{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_44655/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_44655","id":"gutenberg_44655","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44655","summary":null,"tags":["Casuistry","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christian sociology"],"text":"Transcriber's Note:\n\nThe text of Part III of A Christian Directory (or, a sum of Practical\nTheology and Cases of Conscience) has been transcribed from pages 547\nto 736 of Volume I of Baxter's Practical Works, as lithographed from\nthe 1846 edition. Part III addresses church duties. A table of\ncontents has been inserted to assist the reader.\n\nSmall capitals have been rendered in full capitals. Italics are\nindicated by _underscores_. Sidenotes refer to the following\nparagraph.\n\nThe anchors for footnotes 119, 366 and 391 are missing. The first of\nthese has been inserted after consulting another edition of the text.\nThe reference in footnote 417 to the Book of Acts appears to be incorrect.\n\nInconsistencies in hyphenation, and apparent typographical errors,\nhave been corrected.\n\n\nPART III.\n\nCHRISTIAN ECCLESIASTICS.\n\nOR,\n\nDIRECTIONS TO PASTORS AND PEOPLE ABOUT SACRED DOCTRINE, WORSHIP, AND\nDISCIPLINE, AND THEIR MUTUAL DUTIES. WITH THE SOLUTION OF A MULTITUDE\nOF CHURCH CONTROVERSIES AND CASES OF CONSCIENCE.\n\n\n\n\nTable of Contents\n\n\n                                                                    Page\n\n        To the Reader.                                               547\n     I. Of the worship of God in general.                            547\n    II. Directions about the manner of worship, to avoid all\n        corruptions, and false, unacceptable worshipping of God.     553\n   III. Directions about the christian covenant with God,\n        and baptism.                                                 559\n    IV. Directions about the profession of our religion to others.   562\n     V. Directions about vows and particular covenants with God.     564\n    VI. Directions to the people concerning their internal and\n        private duty to their pastors, and the improvement of\n        their ministerial office and gifts.                          580\n   VII. Directions for the discovery of the truth among contenders,\n        and the escape of heresy and deceit.                         590\n  VIII. Directions for the union and communion of saints, and the\n        avoiding unpeaceableness and schism.                         595\n    IX. How to behave ourselves in the public assemblies, and the\n        worship there performed, and after them.                     616\n     X. Directions about our communion with holy souls departed,\n        and now with Christ.                                         618\n    XI. Directions about our communion with the holy angels.         622\n\n  CASES OF CONSCIENCE, ABOUT MATTERS ECCLESIASTICAL.\n        To the Reader.                                               626\n        Questions I to CLXXIV.                                       626\n\n\n\n\nREADER,\n\nThat this part and the next are imperfect, and so much only is written\nas I might, and not as I would, I need not excuse to thee if thou know\nme, and where and when I live. But some of that which is wanting, if\nthou desire, thou mayst find, 1. In my \"Universal Concord.\" 2. In my\n\"Christian Concord.\" 3. In our \"Agreement for Catechising,\" and my\n\"Reformed Pastor.\" 4. In the \"Reformed Liturgy,\" offered to the\ncommissioned bishops at the Savoy. Farewell.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nOF THE WORSHIP OF GOD IN GENERAL.\n\n\nThat God is to be worshipped solemnly by man, is confessed by all that\nacknowledge that there is a God.[1] But about the matter and manner of\nhis worship, there are no small dissensions and contentions in the\nworld. I am not now attempting a reconciliation of these contenders;\nthe sickness of men's minds and wills doth make that impossible to any\nbut God, which else were not only possible, but easy, the terms of\nreconciliation being in themselves so plain and obvious as they are.\nBut it is directions to those that are willing to worship God aright,\nwhich I am now to give.\n\n_Direct._ I. Understand what it is to worship God aright, lest you\noffer him vanity and sin for worship. The worshipping of God is the\ndirect acknowledging of his being and perfections to his honour.\nIndirectly or consequentially he is acknowledged in every obediential\nact by those that truly obey and serve him; and this is indirectly and\nparticipatively to worship him; and therefore all things are holy to\nthe holy, because they are holy in the use of all, and Holiness to the\nLord is, as it were, written upon all that they possess or do (as they\nare holy): but this is not the worship which we are here to speak of;\nbut that which is primarily and directly done to glorify him by the\nacknowledgment of his excellencies. Thus God is worshipped either\ninwardly by the soul alone, or also outwardly by the body expressing\nthe worship of the soul. For that which is done by the body alone,\nwithout the concurrence of the heart, is not true worship, but a\nhypocritical image or show of it, equivocally called worship.[2] The\ninward worship of the heart alone, I have spoken of in the former\npart. The outward or expressive worship, is simple or mixed: simple\nwhen we only intend God's worship immediately in the action; and this\nis found chiefly in praises and thanksgiving, which therefore are the\nmost pure and simple sort of expressive worship. Mixed worship is that\nin which we join some other intention, for our own benefit in the\naction; as in prayer, where we worship God by seeking to him for\nmercy; and in reverent hearing or reading of his word, where we\nworship him by a holy attendance upon his instructions and commands;\nand in his sacraments, where we worship him by receiving and\nacknowledging his benefits to our souls; and in oblations, where we\nhave respect also to the use of the thing offered; and in holy vows\nand oaths, in which we acknowledge him our Lord and Judge. All these\nare acts of divine worship, though mixed with other uses.\n\nIt is not only worshipping God, when our acknowledgments (by word or\ndeed) are directed immediately to himself; but also when we direct our\nspeech to others, if his praises be the subject of them, and they are\nintended directly to his honour: such are many of David's psalms of\npraise. But where God's honour is not the thing directly intended, it\nis no direct worshipping of God, though all the same words be spoken\nas by others.\n\n_Direct._ II. Understand the true ends and reasons of our worshipping\nGod; lest you be deceived by the impious who take it to be all in\nvain. When they have imagined some false reasons to themselves, they\njudge it vain to worship God, because those reasons of it are vain.\nAnd he that understandeth not the true reasons why he should worship\nGod, will not truly worship him, but be profane in neglecting it, or\nhypocritical in dissembling, and heartless in performing it. The\nreasons then are such as these.\n\n1. The first ariseth from the use of all the world, and the nature of\nthe rational creature in special. The whole world is made and upheld\nto be expressive and participative of the image and benefits of God.\nGod is most perfect and blessed in himself, and needeth not the world\nto add to his felicity. But he made it to please his blessed will, as\na communicative good, by communication and appearance; that he might\nhave creatures to know him, and to be happy in his light; and those\ncreatures might have a fit representation or revelation of him that\nthey might know him. And man is specially endowed with reason and\nutterance, that he might know his Creator appearing in his works, and\nmight communicate this knowledge, and express that glory of his Maker\nwith his tongue, which the inferior creatures express to him in their\nbeing.[3] So that if God were not to be worshipped, the end of man's\nfaculties, and of all the creation, must be much frustrated. Man's\nreason is given him that he may know his Maker; his will, and\naffections, and executive powers are given him, that he may freely\nlove him and obey him; and his tongue is given him principally to\nacknowledge him and praise him: whom should God's work be serviceable\nto, but to him that made it?