all places, ariseth principally from this cause, that multitudes of those who undertake this office are neither in any measure fit for it, nor do either conscientiously attend unto or diligently perform the duties that belong unto it. It ever was and ever will be true in general, “Like priest, like people.”
3. Whereas the account which is to be given of this office
and
4. It is manifest also from hence how inconsistent it is with this office, and the due discharge of it, for any one man to undertake the relation of a pastor unto more churches than one, especially if far distant from one another. An evil this is like that of mathematical prognostications at Rome, — always condemned and always retained. But one view of the duties incumbent on each pastor, and of whose diligent performance he is to give an account at the last day, will discard this practice from all approbation in the minds of them that are sober. However, it is as good to have ten churches at once, as, having but one, never to discharge the duty of a pastor towards it.
5. All churches may do well to consider the weight and burden that lies upon their pastors and teachers in the discharge of their office, that they may be constant in fervent prayers and supplications for them; as also to provide, what lies in them, that they may be without trouble and care about the things of this life.
6. “There being so many duties necessary unto the discharge
of this office, and those of such various sorts and kinds as to require
various gifts and abilities unto their due performance, it seems very
difficult to find a concurrence of them in any one person in any
considerable degree, so that it is hard to conceive how the office itself
should be duly discharged.” I answer, — (1.) The end both of the office
and of the discharge of it is the due edification of the church; this,
therefore, gives them their measure. Where that is attained, the office is
duly discharged, though the gifts whereby men are enabled thereunto be not
eminent (2.) Where a man is called
7. It may be inquired what is the state of those churches, and what relation with respect unto communion we ought to have unto them, whose pastors are evidently defective in or neglective of these things, so as that they are not in any competent measure attended unto; and we may, in particular, instance in the first and last of the pastoral duties before insisted on. Suppose a man be no way able to preach the word unto the edification of them that are pleaded to be his flock, or, having an ability, yet doth not, will not, give himself unto the word and prayer, or will not labour in the word and doctrine, unto the great prejudice of edification; and suppose the same person be openly defective as unto an exemplary conversation, and on the contrary layeth the stumbling-block of his own sins and follies before the eyes of others, — what shall we judge of his ministry, and of the state of that church whereof he is a constituent part as its ruler? I answer:—
(1.) I do not believe it is in the power of any church really to confer the pastoral office, by virtue of any ordination whatever, unto any who are openly and evidently destitute of all those previous qualifications which the Scripture requireth in them who are to be called unto this office. There is, indeed, a latitude to be allowed in judging of them in times of necessity and great penury of able teachers, so that persons in holy ministry design the glory of God and the edification of the church according to their ability; but otherwise there is a nullity in the pretended office.
(2.) Where any such are admitted, through ignorance or mistake, or the usurpation of undue power over churches in imposing ministers on them, there is not an absolute nullity in their administrations until they are discovered and convicted by the rule and law of Christ. But if, on evidence hereof, the people will voluntarily adhere unto them, they are partakers of their sins, and do what in them lies to unchurch themselves.
(3.) Where such persons are, by any means, placed as
pastors in or over any churches, and there is no way for their removal or
reformation, it is lawful unto, it is the duty of every one who takes care
of his own edification and salvation to withdraw from the communion of such
churches, and to join with such as wherein edification is better
(4.) Where the generality of churches, in any kind of association, are headed by pastors defective in these things, in the matter declared, there all public church-reformation is morally impossible, and it is the duty of private men to take care of their own souls, let churches and churchmen say what they please.
Some few things may yet be inquired into with reference unto the office of a pastor in the church; as, —
1. Whether a man may be ordained a pastor or a minister without relation unto any particular church, so as to be invested with office power thereby?
It is usually said that a man may be ordained a minister unto or of the catholic church, or to convert infidels, although he be not related unto any particular flock or congregation.
I shall not at present discuss sundry things about the power and way of ordination which influence this controversy, but only speak briefly unto the thing itself. And, —
(1.) It is granted that a man endowed with spiritual
gifts for the preaching of the gospel may be set apart by fasting
and prayer unto that work, when he may be orderly called unto it in
the providence of God; for, — [1.] Such an one hath a call unto it
materially in the gifts which he hath received, warranting him unto the
exercise of them for the edification of others as he hath occasion,
Setting apart unto an important work by prayer is a moral
duty, and useful in church-affairs in an especial manner,
(2.) Such persons, so set apart and sent, may be
esteemed ministers in the general notion of the word, and may be useful in
the calling and planting of churches, wherein they may be instated in the
pastoral office. This was originally the work of evangelists,
(3.) No church whatever hath power to ordain men ministers for the conversion of infidels. Since the cessation of extraordinary officers and offices, the care of that work is devolved merely on the providence of God, being left without the verge of church-institutions. God alone can send and warrant men for the undertaking of that work; nor can any man know or be satisfied in a call unto that work without some previous guidance of divine providence leading him thereunto. It is, indeed, the duty of all the ordinary ministers of the church to diffuse the knowledge of Christ and the gospel unto the heathen and infidels, among whom, or near unto whom, their habitation is cast, and they have all manner of divine warranty for their so doing, as many worthy persons have done effectually in New England; and it is the duty of every true Christian who may be cast among them by the providence of God to instruct them according unto his ability in the knowledge of the truth: but it is not in the power of any church, or any sort of ordinary officers, to ordain a person unto the office of the ministry for the conversion of the heathen antecedently unto any designation by divine providence thereunto.
(4.) No man can be properly or completely ordained unto the ministry, but he is ordained unto a determinate office, as a bishop, an elder, a pastor. But this no man can be but he who is ordained in and unto a particular church; for the contrary practice, —
[1.] Would be contrary to the constant practice of the
apostles, who ordained no ordinary officers but in and unto
particular churches, which were to be their proper charge and care,
[2.] It was absolutely forbidden in the ancient
church, and all such ordinations declared null, so as not to
communicate office-power or give any ministerial authority. So it is
expressly in the first canon of the council of Chalcedon, and the council
decrees, “That all imposition of hands in such cases is invalid and of no
effect.” Yea, so exact and careful were they in this matter, that if any
one, for any just cause, as he judged himself, did leave his particular
church or charge, they would not allow him the name or title of a bishop,
or to officiate occasionally in that church, or anywhere else. This is
evident in the case of
[3.] Such ordination wants an essential constitutive cause, and part of the collation of office-power, which is the election of the people; and is therefore invalid. See what hath been proved before unto that purpose.
[4.] A bishop, an elder, a pastor, being terms of relation, to make any one so without relation unto a church, a people, a flock, is to make him a father who hath no child, or a husband who hath no wife, a relate without a correlate, which is impossible, and implies a contradiction.
[5.] It is inconsistent with the whole nature and end of the pastoral office. Whoever is duly called, set apart, or ordained unto that office, he doth therein and thereby take on himself the discharge of all the duties belonging thereunto, and is obliged to attend diligently unto them. If, then, we will take a view of What hath been proved before to belong unto this office, we shall find that not the least part, scarce any thing of it, can be undertaken and discharged by such as are ordained absolutely without relation unto particular churches. For any to take upon them to commit an office unto others, and not at the same time charge them with all the duties of that office and their immediate attendance on them, or for any to accept of an office and office-power not knowing when or where to exert the power or perform the duties of it, is irregular. In particular, ruling is an essential part of the pastoral office, which they cannot attend unto who have none to be ruled by them.
2. May a pastor remove from one congregation unto another?
This is a thing also which the ancient church made great
provision against; for when some churches were increased in members,
reputation, privileges, and wealth, above others, it grew an ordinary
practice for the bishops to design and endeavour their own removal from a
less unto a greater benefice. This is so severely interdicted in the
councils of Nice and Chalcedon as that they would not allow that a man
might be a bishop or presbyter in any other place but only in the church
wherein he was originally ordained; and, therefore, if any did so remove
themselves, decreed that they should be sent home again, and there abide,
or cease to be church-officers,
Yet it cannot be denied but that there may be just causes
of the removal of a pastor from one congregation unto another; for whereas
the end of all particular churches is to promote the edification of the
catholic church in general, where, in any especial instance, such a removal
is useful unto that end, it is equal it should be allowed. Cases of this
nature may arise from the consideration of persons, places, times, and many
other circumstances that I cannot insist on in particular. But that such
removals may be without offence, it is required that they be made, — (1.)
With the free consent of the churches concerned; (2.) With the advice of
other churches, or their elders, with whom they walk in communion. And of
examples of this kind, or of the removal of bishops or pastors from one
church to another in an orderly manner, by advice and counsel, for the good
of the whole church, there are many instances in the primitive times. Such
was that of
3. May a pastor voluntarily, or of his own accord, resign and lay down his office, and remain in a private capacity?
This also was judged inconvenient, if not unlawful, by the
first synod of Ephesus, in the case of
But yet no general rule can be established in this case;
nor was the judgment or practice of the primitive church precise herein.
(1.) It seems not to be lawful so to do merely on the
account of weakness for work and labour, though occasioned by age,
sickness, or bodily distemper: for no man is any way obliged to do more
than
(2.) It is not lawful merely on a weariness of and despondency under opposition and reproaches, which a pastor is called and obliged to undergo for the good and edification of the flock, and not to faint in the warfare whereto he is called.
These two were the reasons of
(3.) It is lawful in such an incurable decay of intellectual abilities as whereon a man can discharge no duty of the pastoral office unto the edification of the church.
(4.) It is lawful in case of insurable divisions
in the church, constantly obstructing its edification, and which cannot be
removed whilst such a one continues in his office, though he be no way the
cause of them. This is the case wherein
But this case and its determination will hold only where the divisions are incurable by any other ways and means; for if those who cause such divisions may be cast out of the church, or the church may withdraw communion from them, or if there be divisions in fixed parties and principles, opinions or practices, they may separate into distinct communions. In such cases this remedy, by the pastor’s laying down his office, is not to be made use of; otherwise all things are to be done for edification.
(5.) It may be lawful where the church is wholly negligent in its duty, and persists in that negligence, after admonition, in providing, according to their abilities, for the outward necessity of their pastor and his family. But this case cannot be determined without the consideration of many particular circumstances.
(6.) Where all or many of these causes concur, so as that a man cannot cheerfully and comfortably go on in the discharge of his office, especially if he be pressed in point of conscience, through the church’s noncompliance with their duty with respect unto any of the institutions of Christ, and if the edification of the church, which is at present obstructed, may be provided for, in their own judgment, after a due manner, there is no such grievous yoke laid by the Lord Christ on the necks of any of his servants but that such a person may peaceably lay down his office in such a church, and either abide in a private station, or take the care of another church, wherein he may discharge his office (being yet of ability) unto his own comfort and their edification.
The Lord Christ hath given unto his
church “pastors and teachers,”
But the thoughts of learned men about those who in the Scripture are called teachers are very various, nor is the determination of their state and condition easy or obvious, as we shall find in our inquiry.
If there were originally a distinct office of teachers in
the church, it was lost for many ages; but yet there was always a shadow or
appearance of it retained, first in public catechists, and then in doctors
or professors of theology in the schools belonging unto any church. But
this, as unto the title of doctor or teacher, is but a late
invention; for the occasion of it rose about the year of Christ 1135.
But the custom of having in the church teachers that did
publicly explain and vindicate the principles of religion is far more
ancient, and of known usage in the primitive churches. Such was the
practice of the church of Alexandria in their school, wherein the famous
And, indeed, the continuation of such a peculiar work and
employ-merit, to be discharged in manner of an office, is an evidence that
originally there was such a distinct office in the church; for although in
the Roman church they had instituted sundry orders of sacred officers,
borrowed from the Jews or Gentiles, which have no resemblance
There are four opinions concerning those who are called by this name in the New Testament:—
1. Some say that no office at all is denoted by it, it
being only a general appellation of those that taught others, whether
constantly or occasionally. Such were the prophets in the church of
Corinth, that spake occasionally and in their turns,
2. Some say it is only another name for the same office
with that of a pastor, and so not [intended] to denote any distinct office;
of which mind
3. Others allow that it was a distinct office, whereunto some were called and set apart in the church, but it was only to teach (and that in a peculiar manner) the principles of religion, but had no interest in the rule of the church or the administration of the sacred mysteries. So the pastor in the church was to rule, and teach, and administer the sacred mysteries; the teacher to teach or instruct only, but not to rule nor dispense the sacraments; and the ruling elder to rule only, and neither to teach nor administer sacraments; — which hath the appearance of order, both useful and beautiful.
4. Some judge that it was a distinct office, but of the same nature and kind with that of the pastor, endowed with all the same powers, but differenced from it with respect unto gifts and a peculiar kind of work allotted unto it. But this opinion hath this seeming disadvantage, that the difference between them is so small as not to be sufficient to give a distinct denomination of officers or to constitute a distinct office; and, it may be, such a distinction in gifts will seldom appear, so that the church may be guided thereby in the choice of meet persons unto distinct offices.
But Scripture testimony and rule must take place, and I shall briefly examine all these opinions.
The first is, That this is not the name of any officer, nor is a teacher, as such, any officer in the church, but it is used only as a general name for any that teach, on any account, the doctrine of the gospel. I do not, indeed, know of any who have in particular contended for this opinion, but I observe that very many expositors take no further notice of them but as such. This seems to me to be most remote from the truth.
It is true, that in the first churches not only some, but
all who had received spiritual light in the gifts of knowledge and
utterance, did teach and instruct others as they had opportunity,
1. The name διδάσκαλος; is not used in the New Testament but for a
teacher with authority. The apostle John tells us that διδάσκαλος is the same with ῥαββουνί, So given in the textus receptus. Critical editions of the new
Testament now give ῥαββουνί. — Ed.
2. Teachers are numbered among the officers which Christ
hath given unto and set in the church,
3. They are mentioned as those who, with others, did
preside in the church, and join in the public ministrations of it,
4. They are charged to attend unto the work of teaching;
which none can be but they whose office it is to teach,
It is therefore undeniable that there is such an office as that of a teacher mentioned in the Scripture.
The second opinion is, That although a teacher be a church-officer, yet no distinct office is intended in that denomination. It is, say they, only another name for a pastor, the office being one and the same, the same persons being both pastors and teachers, or called by these several names, as they have other titles also ascribed unto them.
So it is fallen out, and so it is usual in things of this nature, that men run into extremes; truth pleaseth them not. In the first deviation of the church from its primitive institution, there were introduced sundry offices to the church that were not of divine institution, borrowed partly of the Jews and partly of the Gentiles; which issued in the seven orders of the church of Rome. They did not utterly reject any that were of a divine original, but retained some kind of figure, shadow, or image of them; but they brought in others that were merely of their own invention. In the rejection of this exorbitancy, some are apt to run into the other extreme; they will deny and reject some of them that have a divine warranty for their original.
1. In the primitive church, about the end of the second
century, before there was the least attempt to introduce new officers into
the church, there were persons called unto the office and work of public
teaching who were not pastors, nor called unto the administration of other
ordinances. Those of this sort in the church of Alexandria were, by reason
of their extraordinary abilities, quickly of great fame and renown. Their
constant work was, publicly unto all comers, believers and unbelievers, to
explain and teach the principles of Christian religion, defending and
vindicating it from the opposition of its heathen adversaries, whether
atheists or philosophers. This had never been so exactly practised in the
church if it had not derived from divine institution. And of this sort is
the ὁ κατηχῶν, “the catechist,”
intended by the apostle,
2. There is a plain distinction between the offices of a
pastor and a teacher:
(1.) The apostle doth not say “pastors or teachers,” which, in congruity of speech, should have been done if the same persons and the same office were intended; and the discretive particle in the close of such an enumeration of things distinct as that in this place is of the same force with the other notes of distinction before used.
(2.) After he hath named pastors he nameth teachers, with a note of distinction. This must either contain the addition of a new office, or be an interpretation of what went before, as if he had said, “Pastors, that is, teachers.” If it be the latter, then the name of teachers must be added as that which was better known than that of pastors, and more expressive of the office intended (it is declared who are meant by pastors in calling them teachers), or else the addition of the word is merely superfluous. But this is quite otherwise, the name of pastor being more known as unto the indigitation of office power and care, and more appropriated thereunto, than that of teacher, which is both a common name, not absolutely appropriated unto office, and respective of one part of the pastoral office and duty only.
(3.) No instance can be given, in any place where there is
an enumeration of church-officers, either by their names, as
(4.) The words in their first notion are not synonymous; for all pastors are teachers, but all teachers are not pastors: and therefore the latter cannot be exegetical of the former.
3. As these teachers are so called and named in
contradistinction unto pastors in the same place, so they have distinct
office-works and duties assigned unto them in the same place also:
4. These teachers are set in the church as in a distinct
office from that of prophets, “secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers,”
5. There is a peculiar institution of maintenance
for these teachers, which argues a distinct office,
From all these considerations it appears that the teachers mentioned in the Scripture were officers in the church distinct from pastors: for they are distinguished from them, — (1.) By their name, declarative of the especial nature of their office; (2.) By their peculiar work which they are to attend unto, in teaching by virtue of office; (3.) By their distinct placing in the church as peculiar officers in it, distinct from prophets or pastors; (4.) By the especial constitution of their necessary maintenance; (5.) By the necessity of their work, to be distinctly carried on in the church. Which may suffice for the removal of the second opinion.
The third is, that teachers are a distinct office in the church, but such whose office, work, and power, is confined unto teaching only, so as that they have no interest in rule or the administration of the sacraments. And, —
1. I acknowledge that this seems to have been the way and practice of the churches after the apostles; for they had ordinarily catechists and teachers in assemblies like schools, that were not called unto the whole work of the ministry.
2. The name of a teacher, neither in its native signification nor in its ordinary application, as expressive of the work of this office, doth extend itself beyond or signify any thing but the mere power and duty of teaching. It is otherwise as unto the names of pastors, bishops or overseers, elders; which, as unto the two former, their constant use in the Scripture, suited unto their signification, include the whole work of the ministry, and the latter is a name of dignity and rule. Upon the proposal of church-officers under these names, the whole of office-power and duty is apprehended as included in them. But the name of a teacher, especially as significant of that of rabbi among the Jews, carries along with it a confinement unto an especial work or duty.
3. I do judge it lawful for any church, from the nature of
the thing itself, Scripture, general rules and directions, to choose, call,
and set apart, meet persons unto the office, work, and duty of teachers,
without an interest in the rule of the church, or the administration
4. Whereas a teacher, merely as such, hath no right unto rule or the administration of ordinances, no more than the doctors among the Jews had right to offer sacrifices in the temple, yet he who is called to be a teacher may also at the same time be called to be an elder, and a teaching elder hath the power of all holy administrations committed to him.
5. But he that is called to be a teacher in a peculiar manner, although he be an elder also, is to attend peculiarly unto that part of his work from whence he receiveth his denomination.
And so I shall at present dismiss this third opinion unto further consideration, if there be any occasion for it.
The fourth opinion I rather embrace than any of the others, namely, upon a supposition that a teacher is a distinct officer in the church, his office is of the same kind with that of the pastor, though distinguished from it as unto degrees, both materially and formally; for, —
1. They are joined with pastors in the same order, as their
associates in office,
2. They have a peculiar work, of the same general nature
with that of pastors, assigned unto them,
3. They are said λειτουργῆσαι in the church,
Wherefore, upon the consideration of all that is spoken in the Scripture concerning church-teachers, with the various conjectures of all sorts of writers about them, I shall conclude my own thoughts in some few observations, and then inquire into the state of the church with reference unto these “pastors and teachers.” And I say, —
1. There may be teachers in a church called only
unto the work of teaching, without any further interest in rule or right
unto the administration of the sacraments. Such they seem to be who are
mentioned,
2. He who is peculiarly called to be a teacher, with reference unto a distinction from a pastor, may yet at the same time be called to be an elder also; that is, to be a teaching elder. And where there is in any officer a concurrence of both these, — a right unto rule as an elder and power to teach or preach the gospel, — there is the same office and office-power, for the substance of it, as there is in the pastor.
3. On the foregoing supposition, there yet remains a distinction between the office of a pastor and teacher; — which, as far as light may be taken from their names and distinct ascriptions unto them, consists materially in the different gifts which those to be called unto office have received, which the church in their call ought to have respect unto; and formally in the peculiar exercise of those gifts in the discharge of their office, according unto the assignation of their especial work unto them, which themselves are to attend unto.
Upon what hath been before discoursed concerning the office of pastors and teachers, it may be inquired whether there may be many of them in a particular church, or whether there ought only to be of one of each sort? And I say, —
1. Take teachers in the third sense, for those who are only
so, and have no further interest in office-power, and there is no doubt but
that there may be as many of them in any church as axe necessary unto its
edification, and ought so to be. And a due observation of this institution
would prevent the inconvenience of men’s preaching constantly who are in no
office of the church; for although I do grant that those who have once been
regularly and solemnly set apart or ordained unto the ministry have the
right of Constant preaching inherent
2. If there be but one sort of elders mentioned in the
Scripture, it is out of all question that there may be many pastors in the
same church; for there were many elders in every church,
3. It is certain that the order very early observed in the church was one pastor, ὁ προεστώς, “præses,” quickly called “episcopus,” by way of distinction, with many elders assisting in rule and teaching, and deacons ministering in the things of this life, whereby the order of the church was preserved and its authority represented; yet I will not deny but that in each particular church there may be many pastors with an equality of power, if the edification of the church do require it.
4. It was the alteration of the state of the church from its primitive constitution, and deviation from its first order, by an occasional coalescency of many churches into one, by a new form of churches never appointed by Christ, which came not in until after the end of the second century, that gave occasion to corrupt this order into an episcopal pre-eminence, which degenerated more and more into confusion under the name of order. And the absolute equality of many pastors in one and the same church is liable unto many inconveniencies if not diligently watched against.
5. Wherefore let the state of the church be preserved and kept unto its original constitution, which is congregational, and no other, and I do judge that the order of the officers which was so early in the primitive church, — namely, of one pastor or bishop in one church, assisted in rule and all holy administrations with many elders teaching or ruling only, — doth not so overthrow church order as to render its rule or discipline useless.
6. But whereas there is no difference in the Scripture, as
unto office or power, intimated between bishops and presbyters, as we have
proved, when there are many teaching elders in any church, an equality in
office and power is to be preserved. But yet this takes not off from the
due preference of the pastoral office,
1. The rule, and government of the
church, or the execution of the authority of Christ therein, is in
the hand of the elders in office have rule, and none have rule in the
church but elders. As such, rule doth belong unto them. The apostles, by
virtue of their especial office, were intrusted, with all church-power; but
therefore they were elders also,
So under the old testament, where the word doth not signify a difference in age, but is used in a moral sense, elders are the same with rulers or governors, whether in offices civil or ecclesiastical; especially the rulers of the church were constantly called its elders. And the use of the word, with the abuse of the power or office intended by it, is traduced to signify men in authority (“seniores, aldermanni”) in all places.