\n\n2. As it is the natural use, so it is the highest honour of the\ncreature to worship and honour his Creator: is there a nobler or more\nexcellent object for our thoughts, affections, or expressions? And\nnature, which desireth its own perfection, forbiddeth us to choose a\nsordid, vile, dishonourable work, and to neglect the highest and most\nhonourable.\n\n3. The right worshipping of God doth powerfully tend to make us in our\nmeasure like him, and so to sanctify and raise the soul, and to heal\nit of its sinful distempers and imperfections. What can make us good\nso effectually as our knowledge, and love, and communion with him that\nis the chiefest good? Nay, what is goodness itself in the creature if\nthis be not? As nearness to the sun giveth light and heat, so\nnearness to God is the way to make us wise and good; for the\ncontemplation of his perfections is the means to make us like him. The\nworshippers of God do not exercise their bare understandings upon him\nin barren speculations; but they exercise all their affections towards\nhim, and all the faculties of their souls, in the most practical and\nserious manner, and therefore are likeliest to have the liveliest\nimpressions of God upon their hearts; and hence it is that the true\nworshippers of God are really the wisest and the best of men, when\nmany that at a distance are employed in mere speculations about his\nworks and him, remain almost as vain and wicked as before, and\nprofessing themselves wise, are (practically) fools, Rom. i. 21, 22.\n\n4. The right worshipping of God, by bringing the heart into a\ncleansed, holy, and obedient frame, doth prepare it to command the\nbody, and make us upright and regular in all the actions of our lives;\nfor the fruit will be like the tree; and as men are, so will they do.\nHe that honoureth not his God, is not like well to honour his parents\nor his king: he that is not moved to it by his regard to God, is never\nlike to be universally and constantly just and faithful unto men.\nExperience telleth us that it is the truest worshippers of God that\nare truest and most conscionable in their dealings with their\nneighbours: this windeth up the spring, and ordereth and strengtheneth\nall the causes of a good conversation.\n\n5. The right worshipping of God is the highest and most rational\ndelight of man. Though to a sick, corrupted soul it be unpleasant, as\nfood to a sick stomach, yet to a wise and holy soul there is nothing\nso solidly and durably contentful. As it is God's damning sentence on\nthe wicked, to say, \"Depart from me,\" Matt. xxv. 41; vii. 23, so holy\nsouls would lose their joys, and take themselves to be undone, if God\nshould bid them, \"Depart from me; worship me, and love me, and praise\nme no more.\" They would be weary of the world, were it not for God in\nthe world; and weary of their lives, if God were not their life.\n\n6. The right worshipping of God prepareth us for heaven, where we are\nto behold him, and love and worship him for ever. God bringeth not\nunprepared souls to heaven: this life is the time that is purposely\ngiven us for our preparation; as the apprenticeship is the time to\nlearn your trades. Heaven is a place of action and fruition, of\nperfect knowledge, love, and praise: and the souls that will enjoy and\npraise God there, must be disposed to it here; and therefore they must\nbe much employed in his worship.\n\n7. And as it is in all these respects necessary as a means, so God\nhath made it necessary by his command.[4] He hath made it our duty to\nworship him constantly; and he knoweth the reason of his own commands.\n\"It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only\nshalt thou serve,\" Matt. iv. 10. If God should command us nothing, how\nis he our Governor and our God? and if he command us any thing, what\nshould he command us more fitly than to worship him? and he that will\nnot obey him in this, is not like to obey him well in any thing; for\nthere is nothing that he can with less show of reason except against;\nseeing all the reason in the world must confess, that worship is most\ndue to God from his own creatures.\n\nThese reasons for the worship of God being undeniable, the objections\nof the infidels and ungodly are unreasonable: as, _Object._ 1. That\nour worship doth no good to God; for he hath no need of it. _Answ._\nIt pleaseth and honoureth him, as the making of the world, and the\nhappiness of man doth: doth it follow that there must be no world, nor\nany man happy, because God hath no need of it, or no addition of\nfelicity by it? It is sufficient that it is necessary and good for us,\nand pleasing unto God.\n\n_Object._ 2. Proud men are unlikest unto God; and it is the proud that\nlove to be honoured and praised. _Answ._ Pride is the affecting of an\nundue honour, or the undue affecting of that honour which is due.\nTherefore it is that this affectation of honour in the creature is a\nsin, because all honour is due to God, and none to the creature but\nderivatively and subserviently. For a subject to affect any of the\nhonour of his king, is disloyalty; and to affect any of the honour of\nhis fellow-subjects is injustice: but God requireth nothing but what\nis absolutely his due; and he hath commanded us, even towards men, to\ngive \"fear and honour to whom they are due,\" Rom. xiii. 7.\n\n_Direct._ III. Labour for the truest knowledge of the God whom you\nworship. Let it not be said of you, as Christ said to the Samaritan\nwoman, John iv. 22, \"Ye worship ye know not what;\" nor as it is said\nof the Athenians, whose altar was inscribed, \"To the unknown God,\"\nActs xvii. 23. You must know whom you worship; or else you cannot\nworship him with the heart, nor worship him sincerely and acceptably,\nthough you were at never so great labour and cost: God hath no\n\"pleasure in the sacrifice of fools,\" Eccles. v. 1, 4. Though no man\nknow him perfectly, you must know him truly. And though God taketh not\nevery man for a blasphemer, and denier of his attributes, whom\ncontentious, peevish wranglers call so, because they consequentially\ncross some espoused opinions of theirs; yet real misunderstanding of\nGod's nature and attributes is dangerous, and tendeth to corrupt his\nworship by the corrupting of the worshippers. For such as you take God\nto be, such worship you will offer him; for your worship is but the\nhonourable acknowledgment of his perfections; and mistakingly to\npraise him for supposed imperfections, is to dishonour him and\ndispraise him. If to know God be your eternal life, it must needs be\nthe life of all your worship. Take heed therefore of ignorance and\nerror about God.\n\n_Direct._ IV. Understand the office of Jesus Christ as our great High\nPriest, by whose mediation alone we must have access to God.[5]\nWhether there should have been any priesthood for sacrifice or\nintercession if there had been no sin, the Scripture telleth us not\nexpressly; but we have great reason to conjecture there would have\nbeen none, because there would not have been any reasons for the\nexercise of such an office. But since the fall, not only the\nScriptures, but the practice of the whole world, doth tell us that the\nsinful people are unmeet immediately thus to come to God, but that\nthey must come by the mediation of the priest, as a sacrificer and\nintercessor. So that either nature teacheth sinners the necessity of\nsome mediator, or the tradition of the church hath dispersed the\nknowledge of it through the world: and certainly no other priest but\nChrist can procure the acceptance of a sinful people upon his own\naccount; nor be an effectual mediator for them to God, unless in\nsubserviency to an effectual mediator who can procure us access and\nacceptance for his own sake. For all other priests are sinners as well\nas the people, and have as much need of a mediator for themselves. 1.\nSee therefore that you never appear before God, but as sinners, that\nhave offended him, and have deserved to be cast out of his favour for\never, and such as are in absolute necessity of a mediator to procure\ntheir access and acceptance with God: come not to God without the\nsense of sin and misery. 2. See also that you come as those that have\na mediator in the presence of God; even Jesus our High Priest who\nappeareth before God continually to make intercession for us: come\ntherefore with holy boldness, and confidence, and joy, having so sure\nand powerful a Friend with God, the Beloved of the Father, whom he\nheareth always.[6]\n\n_Direct._ V. Look carefully to the state of thy soul, that thou bring\nnot an unholy heart to worship the most holy God. Come not in the love\nof sin, nor in the hatred of holiness; for otherwise thou hatest God,\nand art hated of him, as bringing that before him which he cannot but\nhate. And it is easy to judge how unfit they are to worship God, that\nhate him; and how unlike they are to be accepted by him whom he\nhateth. Psal. v. 3-7, \"My voice shalt thou hear in the morning, O\nLord: in the morning will I direct my prayer unto thee, and will look\nup: for thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness, neither\nshall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight;\nthou hatest all the workers of iniquity.--Thou shalt destroy them that\nspeak leasing: the Lord will abhor the bloody and deceitful man. But\nas for me, I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercies,\nand in thy fear will I worship towards thy holy temple.\" Psal. lxvi.\n18, \"If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me.\"\nPsal. xv. 1, 2, \"Who shall abide in God's tabernacle, but he that\nwalketh uprightly and worketh righteousness?\" God will be sanctified\nin them that come nigh him, Lev. x. 3; and are unsanctioned persons\nfit for this? And can the unholy offer him holy worship? \"The carnal\nmind is enmity against God;\" is it fit then to serve and honour him?\nRom. i. 7, 8. See 2 Cor. vi. 15-18. \"Let him that nameth the name of\nChrist depart from iniquity,\" 2 Tim. ii. 19. It is a purified,\npeculiar, holy people that Christ hath redeemed to be the worshippers\nof God, and as priests to \"offer him acceptable sacrifice,\" Tit. ii.\n14; 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9. If you will \"receive the kingdom that cannot be\nmoved, you must have grace in your hearts to serve God acceptably with\nreverence and godly fear; for our God is a consuming fire,\" Heb. xii.\n28, 29. I know an ungodly person, as soon as he hath any repenting\nthoughts, must express them in confession and prayer to God. But as no\nprayers of an ungodly man are profitable to him, but those which are\nacts of his penitent return towards God; so no worship of God hath a\npromise of divine acceptance, but that which is performed by such as\nsincerely return to God (and such are not ungodly). \"The sacrifice of\nthe wicked is abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the upright\nis his delight,\" Prov. xv. 8. I know the wicked must \"seek the Lord\nwhile he may be found, and call upon him while he is near;\" but it\nmust be in \"forsaking his way and thoughts, and turning to the Lord,\"\nIsa. lv. 6, 7. Simon Magus must first \"repent of his wickedness,\" and\nthen pray that the thoughts of his heart may be forgiven him, Acts\nviii. 22. O come not in thy unholy, carnal state to worship God,\nunless it be as a penitent returner to him, to lament first thy sin\nand misery, that thou mayst be sanctified and reconciled, and fit to\nworship him.\n\n_Direct._ VI. Yet take it not as sufficient that thou art in a state\nof sanctification, but also particularly sanctify thyself to every\nparticular address to God in holy worship. Even the child of a king\nwill not go rudely in dirt and filthiness into his father's presence.\nWho would not search his heart and life, and cleanse his soul from his\nparticular pollution, by renewed repentance and purposes of\nreformation, before he venture to speak to God? Particular sins have\nmade sad breaches between God and his children, and made foul work in\nsouls that the blood of Christ had cleansed. Search therefore with\nfear, lest there should be any reviving sin, or any hidden root of\nbitterness, or any transgression which thou winkest at or wilfully\ncherishest in thyself; that, if there be such, thou mayst bewail and\nhate it, and not come to God as if he had laid by his hatred of sin.\n\n_Direct._ VII. Whenever thou comest to worship God, labour to awaken\nthy soul to a reverent apprehension of the presence, and greatness,\nand holiness of his majesty, and to a serious apprehension of the\ngreatness and excellency of the holy work which thou takest in hand.\nRemember with whom thou hast to do, Heb. iv. 13. To speak to God, is\nanother kind of work than to speak to the greatest prince on earth,\nyea, or the greatest angel in heaven. Be holy, for the Lord your God\nis holy. To sanctify the name of God, and come in holiness before him,\nis to apprehend him as infinitely advanced above the whole creation,\nand to come with hearts that are separated from common things to him,\nand elevated above a common frame. A common frame in worship (such as\nwe have about our common business) is mere profaneness. If it be\ncommon it is unclean. Look to your feet when you go to the house of\nGod, Eccl. v. 1. Put off the shoes of earthly, common, unhallowed\naffections, whenever you tread on holy ground, that is, when you are\nabout holy work, and when you draw near the holy God. In reverent\nadoration say as Jacob, \"How dreadful is this place! this is none\nother but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven,\" Gen.\nxxviii. 17. See Isa. vi. 1, 3, 5.\n\n_Direct._ VIII. In the worship of God, remember your communion with\nthe holy angels, and with all the hosts of heaven.[7] You are the\nservants of the same God, and though you are yet far below them, you\nare doing that which tendeth towards their dignity; for you must be\nequal with them. Your work is partly of the same kind with theirs: it\nis the same holy Majesty that you admire and praise, though you see\nhim yet but as in a glass. And the angels are some of them present\nwith you, and see you, though you see not them: 1 Cor. xi. 10, you are\ncommanded to respect them in your behaviour in God's worship. If the\neye of faith were so far opened, as that in all your worshipping of\nGod, you saw the blessed companies of angels, though not in the same\nplace and manner with you, yet in the same worship and in communion\nwith you, admiring, magnifying, extolling, and praising the most\nglorious God, and the glorified Redeemer, with flaming, fervent, holy\nminds, it would sure do much to elevate your souls, and raise you up\nto some imitation or resemblance of them.[8] You find that in God's\npublic worship, it is a great help to the soul, in holy cheerfulness\nand fervour, to join with a full assembly of holy, fervent, cheerful\nworshippers: and that it is very difficult to the best, to keep up\nlife and fervent cheerfulness in so small, or ignorant, or profane a\ncompany, as where there is no considerable number to concur with us.\nOh then, what a raising help would it be, to praise God as within the\nsight and hearing of the heavenly praises of the angelical choir! You\nsee how apt men are to be conformed to the company that they are in.\nThey that are among dancers, or gamesters, or tipplers, or filthy\ntalkers, or scorners, or railers, are apt to do as the company doth,\nor at least to be the more disposed to it. And they that are among\nsaints, in holy worship or discourse, are apt to imitate them much\nmore than they would do in other company. And what likelier way is\nthere, to make you like angels in the worshipping of God, than to do\nit as in the communion of the angels? and by faith to see and hear\nthem in the concert? The angels disdain not to study our studies, and\nto learn \"by the church the manifold wisdom of God,\" Eph. iii. 10; 1\nPet. i. 12. They are not so far from us, nor so strange to us and our\naffairs, as that we should imagine ourselves to be out of their\ncommunion. Though we may not worship them, Col. ii. 18, we must\nworship as with them.