2. Church-power, acted in its rule, is called “The keys of
the kingdom of heaven,” by an expression derived from the keys that were a
sign of office-power in the families of kings,
3. These keys are usually referred unto two heads, — namely, the one of order, the other of jurisdiction.
4. By the “key of order,” the spiritual right, power, and authority of bishops or pastors to preach the word, to administer the sacraments, and doctrinally to bind and loose the consciences of men, are intended.
5. By “jurisdiction,” the rule, government, or
discipline of the church is designed; though it was never so called or
esteemed in the Scripture, or the primitive church until the whole nature
of church rule or discipline was depraved and changed. Therefore, neither
the word, nor any thing that is signified by it or which it is applied
unto, ought to be admitted unto any consideration in the things that
6. In the church of England (as in that of Rome) there is a peculiar distribution made of these keys. Unto some, — that is, unto one special sort or order of men, — they are both granted, both the key of order and of jurisdiction; which is unto diocesan bishops, with some others, under various canonical restrictions and limitations, as deans and archdeacons. Unto some is granted the key of order only, without the least interest in jurisdiction or rule by virtue of their office; which are the parochial ministers, or mere presbyters, without any additional title or power, as of commissary surrogates, or the like. And unto a third sort there is granted the key of rule or jurisdiction almost plenipotent, who have no share in the key of order, — that is, were never ordained, separated, dedicated unto any office in the church, — such as are the chancellors, etc.
7. These chancellors are the only lay elders that I know anywhere in any church; that is, persons intrusted with the rule of the church and the disposition of its censures, who are not ordained unto any church-office, but in all other things continue in the order of the laity or the people. All church-rulers by institution are elders; to be an elder of the church and a ruler in it is all one: wherefore these persons being rulers in the church, and yet thus continuing in the order of the people, are lay elders; whom I wonder how so many of the church came so seriously to oppose, seeing this order of men is owned by none but themselves. The truth is, and it must be acknowledged, that there is no known church in the world (I mean, whose order is known unto us, and is of any public consideration) but they do dispose the rule of the church, in part, into the hands of persons who have not the power of authoritative preaching of the word and administration of the sacraments committed unto them; for even those who place the whole external rule of the church in the civil magistrate do it as they judge him an officer of the church, intrusted by Christ with church-power. And those who deny any such officers as are usually called “ruling elders” in the reformed churches to be of divine institution, yet maintain that it is very necessary that there should be such officers in the church, either appointed by the magistrate or chosen by the people, and that with cogent arguments. See Imp. Sum. Pot. circ. sacra.
But inquiry must be made what the Scripture directs unto herein. And, —
1. There is a work and duty of rule in the church
distinct from the work and duty of pastoral feeding by the preaching of the
word and administration of the sacraments. All agree herein, unless it be
2. Different and distinct gifts are required unto
the discharge of these distinct works and duties. This belongs
unto the harmony of the dispensation of the gospel. Gifts are bestowed to
answer all duties prescribed. Hence they are the first foundation of all
power, work, and duty in the church: “Unto every one of us is given grace
according to the measure of the gift of Christ;” that is, ability for duty
according to the measure wherein Christ is pleased to grant it,
3. That differing gifts are required unto the different works of pastoral teaching on the one hand, and practical rule on the other, is evident, — (1.) From the light of reason, and the nature of the works themselves being so different; and, (2.) From experience. Some men are fitted by gifts for the dispensation of the word and doctrine in a way of pastoral feeding who have no useful ability for the work of rule, and some are fitted for rule who have no gifts for the discharge of the pastoral work in preaching; yea, it is very seldom that both these sorts of gifts do concur in any eminency in the same person, or without some notable defect. Those who are ready to assume all things unto themselves are, for the most part fit for nothing at all. And hence it is that most of those who esteem both these works to belong principally unto themselves do almost totally decline the one, or that of pastoral preaching, under a pretence of attending unto the other, that is, rule, in a very preposterous way; for they omit that which is incomparably the greater and more worthy for that which is less and inferior unto it, although it should be attended unto in a due manner.
But this, and sundry other things of the like nature, proceed from the corruption of that traditional notion, which is true in itself and continued among all sorts of Christians, namely, that there ought to be some on whom the rule of the church is in an especial manner incumbent, and whose principal work it is to attend thereunto; for the great depravations of all church-government proceed from the corruption and abuse of this notion, which in itself and its original is true and sacred. Herein also, “Malum habitat in alieno fundo;” there is no corruption in church order or rule but is corruptly derived from or set up as an image of some divine institution.
4. The work of rule, as distinct from teaching, is in
general to watch over the walking or conversation of the members of the
church with authority, exhorting, comforting, admonishing reproving,
encouraging, directing of them, as occasion shall require. The gifts
necessary hereunto are diligence, wisdom, courage, and gravity; as we shall
see afterward. The pastoral work is principally to “declare the whole
counsel of God,” to “divide the word aright,” or to “labour in the word and
doctrine,” both as unto the general dispensation and particular application
of it, in all seasons and on all occasions. Hereunto spiritual wisdom,
knowledge, sound judgment, experience, and utterance, are required, all to
be improved by continual
5. Yet distinct works and duties, though some were
furnished with gifts for both, were a ground, in the wisdom of the Holy
Ghost, for distinct offices in the church, where one sort of them
was as much as those of one office could ordinarily attend unto,
6. The work of the ministry in prayer and preaching of
the word, or labour in the word and doctrine, whereunto the
administration of the seals of the covenant is annexed, with all the duties
that belong unto the especial application of these things (before insisted
on) unto the flock, are ordinarily sufficient to take up the whole
man, and the utmost of their endowments who are called unto the
pastoral office in the church. The very nature of the work in itself is
such as that the apostle, giving a short description of it, adds, as an
intimation of its greatness and excellency, “Who is sufficient for these
things?”
It is gross ignorance or negligence that occasioneth any to
be otherwise minded. As the work of the ministry is generally discharged,
as consisting only in a weekly provision of sermons and the performance of
some stated offices by reading, men may have time and liberty enough to
attend unto other occasions; hut in such persons we are not at present
concerned. Our rule is plain,
8. As we observed at the entrance of this chapter, the
whole work of the church, as unto authoritative teaching and rule, is
committed unto the elders; for authoritative teaching and ruling
is teaching and ruling by virtue of office, and this office whereunto they
do belong is that of elders, as it is undeniably attested,
Only, it may be observed that there is in the Scripture no
mention of rulers that are called elders, but such as are in a subordinate
power and authority only. Those who were in supreme, absolute power, as
kings and princes, are never called “elders;” but elders by office were
such only as had ministerial power under others. Wherefore, the highest
officers in the Christian church being called elders, even the apostles
themselves, and Peter in particular,
9. To the complete constitution of any particular church,
or the protection of its organical state, it is required that there be
many elders in it, at least more than one. In this proposition is
the next foundation of the truth which we plead for; and therefore it must
be distinctly considered. I do not determine what their number ought to
be, nor is it determinable, as unto all churches; for the light of nature
sufficiently directs that it is to be proportioned unto the work and end
desired. Where a church is numerous, there is a necessity of increasing
their number proportionably unto their work. In the days of
10. The government of the church, in the judgment and practice of some, is absolutely democratical or popular. They judge that all church power or authority is seated and settled in the community of the brethren, or body of the people; and they look on elders or ministers only as secants of the church, not only materially in the duties they perform, and finally for their edification, serving for the good of the church in the things of the church, but formally also, as acting the authority of the church by a mere delegation, and not any of their own received directly from Christ by virtue of his law and institution. Hence they do occasionally appoint persons among themselves, not called unto, not vested with any office, to administer the supper of the Lord, or any other solemn office of worship. On this principle and supposition I see no necessity for any elders at all though usually they do confer this office on some with solemnity. But as among them there is no direct necessity of any elders for role, so we treat not at present concerning them.
11. Some place the government of many particular churches
in a diocesan bishop, with those that act under him and by his
authority, according unto the rule of the canon law and the civil
constitution of the land. These are so far from judging it necessary that
12. Others place the rule of particular churches, especially in cases of greatest moment, in an association, conjunction, or combination of all the elders of them in one society; which is commonly called a classis. So in all acts of rule there will be a conjunct acting of many elders. And no doubt it is the best provision that can be made, on a supposition of the continuance of the present parochial distribution. But those also of this judgment who have most weighed and considered the nature of these things, do assert the necessity of many elders in every particular church; which is the common judgment and practice of the reformed churches in all places.
13. And some there are who begin to maintain that there is no need of any more, but one pastor, bishop, or elder in a particular church, which hath its rule in itself, other elders for rule being unnecessary. This is a novel opinion, contradictory to the sense and practice of the church in all ages; and I shall prove the contrary.
(1.) The pattern of the first churches constituted by the
apostles, which it is our duty to imitate and follow as our rule,
constantly expresseth and declares that many elders were appointed
by them in every church,
(2.) Where there is but one elder in a church, there cannot
be an eldership or presbytery, as there cannot be a
senate where there is but one senator; which is contrary unto
(3.) The continuation of every church in its
original state and constitution is, since the ceasing of extraordinary
offices and powers, committed to the care and power of the church itself.
Hereunto the calling and ordaining of ordinary officers, pastors, rulers,
elders, teachers, do belong; and therein, as we have proved, both the
election of the people, submitting themselves unto them in the Lord, and
the solemn setting of them apart by imposition of hands, do concur. But if
there be but one elder only in a church, upon his death or removal, this
imposition of hands must either be left unto the people, or be supplied by
elders of other churches, or be wholly
(4.) It is difficult, if not impossible, on a supposition of one elder only in a church, to preserve the rule of the church from being prelatical or popular. There is nothing more frequently objected unto those who dissent from diocesan bishops, than that they would every one be bishops in their own parishes and unto their own people. All such pretences are excluded on our principles, of the liberty of the people, of the necessity of many elders in the same church in an equality of power, and the communion of other churches in association; but practically, where there is but one elder, one of the extremes can hardly be avoided. If he rule by himself, without the previous advice, in some cases, as well as the subsequent consent of the church, it hath an eye of unwarrantable prelacy in it. If every thing be to be originally transacted, disposed, ordered by the whole society, the authority of the elder will quickly be insignificant, and he will be little more, in point of rule, than any other brother of the society. But all these inconveniencies are prevented by the fixing of many elders in each church, which may maintain the authority of the presbytery, and free the church from the despotical rule of any Diotrephes. But in case there be but one in any church, unless he have wisdom to maintain the authority of the eldership in his own person and actings, there is no rule, but confusion.
(5.) The nature of the work whereunto they are called
requires that, in every church consisting of any considerable number of
members, there should be more elders than one (when God first
appointed rule in the church under the old testament, he assigned unto
every ten persons or families a distinct ruler,
These considerations, as also those that follow, may seem
jejune and contemptible unto such as have another frame of church rule and
order drawn in their minds and interests. A government vested
We shall now make application of these things unto our present purpose. I say, then, — 1. Whereas there is a work of rule in the church distinct from that of pastoral feeding; and, 2. Whereas this work is to be attended unto with diligence, which includes the whole duty of him that attends unto it; and, 3. Whereas the ministry of the word and prayer, with all those duties that accompany it, is a full employment for any man, and so, consequently, his principal and proper work, which it is unlawful for him to be remiss in by attending on another with diligence; and, 4. Whereas there ought to be many elders in every church, that both the works of teaching and ruling may be constantly attended unto; and, 5. Whereas, in the wisdom of the Holy Ghost, distinct works did require distinct offices for their discharge (all which we have proved already), our inquiry hereon is, —
Whether the same Holy Spirit hath not distinguished this office of elders into these two sorts, — namely, those who are called unto teaching and rule also, and those who are called unto rule only? which we affirm.
The testimonies whereby the truth of this assertion is
confirmed are generally known and pleaded. I shall insist on some of them
only, beginning with that which is of uncontrollable evidence, if it had
any thing to conflict withal but prejudices and interest; and this is
“The elders, or presbyters in office, elders of the church, that rule well, or discharge their presidency for rule in due manner, are to be counted worthy, or ought to be reputed worthy, of double honour, especially those of them who labour or are engaged in the great labour and travail of the word and doctrine.”
And some things may be observed in general concerning these words:—
1. This testimony relates directly unto the rules and principles before laid down, directing unto the practice of them. According unto the analogy of those principles these words are to be interpreted; and unless they are overthrown, it is to no purpose to put in exceptions against the sense of this or that word. The interpretation of them is to be suited unto the analogy of the things which they relate unto. If we consider not what is spoken here in consent with other scriptures treating of the same matter, we depart from all sober rules of interpretation.
2. On this supposition, the words of the text have a plain and obvious signification, which at first view presents itself unto the common sense and understanding of all men; and where there is nothing contrary unto any other divine testimony or evident reason, such a sense is constantly to be embraced. There is nothing here of any spiritual mystery, but only a direction concerning outward order in the church. In such cases the literal sense of the words, rationally apprehended, is all that we are concerned in. But on the first proposal of this text, “That the elders that rule well are worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in the word and doctrine,” a rational man who is unprejudiced, who never heard of the controversy about ruling elders, can hardly avoid an apprehension that there are two sorts of elders, some that labour in the word and doctrine, and some who do not so do. The truth is, it was interest and prejudice that first caused some learned men to strain their wits to find out evasions from the evidence of this testimony. Being so found out, some others of meaner abilities have been entangled by them; for there is not one new argument advanced in this cause, not one exception given in unto the sense of the place which we plead for, but what was long since coined by Papists and Prelatists, and managed with better colours than some now are able to lay on them who pretend unto the same judgment.
3. This is the substance of the truth in the text:— There
are
Elders that rule well, but labour not in the word and doctrine, are ruling elders only; and such are they in the text.
The most learned of our protestant adversaries in this case
are
1. Their whole design and endeavour is to put in exceptions against the obvious sense and interpretation of the words, not fixing on any determinate exposition of it themselves, such as they will abide by in opposition unto any other sense of the place. Now, this is a most sophistical way of arguing upon testimonies, and suited only to make controversies endless. Whose wit is so barren as not to be able to raise one exception or other against the plainest and most evident testimony? So the Socinians deal with us in all the testimonies we produce to prove the deity or satisfaction of Christ. They suppose it enough to evade their force if they can but pretend that the words are capable of another sense, although they will not abide by it that this or that is their sense; for if they would do so, when that is overthrown, the truth would be established. But every testimony of the Scripture hath one determinate sense. When this is contended about, it is equal that those at difference do express their apprehensions of the mind of the Holy Spirit in the words which they will abide by. When this is done, let it be examined and tried whether of the two senses pretended unto doth best comply with the signification and use of the words, the context or scope of the place, other Scripture testimonies, and the analogy of faith. No such rule is attended unto in this case by our adversaries. They think it enough to oppose our sense of the words, but will not fix upon any of their own, which if it be disproved, ours ought to take place. And hence, —
Some, by “elders that rule well,” do understand bishops that are diocesans; and by “those that labour in the word and doctrine,” ordinary preaching presbyters; which plainly gives them the advantage of pre-eminence, reverence, and maintenance, above the others!
Some, by “elders that rule well,” understand ordinary bishops and presbyters; and by “those that labour in the word and doctrine,” evangelists; so carrying the text out of the present concernment of the church. Deacons are esteemed by some to have an interest in the rule of the church, and so to be intended, in the first place, and preaching ministers in the latter.
Some speak of two sorts of elders, both of the same order, or ministers; some that preach the word and administer the sacraments; and others that are employed about inferior offices, as reading and the like: which is the conceit of Scultetus.
Mr Mede weighs most of these conjectures, and at length prefers one of his own before them all, — namely, that by “elders that rule well” civil magistrates are intended, and by “those that labour in the word and doctrine” the ministers of the gospel.
But some, discerning the weakness and improbability of all these conjectures, and how easily they may be disproved, betake themselves unto a direct denial of that which seems to be plainly asserted in the text, namely, that there are two sorts of elders here intended and described; which they countenance themselves in by exception unto the application of some terms in the text, which we shall immediately consider.
Wherefore, emitting all contests about the forementioned conceits, or any other of the like nature, I shall propose one argument from these words, and vindicate it from the exceptions of those of the latter sort.
Preaching elders, although they rule well, are not worthy of double honour, unless they labour in the word and doctrine;
Therefore there are elders that rule well who are not teaching or preaching elders, — that is, who are ruling elders only.
The proposition is evident in its own light, from the very terms of it; for to preach is to “labour in the word and doctrine.” Preaching or teaching elders, that do not labour in the word and doctrine, are preaching or teaching elders that do not preach or teach. And to say that preachers, whose office and duty it is to preach, are worthy of that double honour which is due on the account of preaching, though they do not preach, is uncouth and irrational. It is contrary to the Scripture and the light of nature, as implying a contradiction, that a man whose office it is to teach and preach should be esteemed worthy of double honour on the account of his office, who doth not as an officer teach or preach.
The assumption consists upon the matter in the very words of the apostle; for he who says, “The elders who rule well are worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine,” saith there are, or may be, elders who rule well who do not labour in the word and doctrine, — that is, who are not obliged so to do.
The argument from these words may be otherwise framed, but this contains the plain sense of this testimony.
Sundry things are excepted unto this testimony and our application of it. Those which are of any weight consist in a contest about two words in the text, μάλιστα and κοπιῶντες. Some place their confidence of evasion in one of them, and some in another, the argument from both being inconsistent. If that sense of one of these words which is pleaded as a relief against this testimony be embraced, that which unto the same purpose is pretended to be the sense of the other must be rejected. Such shifts doth an opposition unto the truth put men to.
Some say that μάλιστα, “especially,” is not distinctive, but descriptive only; that is, it doth not distinguish one sort of elders from another, but only describes that single sort of them by an adjunct of their office, whereof the apostle speaks. The meaning of it, they say, is, as much as, or seeing that: “The elders that rule well are worthy of double honour, seeing that they also labour,” or “especially considering that they labour,” etc.
That this is the sense of the word, that it is thus to be interpreted, must be proved from the authority of ancient translations, or the use of it in other places of the New Testament, or from its precise signification and application in other authors learned in this language, or that it is enforced from the context or matter treated of.
But none of these can be pretended.
1. The rendering of the word in old translations
we have before
2. The use of it in other places of the New
Testament is constantly distinctive, whether applied to things or
persons:
Whereas this is the constant use of the word in the Scripture (being principally used by this apostle in his writings), wherein it is distinctive and comparative of the things and persons that respect is had unto, it is to no purpose to pretend that it is here used in other sense or is otherwise applied, unless they can prove from the context that there is a necessity of their peculiar interpretation of it.
3. The use of the word in other authors is
concurrent with that of it in the Scripture:
4. The sense which the words will give, being so interpreted as that a distinction of elders is not made in them, is absurd, the subject and predicate of the proposition being terms convertible. It must be so if the proposition be not allowed to have a distinction in it. “One sort of elders only,” it is said, “is here intended.” I ask who they are, and of what sort? It is said, “The same with pastors and teachers, or ministers of the gospel;” for if the one sort of elders intended be of another sort, we obtain what we plead for as fully as if two sorts were allowed. Who, then, are these elders, these pastors and teachers, these ministers of the church? are they not those who labour in the word and doctrine? “Yes,” it will be said,” it is they, and no other.” Then this is the sense of the words, “Those who labour in the word and doctrine, that rule well, are worthy of double honour, especially if they labour in the word and doctrine;” for if there be but one sort of elders, then “elders” and “those that labour in the word and doctrine” are terms convertible. But “elders” and “labour in the word and doctrine” are subject and predicate in this proposition.
Wherefore there are few of any learning or judgment that make use of this evasion; but, allowing a distinction to be made, they say that it is as to work and employment, and not as unto of office, — those who, in the discharge of their office as elders, do so labour as is intended and included in the word κοπιῶντες, which denotes a peculiar kind of work in the ministry. Yea, say some, “This word denotes the work of an evangelist, who was not confined unto any one place, but travelled up and down the world to preach the gospel.” And those of this mind do allow that two sorts of elders are intended in the words. Let us see whether they have any better success in this their conjecture than the others had in the former answer.
1. I grant that κοπιᾶν, the word here used, signifies to labour with pains and diligence, “ad ultimum virium, usque ad fatigationem,” — unto the utmost of men’s strength, and unto weariness. But, —
2. So to labour in the word and doctrine is the duty of all pastors and teachers, and whosoever doth not so labour is negligent in his office, and worthy of severe blame instead of double honour: for, —
(1.) Κόπος, whence is
κοπιάω, is the labour of a minister,
and so of any minister in his work of teaching and preaching the gospel:
(2.) It is a general word, used to express the work of any
in the service of God; whereon it is applied unto the prophets and teachers
under the old testament:
3. If the labour of evangelists, or of them who travelled
up and down to preach the word, be intended, then it is so either because
this is the proper signification of the word, or because it is
constantly used elsewhere to express that kind of labour; but the
contrary unto both of these is evident from all places wherein it is used.
So is it expressly applied to fixed elders,
It is therefore evident that this word expresseth no more
but what is the ordinary, indispensable duty of every teaching elder,
pastor, or minister; and if it be so, then those elders, — that is, pastors
or teachers, — that do not perform and discharge it are not worthy of
double honour, nor would the apostle give any countenance unto them who
were any way remiss or negligent, in comparison of others, in the discharge
of their duty. See
There are, therefore, two sorts of duties confessedly here mentioned and commanded; — the first is, ruling well; the other, labouring in the word and doctrine. Suppose that both these, ruling and teaching, are committed to one sort of persons only, having one and the same office absolutely, then are some commended who do not discharge their whole duty, at least not comparatively unto others; which is a vain imagination. That both of them are committed unto one sort of elders, and one of them only unto another, each discharging its duty with respect unto its work, and so both worthy of honour, is the mind of the apostle.
[To] that which is objected from
Our next testimony is from the same apostle:
Our argument from hence is this: There is in the church
ὁ προϊστάμενος, “one that ruleth.”
Προΐστημι, is “to rule with authority
by virtue of office;” whence is προεστώς and προϊστάμενος, one that presides over others with
authority. For the discharge of their office, there is χάρισμα διάφορον, a “differing peculiar gift,”
bestowed on some: Ἔχοντες χαρίσματα
διάφορα,
It is answered, “That the apostle doth not treat in this place of offices, functions, or distinct officers, but of differing gifts in all the members of the church, which they are to exercise according as their different nature doth require.”
Sundry things I shall return hereunto, which will both explain the context and vindicate our argument:—
1. Those with whom we have to do principally allow no exercise of spiritual gifts in the church but by virtue of office. Wherefore, a distinct exercise of them is here placed in distinct officers, one, as we shall see, being expressly distinguished from another.
2. Give such a probable enumeration of the distinct offices in the church, which they assert, namely, of archbishops, bishops, presbyters, and chancellors, etc., and we shall yield the cause.
3. Gifts alone do no more, give no other warranty nor
authority, but only render men meet for their exercise as they are called,
and as occasion doth require. If a man hath received a gift of
4. There is in one “rule” required “with diligence.” He is ὁ προϊστάμενος, a “ruler;” and it is required of him that he attend unto his work with diligence. And there are but two things required unto the confirmation of our thesis, — (1.) That this rule is an act of office-power; (2.) That he unto whom it is ascribed is distinguished from them unto whom the pastoral and other offices in the church are committed.
For the first, it is evident that rule is an act of office or of office-power: for it requires, — [1.] An especial relation; there is so between him that ruleth and them that are ruled; and this is the relation of office, or all confusion will ensue. [2.] Especial prelation. He that rules is over, is above them that axe ruled: “Obey them that are over you in the Lord.” This, in the church, cannot be in any but by virtue of office. [3.] Especial authority. All lawful rule is an act of authority; and there is no authority in the church but by virtue of office. Secondly, That this officer is distinct from all others in the church we shall immediately demonstrate, when we have a little farther cleared the context. Wherefore, —
5. It is confessed that respect is had unto gifts, —
“Having differing gifts,”
(1.) The analysis of the place directs unto this
interpretation. Three sorts of duties are prescribed unto the church in
this chapter, — [1.] Such as are universal, belonging absolutely
unto all and every one that appertains unto it; which are declared,
(2.) The context makes the same truth evident; for, —
[1.] The whole ordinary public work of the church is distributed into προφητεία and διακονία, — “prophecy and ministry;” for the extraordinary gift of prophecy is not here intended, but only that of the interpretation of the Scripture, whose rule is the “analogy of faith:” Εἴτε προφητείαν, κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως. It is such prophecy as is to be regulated by the Scripture itself, which gives the “proportion of faith.” And there is not any thing in any or both of these, prophecy and ministry, but it belongs unto office in the church; neither is there any thing belonging unto office in the church but may be reduced unto one of these, as they are all of them here by the apostle.
[2.] The gifts spoken of are, in general, referred unto all them who are intended. Now, these are either the whole church and all the members of it, or all the officers of the church only. Hence it is expressed in the plural number, Ἔχοντες χαρίσματα, “We having;” that is, all we that are concerned herein. This cannot be “all of the church,” for all the church have not received the gifts of prophecy and ministry; nor can any distinction be made of who doth receive them and who doth not but with respect unto office. And therefore, —
[3.] In the distribution which ensues of prophecy into exhorting and teaching, and of ministry into showing mercy, rule, and giving, having stated these gifts in general, in the officers in general, making distinct application of them unto distinct officers, he speaks in the singular number: Ὁ διδάσκων, ὁ παρακαλῶν, ὁ προϊστάμενος· — “He that teacheth, he that exhorteth, he that ruleth.”
6. It is, then, evident that offices are intended,
and it is no less evident that distinct offices are so, which was to, be
proved in the second place: for, — (1.) The distributive particle εἴτε, and the indicative article ὁ, prefixed unto each office in particular,
do show them [to be] distinct, so far as words can do it. As by the
particle εἴτε, “whether,” they are
distinguished in their nature, whether the y be of this or that
kind; so by the article prefixed to each of them in exercise, they are
distinguished in their subjects. (2.) The operations, works, and effects
ascribed unto these gifts, require distinct offices and functions in their
exercise. And if the distribution be made unto all promiscuously, without
respect unto distinct offices, it were the only way to bring confusion into
the church, whereas, indeed, here is an accurate order in all
church-administrations represented to us. And it is further evident that
distinct offices are intended, — (1.) From the comparison made unto the
members of the body,
7. In particular, “He that ruleth” is a distinct officer, — an officer, because rule is an act of office or office-power; and he is expressly distinguished from all others. But say some, “ ‘He that ruleth’ is he that doth so, be who he will, — that is, the pastor or teacher, the teaching elder.” But the contrary is evident:— (l.) He that says, “He that exhorteth,” and then adds, “He that ruleth,” having distinguished before between prophecy, whereunto exhortation doth belong, and ministry, whereof rule is a part, and prefixing the prepositive indicative article to each of them, doth as plainly put a difference between them as can be done by words. (2.) Rule is the principal work of him that ruleth, for he is to attend unto it ἐν σπουδῇ, “with diligence,” — that is, such as is peculiar unto rule, in contradistinction unto what is principally required in other administrations. But rule is not the principal work of the pastor, requiring constant and continual attendance; for his labour in the word and doctrine is ordinarily sufficient for the utmost of his diligence and abilities.
8. We have, therefore, in this context, a beautiful order
of things in and of the church, — all the duties of it, with respect unto
its edification, derived from distinct differing spiritual gifts, exercised
in and by distinct officers unto their peculiar ends, the distinction that
is in the nature of those gifts, their use and end, being provided for in
distinct subjects. The mind of no one man, at least ordinarily, is meet to
be the seat and subject of all those differing gifts in any eminent degree.
The person of no man being sufficient, meet, or able, to exercise them in
a way of office towards the whole church, especially, “those who labour in
the word and doctrine” being obliged to “give themselves wholly thereunto,”
and those that “rule” to attend thereto with “diligence,” so many distinct
works, duties, and operations, with the qualifications required in their
discharge, being inconsistent in the same subject, all things are here
distributed into their proper order and tendency unto the edification of
the church. Every distinct gift, required to be exercised in a peculiar
manner, unto the public edification of the church, is distributed unto
peculiar officers, unto whom an especial work is assigned, to be discharged
by virtue of the gifts received, unto the edification of the whole body.
No man alive is able to fix on any thing which is necessary unto the
edification of the church that is not contained in these distributions,
under some of the heads of them; nor can any man find out any thing in
these assignations of distinct duties unto distinct offices that is
superfluous, redundant, or not directly necessary unto the edification of
the whole, with all the parts and members of it; nor do I know any wise and
sober man, who knows any thing how the duties enjoined are to be performed,
with what care, diligence, circumspection,
Let men advance any other church-order in the room of that here declared; so suited unto the principles of natural light, operations and duties of diverse natures, being distributed and assigned to such distinct gifts, acted in distinct offices, as renders those unto whom they are prescribed meet and able for them; so correspondent to all institutions, rules, and examples of church-order in other places of Scripture; so suited unto the edification of the church, wherein nothing which is necessary thereunto is omitted, nor any thing added above what is necessary, — and it shall be cheerfully embraced.
The truth is, the ground of the different interpretations and applications of this [text and] context of the apostle ariseth merely from the prejudicate apprehensions that men have concerning the state of the church and its rule; for if the state of it be national or diocesan, if the rule of it be by arbitrary rules and canons, from an authority exerting itself in courts ecclesiastical, legal or illegal, the order of things here described by the apostle doth no way belong nor can be accommodated thereunto. To suppose that we have a full description and account in these words of all the offices and officers of the church, of their duty and authority, of all they have to do, and the manner how they are to do it, is altogether Unreasonable and senseless, unto them who have another idea of church affairs and rule conceived in their minds, or received by tradition, and riveted by interest. And, on the other hand, those who know little or nothing of what belongs unto the due edification of the church beyond preaching the word and reaping the advantage that is obtained thereby, cannot see any necessity of the distribution of these several works and duties unto several officers, but suppose all may be done well enough by one or two in the same office. Wherefore, it will be necessary that we treat briefly of the nature of the rule of the church in particular, and of what is required thereunto; which shall be done in the close of this discourse.
9. The exceptions which are usually put in unto
this testimony have not the least countenance from the text or context, or
the matter treated of, nor confirmation from any other divine testimony.
It is therefore in vain to contend about them, being such as any man may
multiply at his pleasure on the like occasion; and they are used by those
who, on other considerations, are not willing that things should be as they
are here declared to be by the apostle. Yet we may take a brief specimen
of them. Some say it is gifts absolutely, without respect unto
distinct offices, that the apostle treats of; which hath been disproved
from the text and context before. Some say that rule is
10. There is the same evidence given unto the truth argued
for in another testimony of the same apostle:
11. The original order of these things is plain in the
Scripture. The apostles had all church-power and church-office in
themselves, with authority to exercise all acts of them everywhere on all
occasions: but considering the nature of the church, with that of the rule
appointed by the Lord Christ in it or over it, they did not, they would
not, ordinarily exercise their power by themselves or in their own persons
alone; and therefore, when the first church consisted of a small number,
the apostles acted all things in it by the consent of the whole multitude,
or the fraternity, as we have proved from
These elders are first mentioned
I shall add, for a close of all, that there is no sort of
churches in being but are of this persuasion, that there ought to be rulers
in the church that are not in “sacred orders,” as some call them, or have
no interest in the pastoral or ministerial office, as unto the dispensation
Having declared who are the rulers of the church, something must be added concerning the rule itself which is to be exercised therein. Hereof I have treated before in general; that which I now design is what in particular respects them who are called unto rule only, whereunto some considerations must be premised:—
1. There is power, authority, and rule, granted unto and
residing in some persons of the church, and not in the body of the
fraternity or community of the people. How far the government of the
church may be denominated democratical from the necessary consent of the
people unto the principal acts of it in its exercise, I shall not
determine; but whereas this consent, and the liberty of it, are absolutely
necessary, according to the law of obedience unto Christ, which is
prescribed unto the church, requiring that all they do in compliance
therewith be voluntary, as unto the manner of its exercise, being in
2. That there is such an authority and rule instituted by Christ in his church is not liable unto dispute. Where there are “bishops, pastors, elders, guides, rulers, stewards,” instituted, given, granted, called, ordained; and some to be ruled, “sheep, lambs, brethren,” obliged by command to “obey them, follow them, submit unto them in the Lord, regard them as over them,” — there is rule and authority in some persons, and that committed unto them by Jesus Christ; but all these things are frequently repeated in the Scripture. And when, in the practical part or exercise of rule, due respect is not had unto their authority, there is nothing but confusion and disorder. When the people judge that the power of the keys is committed unto them as such only, and in them doth the right of their use and exercise reside; that their elders have no interest in the disposing of church-affairs or in acts of church-power, but only their own suffrages, or what they can obtain by reasoning; and think there is no duty incumbent on them to acquiesce in their authority in any thing (an evil apt to grow in churches), — it overthrows all that beautiful order which Jesus Christ hath ordained. And if any shall take advantage of this complaint, that where the people have their due liberty granted unto them, they are apt to assume that power unto themselves which belongs not unto them, an evil attended with troublesome impertinencies and disorder, tending unto anarchy, let them remember, on the other hand, how, upon the confinement of power and authority unto the guides, bishops, or rulers of the church, they have changed the nature of church-power, and enlarged their usurpation, until the whole rule of the church issued in absolute tyranny. Wherefore, no fear of consequents that may ensue and arise from the darkness, ignorance, weakness, lusts, corruptions, or secular interests of men, ought to entice us unto the least alteration of the rule by any prudential provisions of our own.
3. This authority in the rulers of the church is neither
autocratical or sovereign, nor nomothetical or
legislative, nor despotical or absolute, but organical
and ministerial only. The endless controversies which have sprung out of
the mystery of iniquity, about an autocratical and monarchical government
in the church, about power to make laws to bind the consciences of men,
yea, to kill and destroy them, with the whole manner of the execution of
this power, we are not concerned in. A pretence of any such power in the
church is destructive of the kingly office of Christ, contrary to express
4. As the rule of the church, in those by whom it is
exercised, is merely ministerial, with respect unto the authority
of Christ, his law, and the liberty of the church, wherewith he hath made
it free, so in its nature it is spiritual, purely and only; so the
apostle affirms expressly,
5. The change of this government of the church fell out and
was introduced gradually, upon an advantage taken from the unmeetness of
the people to be laid under this spiritual rule; for the greatest part of
them that made up Christian churches being become ignorant and carnal, that
rule which consists in a spiritual influence on the consciences of men was
no way able to retain them within the bounds of outward obedience, which
was at last only aimed at. There was therefore another kind of rule and
government judged necessary, to retain them in any order or decorum. And
it must be acknowledged that where the members of the church are not in
some degree spiritual, a rule that is merely spiritual will be of no great
use unto them. But principally this change was introduced by those that
were in possession of the rule itself, and that on two grounds:— (1.) Their
unskilfulness in the management of this spiritual rule, or
weariness of the duties which are required thereunto, — this made them
willing to desert it, — with that perpetual labour and exercise of all
sorts of graces which are required in it, and to embrace another more easy
and more suited unto their inclinations. (2.) A desire of the secular
advantages of profit, honour, and veneration, which tendered
themselves unto them in another kind of rule. By these means was the
original government of the church, which was of divine institution, utterly
lost,
I shall therefore briefly inquire into these three things:— 1. What is the skill and polity that are required unto the exercise or administration of the government of the church; 2. What is the sole law and rule of it; 3. What are the acts and duties of it, what it is conversant about, especially those wherein the office of ruling elders doth take place:—
1. The polity of church-government, subjectively considered, is generally supposed to consist, — (1.) In a skill, learning, or understanding in the civil, and especially the canon law, with the additional canons accommodating that law unto the present state of things of the nation, to be interpreted according unto the general rules of it (2.) Knowledge of and acquaintance with the constitution, power, jurisdiction, and practice, of some law-courts, which being, in their original, grant of power, manner of proceeding, pleas and censures, merely secular, are yet called ecclesiastical or spiritual (3.) A good discretion to understand aright the extent of their power, with the bounds and limits of it; that on the one hand they let none escape whom they can reach by the discipline of their courts, and on the other not intrench so far on the civil power and the jurisdiction of other courts, according to the law of the land, as to bring themselves into charge or trouble. (4.) An acquaintance with the table of fees, that they may neither lose their own profit nor give advantage unto others to question them for taking more than their due. But in these things we are not at present concerned.
The skill, then, of the officers of the church for the government of it is a spiritual wisdom and understanding in the law of Christ for that end, with an ability to make application of it in all requisite instances, unto the edification of the whole church and all its members, through a ministerial exercise of the authority of Christ himself, and a due representation of his holiness, love, care, compassion, and tenderness, towards his church.
(1.) The sole rule and measure of the government
of the church being the law of Christ, — that is, the intimation and
declaration of his mind and will, in his institutions, commands,
prohibitions, and promises, — an understanding herein, with wisdom
from that understanding, is, and must be, the whole of the skill inquired
after. How this wisdom is bestowed as a spiritual gift, how it is to be
acquired in a way of duty, by prayer, meditation, and study of the word,
hath been intimated before, and shall fully be declared in our discourse
See vol. iv. of the author’s
works.
(2.) A part of this wisdom consisteth in an ability of mind to make application of the law of Christ, in all requisite instances, unto the edification of the church in general and all the members of it respectively. This wisdom is not notional only, but practical. It consists not in a speculative comprehension of the sense of the rule, or of the mind of Christ therein only, though that be required in the first place; but in an ability of mind to make application of it, whereunto diligence, care, watchfulness, and spiritual courage, are required. Some are to be admonished, some to be rebuked sharply, some to be cut off; in which and the like cases a spirit of government acting itself in diligence, boldness, and courage, is necessary. And this is one reason why the Lord Christ hath appointed many elders in each church, and those of several sorts; for it is seldom that any one man is qualified for the whole work of rule. Some may have a good understanding in the law of the church’s government, yet, through a natural tenderness and an insuperable kind of modesty, not be so ready and prompt for that part of this discipline which consists in reproofs and severity of censures. Some may not have so great an ability for the indication of the sense of the law as others have, who yet, upon the knowledge of it being discovered unto them, have readiness and boldness in Christ to apply it as occasion doth require. All elders, therefore, in their variety of gifts, are to be helpful to each other in the common work which they are called unto. But such as are utterly destitute of these gifts are not called unto this work, nor to any part of it.
(3.) The power that is exercised herein is the power
and authority of Christ, committed unto the elders: “Our authority
which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for destruction,”
(4.) The especial design of the rule of the church in its
government is, to represent the holiness, love, compassion, care, and
authority of Christ towards his church. This is the great end of rule
in the church, and of all the discipline which is to be exercised by virtue
thereof. Whilst this is not attended unto, when the officers and rulers of
the church do not endeavour, in all the actings of their power and office,
to set forth these virtues of Christ, to exemplify that impression of them
which he hath left in his laws and rule, with the divine testimonies which
he gave of them in his own person, they utterly deviate from the principal
end of all rule in the church. For men to act herein in a way of
domination, with a visible elation of mind and spirit above their brethren;
with anger, wrath, and passion; by rules, order, and laws of their own
devising, without the least consideration of what the Lord Christ requires,
and what is the frame of his heart towards all his disciples, — is to
reflect the highest dishonour imaginable upon Christ himself. He who comes
into the courts of the king in Westminster Hall, when filled with judges,
grave, learned, and righteous, must ordinarily be allowed to judge of the
king himself, his wisdom, justice, moderation, and clemency, by the law
which they proceed upon and their manner of the administration of it. But
God forbid that Christians should make a judgment concerning the holiness,
wisdom, love, and compassion of Christ by the representation which, as is
pretended, is made of him and them in some courts wherein church rule and
discipline is administered! When any had offended of old, their censure by
the church was called the bewailing of them,
This is scarce answered by those pecuniary mulcts and other penalties, which, with indignation and contempt, are inflicted on such as are made offenders, whether they will or no. Certainly, those who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, and have a due honour for the gospel, will, at one time or another, begin to think meet that this stain of our religion should be washed away.
2. The rule and law of the exercise of power in the elders
of the church is the holy Scripture only. The Lord Christ is the
only lawgiver of the church; all his laws unto this end are recorded in the
Scripture; no other law is effectual, can oblige or operate upon the
objects or unto the ends of church-rule. If the church make a thousand
rules, or canons, or laws for government, neither any of them, nor all of
them in general, have any the least power to oblige men unto obedience or
compliance with them, but only so far as virtually,
3. The matter of this rule about which it is conversant, and so the acts and duties of it, may be reduced unto three heads:—
(1.) The admission and exclusion of members. Both
these are acts of church power and authority, which are to be exercised by
the elders only, in a church that is organical and complete in its
officers. There is that in them both which is founded in and warranted
from the light and law of nature and rules of equity. Every righteous
voluntary society, coalescing therein rightfully, upon known laws and rules
for the regulation of it unto certain ends, hath naturally a power inherent
in it, and inseparable from it, to receive into its incorporation such as,
being meet for it, do voluntarily offer themselves thereunto; as also to
reject or withhold the privileges of the society from such as refuse to be
regulated by the laws of the society. This power is inherent in the church
essentially considered, antecedently unto the instating of officers in it.
By virtue of their mutual confederation, they may receive into the
privileges of the society those that are meet, and withdraw the same
privileges from those that are unworthy. But in these actings of the
church, essentially considered,
(2.) The direction of the church in all the members of it, unto the observance of the rule and law of Christ in all things, unto his glory and their own edification. And all these things may be reduced unto these four heads:— [1.] Mutual, intense, peculiar love among themselves, to be exercised continually in all the duties of it. [2.] Personal holiness, in gracious moral obedience. [3.] Usefulness towards the members of the same church, towards other churches, and all men absolutely, as occasion and opportunity do require. [4.] The due performance of all those duties which all the members of the church owe mutually unto each other, by virtue of that place and order which they hold and possess in the body. About these things is church-rule to be exercised; for they all belong unto the preservation of its being and the attainment of its ends.
(3.) Hereunto also belongs the disposal of the outward concernments of the church in its assemblies, and in the management of all that is performed in them, that “all things may be done decently and in order.” The disposal of times, seasons, places, the way and manner of managing all things in church-assemblies, the regulation of speeches and actions, the appointment of seasons for extraordinary duties, according unto the general rules of the word and the reason of things from present circumstances, are acts of rule, whose right resides in the elders of the church.
These things being premised, we may consider what is the
work and duty of that sort of elders which we have proved to be placed by
Christ for rule in the church; for considering that which hath been spoken
before concerning the pastoral office, or the duty of teaching elders of
the church, and what hath now been added concerning its rule in general, I
cannot but admire that any one man should have such a confidence in his own
abilities as to suppose himself meet and able for the discharge of the
duties of both sorts in the least church of Christ that can well be
supposed. Yea, supposing more teaching elders in every church than one,
yet if they are all and every one of them equally bound to give themselves
unto the word and prayer, so as not to be diverted from that work by any
inferior duties, if they are obliged to labour in the word and doctrine to
the utmost of their strength continually, it will appear
1. They are joined unto the teaching elders in all
acts and duties of church-power for the rule and government of the church;
such are those before declared. This is plain in the text,
2. They are, in particular, to attend unto all things wherein the rule or discipline of the church is concerned, with a due care that the commands of Christ be duly observed by and among all the members of the church. This is the substance of the rule which Christ hath appointed, whatever be pretended unto the contrary. Whatever is set up in the world in opposition unto it or inconsistent with it, under the name of the government of the church, is foreign unto the gospel. Church-rule is a due care and provision that the institutions, laws, commands, and appointments of Jesus Christ be duly observed, and nothing else. And hereof, as unto the duty of the elders, we may give some instances; as, —
(1.) To watch diligently over the ways, walking and conversation of all the members of the church, to see that it be blameless, without offence, useful, exemplary, and in all things answering the holiness of the commands of Christ, the honour of the gospel, and the profession which in the world they make thereof; and upon the observation which they so make, in the watch wherein they are placed, to instruct, admonish, charge, exhort, encourage, comfort, as they see cause. And this are they to attend unto with courage and diligence.