\n\n_Direct._ IX. Take special care to the matter of your worship, that it\nbe such as is agreeable to the will of God, to the holiness of his\nnature, and the directions of his word; and such as hath a promise of\nhis acceptance. Offer him not the sacrifice of fools, who know not\nthat they do evil, and are adding to their sins, while they think they\nare pleasing him. Bring no false fire unto his altars: let your zeal\nof God be according to knowledge. For no zeal will make a corrupt,\nunlawful kind of worship, to be acceptable unto God.[9]\n\n_Direct._ X. See that you perform every part of worship to the proper\nend to which it is appointed; both as to the ultimate, remote, and\nnearest end. The end is essential to these relative duties. If you\nintend not the right end, you make another thing of it: as the\npreaching of a sermon to edify the church, or putting up a prayer to\nprocure God's blessings, is not the same thing as a stage-player's\nprofane repeating the same words in scorn of godliness, or an\nhypocrite's using them for commodity or applause. The ultimate end of\nall worship and all moral actions is the same, even the pleasing and\nglorifying God, 1 Cor. x. 31; 2 Tim. ii. 4.[10] Besides which every\npart of worship hath its proper, nearest end. These must not only be\ndistinctly known, but actually intended. It is God in Christ that a\nholy worshipper thirsteth after and seeketh for in every part of\nworship, either to know more of God, and of his will, and blessings;\nor to have some more communion with him, or some further grace\ncommunicated from him, to receive his pardoning, or cleansing, or\nquickening, or confirming, or comforting, or exalting grace; to be\nhonoured or delighted in his holy service, or to make known his grace\nand glory for the good of others, and the honour of his name.[11] Here\nit is that God proclaimeth his name, as Exod. xxxiv. 6. The ordinances\nof God's worship are like the tree in which Zaccheus climbed up (being\nof himself too low) to have a sight of Christ. Here we come to learn\nthe will of God for our salvation; and must enter the assembly with\nsuch resolutions as Cornelius and his company met, Acts x. 33, \"We are\nall here met to hear all things commanded thee of God:\" and as Acts\nii. 37, and Acts xvi. 30, to learn what we must do to be saved. Hither\nwe come for that holy light, which may show us our sin, and show us\nthe grace which we have received, and show us the unspeakable love of\nGod, till we are humbled for sin, and lifted up by faith in Christ,\nand can with Thomas, as it were, put our fingers into his wounds, and\nsay in assurance, \"My Lord and my God:\" and as Psal. xlviii. 14, \"This\nGod is our God for ever and ever: he will be our guide even unto\ndeath.\" Here we do as it were with Mary sit at the feet of Jesus, to\nhear his word, Luke x. 39, that fire from heaven may come down upon\nour hearts, and we may say, \"Did not our hearts burn within us while\nhe spake to us, and while he opened to us the Scriptures?\" Luke xxiv.\n32. Here we cry to him as the blind man, Mark x. 51, \"Lord, that I may\nreceive my sight.\" We cry here to the watchmen, Cant. iii. 3, \"Saw ye\nhim whom my soul loveth.\" Here we are in his \"banqueting house,\" under\nthe \"banner of his love,\" Cant. ii. 4. We have here the sealing and\nquickenings of his Spirit, the mortification of our sin, the increase\nof grace, and a prospect into eternal life, and a foresight of the\nendless happiness there. See then that you come to the worship of God\nwith these intentions and expectations; that if God or conscience call\nto you, (as God did sometime to Elias,) \"What dost thou here?\" you may\ntruly answer, I came to seek the Lord my God, and to learn his will\nthat I might do it. And that your sweet delights may make you say,\nPsal. lxxxiv. 4, \"Blessed are they that dwell in thy house, they will\nbe still praising thee.\" If thou come to the worship of God in mere\ncustom, or to make thy carnal heart believe that God will forgive thee\nbecause thou so far servest him, or to quiet thy conscience with the\ndoing of a formal task of duty, or to be seen of men, or that thou\nmayst not be thought ungodly, if these be thy ends, thou wilt speed\naccordingly. A holy soul cannot live upon the air of man's applause,\nnor upon the shell of ordinances, without God who is the kernel and\nthe life of all: it is the love of God that brings them thither, and\nit is love that they are exercising there, and the end of love, even\nthe nearer approach of the soul to God, which they desire and intend.\nBe sure then that these be the true and real intentions of thy heart.\n\n[Sidenote: How to know that we have the right ends in worship.]\n\n_Quest._ But how shall I know whether indeed it be God himself that I\nam seeking, and that I perform his worship to the appointed ends?\n\n_Answ._ In so great a business it is a shame to be unacquainted with\nyour intentions. If you take heed what you do, and look after your\nhearts, you may know what you come for, and what is your business\nthere. But more particularly, you may discern it by these marks: 1. He\nthat hath right ends, and seeketh God, will labour to suit all his\nduties to those ends, and will like that best which is best suited to\nthem; he will strive so to preach, and hear, and pray, not as tends\nmost to preferment or applause, but as tendeth most to please and\nhonour God, and to attain his grace; and he will love that sermon or\nthat prayer best, that is best fitted to bring up his soul to God, and\nnot that which tickleth a carnal ear. Mark what you fit the means to,\nand you may perceive what is your end. 2. If it be God himself that\nyou seek after in his worship, you will not be satisfied without God:\nit is not the doing of the task that will satisfy you, nor yet the\ngreatest praise of men, no not of the most godly men; but so far as\nyou have attained your end, in the cleansing, or quickening, or\nstrengthening of the soul, or getting somewhat nearer God, or pleasing\nor honouring him, so far only you will be contented. 3. If God be your\nend, you will be faithful in the use of that more private and\nspiritual worship, where God is to be found, though no human applause\nbe there to be attained. 4. And you will love still the same\nsubstantial, necessary truth and duty, which is to your souls as bread\nand drink is to your bodies; when those that have carnal ends will be\nlooking after variety and change, and will be weary of the necessary\nbread of life. By observing these things you may discern what are your\nends in worship.\n\nAnd here I must not let go this necessary direction, till I have\ndriven on the reader with some more importunity to the serious\npractice of it. It is lamentable to see, how many turn the worship of\nGod into vile hypocrisy, and dead formality; and offer God a carrion\nfor a sacrifice; and yet their consciences are so far from checking\nthem for this heinous sin, that they are much pleased and quieted by\nit, as if they had deserved well of God, and proved themselves very\ngodly people, and by this sin had made him amends for the common sins\nof their lives. Is it God himself, and his sanctifying grace, that\nthose men seek after in his worship, who hate his grace and scorn\nsanctification, and can leave God to be enjoyed by others, if they may\nbut enjoy their fleshly pleasures, and riches, and honours in the\nworld? Even the haters of God and holiness are so blinded, as to\npersuade themselves that in his worship they are truly seeking that\nGod and holiness which they hate. And oh what a deal of pains is many\na formal hypocrite at to little purpose; in spending many hours in\noutside, heartless, lifeless worship, while they never thirsted after\nGod, nor after a holy conformity to him, communion with him, or\nfruition of him, in all their lives![12] Oh what a deal of labour do\nthese Pharisees lose in bodily exercise which profiteth nothing, for\nwant of a right end in all that they do! because it is not God that\nthey seek: when \"godliness is profitable to all things,\" 1 Tim. iv. 8.\nAnd what is godliness but the soul's devotedness to God, and seeking\nafter him? We have much ado to bring some men from their diversions to\nGod's outward worship; but oh how much harder is it to bring the soul\nunfeignedly to seek God in that worship where the body is present!