(2.) To watch against all risings or appearances of such
differences and divisions, on the account of things ecclesiastical
or civil, as unto their names, rights, and proprieties in the world, as are
contrary unto that love which the Lord Christ requireth in a peculiar and
eminent manner to be found amongst his disciples. This he calls his own
“new commandment,” with respect unto his authority requiring it, his
example first illustrating it in the world, and the peculiar fruits and
effects of it which he revealed and taught. Wherefore, the due observance
of this law of love, in itself and all its fruits, with the prevention,
removal, or condemnation, of all that is contrary unto it, is that in which
the rule of the church doth principally consist. And, considering the
weakness, the passions, the temptations of men, the
(3.) Their duty is to warn all the members of the
church of their especial church-duties, that they be not found
negligent or wanting in them. There are especial duties required
respectively of all church-members, according unto the distinct talents,
whether in things spiritual or temporal, which they have received. Some
are rich, and some are poor; some are old, and some are young; some are in
peace, some in trouble; some have received more spiritual gifts than others
and have more opportunities for their exercise. It belongs unto the rule
of the church that all be admonished, instructed, and exhorted to attend
unto their respective duties, not only publicly in the preaching of the
word, but personally as occasion doth require, according to
the observation which those in rule do make of their forwardness or
remissness in them. In particular, and in the way of instance, men are to
be warned that they contribute unto the necessities of the poor and other
occasions of the church, according unto the ability that God in his
providence hath intrusted them withal, and to admonish them that are
defective herein, in order to their recovery unto the discharge of this
duty in such a measure as there may be an equality in the church,
(4.) They are to watch against the beginnings of any
church-disorders, such as those that infested the church of
Corinth, or any of the like sort, with remissness as unto [attending] the
assemblies of the church and the duties of them, which some are subject
unto, as the apostle intimates,
(5.) It belongs unto them also to visit the sick, especially such as whose inward or outward conditions do expose them unto more than ordinary trials in their sickness; that is, the poor, the afflicted, the tempted in any kind. This in general is a moral duty, a work of mercy; but it is moreover a peculiar church-duty by virtue of institution. And one end of the institution of churches is, that the disciples of Christ may have all that spiritual and temporal relief which is needful for them and useful to them in their troubles and distresses. And if this duty were diligently attended unto by the officers of the church, it would add much unto the glory and beauty of our order, and be an abiding reserve with relief in the minds of them whose outward condition exposeth them to straits and sorrows in such a season.
I add hereunto, as a duty of the same nature, the visitation of those who suffer under restraint and imprisonment upon the account of their profession, adherence unto church-assemblies, or the discharge of any pastoral or office duties in them. This is a case wherewith we are not unacquainted, nor are like so to be. Some look on this as the duty of all the members of the church who yet enjoy their liberty; and so it is as their opportunities and abilities will allow them, provided the discharge of it be useful unto those whom they visit, and inoffensive unto others. But this duty diligently attended unto by the elders, representing therein the care and love of the whole church, yea, of Christ himself unto his prisoners, is a great spring of relief and comfort unto them. And by the elders may the church be acquainted what yet is required of them in a way of duty on their account. The care of the primitive churches herein was most eminent.
(6.) It belongs unto them and their office to advise with and give direction unto the deacons of the church as unto the making provision and distribution of the charity the church for the relief of the poor. The office of the deacons is principally execute, as we shall see afterward. Inquisition into the state of the poor, with all their circumstances, with the warning of all the members of the church unto liberality for their supply, belongs unto the elders.
(7.) When the state of the church is such, through
suffering, persecution, and affliction, that the poor be multiplied
among them, so as that the church itself is not able to provide for
their relief in a due manner, if any supply be sent unto them from
the love and bounty of other churches, it is to be deposited with these
elders, and
(8.) It is also their duty, according to the advantage which they have, by their peculiar inspection of all the members of the church, their ways and their walking, to acquaint the pastors, or teaching-elders of the church, with the state of the flock; which may be of singular use unto them for their direction in the present work of the ministry. He who makes it not his business to know the state of the church which he ministers unto in the word and doctrine, as to their knowledge, their judgment and understanding, their temptations and occasions, and applies not himself in his ministry to search out what is necessary and useful unto their edification, he fights uncertainly in his whole work, as a man beating the air. But whereas their obligation to attend unto the word and prayer confines them much unto a retirement for the greatest part of their time, they cannot by themselves obtain that acquaintance with the whole flock but that others may greatly assist therein from their daily inspection, converse, and observation.
(9.) And it is their duty to meet and consult with the teaching-elders about such things of importance as are to be proposed in and unto the church, for its consent and compliance. Hence nothing crude or indigested, nothing unsuited to the sense and duty of the church, will at any time be proposed therein, so as to give occasion unto contests or janglings, disputes contrary unto order or decency, but all things may be preserved in a due regard unto the gravity and authority of the rulers.
(10.) To take care of the due liberties of the church, that they be not imposed on by any Diotrephes, in office or without it.
(11.) It is incumbent on them, in times of difficulties and persecution, to consult together with the other elders concerning all those things which concern the present duty of the church from time to time, and their preservation from violence, according unto the will of Christ.
(12.) Whereas there may be, and ofttimes is, but one teaching-elder, pastor, or teacher in a church, upon his death or removal it is the work and duty of these elders to preserve the church in peace and unity, to take care of the continuation of its assemblies, to prevent irregularities in any persons or parties among them, and to go before, to direct and guide the church in the call and choice of some other meet person or persons in the room of the deceased or removed.
These few instances have I given of the work and duty of
ruling-elders. They are all of them such as deserve a greater enlargement
in their declaration and confirmation than I can here afford unto them, and
sundry things of the like nature, especially with respect unto communion
with other churches and synods; but what hath
1. All the things insisted on do undoubtedly and unquestionably belong unto the rule and order appointed by Christ in his church. There is no one of them that is liable unto any just exception from them by whom all church-order is despised. Wherefore, where there is a defect in them, or any of them, the church itself is defective as unto its own edification; and where this defect is great in many of them, there can be no beauty, no glory, no order in any church, but only an outward show and appearance of them. And that all these things do belong unto the duty of these elders, there needs no other proof or confirmation but that they all undoubtedly and unquestionably belong unto that rule and order which the Lord Christ hath appointed in his church, and which the Scripture testifieth unto both in general and particular; for all the things which belong unto the rule of the church are committed to the care of the rulers of the church.
2. It is a vain apprehension, to suppose that one or two teaching officers in a church, who are obliged to “give themselves unto the word and prayer,” to “labour” with all their might “in the word and doctrine,” to “preach in season and out of season,” — that is, at all times, on all opportunities, as they are able, — to convince gainsayers, by word and writing pleading for the truth, to assist and guide the consciences of all under their temptations and desertions, with sundry other duties, in part spoken to before, should be able to take care of, and attend with diligence unto, those things that do evidently belong unto the rule of the church. And hence it is that churches at this day do live on the preaching of the word, the proper work of their pastors, which they greatly value, and are very little sensible of the wisdom, goodness, love, and care of Christ, in the institution of this rule in the church, nor are partakers of the benefits of it unto their edification. And the supply which many have had hitherto herein, by persons either unacquainted with their duty, or insensible of their own authority, or cold, if not negligent, in their work, doth not answer the end of their institution. And hence it is that the authority of government and the benefit of it are ready to be lost in most churches. And it is both vainly and presumptuously pleaded, to give countenance unto a neglect of their order, that some churches do walk in love and peace, and are edified without it, supplying some defects by the prudent aid of some members of them; for it is nothing but a preference of our own wisdom unto the wisdom and authority of Christ, or at best an unwillingness to make a venture on the warranty of his rule, for fear of some disadvantages that may ensue thereon.
3. Whereas sundry of the duties before mentioned are, as
unto the substance of them, required of the members of the church
in their
It is therefore evident, that neither the purity, nor the order, nor the beauty or glory of the churches of Christ, nor the representation of his own majesty and authority in the government of them, can be long preserved without a multiplication of elders in them, according to the proportion of their respective members, for their rule and guidance. And for want hereof have churches, of old and of late, either degenerated into anarchy and confusion, their self-rule being managed with vain disputes and janglings, unto their division and ruin, or else given up themselves unto the domination of some prelatical teachers, to rule them at their pleasure, which proved the bane and poison of all the primitive churches; and they will and must do so in the neglect of this order for the future.
The original institution, nature, and use, of the office of deacons in the church, are so well known as that we need not much insist upon them; nor shall I treat of the name, which is common unto any kind of ministry, civil or sacred, but speak of it as it is appropriated unto that especial work for which this office was ordained.
The remote foundation of it lieth in that of our Saviour,
“The poor always ye have with you,”
And it may be observed, that at the same instant hypocrisy
and avarice began to attempt their advance on the consideration of this
provision for the poor, which they afterward effected unto their safety;
for, on the pretence hereof, Judas immediately condemned an eminent duty
towards the person of Christ, as containing a cost in it, which might have
been better laid out in provision for the poor. The ointment poured on our
Saviour he thought might have been “sold It is difficult to
explain this estimate by our author of the value of three hundred denarii. According to the received
valuation of Roman money, the sum could not have exceeded £9, 7s. 6d. of
our money. — Ed.
This foundation of their office was further raised by the
preaching of the gospel among the poor. Many of them who first received it
were of that state and condition, as the Scripture everywhere testifieth:
“The poor are evangelized,”
The care of making provision for the poor being made in the
Yet did not the apostles hereon utterly forego the care of providing for the poor, which being originally committed unto them by Jesus Christ, they would not divest themselves wholly of it; but, by the direction of the Holy Ghost, they provided such assistance in the work as that for the future it might require no more of their time or pains but what they should spare from their principal employment. And the same care is still incumbent on the ordinary pastors and elders of the churches, so far as the execution of it doth not interfere with their principal work and duty; from which those who understand it aright can spare but little of their time and strength.
Hereon the apostles, by the authority of Christ and direction of the Holy Spirit, under whose infallible guidance they were in all general concernments of the church, instituted the office of deacons, for the discharge of this necessary and important duty in the church, which they could not attend unto themselves. And whereas the Lord Christ had in an especial manner committed the care of the poor unto the disciples, there was now a declaration of his mind and will in what way and by what means he would have them provided for.
But whereas there are three things that concur and are required unto the ministration unto the poor of the church, — 1. The love, charity, bounty, and benevolence of the members of the church, in contribution unto that ministration; 2. The care and oversight of the discharge of it; and, 3. The actual exercise and application of it, — the last only belongs unto the office of the deacons, and neither of the first is discharged by the institution of it: for the first is both a duty of the light and law of nature, and in its moral part enforced by many especial commands of Christ, so as that nothing can absolve men from their obligation thereunto. The office and work of the deacons is to excite, direct, and help them, in the exercise of that grace and discharge of the duty therein incumbent on them. Nor is any man, by the intrusting a due proportion of his good things in the hands of the deacons for its distribution, absolved thereby from his own personal discharge of it also; for it being a moral duty, required in the law of nature, it receiveth peculiar obligations unto a present exercise by such circumstances as nature and providence do suggest. The care also of the whole work is, as was said, still incumbent on the pastors and elders of the church; only the ordinary execution is committed unto the deacons.
Nor was this a temporary institution, for that
season, and so the officers appointed extraordinary, but it was to
abide in the church throughout a!! generations; for, — 1. The work
itself, as a distinct work of ministry in the church, was never to
cease; it was to abide for ever: “The poor ye shall have always with you.”
2. The reason of its institution is perpetual, namely, that the
pastors of the churches are not sufficient in themselves to attend unto the
whole work of praying, preaching, and this ministration. 3. They are
afterward, not only in this church at Jerusalem, but in all the churches of
the Gentiles, reckoned among the fixed officers of the church,
Hence those who afterward utterly perverted all
church-order, taking out of the hands and care of the deacons that work
which
This office of deacons is an office of service, which gives
not any authority or power in the rule of the church; but being an office,
it gives authority with respect unto the special work of it, under a
general notion of authority; that is, a right to attend unto it in a
peculiar manner, and to perform the things that belong thereunto. But this
right is confined unto the particular church whereunto they do belong. Of
the members of that church are they to make their collections, and unto the
members of that church are they to administer. Extraordinary collections
from or for other churches are to be made and disposed by the elders,
Whereas the reason of the institution of this office was,
in general, to free the pastors of the churches who labour in the word and
doctrine from avocations by outward things, such as wherein the church is
concerned, it belongs unto the deacons not only to take care of and provide
for the poor, but to manage all other affairs of the church of the same
kind; such as are providing for the place of the church-assemblies, of the
elements for the sacraments, of collecting, keeping, and disposing of the
stock of the church for the maintenance of its officers and incidences,
especially in the time of trouble or persecution. Hereon are they obliged
to attend the elders on all occasions, to perform the duty of the church
towards them, and receive directions from them. This was the constant
practice of the church in the primitive times, until the avarice and
ambition of the superior clergy enclosed all alms and donations unto
themselves; the beginning and progress whereof is excellently described and
traced by
That maintenance of the poor which they are to distribute
is to be collected by the voluntary contributions of the church, to be made
ordinarily every first day of the week, and as occasion shall require in an
extraordinary manner,
The consideration of the state of the poor, unto whom the contributions of the church are to be administered, belongs unto the discharge of this office; as, — 1. That they are poor indeed, and do not pretend themselves so to be for advantage; 2. What are the degrees of their poverty, with respect unto their relations and circumstances, that they may have suitable supplies; 3. That in other things they walk according unto rule; 4. In particular, that they work and labour according to their ability, for he that will not labour must not eat at the public charge; 5. To comfort, counsel, and exhort them unto patience, submission, contentment with their condition, and thankfulness: all which might be enlarged and confirmed, but that they are obvious.
The qualifications of persons to be called unto this office
are distinctly laid down by the apostle,
It remains only that we inquire into some few things relating unto this office and those that are called unto it; as, —
1. What is the meaning of the apostle where he affirms that
the deacons, in the discharge of their office, βαθμὸν ἑαυτοῖς καλὸν περιποιοῦνται,
I shall only give my conjecture on the words. The apostle
seems to me to have respect unto church-order, with decency therein, in
both these expressions, “Purchase to themselves a good degree,” and, “Great
confidence in the faith.” Βαθμός, is
of the same signification with βαθμίς,
which is a seat raised in an assembly, to hear or speak. So saith the
school on Soph. Œd. Tyr.
142: Ὁ τόπος ἔνθα ἡ ἐκκλησία ἐγίνετο,
βαθμίσιν ἧν κύκλῳ διειλημμένος, ἅλλαις ἐπ’ ἄλλαις· ἔνθα οἱ συνελθόντες
πάντες καθήμενοι ἀνεμποδίστως ἠκρονῶτο τοῦ ἱσταμένου ἐν μέσῳ· — “The
place where the assembly (or church) met was divided round about with seats
in degrees, some above others, where all that met might without trouble
hear him that stood in the midst as they sat.” And countenance is given
hereunto by what is observed concerning the custom of sitting in the Jewish
synagogues. So
If any shall rather think that both of the expressions do signify an increase in gifts and grace, which is a certain consequence of men’s faithful discharge of their office in the church, wherein many deacons of old were eminent unto martyrdom, I shall not contend against it.
2. Whereas there are qualifications expressly required in
the wives of deacons, as that they should be “grave, not slanderers, sober,
faithful in all things,”
Ans. 1. He who in his own person faithfully dischargeth his office may be continued therein, yea, though his wife should be actually excommunicated out of the church. Every one of us must give an account of himself unto the Lord. He rejects us not for what we cannot remedy. The sinning person shall bear his own judgment. 2. Such an one ought to take care, by virtue of his authority as a husband, that as little offence as possible may be given to the church by his wife, when she loseth the qualification of not being a slanderer, which is inseparable from such apostates.
3. May a deacon be dismissed from his office wholly, after he hath been solemnly set apart unto it by prayer?
Ans. 1. The very end of the office being only the
convenience of the church and its accommodation, the continuation of men in
this office is to be regulated by them; and if the church at any time stand
not in need of the ministry of this or that person, they may, upon his
desire, discharge him of his office. 2. Things may so fall out with men as
unto their outward circumstances, with respect unto either their persons in
bodily distempers and infirmities, or their condition in the world, as that
they are not able any longer to attend unto the due discharge, of this
office; in which case they ought to be released. 3. A man may be solemnly
set apart unto a work and duty by prayer for a limited season, suppose for
a year only; wherefore this doth not hinder but that a man may, on just
reasons, be dismissed at any time from his office, though he be so set
apart unto it. 4. A deacon, by unfaithfulness and other offences, may
forfeit his office and be justly excluded from it, losing all his right
unto it and interest in it; and therefore, on just reasons, may be
dismissed wholly from it. 5. For any one to desert his office, through
frowardness, covetousness, sloth, or negligence, is an offence and scandal
which the church ought to take notice of. 6. He who desires a dismission
from his office ought to give an account of his desires and the reasons of
them unto the church, that the ministry
4. How many deacons may there be in one congregation?
Ans. As many as they stand in need of for the ends of that ministry, and they may be at all times increased as the state of the church doth require; and it is meet that there should always be so many as that none of the poor be neglected in the daily ministration, nor the work be made burdensome unto themselves.
5. What is the duty of the deacons towards the elders of the church?
Ans. Whereas the care of the whole church, in all its concernments, is principally committed unto the pastors, teachers, and ruling elders, it is the duty of the deacons, in the discharge of their office, — 1. To acquaint them from time to time with the state of the church, and especially of the poor, so far as it falls under their inspection; 2. To seek and take their advice in matters of greater importance relating unto their office; 3. To be assisting unto them in all the outward concerns of the church.
6. May deacons preach the word and baptize authoritatively by virtue of their office?
Ans. 1. The deacons, whose office is instituted,
The power of the church towards its members (for it hath nothing to do with them that are without) may be referred unto three heads:— 1. The admission of members into its society; 2. The rule and edification of them that belong unto it; 3. The exclusion out of its society of such as obstinately refuse to live and walk according unto the laws and rules of it. And these things belong essentially and inseparably unto every free society, and are comprehensive of all church-power whatever.
The second of these hath been treated of in the discourse
concerning
There is nothing in Christian religion about which the contest of opinions hath been more fierce than this of excommunication, most of them proceeding evidently from false assumptions and secular interests; and no greater instance can be given of what the serpentine wits of men, engaged by the desire of domination and wealth, and assisted by opportunities, may attain unto. For whereas, as we shall see immediately, there is nothing more plain, simple, and more exposed unto the common understanding of all Christians, yea of all mankind, than is this institution of Christ, both as unto its nature, form, and manner of administration; nothing more wholesome nor useful unto the souls of men; nothing more remote from giving the least disturbance or prejudice to civil society, to magistrates or rulers, unto the personal or political rights or concernments of any one individual in the world; — it hath been metamorphosed into a hideous monster, an engine of priestly domination and tyranny, for the deposition or assassination of kings and princes, the wasting of nations with bloody wars, the terror of the souls of men, and the destruction of their lives, with all their earthly concerns, unto the erection of a tyrannical empire, no less pernicious unto the Christian world than those of the Saracens or the Turks. He is a stranger unto all that hath passed in the world for nearly a thousand years who knows not the truth of these things, And to this very day, the greatest part of them that are called Christians are so supinely ignorant and doting, or so infatuated and blinded by their prejudices and corrupt interests, as to suppose or to say that if the pope of Rome do excommunicate kings or princes, they may be lawfully deposed from their rule, and in some cases killed; and that other persons, being rightly excommunicated, according unto certain laws, rules, and processes, that some have framed, ought to be fined, punished, imprisoned, and so destroyed! And about these things there are many disputes and contests, when, if men were awakened out of their lethargy, they would be laughed at as the most ridiculous and contemptible morons that ever appeared in the world; though they are no laughing matter at present unto them that are concerned in them.
Supposing, then, ecclesiastical excommunication (as I at
present suppose, and shall immediately prove it) to be an appointment of
our Lord Jesus Christ, these things are plain and evident concerning it,
not capable of any modest contradiction:— 1. That there is no divine
evangelical institution that is more suited unto the light of nature, the
rules of common equity, and principles of unseared consciences, as
unto the nature, efficacy, and rule of it, than this is.
It is therefore evident, as was intimated, that nothing in Christian practice hath been or is more abused, corrupted, or perverted, than this of excommunication hath been and is. The residence of the supreme power of it, to be exercised towards and over all Christians, rulers and subjects, in the pope of Rome, or in other single persons absolutely, over less or greater distributions of them; the administration of it by citations, processes, pleadings, and contentions, in wrangling law-courts, according unto arbitrary canons and constitutions, whose original is either known or unknown; the application of it unto the hurt, damage, evil, or loss of men, in their temporal concerns, — are utterly and openly foreign unto the gospel, and expressly contrary unto what the Lord Christ hath appointed therein. It would require a whole volume to declare the horrible abuses both in point of right and in matter of fact, with the pernicious consequences that have issued thereon, which the corruption of this divine institution hath produced: but to make a declaration hereof doth not belong to my present design; besides, it hath in some good measure been done by others. In brief, it is so come to pass that it is made a mere political engine of an external, forcible government of the persons of men, unto the ends of the interests of some who have got a pretence of its power; administered by such ways and means as wherein the consciences of men, neither of those by whom it is administered nor of those unto whom it is applied, are any way concerned, with respect unto the authority of any institution of Jesus Christ.
From an observation hereof, and a desire to vindicate as
well Christian religion from such a scandalous abuse as mankind from
bondage to such a monstrous fiction as is the present power and exercise of
it, some have fallen into another extreme, denying that there is any such
thing as excommunication appointed or approved by the gospel. But this
neither is nor ever will be a way to reduce religion, nor any thing in it,
unto its primitive order and purity. To
There hath been great inquiry about the nature and exercise of this ordinance under the old testament, with the account given of it by the later Jews; for the right and power of it in general belongs unto a church as such, — every church, and not to that which is purely evangelical only. This I shall not inquire into; it hath been sifted to the bran already, and intermixed with many rabbinical conjectures and mistakes. In general, there is nothing more certain than that there was a double removal of persons by church-authority from the communion of the whole congregation in divine worship, — the one for a season, the other for ever; whereof I have given instances elsewhere. But I intend only the consideration of what belongs unto churches under the new testament. And to this end we may observe, —
1. That all lawful societies, constituted such by voluntary confederation, according unto peculiar laws and rules of their own choice, unto especial duties and ends, have a right and power, by the light of nature, to receive into their society those that are willing and meet, engaging themselves to observe the rules, laws, and ends of the society, and to expel them out of it who wilfully deviate from those rules. This is the life and form of every lawful society or community of men in the world, without which they can neither coalesce nor subsist. But it is required hereunto, —
(1.) That those who so enter into such a society have
right or power so to do. And many things are required unto this
end; as, — [1.] That those who enter into such a society be “sui juris,” have a
These things are plain and evident in themselves, and every way sufficient to divest all the religious societies and fraternities that are erected in the church of Rome of all that right and power which belong unto lawful societies, constituted by voluntary confederation. And if any thing inconsistent with these principles of natural light be pretended in churches, it divests them of all power, as to the exercise of it, by virtue of any compact or confederation whatsoever.
(2.) It is required that a society by voluntary
consent vested with the right and power mentioned do neither give nor
take away any right, privilege, or advantage, to or from any members of the
society which belongs unto them naturally or politically;
but their power is confined unto those things alone wherein men may be
benefited and advantaged by the society. And this is the foundation of all
political societies. Men for the sake and benefit of them may and ought to
forego many particular advantages, which without them they might make unto
themselves; but they cannot forego any of those rights which, in their
several relations, are inseparably annexed unto them by the law of nature,
nor give power over themselves in such things unto the society. So is it
with churches: the power of expulsion out of their society extends only
unto the benefits and advantages which the society, as such, doth afford
and communicate. Now, these are only things spiritual, if churches be an
institution of Him whose kingdom is not of this world. The power, then,
that is in churches,
But this is the true state of things in the church of Rome,
and among others also. Christians are esteemed to be of them, and belong
unto them, whether they will or no. Immediately hereon all the rights,
liberties, privileges, and possessions which they enjoy by the law of God
and nature, and by the just laws and constitutions of men in the civil
governments under which they live, come to depend upon and be subject unto
the especial laws and rules of the society which they are adjudged to
belong unto; for upon expulsion out of that society by excommunication,
according unto the laws and rules which it hath framed unto itself, all
their rights and titles, and liberties and enjoyments, are forfeited and
exposed to ruin. Some, indeed, do earnestly and learnedly contend that the
pope of Rome hath not power to excommunicate sovereign kings and princes,
and that if he do, they make no forfeiture of life or dignity thereby; and
there are good reasons why they do so. But, in the meantime, they deal
with other poor men after the same manner; for if a poor man be
excommunicated, immediately he loseth the free tenure of his goods,
liberty, and life, by the law of the church and the land, and is committed
to the jail without bail or mainprise. A term of English law, signifying the
deliverance of a prisoner on security for his appearance on a future day. —
Ed.
And all this evil ariseth from the neglect and contempt of this fundamental rule of all societies, apparent unto all in the light of nature itself, — namely, That they have no power in or over any thing, right, privilege, or advantage, but what men are made partakers of by virtue of such societies, their rules and laws, whereunto they are obliged. But of this sort are not the lives, the liberties, the houses and possessions of men, with respect unto the church. They receive them not from the church, and a man would certainly think that the church could not take them away.
Yea, we live and subsist in order upon the good nature and wisdom of men who judge it best neither to exert their power nor act their principles in this matter: for whereas they esteem all the inhabitants of the land to belong unto their church, if they should in the first place excommunicate all that ought to be excommunicated by the rule and law of the gospel, and then all that ought to be so according to their own laws and canons, — both which a man would think they were obliged in point of conscience unto, — and in pursuit of their sentence send out the “capias” for them all, I very much question whether any of them would go to prison or no, and then in what a fine case would this government be and if they should all go to jail, I am persuaded the king would be in an ill state to defend his realms against his enemies.
(3.) Every society hath this power towards those who are incorporated in it by their own consent, and not towards others; for whence should they have such a power, or who should commit it unto them? Nor can any be cast out from those privileges which they never had an interest in nor a right unto. The apostle’s rule holds in this case, especially with respect unto churches, “What have we to do to judge them that are without?” And as unto the exercise of this power, they are all to be esteemed to be without who are not rightly incorporated into that particular church by which they may be ejected out of it. A power of excommunication at random, towards all that those who exercise it can extend force unto, hath no foundation either in the light of nature or authority of the Scripture; and it would be ridiculous in any corporation to disfranchise such as never belonged unto it, who were never members of it.
(4.) The only reason or cause for the expulsion of any
person out of such a society is a wilful deviation from the rules and
laws of
Thus far, I say, is every lawful confederate society enabled and warranted, by the light of nature, to remove from its communion, and from a participation in its rights and privileges, any of its number who will not walk according to the rules and principles of its coalescency and constitution. Whereas, therefore, the rule of the constitution of the church is, “That men walk together in holy obedience unto the commands of Christ, and in the observance of all his institutions, without giving offence unto one another or those that are without by any sinful miscarriage, and do abide in the profession of the truth,” if any one shall wilfully and obstinately transgress in any of these things, it is the right and duty, and in the power, of the church to remove him from its society.
2. But this is not the entire nor the next immediate ground, reason, or warranty, of ecclesiastical excommunication; for this natural equity will not extend itself unto cases that are in things spiritual and supernatural, nor will the actings of the Church thereon reach unto the consciences of men for the proper ends of excommunication. Wherefore it was necessary that it should have a peculiar institution in the church by the authority of Jesus Christ; for, —
(1.) The church is such a society as no men have right or power either to enter into themselves or to exclude others from but by virtue of the authority of Christ. No warranty from the light of nature, nor from the laws of men, nor their own voluntary confederation, can enable any to constitute a church-society, unless they do all things expressly in obedience unto the authority of Christ; for his church is his kingdom, his house, which none can constitute or build but himself. Wherefore it is necessary that the power of admission into and exclusion from the church do arise from his grant and institution; nor is it in the power of any men in the world to admit into or exclude from this society but by virtue thereof.
(2.) Excommunication is an act of authority, as we
shall see afterward. But no authority can be exercised in the church
towards any person whatever but by virtue of the institution of Christ; for
the
(3.) The privileges from which men are excluded by excommunication are not such as they have any natural or civil right unto (as hath been proved), but merely such as are granted unto the church by Jesus Christ; and men cannot, by virtue of any agreement among themselves, without a warranty from him by his institution, expel others from the privileges which are merely of his grant and donation. He alone, therefore, hath given and granted this power unto the church, namely, of excluding any, by the rules and ways of his appointment, from the privileges of his grant; which is the peculiar power of excommunication inquired after.
(4.) There is such an efficacy assigned unto excommunication, in binding the consciences of men, in retaining their sins, in the destruction or mortification of the flesh, in the healing and recovery of sinners, as nothing but the authority of a divine institution can give unto it. By virtue of natural light and mutual consent, men may free themselves from the company and society of those who will not walk with them according to rules of communion agreed upon among them, but they cannot reach the minds and consciences of others with any of these effects.
(5.) That excommunication is an express ordinance of our Lord Jesus Christ in his churches is fully declared in the Scripture; for, —
[1.] The power of it is contained in the authority given by Christ unto the church, under the name of “The keys of the kingdom of heaven;” for the power expressed therein is not merely doctrinal and declarative, as is the preaching of the gospel, — the consequent whereof, upon the faith or unbelief of them that hear it, is the remitting or retaining of their sins in heaven and earth, — but it is disciplinary also, as it is appropriated unto the house, whose keys are committed unto the stewards of it. And seeing the design of Christ was, to have his church holy, unblamable, and without offence in the world, that therein he might make a representation of his own holiness and the holiness of his rule; and whereas those of whom it is constituted are liable and subject unto sins scandalous and offensive, reflecting dishonour on himself and the church, in being the occasion of sinning unto others, — that design would not have been accomplished had he not given this authority unto his church to cast out and separate from itself all that do by their sins so give offence. And the neglect of the exercise of this authority in a due manner was the principal means whereby the glory, honour, and usefulness of the churches in the world were at length utterly lost.
The rejection of an offending brother out of the society of the church, leaving him, as unto all the privileges of the church, in the state of a heathen, declaring him liable unto the displeasure of Christ and everlasting punishment, without repentance, is the excommunication we plead for; and the power of it, with its exercise, is here plainly granted by Christ and ordained in the church.
[3.] According unto this institution was the practice of
the apostles, whereof we have several instances. I might insist on the
excommunication of Simon the magician, a baptized professor, by Peter, who
declared him to have “neither part nor lot” in the church, upon the
discovery of his wickedness,
The whole of what we plead for is here exemplified; as, — [1.] The cause of excommunication, which is a scandalous sin unrepented of. [2.] The preparation for its execution, which is the church’s sense of the sin and scandal, with humiliation for it. [3.] The warranty of it, which is the institution of Christ, wherein his authority is engaged. [4.] The manner and form of it, by an act of authority, with the consent of the whole church. [5.] The effect of it, in a total separation from the privileges of the church. [6.] The end of it, — 1st. With respect unto the church, its purging and vindication; 2dly. With respect unto the person excommunicated, his repentance, reformation, and salvation.
It is usually replied hereunto, “That this was an
extraordinary act of apostolical power, and so not to be drawn by us into
example; for he himself both determines the case and asserteth his presence
in spirit, — that is, by his authority, — to be necessary unto what was
done. Besides, it was a delivery of the man to Satan, — that is, into his
power, — to be afflicted and cruciated by him, to be terrified in his mind
and punished in his body to the destruction of the flesh, that is, unto
death. Such was the delivery of a man to Satan by the apostle, mentioned
here and
Here is, therefore, in this instance, an everlasting rule given unto the church in all ages, the ordinary occurrence of the like cases requiring an ordinary power for relief in them; without which the church cannot be preserved. That it is the duty of the church, enjoined unto it by the Lord Jesus Christ, and that necessary unto its glow, its own honour, and edification, to reject scandalous offenders out of its communion, is evidently declared in this place; and to suppose that to be the duty of the church which it hath no power and authority to discharge (seeing without them it cannot be discharged) is a wild imagination.
The duty of the church herein, with such other
particular duties as suppose the institution hereof, are in many places
directed and enjoined. It is so in that insisted on,
It is therefore evident that this censure, judgment,
spiritual punishment, is an institution of Christ, for whose administration
he hath
There have been many disputes about it, as unto its order and kinds. Some suppose that there are two sorts of excommunication,-the one they call the “lesser,” and the other the “greater;” some, three sorts, as it is supposed there were among the Jews. There is no mention in the Scripture of any more sorts but one, or of any degrees herein. A segregation from all participation in church-order, worship, and privileges, is the only excommunication spoken of in the Scripture. But whereas an offending person may cause great disorder in a church, and give great scandal unto the members of it, before he can be regularly cut off or expelled the society, some do judge that there should a suspension of him from the Lord’s table at least precede total or complete excommunication in case of impenitency; and it ought in some cases so to be. But this suspension in not properly an especial institution, but only an act of prudence in church- rule, to avoid offence and scandal And no men question but that this is lawful unto, yea, the duty of the rulers of the church, to require any one to forbear for a season from the use of his privilege in the participation of the supper of the Lord, in case of scandal and offence which would be taken at it and ensue thereon. And if any person shall refuse a submission unto them in this act of rule, the church hath no way for its relief but to proceed unto the total removal of such a person from their whole communion; for the edification of the whole church must not be obstructed by the refractoriness of any one among them.
This excommunication, as we have proved before, is an
act of church-authority exerted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
and if so, then it is an act of the officers of the church, — namely, so
far as it is authoritative, — for there is no authority in the church,
properly so called, but what resides in the officers of it. There is an
office in the church which is merely ministerial, without any formal
authority, — that is, of the deacons; but there is no authority in exercise
but what is in the elders and rulers of the church. And there are two
reasons which prove that the power of excommunication, as to the
authoritative exercise of it, is in the elders of the church:— 1. Because
the apostles, by virtue of their office-power in every church, did join in
the authoritative excommunication, as is plain in the case
insisted on,
Howbeit, it cannot be denied but that the interest, yea,
the power of the whole church, in the fraternity of it, is greatly to be
considered herein; for indeed wherever the apostle treats of it, he doth
not anywhere recommend it unto the officers of the church in a
peculiar manner, but unto the whole church or the brethren therein. This
is evident in the places before quoted. Wherefore the whole church is
concerned herein, both in point of duty, interest, and power:— 1. In point
of duty; for by virtue of the mutual watch of all the members of
the church over each other, and of the care incumbent on every one of them,
for the good, the honour, the reputation, and edification of the whole, it
is their duty, jointly and severally, to endeavour the purging out from
among them of every thing that is contrary unto these ends. And they who
are not concerned in these things are dead and useless members of the
church. 2. In interest they have also a concernment therein. They
are to look that no root of bitterness spring up amongst them, lest
themselves be at length defiled thereby. It is usually said that the good
are not defiled by holding communion with them that are wicked in a
participation of holy ordinances; and there is some truth in what is said,
with reference unto wicked, undiscovered hypocrites, or such as are not
scandalously flagitious: but to promote this persuasion, so as to beget an
opinion in church-members that they are no way concerned in the scandalous
sins and lives of those with whom they walk in all duties of spiritual
communion, openly avowing themselves members of the same body with them, is
a diabolical engine, invented to countenance churches in horrible security,
unto their ruin. But yet, besides that defilement which may be contracted
in a joint participation of the same ordinances with such persons, there
axe other ways, almost innumerable, whereby their example, if passed by
without animadversion, may be pernicious unto their faith, love, and
obedience. Wherefore they are obliged in point of spiritual interest, as
they take care of their own souls, to concur in the ejection out of the
church of obstinate offenders. 3. In point of power; for the
execution of this sentence is committed unto and rests in the body of the
church. According as they concur and practice, so it is put in execution
or suspended; for it is they who must withdraw communion from them, or the
sentence is of no use or validity. This
But if any one shall say that excommunication is not an act of authority or of office, but of power residing in the community, resulting from their common suffrage, guided and directed by the officers or elders of the church, I shall again take up this inquiry immediately, and speak unto it more distinctly, lest what is here spoken should not be sufficient unto the satisfaction of any.
Our next inquiry is concerning the objects of this church-censure, or who they are that ought to be excommunicated. And, —
1. They must be members of that church by which the sentence is to be denounced against, them; and this, as we have proved before, they cannot be without their own consent. One church cannot excommunicate the members of another. They are unto them, as unto this matter, “without,” and they have no power to judge them. The foundation of the right to proceed against any herein is in their own voluntary engagement to observe and keep the rules and laws of the society whereunto they are admitted. The offence is given unto that church in the first place, if not only; and it is an act of that church for its own edification. And there is a nullity in the sentence which is ordained, decreed, or denounced, by any who axe not officers of that church in particular wherein the sin is committed.
2. These church-members that may be justly excommunicated
are of two sorts:— Strangely enough, our author mentions only one sort, and
omits to specify the other. Perhaps he intended by the second sort
members, whose conduct, though not grossly and obstinately scandalous, was
so contumacious in resisting the authority of the church, that their
continued enjoyment of church-membership would have been subversive of all
peace and order. See a preceding paragraph, which appears to imply as
much, p. 165. — Ed.
(1.) Such as continue obstinate in the practice of
any scandalous sin after private and public admonition. The
process from the first offence in admonition is so stated, in ordinary
cases,
From the neglect of this rule proceeded that horrible confusion and disorder, in excommunication and the administration of it, which for sundry ages prevailed in the world; for as it was mostly applied unto things holy, just, and good, or the performance of such gospel duties as men owed to Christ and their own souls, so being exercised with respect unto irregularities that are made such merely by the arbitrary constitutions and laws of men, and that in cases frivolous, trifling, and of no importance, it was found necessary to be managed in and by such courts, such processes, such forms of law, such pleadings and intricacies of craft, such a burden of cost and charge, as it is uncertain whether it ought to be more bewailed or derided.
[2.] It is required hereunto that the matter of fact as unto the relation of the sin unto the particular offender be confessed, or not denied, or clearly proved. How far this is to extend, and what ground of procedure there may be in reports or fame concurring with leading circumstances, we shall inquire afterward. And although in such cases of public fame, a good testimony, from those of credit and repute in the church, given unto the supposed guilty person is of use, and sufficient, in some cases, singly to oppose unto public reports, yet to require a man to purge himself by others from any feigned scandalous imputation is an unwarrantable tyranny.
[3.] It is also required that the previous process, in and
by private and public admonition, and that repeated, with patient
waiting the success of each of them, be duly premised. Whether this
extend itself unto all Causes of excommunication shall be afterward
inquired into. Ordinarily it is so necessary unto the conviction of the
mind and conscience of the offender, and to leave him without either
provocation from the church or excuse in himself, so suited to be
expressive of the grace and patience of Christ toward sinners, so requisite
unto the satisfaction of the church itself in their procedure, as that the
omission of it will probably render the sentence useless and
[4.] It is required that the case of the person to be censured, as unto his profession of repentance on the one hand, or obstinacy on the other, be judged and determined by the whole church in love and compassion. There are few who are so profligately wicked but that, when the sin wherewith they are charged is evidently such in the light of nature and Scripture, and when it is justly proved against them, they will make some profession of sorrow and repentance. Whether this be sufficient, as in most cases it is, to suspend the present proceeding of the church, or quite to lay it aside, is left unto the judgment of the church itself, upon consideration of present circumstances and what is necessary unto its own edification. Only, this rule must be continually observed, that the least appearance of haste or undue precipitation herein is to be avoided in all these cases, as the bane of church rule and order.
Again; the manner of its administration according to the
mind of Christ may be considered. And hereunto are required, — 1. Prayer,
without which it can no way be administered in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ. The administration of any solemn ordinance of the gospel without
prayer is a horrible profanation of it; and the neglect or contempt hereof,
in any who take upon them to excommunicate others, is an open proclamation
of the nullity of their act and sentence. And the observation of the
administration of it without any due reverence of God, without solemn
invocation of the name of Christ, thereby engaging his presence and
authority in what they do, is that principally which hath set the
consciences of all mankind at liberty from any concernment in this
ecclesiastical censure, and whence those that administer it expect no other
success of what they do but what they can give it by outward force: and
where this fails, excommunication is quickly laid aside; as it was when the
pope threatened the cantons of the Swiss, that if they complied not with
some of his impositions, he would excommunicate them; whereon they sent him
word “They would not be excommunicated;” which ended the matter.
Wherefore, when our Lord Jesus Christ gives unto his church the power of
binding and loosing, directing them in the exercise of that power, he
directs them to ask assistance by prayer when they are gathered together,
And the prayer required herein is of three sorts:— (1.) That which is previous, for guidance and direction in a matter of so great weight and importance. It is no small thing to fall into mistakes when men act in the name of Christ, and so engage his authority in what he will not own; and the best of men, the best of churches, are liable unto such mistakes, when they are not under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which is to be obtained by prayer only. (2.) In or together with the administration of it, that what is done on earth may be ratified in heaven, by the approbation of Christ, and be made effectual unto its proper end. (3.) It must be followed with the prayer of the church unto the same purpose; all with respect unto the humiliation, repentance, healing, and recovery, of the offender.
2. It is to be accompanied with lamentation or
mourning. So the apostle, reproving the church of Corinth for the omission
of it when it was necessary, tells them that they had not “mourned,” that
the offender might be taken away from among them,
3. It is to be accompanied with a due sense of the
future judgment of Christ; for we herein judge for Christ in the
matters of his house and kingdom. And woe to them who dare pronounce this
sentence without a persuasion, on good grounds, that it is the sentence of
Christ himself! And there is a representation also in it of the future
judgment, when Christ will eternally cut off and separate from himself all
hypocrites and impenitent sinners. This is well expressed by
Lastly, The nature and end of this judgment or
sentence being corrective, not vindictive, — for healing,
not destruction, — what is the duty of the church and those principally
concerned in the pursuit of it, to render it effectual, is plainly evident.
Of what use a “significabit” and
“capias” Significabit, Capias. The first words of certain legal
writs issued to prosecute the sentences of the church, and maintain its
authority. — Ed.
What further belongeth unto this head of church ride or order shall be spoken unto in the resolution of some cases or inquiries, wherein some things only mentioned already shall be more fully explained.
I have made some inquiry before whether excommunication be an act of authority and jurisdiction in the officers of the church, or an act of power in the fraternity of the church; but, for the sake of some by whom it is desired, I shall a little more distinctly inquire after the truth herein, though I shall alter nothing of what was before laid down. And, —
1. It is certain, it hath been proved, and I now take it for granted, that the Lord Christ hath given this power unto the church. Wherefore, in the exercise of this power, both the officers and members of the church are to act according unto their respective interests; for that exercise of power in the church towards any which is not an act of obedience unto Christ in them that exercise it, is in itself null. There is, therefore, no distinction or distribution of power in the church, but by the interposition of especial duty.
2. The institution of Christ with respect unto a church as
it is a peculiar society, for its especial ends, doth not
deprive it of its natural fight as it is a society. There is in every
community, by voluntary confederation, a natural right and power to expel
those from its society who will not be ruled by the laws of its
constitution. And if the church should, by the institution of a power new
as unto the way, manner, and ends of its exercise, be deprived of its
original, radical power, with respect unto the general end of its own
preservation, it would not be a gainer by that institution. It may be
easily understood that the Lord Christ should, in particular, appoint the
way and manner of the exercise of this power, or administration of this
sentence, committing the care thereof unto the officers of the
3. The church, essentially considered, is before its ordinary officers; for the apostles ordained officers in every church. But the church in that state hath power to put away from among them and their communion an obstinate offender: they have it as they are a society by voluntary confederation. Wherein this comes short of authoritative excommunication will immediately appear.
4. Where a church is complete and organized with
its stated rulers, as the church of Corinth was, yet rules, instructions,
and commands, are given expressly unto the fraternity or community of the
church, for their duty and acting in the administration of this sentence,
and the cutting off of an offender,
5. There are some acts belonging hereunto that the church itself, in the body of the fraternity, cannot be excluded from without destroying the nature of the sentence itself and rendering it ineffectual. Such are, the previous cognizance of the cause, without which they cannot be blamed for any neglect about it; preparatory duties unto its execution, in prayer, mourning, and admonition, which are expressly prescribed unto them; and a testification of their consent unto it by their common suffrage. Without these things excommunication is but a name with a noise; it belongs not unto the order appointed by Christ in his church.
6. Hence arise the duties of the church towards an excommunicated person that are consequential unto his exclusion from among them. Such are, praying for him, as one noted by the church and under the discipline of Christ; avoiding communion with him in public and private, that he may be ashamed, and the like; — all which arise from their own voluntary actings in his exclusion, and such as without a judgment of the cause they cannot be obliged unto.
8. Wherefore I shall say no more, in answer unto this inquiry, but that excommunication is an act of church-power in its officers and brethren, acting according unto their respective rights, interests, and duties, particularly prescribed unto them. The officers of the church act in it as officers, with authority; the brethren, or the body of the church, with power, yet so as that the officers are no way excluded from their power, consent, and suffrage, in the acting of the church, but have the same interest therein with all the other members of the church; — but the community of the church have no interest in those authoritative actings of the officers which are peculiar unto them. Where either of these is wanting, the whole duty is vitiated, and the sense of the sentence rendered ineffectual.
First. It is inquired, Whether excommunication, justly deserved, may and ought to be omitted in case of trouble or danger that may ensue unto the church thereon?