\nWhen David in the wilderness was driven from the sanctuary, he crieth\nout in the bitterness of his soul, \"As the hart panteth after the\nwater brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God: my soul thirsteth\nfor God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?\nMy tears have been my meat day and night, while they continually say\nunto me, Where is thy God?\" You see here that it was God himself that\nDavid thirsted after in his worship. Alas! what is all the outward\npomp of worship, if God be not the end and life of all? Without him\nhow vain a thing would the words of prayer, and preaching, and the\nadministration of the sacraments be! It is not the dead letter, but\nthe quickening Spirit that maketh the dead in sin to live; that\nconvinceth or comforteth the soul; or maketh the worshipper holy or\nhappy. Nay, it is some aggravation of your misery, to be destitute of\ntrue communion with God, while you seem to worship him; and to be far\nfrom him in the heart, while you draw so near him with the lips; to\nboast of the temple of the Lord, and be forsaken by the Lord of the\ntemple! That Capernaum shall be cast down to hell, that is but thus\nlifted up to heaven; and it will be easier for Sodom in the day of\njudgment, than for such as had the public ordinances without God.\nDavid left the ark with Absalom at Jerusalem; but God was not with\nAbsalom but with David.[13] No marvel if such hypocrites grudge at all\nthat is costly in God's service; even the necessary maintenance of the\nministers; for if they have only the shell of ordinances without God,\nit will scarce requite them for their cost. No marvel if they think\nall their pains too much, when they take up with the chaff which is\nscarcely worth their pains. No wonder if they find small pleasure in\nGod's service; for what pleasure is there in the husks or chaff, or in\na deaf nut? No wonder if they grow no better, no holier or stronger by\nit; for what strength will chaff and shadows breed? No marvel if they\nare quickly weary, and if a little of such religion seem enough, when\nthe life, and spirits, and strength, and sweetness is neglected. O\nsinners, remember, that God desireth not yours but you, and all your\nwealth and service is as nothing to him, if he have not yourselves\n(when yet you are so little worth the having). Nay, how earnestly doth\nhe sue to have you! how dearly hath he bought you! he may challenge\nyou as his own. Answer this kindness of God aright; let no ordinance\nnor any common mercy satisfy you, if you have not God himself. And to\nencourage you let me further tell you,\n\n1. If it be God himself that thou seekest in his worship (sincerely)\nthou shalt find him: because thou hast chosen the better part, it\nshall not be taken from thee.[14] Because thou hungerest and thirstest\nafter him thou shalt be satisfied. What joyful news is this to the\nthirsty soul! 2. Thou art more welcome to God with these high desires;\nthis holy ambition and aspiring of love is only acceptable to him. If\nall ordinances be nothing to thee without God, he will see that thou\nunderstandest the true use of ordinances, and put down thy name among\nhis lovers, whom he cannot despise. He loveth not to see men debase\ntheir souls, to feed on husks and chaff with hypocrites, any more than\nto feed on filth and dirt, with sensualists and worldlings. As he\naccepted Solomon's prayer because he asked not for little things, but\nfor great,[15] so he is very much pleased with the soul, that is\nunsatisfied with all the world, and can be content with nothing lower\nor worse than God himself. 3. Nay, because thou seekest God himself,\nthou shalt have all things with him that are worth the having, Matt.\nvi. 33; Rom. viii. 28. When hypocrites have but the carcass and\nshadow, it is thou that shalt have the substantial food and joy. As\nthey that were with Paul when he was converted, did hear the voice but\nsaw no man, Acts ix. 7; so others shall hear the sound of the word,\nand the name of God, but it is thou that shalt see him by faith that\nis invisible, and feel the power and efficacy of all. Thou shalt hear\nGod speak to thee, when he that sitteth in the same seat with thee,\nshall hear no more than the voice of man. It is he that seeketh after\nGod in his ordinances, that is religious in good sadness, and is\nemployed in a work, that is worthy of an immortal, rational soul. The\ndelights of ordinances as they are performed by man, will savour of\nhis imperfections, and taste of the instrument, and have a bitterness\noften mixed with the sweet; when the delight that cometh from God\nhimself will be more pure. Ordinances are uncertain: you may have them\nto-day, and lose them to-morrow! when God is everlasting, and\neverlastingly to be enjoyed. O therefore take not up short of God, in\nany of his worship, but before you set upon it, call up your souls to\nmind the end, and tell them what you are going to do, that you miss\nnot of the end for want of seeking it. The devil will give\nhypocritical worldlings leave to play them with the most excellent\nordinances, if he can but keep God out of sight, even as you will let\nyour children play them with a box of gold, as long as it is shut,\nand they see not what is within.\n\n_Direct._ XI. Be laborious with your hearts in all God's worship to\nkeep them employed on their duty; and be watchful over them, lest they\nslug or wander.[16] Remember that it is heart work that you are\nprincipally about. And therefore see that your hearts be all the while\nat work. Take yourselves as idle when your hearts are idle. And if you\ntake not pains with them, how little pains will they take in duty! If\nyou watch them not, how quickly will they lie down, and forget what\nthey are doing, and fall asleep when you are in treaty with God! How\neasily will they turn aside, and be thinking of impertinent vanities!\nWatch therefore unto prayer and every duty, 1 Pet. iv. 7; 2 Tim. iv.\n5.\n\n_Direct._ XII. Look up to heaven as that which all your duties tend\nto, that from thence you may fetch your encouraging motives. Do all as\na means to life eternal; separate no duty from its reward and end. As\nthe traveller remembereth whither he is going all the way, and a\ndesired end doth make the foulest steps seem tolerable; so think in\nevery prayer you put up, and in every duty, that it is all for heaven.\n\n_Direct._ XIII. Depend upon the Spirit of God for help. You cannot\nseek God spiritually and acceptably without him. Think not that you\nare sufficient to worship God aright without his help. Where this is\ndespised or neglected, you see what lamentable work is made by blind,\ncorrupted nature in God's service. Sensual wretches that have not the\nSpirit, are fitter for any thing than to worship God.[17] \"If he that\nhath not the Spirit of Christ be none of his,\" Rom. viii. 9, then he\nthat pretends to worship God without the Spirit of Christ, can ill\nthink to be heard for the sake of Christ.\n\n_Direct._ XIV. Look also to your tongues and the deportment of your\nbodies, that the whole man may worship God in holiness as he\nrequireth. Pretend not your good meanings, nor the spirituality of\nyour worship, to excuse you from worshipping also with your bodies.\nYour hearts must be first looked to; but your words and bodies must be\nnext looked to; and if you regard not these, it is hardly credible\nthat you regard your hearts. 1. Your words and gestures are the due\nexpression of your hearts; and the heart will desire to express itself\nas it is. Many would express their hearts to be better than they are;\nand therefore good expressions are oft to be suspected. But few would\nexpress their hearts as worse than they are; and therefore bad\nappearances do seldom lie. 2. Your words and actions are needful to\nthe due honouring of God. As evil words and actions do dishonour him,\nand the unseemly, disorderly performance of his service, is very\ninjurious to such holy things; so your meet and comely words and\ngestures are the external beauty of the worship which you perform; and\nGod should be served with the best. 3. Your words and gestures reflect\nmuch on your own hearts. As acts tend to the increase of the habits;\nso the external expressions tend to increase the internal affections,\nwhether they be good or evil. 4. Your words and gestures must be\nregarded for the good of others, who see not your hearts, but by these\nexpressions. And where many have communion in worshipping God, such\nacts of communion are of great regard.\n\n[1] Qui totos dies precabantur et immolabant, ut sui liberi sibi\nsuperstites essent, superstitiosi sunt appellati, quod nomen patuit\npostea latius. Qui autem omnia, qu\u00e6 ad cultum Deorum pertinerent,\ndiligenter retractarent, et tanquam relegerent, sunt dicti religiosi,\nex relegendo; ut elegantes ex eligendo, a diligendo diligentes, ex\nintelligendo intelligentes. Superstitiosi et religiosi, alterum vitii\nnomen, alterum laudis. Cicer. Nat. Deor. lib. ii. pag. 73, 74.\n\n[2] If they that serve their God with mere words, and ceremony, and\nmimical actions, were so served themselves, they might be silenced\nwith Aristippus's defence of his gallantry and sumptuous fare, Si\nvituperandum, ait, hoc esset, in celebritatibus deorum profecto non\nfieret. Laert. in Aristip. So Plato allowed drunkenness only in the\nfeasts of Bacchus.\n\n[3] Read Mr. Herbert's Poem called \"Providence.\"\n\n[4] Psal. xlv. 11; lxvi. 4; lxxxvi. 9; xcv. 6; xcix. 5.\n\n[5] Heb. viii. 3.\n\n[6] Heb. vii. 27, 28; ix. 26, 28; x. 19-22, 13, 24; vi. 20; vii. 25,\n26; Matt. xvii. 5; John xi. 42.\n\n[7] Luke xx. 36; see Eccl. v. 5; Psal. cxxxviii. 1; Isa. vi. 2.\n\n[8] See Mr. Ambrose's book of Communion with Angels; and Zanchy on the\nsame subject: and Mr. Lawrence's and Dr. Hammond's Annotat. on 1 Cor.\nxii.\n\n[9] Adulterium est, impium est, sacrilegium est, quodcunque humano\nfurore instituitur, ut dispositio Divina violetur. Cyprian. Eccl. v.\n1, 2; Lev. x. 1-3; Rom. x. 2, 3.\n\n[10] 1 Thess. ii. 4; Col. i. 10; John viii. 29; 1 Cor. vii. 32; Heb.\nxi. 6; 1 John iii. 22.\n\n[11] Psal. xlii.; lxxxiv.\n\n[12] 2 Tim. iii. 5; 1 Tim. iv. 7.\n\n[13] Isa. xxix. 13; Matt. xv. 8; xi. 23, 24; 2 Sam. xv. 25, 28, 29.\n\n[14] Luke x. 42.\n\n[15] 2 Chron. i. 10-12.\n\n[16] Eph. vi. 18; Luke xxi. 36; Rev. iii. 3; Col. iv. 2; Matt. xiii.\n33-37.\n\n[17] Jude 19.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nDIRECTIONS ABOUT THE MANNER OF WORSHIP, TO AVOID ALL CORRUPTIONS, AND\nFALSE, UNACCEPTABLE WORSHIPPING OF GOD.\n\n\nThe lamentable contentions that have arisen about the manner of God's\nworship, and the cruelty, and blood, and divisions, and uncharitable\nrevilings which have thence followed, and also the necessary regard\nthat every christian must have to worship God according to his will,\ndo make it needful that I give you some directions in this case.\n\n_Direct._ I. Be sure that you seriously and faithfully practise that\ninward worship of God, in which the life of religion doth consist: as\nto love him above all, to fear him, believe him, trust him, delight in\nhim, be zealous for him; and that your hearts be sanctified unto God,\nand set upon heaven and holiness: for this will be an unspeakable help\nto set you right in most controversies about the worshipping of\nGod.[18] Nothing hath so much filled the church with contentions, and\ndivisions, and cruelties about God's worship, as the agitating of\nthese controversies by unholy, unexperienced persons: when men that\nhate a holy life, and holy persons, and the holiness of God himself,\nmust be they that dispute what manner of worship must be offered to\nGod by themselves and others, and when the controversies about God's\nservice are fallen into the hands of those that hate all serious\nserving of him, you may easily know what work they will make of it. As\nif sick men were to determine or dispute what meat and drink\nthemselves and all other men must live upon, and none must eat but by\ntheir prescripts, most healthful men would think it hard to live in\nsuch a country. As men are within, so will they incline to worship God\nwithout. Outward worship is but the expression of inward worship; he\nthat hath a heart replenished with the love and fear of God, will be\napt to express it by such manner of worship, as doth most lively and\nseriously express the love and fear of God. If the heart be a stranger\nor an enemy to God, no marvel if such worship him accordingly. O could\nwe but help all contenders about worship to the inward light, and\nlife, and love, and experience of holy, serious christians, they would\nfind enough in themselves, and their experiences, to decide abundance\nof controversies of this kind (though still there will be some, that\nrequire also other helps to decide them.) It is very observable in all\ntimes of the church, how in controversies about God's worship, the\ngenerality of the godly, serious people, and the generality of the\nungodly and ludicrous worshippers, are ordinarily of differing\njudgments! and what a stroke the temper of the soul hath in the\ndetermination of such cases!\n\n_Direct._ II. Be serious and diligent also in all those parts of the\noutward worship of God that all sober christians are agreed in. For if\nyou be negligent and false in so much as you confess, your judgment\nabout the controverted part is not much to be regarded. God is not so\nlikely to direct profane ones and false-hearted hypocrites, and bless\nthem with a sound judgment in holy things, (where their lives show\nthat their practical judgments are corrupt,) as the sincere that obey\nhim in that which he revealeth to them. We are all agreed that God's\nword must be your daily meditation and delight, Psal. i. 2; and that\nyou should \"speak of it lying down and rising up, at home and\nabroad,\" Deut. vi. 6-8; and that we must be constant, fervent, and\nimportunate in prayer, both in public and private, 1 Thess. v. 17;\nLuke xviii. 1; James v. 16. Do you perform this much faithfully or\nnot? If you do, you may the more confidently expect that God should\nfurther reveal his will to you, and resolve your doubts, and guide you\nin the way that is pleasing to him. But if you omit the duty that all\nare agreed on, and be unfaithful and negligent in what you know, how\nunmeet are you to dispute about the controverted circumstances of\nduty! To what purpose is it that you meddle in such controversies? Do\nyou do it wilfully to condemn yourselves before God, and shame\nyourselves before men, by declaring the hypocrisy which aggravateth\nyour ungodliness? What a loathsome and pitiful thing is it, to hear a\nman bitterly reproach those who differ from him in some circumstances\nof worship, when he himself never seriously worshipped God at all!\nwhen he meditateth not on the word of God, and instead of delighting\nin it, maketh light of it, as if it little concerned him; and is\nacquainted with no other prayer than a little customary lip-service!\nIs such an ungodly neglecter of all the serious worship of God, a fit\nperson to fill the world with quarrels about the manner of his\nworship?\n\n_Direct._ III. Differ not in God's worship from the common sense of\nthe most faithful, godly christians, without great suspicion of your\nown understandings, and a most diligent trial of the case. For if in\nsuch practical cases the common sense of the faithful be against you,\nit is to be suspected that the teaching of God's Spirit is against\nyou; for the Spirit of God doth principally teach his servants in the\nmatter of worship and obedience.\n\n[Sidenote: The disadvantages of ungodly men in judging of holy\nworship.]\n\nThere are several errors that I am here warning you to avoid: 1. The\nerror of them that rather incline to the judgment of the ungodly\nmultitude, who never knew what it was to worship God in spirit and\ntruth. Consider the great disadvantages of these men to judge aright\nin such a case. (1.) They must judge them without that teaching of the\nSpirit, by which things spiritual are to be discerned, 1 Cor. ii. 13,\n15. He that is blind in sin must judge of the mysteries of godliness.\n(2.) They must judge quite contrary to their natures and inclinations,\nor against the diseased habits of their wills: and if you call a\ndrunkard to judge of the evil of drunkenness, or a whoremonger to\njudge of the evil of fornication, or a covetous, or a proud, or a\npassionate man to judge of their several sins, how partial will they\nbe! And so will an ungodly man be in judging of the duties of\ngodliness. You set him to judge of that which he hateth. 