It is usually granted that so it may and ought to be; which
seems in general to have been the judgment of
The troubles and dangers intended are threefold:— 1. From the thing itself; 2. From the persons to be excommunicated; 3. From the church.
1. “Trouble may arise from the thing itself; for there being an exercise of authority or jurisdiction in it over the persons of men not granted from the civil magistrate by the law of the land, those that execute it may be liable unto penalties ordained in such cases.
2. “The persons to be excommunicated may be great, and of great interest in the world, so as that if they receive a provocation hereby, they may occasion or stir up persecution against the church, as it hath often fallen out.
3. “The church itself may be divided on these considerations, so as that lasting differences may be occasioned among them, which the omission of the sentence might prevent.”
For answer hereunto, some things must be premised; as, —
1. Here is no supposition of any thing sinful or morally evil in the church, its officers or any of its members, by refusing to omit the pronouncing of this sentence. Whether there be any sin in giving’ occasion unto the troubles mentioned, to be avoided by an omission of duty, is now to be inquired into.
2. We must suppose, — (1.) That the cause of
excommunication be clear and evident, both as unto the merit of the fact
and the due
I answer, on these suppositions, I see no just reason to countenance the omission of the execution of this sentence, or to acquit the church from the guilt of sin in so doing; for, —
1. The first pretence of danger is vain. There is not the least shadow of jurisdiction in this act of the church. There is nothing in it that toucheth any thing which is under the protection and conservation of human laws. It reacheth not the persons of men in their lives, or liberties, or estates, or the least secular privileges that they do enjoy; it doth not expose them to the power or censures of others, nor prejudge them as unto office or advantage of life. There is, therefore, no concernment of the law of the land herein, — no more than in a parent’s disinheriting a rebellious child.
2. As unto danger of persecution by the means of
the person provoked, I say, — (1.) The same may be pleaded as unto all
other duties of obedience unto Jesus Christ wherewith the world is
provoked, and so the whole profession of the church should give place to
the fear of persecution. To testify against sin in the way of Christ’s
appointment is a case of confession. (2.) The apostles were not deterred
by this consideration from the excommunication of
3. As unto danger of differences in the church there is nothing to be said, but that if rule, order, love, and duty, will not prevent such differences, there is no way appointed of Christ for that end; and if they are sufficient for it (as they are abundantly), they must bear their own blame who occasion such differences.
Secondly. But it may be said, What if such an offender as justly deserves to be excommunicated, and is under admonition in order thereunto in case of impenitency, should voluntarily withdraw himself from and leave the communion of the church, is there any necessity to proceed against him by excommunication?
Ans. 1. Some say it is enough if it be declared in
the church that such a one hath cut off himself from the church, and is
therefore
2. Where the offence is plain, open, scandalous, persisted in, — where admonition is despised or not complied with, — it is the duty of the church to denounce the sentence of excommunication against such a person notwithstanding his voluntary departure; for, —
(1.) No man is to make an advantage unto himself, or to be freed from any disadvantage, censure, or spiritual penalty, by his own sin, such as is the voluntary relinquishment of the church by a person under admonition for scandalous offences.
(2.) It is necessary unto the church, both as unto the discharge of its duty and the vindication of its honour, as also from the benefit and edification it will receive by those duties of humiliation, mourning, and prayer, which are necessary unto the execution of this sentence.
(3.) It is necessary for the good and benefit of him who so deserves to be excommunicated; for, — [1.] The end of the institution of the ordinance is his correction, not his destruction; and may be effectual unto his repentance and recovery. [2.] It is to be followed with sharp admonition and prayer; which in due time may reach the most profligate sinner.
(4.) It becomes not the wisdom and order of any society intrusted with authority for its own preservation, as the church is by Christ himself, to suffer persons obnoxious unto censure by the fundamental rules of that society to cast off all respect unto it, to break their order and relation, without animadverting thereon, according to the authority wherewith they are intrusted. To do otherwise is to expose their order unto contempt, and proclaim a diffidence in their own authority for the spiritual punishment of offenders.
(5.) One end of the appointment of the power and sentence of excommunication in the church, is to give testimony unto the future final judgment of Christ against impenitent sinners, which none of them can run away from nor escape.
A third inquiry may be, Whether, in case of any great and scandalous sin, the church may proceed unto excommunication without any previous admonition?
Ans. 1. Persons may be falsely accused of and charged with great sins, the greatest of sins, as well as those of a lesser degree, and that both by particular testimonies and public reports, as it was with the Lord Christ himself; which daily experience confirms. Wherefore all haste and precipitation, like that of David in judging the case of Mephibosheth, is carefully to be avoided, though they are pressed under the pretences of the greatness and notoriety of the sin.
3. This cannot be done without personal conference with the offender, who is to be allowed to speak for himself. This conference, in case guilt be discovered, cannot but have in it the nature of an admonition, whereon the church is to proceed, as in the case of previous solemn admonition, in the order and according to the rule which shall be immediately declared.
Fourthly. Whether, on the first knowledge of an offence or scandalous sin, if it be known unto the church that the offending party is penitent, and willing to declare his humiliation and repentance for the satisfaction of the church, the church may proceed unto his excommunication, in case the sin be great and notorious?
Ans. 1. It is certain that, in an orderly progress, as unto more private sins, a compliance by repentance with the first or second admonition doth put a stop unto all further ecclesiastical procedure.
2. But whereas the inquiry is made concerning sins either in their own nature or in their circumstances great and of disreputation unto the church, I answer, —
If repentance be evidenced unto the consciences of the rulers of the church to be sincere, and proportionable unto the offence in its outward demonstration, according unto the rule of the gospel, so as that they are obliged to judge in charity that the person sinning is pardoned and accepted with Christ, as all sincerely penitent sinners undoubtedly are, the church cannot proceed unto the excommunication of such an offender; for, —
(1.) It would be publicly to reject them whom they acknowledge that Christ doth receive. This nothing can warrant them to do; yea, so to do is to set up themselves against Christ, or at least to make use of his authority against his mind and will. Yea, such a sentence would destroy itself; for it is a declaration that Christ doth disapprove them whom he doth approve.
(2.) Their so doing would make a misrepresentation of
the gospel, and of the Lord Christ therein; for whereas the principal
design of the gospel, and of the representation that is made therein of
Christ Jesus, is to evidence that all sincerely penitent sinners, that
repent according unto the rule of it, are and shall be pardoned and
accepted, by the rejection of such a person in the face of his sincere
repentance, there is an open contradiction thereunto. Especially it would
give an undue sense of the heart, mind, and will of Christ towards
repenting sinners, such as may be dangerous unto the faith of
(3.) Such a procedure is contrary unto the nature and end of this sentence; for it is corrective and instructive, not properly punishing and vindictive. The sole end of it, with respect whereunto it hath its efficacy from divine institution, is the humiliation, repentance, and recovery, of the sinner; and if this be attained before, the infliction of this sentence is contrary to the nature and end of it.
It will be said “That it hath another end also, — namely, the preservation of the purity of the church, and the vindication of its honour and reputation, wherein it suffers by the scandalous offences of any of its members.” Whereunto I say, — (1.) No church is or can be made impure by them whom Christ hath purged, as he doth all those who are truly penitent; (2.) It is no dishonour unto any church to have sinners in it who have evidenced sincere repentance; (3.) The present offence and scandal may be provided against by an act of rectorial prudence, in causing the offending person to abstain from the Lord’s table for a season.
Fifthly. It is inquired, Whether such as voluntarily, causelessly, and disorderly, do leave the communion of any church whereof they are members, though not guilty of any scandalous immoralities, may and ought to be excommunicated?
Ans. 1. Where persons are esteemed members of churches by external causes, without their own consent, or by parochial cohabitation, they may remove from one church unto another by the removal of their habitation, according unto their own discretion; for such cohabitation being the only formal cause of any relation to such a church in particular, upon the ceasing of that cause, the relation ceaseth of its own accord.
2. Where persons are members of churches by mutual confederation or express personal consent, causeless departure from them is an evil liable unto many aggravations.
3. But whereas the principal end of all particular churches is edification, there may be many just and sufficient reasons why a person may remove himself from the constant communion of one church unto that of another; and of these reasons he himself is judge, on whom it is incumbent to take care of his own edification above all other things. Nor ought the church to deny unto any such persons their liberty, desired peaceably and according unto order.
4. It was declared before that where any persons guilty of,
and
5. Whereas there are amongst us churches, or those which are so esteemed in the consciences of men, so far differing in principles and practices as that they have not entire communion with one another in all parts of divine worship, it may be inquired, Whether, if a man leave a church of one sort to join with one of another, as suppose he leave a select congregation to join in a parochial church constantly and totally, he may be justly excommunicated for so doing without the consent of the church whereunto he did belong?
Ans. 1. It is certain, on the one hand, that if any man leave the communion of parochial assemblies to join himself unto a select congregation, those who have power over those parishes will make no question whether they shall excommunicate him or no in their way. But, —
2. Supposing persons so departing from particular congregations, — (1.) To be free from scandalous sins; (2.) That they depart quietly, without attempting disorder or confusion in the church; (3.) That they do actually join themselves unto the communion of some church, whose constitution, principles, and worship, they do approve, whereby their visible profession is preserved, — the church may not justly proceed unto their excommunication; it may suffice to declare that such persons have, of their own accord, forsaken the communion of the church, are no more under its watch and care, neither is the church further obliged towards them, but as unto Christian duties in general.
6. As for those whose departure is, as voluntary and causeless, so accompanied with other evils, such as are revilings, reproaches, and false accusations (as is usual in such cases), they may be proceeded against as obstinate offenders.
The sixth inquiry is, What time is to be given after solemn admonition, before actual excommunication?
Ans. 1. The manner of some, to run over the words, “I admonish you a first, second, and third time,” so immediately to make way for the sentence of excommunication, is that wherein men are greatly to be pitied, for their ignorance of the nature of those things which they take on themselves to act, order, and dispose of, — that we ascribe it not unto worse and more evil causes.
2. The nature of the thing itself requires a considerable
season or space of time between solemn admonition and
excommunication: for the end and design of the former is the repentance and
recovery of the offender; nor doth its efficacy thereunto depend on or
consist in the actual giving of it, but it is as other moral causes, which
may work gradually upon occasional advantages. Want of light, some present
exasperation and temptation, may seem to frustrate a present
3. It being a church-admonition that is intended, it is the duty of the church to abide in prayer and waiting for the fruit of it, according to the appointment of Christ; and herein the case may possibly require some long time to be spent.
4. No present appearance of obstinacy or impenitence under admonition (which is usually pleaded) should cause an immediate procedure unto excommunication; for, — (1.) It is contrary unto the distinct institution of the one and the other, wherein the former is to be allowed its proper season for its use and efficacy. (2.) It doth not represent the patience and forbearance of Christ towards his church and all the members of it. (3.) It is not suited unto the rule of that love which “hopeth all things, beareth all things,” etc. (4.) All grounds of hope for the recovery of sinners by repentance are to be attended unto, so as to defer the ultimate sentence.
5. If new sins are added, of the same or any other kind, unto former scandals, whilst persons are under admonition, it is an indication of the necessity of a procedure.
Seventhly. It may be further inquired, Whether a man may be excommunicated for errors in matters of faith, or false opinions about them?
Ans. 1. The case is so plainly and positively
stated,
2. If the errors intended are about or against the fundamental truths of the gospel, so as that they that hold them cannot “hold the Head,” but really make “shipwreck of the faith,” no pretended usefulness of such persons, no peaceableness as unto outward deportment, which men guilty of such abominations will frequently cover themselves withal, can countenance the church in forbearing, after due admonition, to cut them off from their communion. The nature of the evil, the danger that is from it unto the whole church, as from a gangrene in any member unto the body, the indignation of Christ expressed against such pernicious doctrines, the opposition of them to the building of the church on the Rock, which inmost of them is opposed, do render a church altogether inexcusable who omit their duty herein.
3. False opinions in lesser things, when the
foundation of faith and Christian practice is not immediately concerned,
may be tolerated in a church; and sundry rules are given unto this end in
the Scripture, as
4. With respect unto such opinions, if men wilt, as is usual, wrangle and contend, to the disturbance of the peace of the church, or hinder it in any duty, with respect unto its own edification, and will neither peaceably abide in the church nor peaceably depart from it, they may and ought to he proceeded against with the censures of the church.
Eighthly. Whether persons excommunicated out of any church may be admitted unto the hearing of the word in the assemblies of that church?
Ans. 1. They may be so, as also to be
present at all duties of moral worship; for so may heathens and
unbelievers,
2. When persons are under this sentence, the church is in a state of expecting of their recovery and return, and therefore are not to prohibit them any means thereof, such as is preaching of the word.
Ninthly. How far extends the
rule of the apostle towards persons rejected of the church,
1. To “eat” compriseth all ordinary converse in things of this life: “Give us our daily bread.” To “note” is either the act of the church setting the mark of its censure and disapprobation on him, or the duty of the members of the church to take notice of him as unto the end of not keeping company with him. Wherefore, —
2. Herein all ordinary converse of choice, not made necessary by previous occasions, is forbidden. The rule, I say, forbids, — (1.) All ordinary converse of choice, not that which is occasional; (2.) Converse about earthly, secular things, not that which is spiritual, for such an one may and ought still to be admonished whilst he will hear the word of admonition; (3.) It is such converse as is not made previously necessary by men’s mutual engagements in trade and the like, for that is founded on such rules of right and equity, with such obligations in point of truth, as excommunication cannot dissolve.
3. No suspension of duties antecedently necessary
by virtue of natural or moral relation is allowed or countenanced by this
rule; such are those of husband and wife, parents and children, magistrates
and subjects, masters and servants, neighbours, relations in propinquity or
blood. No duties arising from or belonging unto any of these relations are
released, or the obligation unto them weakened, by excommunication.
Husbands may not hereon forsake their wives if they are excommunicated, nor
wives their husbands; magistrates may not withdraw their protection from
any of their subjects because they are excommunicated, much less may
subjects withhold their obedience
4. The ends of this prohibition are, — (1.) To testify our condemnation of the sin and disapprobation of the person guilty of it, who is excommunicated; (2.) The preservation of ourselves from all kinds of participation in his sin; (3.) To make him ashamed of himself, that if he be not utterly profligate and given up unto total apostasy, it may occasion in him thoughts of returning.
Tenthly. How ought persons excommunicated to be received into the church upon their repentance?
Ans. 1. As unto the internal manner, with
all readiness and cheerfulness, with, — (1.) Meekness, to take from them
all discouragement and disconsolation,
2. The outward manner of the restoration of such a person consists in, — (1.) His testification of his repentance unto the satisfaction of the church; (2.) The express consent of the church unto his reception; (3.) His renewed engagement in the covenant of the church, whereby he is re-instated or jointed again in the body in his own proper place; — in all which the elders, by their authority, are to go before the church.
All sorts of persons do now condemn the opinions of the Novatians in refusing the re-admission of lapsed sinners into the church, upon repentance. But there may be an evil observed amongst some leading that way, or unto what is worse; and this is, that they seek not afar the recovery of those that are excommunicated, by prayer, admonition, exhortation, in a spirit of meekness and tenderness, but are well satisfied that they have quitted themselves of their society. It is better never to excommunicate any, than so to Carry it towards them when they are excommunicated. But there is a sort of men unto whom if a man be once an offender, he shall be so for ever.
Eleventhly. Our last inquiry shall be, Whether excommunication may be regular and valid when the matter of right is dubious and disputable, — as many such cases may fall out, especially with respect unto the occasions of life and mutual converse, — or when the matter of fact is not duly proved by positive witnesses on the one hand, and is denied on the other?
Ans. 1. The foundation of the efficacy of excommunication, next and under its divine institution, lies in the light and conviction of the consciences of them that are to be excommunicated. If these are not affected with a sense of guilt, as in dubious, cases they may not be, the sentence will be of no force or efficacy.
3. If the case be about such a right or wrong, in
pretended fraud, overreaching, or the like, as is determinable by civil
laws, the church is no judge in such cases, unless it be by way of
arbitration,
4. If the question be about doctrines that are not on points fundamental, so as those who dissent from the church do carry it peaceably and orderly, there can be no procedure unto ecclesiastical censure; but if men will dote on their own opinions, wrangling, contending, and breaking the peace of the church about them, there are other rules given in that case.
5. If the matter of fact be to be determined and
stated by witness, it is absolutely necessary, by virtue of divine
institution, that there be two or three concurrent testimonies; one witness
is not to be regarded. See
Wherefore the ensuing rules or directions are to be observed in the matter of excommunication:—
1. No excommunication is to be allowed in cases dubious and disputable, wherein right and wrong are not easily determinable unto all unprejudiced persons that know the will of God in such things; nor is it to be admitted when the matter of fact stands in need of testimony, and is not proved by two witnesses at the least.
2. All prejudices, all partiality, all provocations, all haste and precipitation, are most carefully to be avoided in this administration; for the judgment is the Lord’s. Wherefore, —
3. We are continually, in all things that tend unto this sentence, and eminently in the sentence itself, to charge our consciences with the mind of Christ and what he would do himself in the case, considering his love, grace, mercy, and patience, with instances of his condescension which he gave us in this world.
4. There is also required of us herein a constant remembrance that we also are in the flesh and liable to temptation; which may restrain and keep in awe that forwardness and confidence which some are apt to manifest in such cases. In all these things a watchful eye is to be kept over the methods of Satan, who by all means seeks to pervert this ordinance unto the destruction of men, which is appointed for their edification; and he too often prevails in that design. And if, by the negligence of a church in the management and pursuit of this ordinance, he get advantage to pervert it unto the ruin of any, it is the fault of that church, in that they have not been careful of the honour of Christ therein.
2. It is an undue representation of Christ and his authority, for persons openly guilty of profaneness in sinning to excommunicate them who are blameless in all Christian obedience.
3. All excommunication is evangelically null where there is wanting an evangelical, frame of spirit in those by whom it is administered, and there is present an anti-evangelical order in its administration.
4. It is sufficiently evident that, after all the contests and disputes about this excommunication that have been in the world, the noise that it hath made, the horrible abuses that it hath been put unto, the wresting of all church order and rule to give countenance unto a corrupt administration of it, with the needless oppositions that have been made against its institution, there is nothing in it, nothing belongs unto it, nothing is required unto its administration, wherein men’s outward interests are at all concerned, and which the smallest number of sincere Christians in any church-society may not perform and discharge unto the glory of Christ and their own edification.
It is the mystery of iniquity that hath traversed these things into such a state and posture as is unintelligible unto spiritual wisdom, unpracticable in the obedience of faith, and ruinous unto all evangelical order and discipline.
Churches so appointed and established in order as hath been declared ought to hold communion among themselves, or with each other, as unto all the ends of their institution and order, for these are the same in all; yea, the general end of them is in order of nature considered antecedently unto their institution in particular. This end is, the edification of the body of Christ in general, or the church catholic. The promotion hereof is committed jointly and severally unto all particular churches. Wherefore, with respect hereunto, they are obliged unto mutual communion among themselves; which is their consent, endeavour, and conjunction, in and for the promotion of the edification of the catholic church, and therein their own, as they are parts and members of it.
This communion is incumbent on every church with respect
unto all other churches of Christ in the world equally. And the duties and
acts of it in all of them are of the same kind and nature; for there is, no
such disparity between them or subordination among See note, vol xv. p. 300 — Ed.
[A small town about eighty miles from Rome. The expression is borrowed
from Jerome ad Evang.: “Ubicunque fuerit
episcopus, sive Romæ, sive Eugubii, etc.”]
All churches, on their first institution, quickly found
themselves indigent and wanting, though not as unto their being, power, and
order, yet as unto their well-being, with their preservation in
truth and order upon extraordinary occurrences, as also with respect unto
their usefulness and serviceableness unto the general end of furthering the
edification of the church catholic. The care hereof, and the making
provision for this defect, was committed by our Lord Jesus Christ unto the
apostles during their lives, which Paul calls Ἡ μέριμνα πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν,
But if a thousand pretences should be made of supplying
churches’ defects, after the decease of the apostles, by any other order,
way, or means besides this of the equal communion of Churches among
themselves, they will be all found destitute of any countenance from the
Scripture, primitive antiquity, the nature, use, and end of churches, yea,
of Christian religion itself. Yet the pretence hereof is the sole
foundation of all that disposal of churches into several stories of
subordination, with an authority and jurisdiction over one another, which
now prevails in the world. But there is no place for such imagination,
until it be proved either that our Lord Jesus Christ hath not appointed the
mutual communion of churches among themselves by
Wherefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, in his infinite wisdom, hath constituted his churches in such a state and order as wherein none of them are able of themselves, always and in all instances, to attain all the ends for which they are appointed, with respect unto the edification of the church catholic; and he did it for this end, that whereas the whole catholic church is animated by one spirit, which is the bond of union between all particular churches (as we shall see), every one of them may act the gifts and graces of it unto the preservation and edification of the whole.
Herein then, we acknowledge, lieth the great difference which we have with others about the state of the church of Christ in this world. We do believe that the mutual communion of particular churches amongst themselves, in an equality of power and order, though not of gifts and usefulness, is the only way appointed by our Lord Jesus Christ, after the death of the apostles, for the attaining the general end of all particular churches, which is the edification of the church catholic, in faith, love, and peace. Other ways and means have been found out in the world for this end, which we must speak unto immediately. Wherefore it behoveth us to use some diligence in the consideration of the causes, nature, and use, of this communion of churches.
But it must be moreover premised, that whereas this communion of churches is radically and essentially the same among all churches in the world, yet, as unto the ordinary actual exercise of the duties of it, it is confined and limited by divine providence unto such churches as the natural means of the discharge of such duties may extend unto; that is, unto those which are planted within such lines of communication, such precincts or boundaries of places and countries, as may not render the mutual performance of such duties insuperably difficult. Yet is not the world itself so wide but that, all places being made pervious by navigation, this communion of churches may be visibly professed, and in some instances practised, among all churches, “from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same,” where the name of Christ is known among the Gentiles; wherein the true nature of the catholic church and its union doth consist, which is utterly overthrown by the most vehement pretences that are made unto it, as those in the church of Rome.
Wherefore such a communion of churches is to be inquired
after as from which no true church of Christ is or can be excluded; in
whose actual exercise they may and ought all to live, and whereby the
general end of all churches, in the edification of the catholic church, may
be attained. This is the true and only catholicism of
However, therefore, we plead for the rights of particular churches, yet our real controversy with most in the world is for the being, union, and communion of the church catholic; which are variously perverted by many, separating it into parties, and confining it to rules, measures, and canons, of their own finding out and establishment: for such things as these belong neither to the internal nor external form of that catholic church whose being in the world we believe, and whose union we are obliged to preserve. And whosoever gives any description of or limitation to the catholic church besides what consists in the communion of particular churches intended, doth utterly overthrow it, and therein an article of our faith.