3. You set\nhim to judge of that which he is unacquainted with: it is like he\nnever thoroughly studied it; but it is certain he never seriously\ntried it, nor hath the experience of those, that have long made it a\ngreat part of the business of their lives. And would you not sooner\ntake a man's judgment in physic, that hath made it the study and\npractice of his life, than a sick man's that speaketh against that\nwhich he never studied or practised, merely because his own stomach is\nagainst it? Or will you not sooner take the judgment of an ancient\npilot about navigation, than one's that was never at sea? The\ndifference is as great in this present case.\n\n2. And I speak this also to warn you of another error, that you prefer\nnot the judgment of a sect or party, or some few godly people, against\nthe common sense of the generality of the faithful; for the Spirit of\nGod is likelier to have forsaken a small part of godly people, than\nthe generality, in such particular opinions, which even good men may\nbe forsaken in: or if it be in greater things, it is more unreasonable\nand more uncharitable for me to suspect that most that seem godly are\nhypocrites and forsaken of God, than that a party or some few are so.\n\n_Direct._ IV. Yet do not absolutely give up yourselves to the judgment\nof any in the worshipping of God, but only use the advice of men in a\ndue subordination to the will of God, and the teaching of Jesus\nChrist. Otherwise you will set man in the place of God, and will\nreject Christ in his prophetical office, as much as using co-ordinate\nmediators is a rejecting him in his priestly office. None must be\ncalled master, but in subordination to Christ, because he is our\nMaster, Matt. xxiii. 8-10.\n\n_Direct._ V. Condemn not all that in others, which you dare not do\nyourselves; and practise not all that yourselves, which you dare not\ncondemn in others.[19] For you are more capable of judging in your own\ncases, and bound to do it with more exactness and diligent inquiry,\nthan in the case of others. Ofttimes a rational doubt may necessitate\nyou to suspend your practice, as your belief or judgment is suspended;\nwhen yet it will not allow you to condemn another whose judgment and\npractice hath no such suspension. Only you may doubt whether he be in\nthe right, as you doubt as to yourself. And yet you may not therefore\nventure to do all that you dare not condemn in him; for then you must\nwilfully commit all the sins in the world, which your weakness shall\nmake a doubt or controversy of.\n\n_Direct._ VI. Offer God no worship that is clearly contrary to his\nnature and perfections, but such as is suited to him as he is revealed\nto you in his word. Thus Christ teacheth us, to worship God as he is:\nand thus God often calleth for holy worship, because he is holy.[20]\n1. \"God is a Spirit: therefore they that worship him, must worship him\nin spirit and in truth;\" (which Christ opposeth to mere external\nceremony or shadows;) \"for the Father seeketh such to worship him,\"\nJohn iv. 23, 24. 2. God is incomprehensible, and infinitely distant\nfrom us: therefore worship him with admiration, and make not either\nvisible or mental images of him, nor debase him by undue resemblance\nof him to any of his creatures.[21] 3. God is omnipresent, and\ntherefore you may every where lift up holy hands to him, 1 Tim. ii. 8.\nAnd you must always worship him as in his sight. 4. God is omniscient,\nand knoweth your hearts, and therefore let your hearts be employed and\nwatched in his worship. 5. God is most wise, and therefore not to be\nworshipped ludicrously with toys, as children are pleased with to\nquiet them, but with wise and rational worship. 6. God is most great,\nand therefore to be worshipped with the greatest reverence and\nseriousness; and not presumptuously, with a careless mind, or\nwandering thoughts, or rude expressions. 7. God is most good and\ngracious, and therefore not to be worshipped with backwardness,\nunwillingness, and weariness, but with great delight. 8. God is most\nmerciful in Christ, and therefore not to be worshipped despairingly,\nbut in joyful hope. 9. God is true and faithful, and therefore to be\nworshipped believingly and confidently, and not in distrust and\nunbelief. 10. God is most holy, and therefore to be worshipped by\nholy persons, in a holy manner, and not by unholy hearts or lips, nor\nin a common manner, as if we had to do but with a man. 11. He is the\nMaker of your souls and bodies, and therefore to be worshipped both\nwith soul and body. 12. He is your Redeemer and Saviour, and therefore\nto be worshipped by you as sinners in the humble sense of your sin and\nmisery, and as redeemed ones in the thankful sense of his mercy, and\nall in order to your further cleansing, healing, and recovery. 13. He\nis your Regenerator and Sanctifier, and therefore to be worshipped not\nin the confidence of your natural sufficiency, but by the light, and\nlove, and life of the Holy Ghost. 14. He is your absolute Lord, and\nthe Owner of you and all you have, and therefore to be worshipped with\nthe absolute resignation of yourself and all, and honoured with your\nsubstance, and not hypocritically, with exceptions and reserves. 15.\nHe is your sovereign King, and therefore to be worshipped according to\nhis laws, with an obedient kind of worship, and not after the\ntraditions of men, nor the will or wisdom of the flesh.[22] 16. He is\nyour heavenly Father, and therefore all these holy dispositions should\nbe summed up into the strongest love, and you should run to him with\nthe greatest readiness, and rest in him with the greatest joy, and\nthirst after the full fruition of him with the greatest of your\ndesires, and press towards him for himself with the most fervent and\nimportunate suits. All these the very being and perfections of God\nwill teach you in his worship: and therefore if any controverted\nworship be certainly contrary to any of these, it is certainly\nunwarranted and unacceptable unto God.\n\n_Direct._ VII. Pretend not to worship God by that which is\ndestructive, or contrary to the ends of worship. For the aptitude of\nit as a means to its proper end, is essential to it. Now the ends of\nworship are, 1. The honouring of God. 2. The edifying of ourselves in\nholiness, and delighting our souls in the contemplation and praises of\nhis perfections. 3. The communicating this knowledge, holiness, and\ndelight to others, and the increase of his actual kingdom in the\nworld. (1.) Avoid then all that pretended worship which dishonoureth\nGod (not in the opinion of carnal men, that judge of him by their own\nmisguided imaginations, but according to the discovery of himself to\nus in his works and word). Many travellers that have conversed with\nthe soberer heathen and Mahometan nations, tell us, that it is not the\nleast hinderance of their conversion, and cause of their contempt of\nchristianity, to see the christians that live about them, to worship\nGod so ignorantly, irrationally, and childishly, as many of them\ndo.[23] (2.) Affect most that manner of worship (_c\u00e6teris paribus_)\nwhich tendeth most to your own right information, and holy resolutions\nand affections, and to bring up your souls into nearer communion and\ndelight in God: and not that which tendeth to deceive, or flatter, or\ndivert you from him, nor to be in your ears as sounding brass, or a\ntinkling cymbal, or as one that is playing you a lesson of music; and\ntendeth not to make you better. (3.) Affect not that manner of worship\nwhich is an enemy to knowledge, and tendeth to keep up ignorance in\nthe world: such as is a great part of the popish worship, especially\ntheir reading the Scriptures to the people in an unknown tongue, and\ncelebrating their public prayers, and praises, and sacraments in an\nunknown tongue, and their seldom preaching, and then teaching the\npeople to take up with a multitude of toyish ceremonies, instead of\nknowledge and rational worship. Certainly that which is an enemy to\nknowledge, is an enemy to all holiness and true obedience, and to the\nends of worship, and therefore is no acceptable worshipping of God.