But this communion of churches cannot be duly apprehended unless we inquire and determine wherein their union doth consist, for communion is an act of union that receives both its nature and power from it or by virtue of it; for of what nature soever the union of things distinct in themselves be, of the same is the communion that they have among themselves.
In the church of Rome, the person of the pope, as he is pope, is the head and centre of all church-union, nor is there allowed any union of particular churches with Christ or among themselves but in and through him. A universal subjection unto him and his authority is the original spring of all church-union among them: and if any one soul fail herein, — if, as unto things of faith and divine worship, he do not depend on the pope and live in subjection unto him — he is reputed a stranger and foreigner unto the catholic church; yea, they affirm that be a man never so willing for and desirous of an interest in Christ, he cannot have it but by the pope!
The communion of churches congenial and suited unto this union, proceeding from it and exercised by virtue of it, ariseth from a various contignation of order, or the erection of one story of church-interest upon another, until we come to the idol placed on the top of this Babel. So is this communion carried on from the obedience and subjection of the lowest rubbish of ecclesiastical order unto diocesans, of them to metropolitans, of them to patriarchs or cardinals, of them to the pope; or an ascent is made from diocesan synods, by provincial and national, to those that are called œcumenical, whose head is the pope.
Yet two things must be further observed, to clear this
communion of the Roman Catholic church; as, — 1. That there is no ascent of
church order or power by a vital act of communion from the lower
degrees, orders, or consociations, and by them to the pope, as though
And this is that which constitutes him formally to be what
he is, — that is, antichrist; and the church-state arising from its union
unto him, holding him as its head, subsisting in a communion by virtue of
power received through various orders and constitutions from him, to be
antichristian: for he and it are set up in the room of, and in direct
opposition unto, the Lord Christ, as the head of the catholic church and
the church-state thereon depending. This we have described,
When men shall cease to be wilfully blind, or when the powers of the “strong delusion,” that begin to abate, shall expire, they will easily see the direct opposition that is between these two heads and two churches, namely, Christ and the pope, the catholic church and that of Rome.
I know well enough all the evasions and distinctions that are invented to countenance this antichristianism: as, “That there is a double head, — one of internal influence of grace, which Christ is, and the pope is not; the other of rule and authority, which the pope is. But this also is twofold, supreme and remote, and immediate and subordinate; the first is Christ, the latter is the pope. And there is yet further a twofold head of the church, — the one invisible, which is Christ; the other visible, which is the pope.”
Not to insist on these gross and horrible figments of a
twofold head of the catholic church, in any sense, which are
foreign to the Scripture, and foreign to antiquity, whereof never one word
was heard in the church for six hundred years after Christ, deforming the
beautiful spouse of Christ into a monster, we will allow, at present, that
the pope is only the immediate, visible, subordinate head of all rule and
authority to their church; which is what they plead for. Then I say, that
the church whereof he is the head is his body, that it holds him as its
head, that it is compacted together by the officers and orders that depend
on him and receive all their influence of church power and order from him:
which though he communicates not by an internal influence of grace and
gifts, (alas, poor wretch!) yet he doth it by officers, offices, orders,
and laws; so giving
Let any man take a due prospect of this head and this body, as related and united by the bond of their own rules, constitutions, and laws, acting in worldly pomp, splendour, and power, with horrid, bloody cruelties against all that oppose them, and he will not fail of an open view of all the scriptural lineaments of the apostate, antichristian state of the church.
I say again, this assigning of the original of all church order, union, and communion, unto the pope of Rome, investing him therewith as an article of faith, constituting him thereby the head of the church, and the church thereon his body, — as it must be if he be its head, so as that from him all power of order, and for all acts of communion, should be derived, returning all in obedience and subjection unto him, — doth set up a visible, conspicuous, antichristian church-state in opposition unto Christ and the catholic church. But with this sort of men we deal not at present.
There is a pretence unto a union of churches not derived from the papal headship; and this consists in the canonical subjection of particular churches unto a diocesan bishop and of such bishops to metropolitans, which though “de facto” it be at present terminated and stated within the bounds of a nation, yet “de jure” it ought to be extended unto the whole catholic church.
According unto this principle, the union of the catholic church consists in that order whereby particular churches are distributed into deaneries, archdeaconries, exempt peculiars, under officials; dioceses, provinces, under metropolitans; and so by or without patriarchs, to avoid the rock of the Papacy, issuing in a general council, as I suppose. But, —
1. To confine the union and communion of the catholic church hereunto is at present absolutely destructive both of the church and its communion: for all particular churches, when they are by a coalescency extended unto those which are provincial or national, have, both politically and ecclesiastically, such bounds fixed unto them as they cannot pass to carry on communion unto and with the church as catholic, by any acts and duties belonging unto their order; and hereby the union and communion of the church is utterly lost, for the union of the catholic church, as such, doth always equally exist, and the communion of it is always equally in exercise, and can consist in nothing but what doth so exist and is so exercised. Wherever is the catholic church, there is the communion of saints; but nothing of this can be obtained by virtue of this order.
3. This order itself, the only bond of the pretended union, having no divine institution, especially as to its extent unto the whole catholic church, nor any intimation in the Scripture, and being utterly impossible to be put in execution or actual exercise, no man can declare what is the original or centre of it, whence it is deduced, and whereon it rests.
Having removed these pretences out of our way, we may easily discern wherein the union, and consequently the communion, of all particular churches doth consist; and in the due observation whereof all that church-order which the Lord Christ hath appointed and doth accept is preserved.
I say, then, that the true and only union of all particular churches consists in that which gives form, life, and being unto the church catholic, with the addition of what belongs unto them as they are particular; and this is, that they have all one and the same God and Father, one Lord Jesus Christ, one faith and one doctrine of faith, one hope of their calling, or the promised inheritance, one regeneration, one baptism, one bread and wine, and are united unto God and Christ in one Spirit, through the bond of faith and love.
This description, with what is suited thereunto and explanatory of it, is all the account which is given us in the Scripture of the constituting form of the catholic church, and of the union of particular churches among themselves. What church soever fails in the essential parts of this description, or any of them, it is separated from the catholic church, nor hath either union or communion with any true churches of Christ.
Two things concur unto the completing of this union of churches, — 1. Their union or relation unto Christ; 2. That which they have among themselves.
1. The Lord Christ himself is the original and
spring of this union, and every particular church is united unto him
as its head; besides which, with or under which, it hath none. This
relation of the church unto Christ as its head the apostle expressly
affirms to be the foundation and cause of its union,
This is the kingly, royal, beautiful union of the church: Christ, as the only head of influence and rule, bringing it into a relation unto himself as his body, communicating of his Spirit unto it, governing it by the law of his word, enabling it unto all the duties of faith, love, and holiness.
For unto the completing of this union on the part of the church, these things are required:— (1.) Faith in him, or holding him as the head, in the sincere belief of all things concerning his person, office, and doctrine in the gospel, with whatever belongs thereunto; (2.) Love unto him and all that is his; (3.) That especial holiness whose foundation is repentance and effectual vocation; (4.) The observance of his commands as unto all duties of divine worship. These things are essentially requisite, unto this union on the part of the church. The reality and power of them is the internal form of the church, and the profession of them is its external form.
2. There concurreth hereunto an union among themselves, I mean all particular churches throughout the world, in whom the church catholic doth act its power and duty. And the relation that is between these churches is that which is termed “relatio æquiparentiæ,” wherein neither of the “relata” is the first foundation of it, but they are equal. It doth not arise from the subordination of one unto another, they being all equal as unto what concerns their essence and power. And the bond hereof is that especial love which Christ requireth among all his disciples, acting itself unto all the ends of the edification of the whole body.
Take in the whole, and the union of churches consists in their relation unto God as their Father, and unto Christ as their only immediate head of influence and rule, with a participation of the same Spirit in the same faith and doctrine of truth, the same kind of holiness, the same duties of divine worship, especially the same mysteries of baptism and the supper, the observance of the same rules or commands of Christ in all church-order, with mutual lodge, effectual unto all the ends of their being and constitution, or the edification of the church catholic.
There may be failures in them or some of them, as unto sundry of these things; there may be differences among, them about them, arising from the infirmities, ignorance, and prejudices of them of whom they do consist, the best knowing here but in part; but whilst the substance of them is preserved, the union of all churches, and so of the catholic church, is preserved.
This is that blessed oneness which the Lord Christ prayed
for so
This union of the catholic church in all particular churches is always the same, inviolable, unchangeable, comprehending all the churches in the world at all times, not confinable unto any state or party, not interruptible by any external form, nor to be prevailed against by the gates of hell; and all such disputes about a catholic church and its union as can be so much as questionable among them that profess to believe the gospel are in direct opposition unto the prayers and promises of Jesus Christ. Whilst evangelical faith, holiness, obedience unto the commands of Christ, and mutual love, abide in any on the earth, there is the catholic church; and whilst they are professed, that catholic church is visible. Other catholic church upon the earth I believe none, nor any that needs other things unto its constitution.
These things being premised, I proceed unto that which is our present inquiry, — namely, wherein the communion of particular churches among themselves doth consist.
The communion of churches is their joint actings in the same gospel duties towards God in Christ, with their mutual actings towards each other with respect unto the end of their institution and being, which is the glory of Christ in the edification of the whole catholic church.
As unto the actings of the first sort, the ground of them is faith, and therein is the first act of the communion of churches. And this communion in faith among all the churches of Christ is fivefold:—
1. General, in the belief of the same doctrine of
truth, which is according unto godliness, the same articles of faith,
and the public profession thereof; so that every one of them is the pillar
and ground of the same truth. This the primitive church provided for in
creeds and symbols, or confessions of faith, as is known. But as never any
one of them was expressly owned by all churches, so in process of time they
came to be abused, as expressing the sense of the present church, whether
true or false. Hence we have as many Arian creeds yet extant as those that
are orthodox. But unto the communion of all particular churches in the
world, there is nothing required but a belief of the Scripture to be the
word of God, with a professed assent unto all divine revelations therein
contained, provided that no error be avowed that is contrary to the
principal or fundamental doctrines of it. For although any society of men
should
2. This communion in faith respects the church itself as its material object; for it is required hereunto that we believe that the Lord Christ hath had in all ages, and especially hath in that wherein we live, a church on the earth, confined unto no places nor parties of men, no empires nor dominions, nor capable of any confinement; as also, that this church is redeemed, called, sanctified by him; that it is his kingdom, his interest, his concernment in the world; that thereunto, and [unto] all the members of it, all the promises of God do belong and are confined; that this church he will save, preserve, and deliver, from all opposition, so as that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” and after death will raise it up and glorify it at the last day. This is the faith of the catholic church concerning itself; which is an ancient, fundamental article of our religion. And if any one deny that there is such a church called out of the world, separated from it, unto which alone, and all the members of it, all the promises of God do appertain, in contradistinction unto all others, or confine it unto a party unto whom these things are not appropriate, he cuts himself off from the communion of the church of Christ.
In the faith hereof all the true churches of Christ throughout the world have a comforting, refreshing communion; which is the spring of many duties in them continually.
3. This communion of churches in faith consists much in the
principal fruit of it, namely, prayer. So is it stated,
But now if there be any other persons or churches which have any other object of their prayers but God even the Father, and as our Father in Christ, or have any other mediators or intercessors by whom to convey or present their prayers unto God but Christ alone, the only high priest of the church, or do renounce the aid and assistance of the Holy Spirit as a Spirit of grace and supplications, they cut themselves off from all communion with the catholic church herein.
4. The unity of faith in all churches effecteth communion among them in the administration of the same sacraments of baptism and the supper of the Lord. These are the same in, unto, and amongst them all; neither do some variations in the outward manner of their administration interrupt that communion. But wherever the continuation of these ordinances is denied, or their nature or use is perverted, or idolatrous worship is annexed unto their administration, there communion with the catholic church is renounced.
5. They have also by faith communion herein, in that all churches do profess a subjection unto the authority of Christ in all things, and an obligation upon them to do and observe all whatsoever he hath commanded.
Other instances of the like nature might be given, but these are sufficient to manifest how unscriptural the notion is, that there is no proper communion with or among churches but what consists in a compliance with certain powers, orders, and rites, the pressing whereof under the name of “uniformity” hath cast all thoughts of real, evangelical church-communion into oblivion.
Secondly. Churches ordained and
constituted in the way and manner, and for the ends, declared in our former
discourse on this
The bond of this union is love; not the common regulated affection of human nature so called, not merely that power and duty which is engraven on the hearts of men by the law of creation towards all of the same kind and blood with themselves, but an especial grace of the Holy Spirit, acting in the church as the principle and bend of its union unto itself; whence the command of it is called a “new commandment,” because in itself, as unto the only example of it, in the person of Christ, the causes and motives unto it, with its peculiar ends and proper exercise, it was absolutely new and evangelical. An explanation of the nature of it belongs not unto this place; although it be a grace and a duty of so much importance, — wherein so much of the life, power, and peculiar glory of Christian religion doth consist, — and is either so utterly lost or hath such vile images of it set up in the world, that it deserves a full consideration; which it may receive in another place.
I say, the Holy Spirit of grace and love being given from Christ, the fountain and centre of all church-union, to dwell in and abide with his church, thereby uniting it unto himself, doth work in it and all the members of it that mutual love which may and doth animate them unto all those mutual acts which are proper unto the relation wherein they stand, by virtue of their union unto Christ their head, as members of the same body one with another.
Herein consists the union of every church in itself, of all churches among themselves, and so of the whole catholic church, their communion consisting in regular acts and duties proceeding from this love, and required by virtue of it.
This account of the union and communion of churches may seem strange unto some, who are enamoured of that image which is set up of them in the world, in canons, constitutions of rites, and outward order, in various subordinations and ceremonies, which are most remote from making any due representation of them.
The church, in its dependence on Christ its head, being by its institution disposed into its proper order for its own edification, or fitly joined together and compacted, this love working effectually in every office, officer, and member, according unto its disposal in the body for the receiving and communicating supplies for edification, gives the whole both its union and communion, all the actings of it being regulated by divine rule and prescription.
Instead hereof, to erect a machine, the spring and centre
of whose
The outward acts of communion among churches, proceeding from this love, and the obligation that is on them to promote their mutual edification, may be referred unto the two heads of advice and assistance.
Churches have communion unto their mutual edification by advice in synods or councils; which must in this place be considered.
Synods are the meetings of divers churches by their messengers or delegates, to consult and determine of such things as are of common concernment unto them all by virtue of this communion which is exercised in them.
1. The necessity and warranty of such synods ariseth, — (1.) From the light of nature; for all societies which have the same original, the same rule, the same interest, the same ends, and which are in themselves mutually concerned in the good or evil of each other, are obliged by the power and conduct of reason to advise in common for their own good on all emergencies that stand in need thereof.
Churches are such societies; they have all one and the same authoritative institution, one and the same rule of order and worship, the same ends, as we have declared, and their entire interest is one and the same. When, therefore, any thing occurs amongst them that is attended with such difficulties as cannot be removed or taken away by any one of them severally, or in whose determination all of them are equally concerned, not to make use herein of common advice and counsel is to forsake that natural light which they are bound to attend unto in all duties of obedience unto God.
(2.) The union of all churches as before described, — in
one Head, by one Spirit, through one faith and worship, unto the
same ends, — doth so compact them into one body mystical as that
none of them is or can be complete absolutely without a joint acting with
other members of the same body unto the common good of the whole, as
occasion doth require. And this joint acting with others in any church can
be no otherwise but by common advice and counsel; which natural
circumstances render impossible by any means but by their convention in
synods by their messengers and delegates: for although there may be some
use of letters missive, and was so eminently in the primitive churches, to
ask the advice of one another in difficult cases (as the first instance we
have of the communion of churches after the days of the apostles is, in the
letter of the church of Corinth unto that of Rome, desiring their advice
about the composing of a
(3.) This acting in synods is an institution of Jesus Christ, not in an express command, but in the nature of the thing itself, fortified with apostolical example; for having erected such a church-state, and disposed all his churches into such order and mutual relation unto one another as that none of them can be complete or discharge their whole duty without mutual advice and counsel, he hath thereby ordained this way of their communion in synods, no other being possible unto that end. And thereby such conventions are interested in the promise of his presence, — namely, that “where two or three are gathered together in his name, there he will be in the midst of them;” for these assemblies being the necessary effect of his own constitution, in the nature and use of his churches, are or may be in his name, and so enjoy his presence.
(4.) The end of all particular churches is the edification of the church catholic, unto the glory of God in Christ; and it is evident that in many instances this cannot be attained, yea, that it must be sinfully neglected, unless this way for the preservation and carrying of it on be attended unto. Truth, peace, and love, may be lost among churches, and so the union of the catholic church in them be dissolved, unless this means for their preservation and reparation be made use of. And that particular church which extends not its duty beyond its own assemblies and members is fallen off from the principal end of its institution; and every principle, opinion, or persuasion, that inclines any church to confine its care and duty unto its own edification only, yea, or of those only which agree with it in some peculiar practice, making it neglective of all due means of the edification of the church catholic, is schismatical.
(5.) There is direction hereunto included in the
order and method of church proceedings in case of
offence, prescribed unto it by Christ himself. The beginning and rise of
it is between two individual persons; thence is it carried unto the
cognizance and judgment of two or three others before unconcerned; from
them it is to be brought unto the church; and there is no doubt but the
church hath power to determine concerning it, as unto its own communion, to
continue
(6.) Synods are consecrated unto the use of the church in
all ages by the example of the apostles in their guidance of the first
churches of Jews and Gentiles; which hath the force of a divine
institution, as being given by them under the infallible conduct of
the Holy Ghost,
2. Having seen the original of church synods, or their formal cause, we shall consider also their material cause, or the subject-matter to be treated of or determined in them; and this, in general, is every thing wherein churches are obliged to hold communion among themselves when any thing falls out amongst them which otherwise would disturb that communion. And hereof some instances may be given:—
(1.) Churches have mutual communion in the profession
of the same faith. If any doubts or differences do arise about it,
any opinions be advanced contrary unto it, either in any particular church,
which they cannot determine among themselves, or among sundry churches, the
last outward means for the preservation of the rule of faith among
them, and of their communion in the condemnation of errors and opinions
contrary unto the form of wholesome words, is by these synods or councils.
The care hereof is, indeed, in the first place, committed unto the churches
themselves, as was at large before declared; but in case, through the
subtlety, prevalency, and interest of those by whom damnable doctrines axe
broached, the church itself whereunto they do belong is not able to rebuke
and suppress them, nor to maintain its profession of the truth, or that by
suffering such things in one church others are in danger to be infected or
defiled, this is the last external refuge that is left for the preservation
of the communion of churches in the same faith. We have multiplied
examples hereof in the primitive churches, before the degeneracy of these
synods into superstition and domination. Such was eminently that gathered
at Antioch for the condemnation of the heresies of
(2.) It is so with respect unto that order, peace,
and unity, wherein every particular church ought to walk in itself
and amongst its own members. There were schisms, divisions, strifes, and
contentions, in some of the churches that were of apostolical planting and
watering; so there were at Antioch, and afterward at Corinth, as also in
some of
(3.) Where there hath been any maladministration of discipline, whereby any members of a church have been injured, — as suppose they are unduly cast out of the church by the power and interest of some Diotrephes, or that any members of the church make a party and faction to depose their elders, as it was in the church at Corinth when the church at Rome gave them advice in the ease, — it is necessary, from the communion of churches and the interest the persons injured have in the catholic church, whose edification is the end of all church administrations, that the proceedings of such a church be reviewed by a synod, and a remedy provided in the case. Nor was it the mind of the apostles that they should be left without relief which were unduly cast out of the church by any Diotrephes, nor is there any other ordinary way hereof but only by synods; but this case, I suppose, I shall speak unto afterward.
(4.) The same is the case with respect unto
worship, as also unto manners and conversation. If it be
reported, or known by credible testimony, that any church hath admitted
into the exercise of divine worship any thing superstitious or vain, or if
the members of it walk like those described by the apostle,
The image which, in late ages, was set up hereof, diocesan and metropolitical visitations, and those of lesser districts, Under officers of antichristian names, hath been useful rather unto destruction than edification; but so it hath fallen out in most things concerning church order, worship, and discipline. The power and spirituality of divine institutions being lost, a machine hath been framed to make an appearance and representation of them, to divert the minds of men from inquiring after the primitive institutions of Christ, with an experience of their efficacy.
Considering what we have learned in these later ages, by woful experience, of what hath fallen out formerly amongst all the churches in the world, as unto their degeneracy from gospel worship and holiness, with the abounding of temptations in the days wherein we live, and the spiritual decays that all churches are prone unto, it were not amiss if those churches which do walk in express communion would frequently meet in synods, to inquire into the spiritual state of them all, and to give advice for the correction of what is amiss, the due preservation of the purity of worship, the exercise of discipline, but especially of the power, demonstration, and fruit of evangelical obedience.
Hence it is evident what are the ends of such
synods among the churches of Christ. The general end of them all is to
promote the edification of the whole body or church catholic; and that, —
(1.) To prevent divisions from differences in judgment and practice, which
are contrary thereunto. The first Christian Synod was an assembly of the
first two churches in the world by their delegates. The first church of
the Jews was at Jerusalem, and the first church of the Gentiles was at
Antioch; to prevent divisions and to preserve communion between them was
the first synod celebrated,
What are the ends whereunto they have been used may be seen in the volumes written concerning them, and the numberless laws enacted in them; whereof very little belongs unto the discipline of the gospel or real communion of churches.
3. The measure or extent of them ariseth from
concernment and convenience. All unprejudiced persons do now acknowledge
that the pretence of œcumenical councils, wherein the whole church of
Christ on the earth or all particular churches should be represented,
Their due measure and bounds, as was said before, are given them by concernment and convenience; wherein respect also may be had unto the ability of some churches to promote edification above others. Such churches as are, in the same instances, concerned in the causes of them before declared, and may be helpful unto the ends mentioned, are to convene in such synods. And this concernment may be either from some of those causes in themselves, or from that duty which they owe unto other churches which are immediately concerned. So it was in the assistance given by the church at Jerusalem in that case which was peculiar to the Church of Antioch.
With this interest or concernment there must be a concurrence of natural, moral, and political conveniences. Some churches are planted at such distances from others that it is naturally impossible that they should ever meet together to advise by their messengers; and some are at such as that they cannot assemble but with such difficulties and hazards as exempt them from the duty of it. And whereas they are placed under different civil governments, and those ofttimes engaged in mutual enmities, and always jealous of the actings of their own subjects in conjunction with them that are not so, they cannot so convene and preserve the outward peace of the churches, Hence the largest of the councils of old that are called “œcumenical” never extended farther than the single Roman empire, when there were innumerable churches planted under the civil jurisdiction of other sovereigns.
Wherefore, in the assembling of churches in synods, respect is to be had unto the convenience of their meeting, that it may be, so far as is possible, without trouble or danger. And this, with respect unto the causes or occasions of them, will determine what churches (which or how many) may be necessary on such occasions to constitute a synod. And it is useful hereunto that the churches which are planted within such a circumference as gives facility or convenience for such conventions should, by virtue of their mutual communion, be in express readiness to convene on all occasions of common concernment.
Again; in the assistance which, in the way of advice and counsel, any one church may stand in need of from others, respect is to be had, in their desire, unto such churches as are reputed and known to have the best ability to give advice in the case; on which account the church at Antioch addressed themselves in a peculiar manner unto the church at Jerusalem, which was far distant from them.
But in all these cases use is to be made of spiritual
prudence,
It was the Roman empire under one monarch, in its
civil distributions for rule and government, which gave the first rise and
occasion unto a pretended visibly ruling catholic church under one
spiritual monarch, distributed into those that were patriarchal, diocesan,
metropolitical, and others of inferior kinds; for, retaining the people in
their civil distributions, whereinto they were cast according to the polity
and interest of the empire, there were ecclesiastical officers assigned
unto each distribution, answerable unto the civil officers which were
ordained in the polity of the empire. So, in answer unto deputies,
exarchs, prefects, governors of provinces and cities, there were found out
and erected patriarchs, metropolitans, diocesans, in various allotments of
territories and powers, requiring unto their complete state one visible
monarchical head, as the empire had; — which was the pope. And whereas the
emperors had not only a civil rule and power, but a military also,
exercised under them by legates, generals, tribunes, centurions, and the
like; so there was raised an ecclesiastical militia, in various orders of
monks, friars, and votaries of all sorts, who, under their immediate
generals and prefects, did depend absolutely on the sovereign power of the
new ecclesiastical monarch. So was the visible professing church moulded
and fashioned into an image of the old Roman pagan empire, as it was
foretold it should be,
From this distribution of various sorts of new-framed churches in the Roman empire arose a constitution of synods or councils in subordination one unto another, until, by sundry degrees of ascent, they arrived unto those which they called “general,” under the conduct of the pope, whose senate they were.
But these things have no countenance given them by any divine institution, apostolical example, or practice of the first churches, but are a mere product of secular interest working itself in a mystery of iniquity.
Since the dissolution of the Roman empire, nations have
been cast into distinct civil governments of their own, whose sovereignty
is in themselves, by the event of war and counsels thereon emergent. Unto
each of these it is supposed there is a church-state accommodated, as the
church of England, the church of Scotland, the church
As for that kind of synods which some call a classis, which is a convention of the elders or officers of sundry parochial churches, distinguished for presential communion ordinarily, in some acts of it, by virtue of their office, and for the exercise of office-power, it is the constitution of a new kind of particular churches by a combination of them into one, whose original distinction is only in the civil limits of their cohabitation; which probably may be done sometimes and in some places unto edification.
4. The persons of whom all sorts of ecclesiastical synods are to consist must be inquired into; and there is nothing of mere human prudential constitution that hath longer obtained in the church than that these should be officers of the churches only. And whereas, after the days of the apostles, we have no record of any synods of more churches than one, until after the distinction was made between bishops and presbyters, they were made up of both sorts of them; but afterward, those who were peculiarly called bishops enclosed this right unto themselves, — on what grounds God knows, there being not one tittle in the Scripture or the light of reason to give them countenance therein.
Concerning the composition that is made herein, that some should convene in ecclesiastical synods by their own personal right and in virtue of their office, and others by a kind of delegation from some of their own order, it being a mere political constitution, which I shall immediately speak unto, it is not here to be taken notice of.
There is nothing, therefore, in Scripture example or the
light of natural reason, with the principles of all societies in union or
communion, that will lead us any farther than this, that such synods are to
be composed and consist of such persons as are chosen and delegated by
those churches respectively who do act and exert their communion in such
assemblies. So was it in the first example of them,
Thus this laudable practice of churches acting their mutual communion by meeting in synods or assemblies, by their delegates or messengers, to advise about things of their common concernment and joint edification, as occasion should require, founded in the light of nature, and countenanced by primitive, apostolical example, was turned, by the designing interests and ambition of men, into the instating of all church-power in such synods, and the usurpation of a power given unto no churches nor all of them together; as might be made evident by instances innumerable.
And whereas they have made such a noise in Christian
religion, and have filled so many volumes with their acts and doings, yet
some of them who, under the pope, would place all religion in them, do
grant and contend that they are a mere human invention; so
Of these delegates and messengers of the churches, the
elders or officers of them, or some of them at least, ought to be the
principal; for there is a peculiar care of public edification
incumbent on them, which they are to exercise on all just occasions. They
are justly presumed to know best the state of their own churches, and to be
best able to judge of matters under consideration; and they do better
represent the churches from whom they are sent than any private brethren
can do, and so receive that respect and reverence which is due to the
churches themselves; as also, they are most meet to report
But yet it is not necessary that they alone should be so sent or delegated by the churches, but [they] may have others joined with them, and had so until prelatical usurpation overturned their liberties. So there were others besides Paul and Barnabas sent from Antioch to Jerusalem; and the brethren of that church, whatever is impudently pretended to the contrary, concurred in the decree and determination there made.
5. That which is termed the calling of these synods, is nothing but the voluntary consent of the churches concerned to meet together by their delegates and messengers, for the ends before declared.
I no way deny but that a Christian magistrate may convene, by his authority, the bishops, pastors, or ministers, with such others as he shall think meet, within his own territories, yea, and to receive into his convention meet men out of the territories of others, by their consent; to advise among themselves and to give them advice about the concernments of religion and of the church under his dominion, and regulate himself accordingly. It hath been practised with good success, and may be with bad also. And I do deny that churches have power, without the consent and authority of the magistrate, to convene themselves in synods to exercise any exterior jurisdiction that should affect the persons of his subjects any otherwise than by the law of the land is allowed.
But whereas the synods whereof we treat, and which are all that belong unto the church, can take no cognizance of any civil affairs wherein the persons of men are outwardly concerned, have no jurisdiction in any kind, can make no determination but only doctrinal declarations of divine truth, of the same nature with the preaching of the word, there is no more required unto their calling, beyond their own consent, but only that they may meet in external peace by the permission of the magistrate; which when they cannot obtain, they must deport themselves as in case of other duties required of them by the law of Christ.
6. In the last place, I shall speak briefly of the power and authority of these synods, in what measures, extent, and numbers soever they are assembled; for although this may be easily collected from what hath been declared concerning their original, nature, causes, use, and ends, yet it may be necessary to be more particularly inquired into, because of the many differences that ate about it.
There is a threefold power ascribed unto synods. The first is declarative, consisting in an authoritative teaching and declaring the mind of God in the Scripture; the second is constitutive, appointing and ordaining things to be believed, or done and observed, by and upon its own authority; and, thirdly, executive, in acts of jurisdiction towards persons and churches.
Wherefore the ground of any church’s receiving, complying with, or obeying the determinations and decrees of synods must be either, — (1.) The evidence of truth given unto those determinations by the synod from the Scripture; or, (2.) The authority of the synod itself, affecting the minds and consciences of those concerned.
In the first way, wherein the assent and obedience of churches is resolved ultimately into the evidence of truth from the Scripture, upon the judgment which they make thereof, not only the discovery of truth is to be owned, but there is an authoritative proposal of it by virtue of the promised presence of Christ in them, if duly sought and regarded; whence great respect and reverence is due unto them.
The power of a synod for the execution of its decrees respects either, — (1.) The things or doctrines declared, and is recommendatory of them, on its authority from the presence of Christ; or, (2.) Persons, to censure, excommunicate, or punish those who receive them not.
These things being premised, the just power of synods may be positively and negatively declared in the two following assertions:—
(1.) The authority of a synod declaring the mind of God
from the Scripture in doctrine, or giving counsel as unto practice
synodically, unto them whose proper representatives are present in it,
whose decrees and determinations are to be received and submitted unto on
the evidence of their truth and necessity, as recommended by the authority
of the synod from the promised presence of Christ among them, is suitable
unto the mind of Christ and the example given by the apostles,
Hence it is evident that, in and after such synods, it is in the power of churches concerned humbly to consider and weigh, — [1.] The evidences of the presence of Christ in them, from the manner, causes, and ends, of their assembling, and from their deportment therein. [2.] What regard, in their constitutions and determinations, there hath been unto the word of God, and whether in all things it hath had its due pre-eminence. [3.] How all their determinations have been educed from its truth and are confirmed by its authority.
Without a due exercise of judgment with respect unto these
things, none can be obliged by any synodical determinations, seeing that,
without them and on the want of them, many assemblies of bishops, who have
had the outward appearance and title of synods or councils, have been dens
of thieves, robbers, idolaters, managing their synodical affairs with fury,
wrath, horrible craft, according to their
Hence nothing is more to be feared, especially in a state of the church wherein it is declining in faith, worship, and holiness, than synods, according to the usual way of their calling and convention, where these things are absent, for they have already been the principal means of leading on and justifying all the apostasy which churches have fallen into; for never was there yet synod of that nature which did not confirm all the errors and superstitions which had in common practice entered into the church, and opened a door to a progress in them, nor was ever the pretence of any of them for outward reformation of any use or signification.
(2.) The authority of a synod determining articles of faith, constituting orders and decrees for the conscientious observance of things of their own appointment, to be submitted unto and obeyed on the reason of that authority, under the penalty of excommunication, and the trouble by custom and tyranny thereto annexed, or acted in a way of jurisdiction over churches or persons, is a mere human invention, for which nothing can be pleaded but prescription from the fourth century of the church, when the progress of the fatal apostasy became visible.
The proof of both these assertions depends on what was
before declared of the nature and use of these synods; for if they are such
as we have evinced, no other power or authority can be ascribed unto them
but that here allowed. Yet the whole may be further illustrated by some
brief considerations of the assembly at Jerusalem in the nature of a synod,
recorded
(1.) The occasion of it was a difference in the
church of Antioch, which they could not compose among themselves, because
those who caused the difference pretended authority from the apostles, as
is evident,
(2.) The means of its convention was the desire and voluntary reference of the matter in debate made by the church at Antioch, where the difference was, unto that at Jerusalem, where, as it was pretended, the cause of the difference arose, unto the hazard of their mutual communion, to be consulted of with their own messengers.
(3.) The persons constituting the synod were the apostles, elders, and brethren of the church at Jerusalem, and the messengers of that of Antioch, with whom Paul and Barnabas were joined in the same delegation.
(4.) The matter in difference was debated, as unto the mind of God concerning it in the Scripture, and out of the Scripture. On James’ proposal the determination was made.
(5.) There was nothing imposed anew on the
practice of the churches; only direction is given in one particular
instance as unto duty, necessary on many accounts unto the Gentile
converts, namely, to abstain
(6.) The grounds whereon the synod proposed the reception of and compliance with its decrees were four:— [1.] That what they had determined was the mind of the Holy Ghost: “It pleased the Holy Ghost.” This mind they knew either by inspiration, or immediate revelation made unto themselves, or by what was written or recorded in the Scripture, which on all other occasions they alleged as what was the word and spoken by the Holy Ghost; and it is evident that it was this latter way, namely, a discovery of the mind of the Holy Ghost in the Scripture, that is intended. However, it is concluded that nothing be proposed or confirmed in synods but what is well known to be the mind of the Holy Ghost in the Scripture, either by immediate inspiration or by Scripture revelation. [2.] The authority of the assembly, as convened in the name of Christ and by virtue of his presence, whereof we have spoken before: “It pleased the Holy Ghost and us.” [3.] That the things which they had determined were “necessary;” that is, antecedently so unto that determination, — namely, the abstaining from the use of their liberty in things indifferent, in case of scandal. [4.] From the duty with respect unto the peace and mutual communion of the Jewish and Gentile churches: “Doing thus,” say they, “ye shall do well;” which is all the sanction of their decree, manifesting that it was doctrinal, not authoritative in way of jurisdiction.
(7.) The doctrinal abridgment of the liberty of the Gentile
Christians in case of scandal they call the “imposing of no other burden,”
in opposition unto what they rejected, namely, the imposing a yoke of
ceremonies upon them,
Hence it will follow that a synod convened in the name of Christ, by the voluntary consent of several churches concerned in mutual communion, may declare and determine of the mind of the Holy Ghost in the Scripture, and decree the observation of things true and necessary, because revealed and appointed in the Scripture; which are to be received, owned, and observed on the evidence of the mind of the Holy Ghost in them, and on the ministerial authority of the synod itself.
Genesis
Exodus
12:25-27 12:38 12:48 18:17-23 18:25 23:14 24 24 24 32:11 34:23
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
1:13 1:13-15 1:13-15 1:15 2:26 5:2-3 9:18 15:11 16:16 19:15
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Job
Psalms
15:1-5 23:1 24:3-4 45:9 50:16-17 72:5 72:7 72:15-17 80:1 93:5
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
9:6-7 9:7 11:2-3 22:22 30:20 33:22 33:22 40:11 40:11 40:11 56:4 56:6 58:9 59:21 61:1-3 61:1-3 66:18-22
Jeremiah
3:15 3:15 6:16 13:17 23:2 23:2 27:9-10 27:14 27:15 50:4-5 50:5 51:9
Ezekiel
Daniel
Micah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Matthew
7:15-20 10:32-33 10:33 10:34-36 10:37-39 11:5 15:13 16:15-19 16:16-17 16:16-18 16:18 16:18 16:18 16:18 16:18 16:19 16:22-23 17:5 18:1-4 18:8-16 18:10 18:14 18:15-17 18:15-18 18:15-18 18:15-20 18:15-20 18:16 18:17 18:17-18 18:17-20 18:18 18:18-20 18:19 18:19-20 18:20 18:20 18:20 20:24 20:24-28 20:25-27 20:25-28 20:25-28 20:25-28 20:28 23:8 23:8-11 23:8-11 24:45 25:1 25:5 25:6 28:18 28:18-20 28:18-20 28:18-20 28:18-20 28:18-20 28:18-20 28:18-20 28:18-20 28:19-20 28:19-20 28:19-20 28:19-20 28:19-20 28:19-20 28:19-20 28:20 28:20 28:20 28:20 28:20 28:20
Mark
Luke
4:14 9:23 9:26 17:1 17:1-3 17:2 17:2 17:3 19:9 22:24-26 22:25-26 22:25-26
John
1:12 2:17 3:3 3:5 3:15 3:29 4:38 5:39 7:49 10 10:11 10:14-16 10:16 10:16 12:6 12:8 12:42 17:2 17:6 17:20 17:20-23 20:16 21:15-17 21:15-17
Acts
1 1:12 1:13-14 1:14-15 1:15 1:15 1:15-26 1:15-26 1:16 1:16-22 1:23 1:23 1:24-25 1:24-26 1:26 2:1 2:38 2:38-39 2:41-42 2:42 2:42 2:44 2:44 2:46 2:46 2:46 2:47 2:47 2:47 2:47 4:10-11 4:20 4:23-31 4:32 5 5:11 5:11-13 5:13-14 6 6 6 6 6:1 6:1-2 6:1-4 6:1-4 6:1-4 6:1-6 6:1-6 6:1-6 6:2 6:2 6:2 6:2 6:2-4 6:2-4 6:3 6:3 6:3 6:3 6:3 6:4 6:5 6:5 6:5 6:5 6:6 6:6 8:4 8:13 8:13 8:20-23 9:31 9:31 9:32 11:21-22 11:25 11:26 11:28-30 11:30 11:30 11:30 11:30 11:30 11:30 11:30 12:5 12:12 12:12 12:12 13:1 13:1 13:1 13:1-2 13:1-2 13:1-3 14:22-23 14:22-23 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:26-27 14:27 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15:1 15:1-3 15:1-3 15:1-4 15:2 15:2 15:4 15:4 15:4 15:4 15:6 15:6 15:6 15:6 15:6 15:8 15:10 15:12 15:12 15:12 15:12 15:13 15:22 15:22 15:22 15:22 15:22 15:22 15:22 15:22-23 15:23 15:23 15:23 15:23 15:24 15:25 15:27 15:28 15:30 15:30 15:30 15:30 15:31 16:4 16:4 16:4 16:15 18:7 18:26 19:32 19:39 19:40 20:8 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17-18 20:17-18 20:18-19 20:27 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:28 20:28-30 20:28-31 20:28-31 20:30 20:30 20:38 21:8 21:18 21:18 21:18 21:20 21:20-21 21:22 21:22 21:23-24 21:25 24:14 26:3 26:18
Romans
2:25 9:6-7 10:10 10:10 10:10 12:1-2 12:3-8 12:4 12:6 12:6 12:6 12:6-7 12:6-8 12:6-8 12:6-8 12:6-8 12:6-8 12:6-8 12:7 12:7 12:7-8 12:8 12:8 12:8 12:8 12:8-21 12:13 14 14 14 14 14:1-3 14:1-3 14:9-10 15:1-3 15:5-6 15:9 15:14 15:14 15:25 15:26 16:1 16:6 16:10-11 16:12 16:17 16:18
1 Corinthians
1:4-7 1:12 1:12 1:16 1:17 2:3 2:4-7 3:8 3:16-17 3:21-22 3:21-23 3:21-23 3:22 4:1 4:1 4:1 4:15 5 5 5:1 5:1-7 5:1-7 5:2 5:2 5:2-5 5:3 5:4 5:4 5:4 5:4 5:4-5 5:4-5 5:5 5:7 5:7 5:11 5:11 5:11 6 6:7-8 6:9-11 6:9-11 7:23 7:29 7:33 7:37 8:11-12 9:7 10:32 11:12 11:14-16 11:17-18 11:20 11:20 11:23 11:26 11:26 12:3 12:4 12:4-10 12:5 12:7-10 12:7-10 12:7-11 12:8 12:8-10 12:27 12:27-28 12:28 12:28 12:28 12:28 12:28 12:28 12:28 12:28 12:28 12:28 12:28 13 13 14 14:4-5 14:5 14:8-11 14:12 14:23 14:23-24 14:23-26 14:24 14:24-25 14:24-25 14:25 14:29 14:32 14:33 14:40 15:12 16:1-2 16:2 16:3 16:3 16:15
2 Corinthians
1:24 1:24 1:24 1:24 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:6-8 2:6-8 2:6-11 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7-8 2:8 2:16 3 3:1 3:1-3 4:5 4:5 4:5 4:5 4:5 6:14 6:14 6:15 6:16 7:14-15 8:5 8:5 8:5 8:5 8:5 8:5 8:5 8:5 8:5 8:12 8:13-14 8:14 8:19 8:19 8:19 8:22-24 8:23 8:23 8:23 9:5-7 9:13 9:13 10:1 10:4-6 10:8 10:8 11:28 11:29 12:20 12:21 12:21 13:7 13:9 13:10
Galatians
1:1 1:2 1:18 2:9 2:9-10 2:14 5:7-12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:22-23 6:1 6:1 6:6 6:6 6:6 6:10 6:14-16 6:16 6:16 6:16
Ephesians
1 1:15-19 1:15-19 1:22-23 2:18 2:19-22 2:19-22 2:19-22 2:20 2:22 3:8-11 3:14 4 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7-8 4:8 4:8 4:8 4:11 4:11 4:11 4:11 4:11 4:11 4:11-12 4:11-12 4:11-12 4:11-12 4:11-12 4:11-13 4:11-13 4:11-15 4:11-15 4:11-15 4:11-15 4:11-15 4:11-15 4:11-15 4:12 4:12-16 4:13 4:13 4:13 4:14-15 4:15-16 4:15-16 4:16 5:11-12 5:25-27 5:25-27 5:27
Philippians
1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:4 1:10 1:14-15 1:18 2:25-28 3:1-3 3:12-14 3:15-16 3:16 3:18 3:18-19 3:18-19 3:18-19 3:18-19 4:22
Colossians
1:1-2 1:3 1:13 2:1 2:2 2:5 2:19 2:19 2:19 3 3:16 4:9 4:12 4:16 4:17 4:17 4:17 4:17 4:17
1 Thessalonians
1:1-2 2:7 2:14-15 2:14-15 5:11-12 5:11-14 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:21
2 Thessalonians
1:1 1:11 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:6-7 3:14 3:14 3:14 3:14 3:15 3:15
1 Timothy
1:3-4 1:11 1:19-20 1:19-20 3 3 3:1-7 3:2-7 3:4-5 3:5 3:8-10 3:8-13 3:11 3:12 3:12 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 4:6-7 4:12-16 4:14 4:16 5:8 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:18 5:20 5:20 6:20 6:20 6:20
2 Timothy
1:13-14 1:14 2:1 2:1-2 2:2 2:2 2:12 2:15 2:15 2:16 2:18 2:23 2:24-26 2:25 3:1-5 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:14-17 4:2 4:7 4:13 4:19
Titus
1 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:5-9 1:5-9 1:15-16 1:16 1:16 2:6-9 3:3-5 3:8 3:10-11 3:10-11 3:14
Hebrews
1:2-3 1:2-3 1:9 3:1-6 3:2-6 3:3 3:3-6 3:3-6 3:6 3:12 3:12-13 5:4 5:5 6:4-5 7 7:11 7:11 7:19 7:19 8:13 9:9 9:10 10:1 10:24-25 10:25 12:15 12:15-16 12:15-16 12:23 13:7 13:7 13:17 13:17 13:17 13:17 13:17 13:20 13:24
James
1:5 2:5 2:18 3:17 4:12 4:12 5:16
1 Peter
2:5 2:9 2:25 2:25 3:20-21 3:21 3:21 3:21 4:8-11 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10-11 4:10-11 5:1 5:1 5:1 5:1-2 5:1-2 5:1-2 5:1-3 5:1-3 5:1-4 5:1-4 5:1-5 5:2 5:2 5:2 5:2 5:2 5:2-3 5:2-4 5:4 5:4 5:4 5:4
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Revelation
1:13 2:1 2:1-5 2:2 2:2 2:2 2:3 2:6 2:14 2:14 2:14 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:21 2:23 3:7 3:7 13:13-15 17:12-13 18:4 18:4 21:3 21:9 21:9 22:17
187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208