\n(4.) Affect not that pretended worship which is of itself destructive\nof true holiness: such as is the preaching of false doctrine, not\naccording to godliness, and the opposition and reproaching of a holy\nlife and worship, in the misapplication of true doctrine; and then\nteaching poor souls to satisfy themselves with their mass, and mass\nceremonies, and an image of worship, instead of serious holiness,\nwhich is opposed: Prov. xxiv. 24, \"He that saith to the wicked, Thou\nart righteous, him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him.\"\nAnd if this be done as a worship of God, you may hence judge how\nacceptable it will be: Isa. v. 20, \"Woe unto them that call evil good,\nand good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;\nthat put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!\" To make people\nbelieve that holiness is but hypocrisy, or a needless thing, or that\nthe image of holiness is holiness itself, or that there is no great\ndifference between the godly and ungodly, doth all tend to men's\nperdition, and to damn men by deceiving them, and to root out holiness\nfrom the earth. See Ezek. xxii. 26; xliv. 23; Jer. xv. 19. \"If thou\ntake forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth,\"\nMal. iii. 18; Psal. i.; xv. (5.) Affect not a dead and heartless way\nof worship, which tendeth not to convince and waken the ungodly, nor\nto make men serious as those that have to do with God.\n\n_Direct._ VIII. Let the manner of your worshipping God be suited to\nthe matter that you have in hand. Remember that you are speaking\neither to or of the eternal God; that you are employed about the\neverlasting salvation of your own or others' souls; that all is high\nand holy that you have to do: see then that the manner be answerable\nhereunto.\n\n_Direct._ IX. Offer God nothing as a part of worship which is a lie;\nmuch less so gross a lie as to be disproved by the common senses and\nreason of all the world. God needeth not our lie unto his glory.[24]\nWhat worship then do papists offer him in their mass, who take it for\nan article of their faith, that there is no bread or wine left after\nthe consecration, it being all transubstantiate into the very body and\nblood of Christ? And when the certainty of all men's senses is\nrenounced, then all certainty of faith and all religion is renounced;\nfor all presuppose the certainty of sense.\n\n_Direct._ X. Worship not God in a manner that is contrary to the true\nnature, and order, and operations of a rational soul. I mean not to\nthe corrupted nature of man, but to nature as rational in itself\nconsidered. As, 1. Let not your mere will and inclination overrule\nyour understandings; and say not as blind lovers do, I love this, but\nI know not why; or children that eat unwholesome meat, because they\nlove it.[25] 2. Let not passion overtop your reason: worship God with\nsuch a zeal as is according to knowledge. 3. Let not your tongues lead\nyour hearts, much less overgo them: words may indeed reflect upon the\nheart, and warm it more; but that is but the secondary use: the first\nis to be the expressions of the heart: you must not speak without or\nagainst your hearts, (that is, falsely,) that by so speaking you may\nbetter your hearts (and make the words true, that at first were not\ntrue); unless it be when your words are but reading recitations or\nnarratives, and not spoken of yourselves. The heart was made to lead\nthe tongue, and the tongue to express it, and not to lead it.\nTherefore speak not to God either the words of a parrot, which you do\nnot understand, or the words of a liar or hypocrite, which express not\nthe meaning, or desires, or feeling of your hearts: but first\nunderstand and feel what you should speak, and then speak that which\nyou understand and feel.\n\n_Quest._ How then can a prayer be lawful that is read or heard from a\nbook?\n\n_Answ._ There is in reading the eye, and in hearing the ear, that is\nfirst to affect the heart, and then the tongue is to perform its\noffice. And though it be sudden, yet the passage to the heart is\nfirst, and the passage from the heart is last: and the soul is quick,\nand can quickly thus both receive and be affected and express itself.\nAnd the case is the same in this, whether it be from a book, or from\nthe words of another without book: for the soul must do the same, as\nquickly, in joining with another that speaketh before us, without a\nbook as with it.\n\n[Sidenote: How far the Scripture is the law or rule of worship and\ndiscipline, and how far not.]\n\n_Direct._ XI. Understand well how far Christ hath given a law and a\nrule for worship to his church in the holy Scriptures, and so far see\nthat you take it as a perfect rule, and swerve not from it by adding\nor diminishing. This is a matter of great importance by reason of the\ndanger of erring on either side. 1. If you think that the Scripture\ncontaineth not any law or rule of worship at all, or not so much as\nindeed it doth, you will deny a principal part of the office of\nChrist, as the King and Teacher of the church, and will accuse his\nlaws of insufficiency, and be tempted to worship him with a human kind\nof worship, and to think yourselves at liberty to worship him\naccording to your own imaginations, or change his worship according to\nthe fashion of the age or the country where you are. And on the other\nside, if you think that the Scripture is a law and rule of worship,\nmore particular than Christ intended it, you will involve yourselves\nand others in endless scruples and controversies, and find fault with\nthat which is lawful and a duty, because you find it not particularly\nin the Scripture: and therefore it is exceeding needful to understand\nhow far it is intended to be herein our law and rule, and how far not:\nto handle this fully would be a digression, but I shall briefly answer\nit.\n\n1. No doubt but Christ is the only universal Head and Lawgiver to his\nchurch.[26] And that legislation is the first and principal part of\ngovernment: and therefore if he had made no laws for his church, he\nwere not the full governor of it. And therefore he that arrogateth\nthis power to himself to be lawgiver to the church universal (as such)\ndoth usurp the kingly office of Christ, and committeth treason against\nhis government; (unless he can prove that Christ hath delegated to him\nthis chief part of his government, which none can do;) there being no\nuniversal lawgiver to the church but Christ, (whether pope or\ncouncil,) no law that is made by any mere man can be universally\nobligatory. Therefore seeing the making of all universal laws doth\nbelong only to Christ, we may be sure that he hath perfectly done it;\nand hath left nothing out of his laws that was fit to be there, nor\nnothing at liberty that was fit to be determined and commanded.\nTherefore whatsoever is of equal use or consideration to the universal\nchurch, as it is to any one part of it, and to all times as it is to\nany time of the church, should not be made a law by man to any part of\nthe church, if Christ have not made it a law to the whole: because\nelse they accuse him of being defective in his laws, and because all\nhis subjects are equally dependent on him as their King and Judge. And\nno man must step into his throne pretending to amend his work which he\nhath done amiss, or to make up any wants which the chief Lawgiver\nshould have made up.\n\n2. These laws of Christ for the government of his church, are fully\ncontained in the holy Scriptures; for so much as is in nature, is\nthere also more plainly expressed than nature hath expressed it. All\nis not Christ's law that is any way expressed in Scripture; but all\nChrist's laws are expressed in the Scriptures; not written by himself,\nbut by his Spirit in his apostles, whom he appointed and sent to teach\nall nations to observe whatever he commanded them, Matt. xxviii. 20:\nwho being thus commissioned and enabled fully by the Spirit to perform\nit, are to be supposed to have perfectly executed their commission;\nand to have taught whatsoever Christ commanded them, and no more as\nfrom Christ: and therefore as they taught that present age by voice,\nwho could hear them, so they taught all ages after to the end of the\nworld by writing, because their voice was not by them to be heard.\n\n3. So far then as the Scripture is a law and rule, it is a perfect\nrule; but how far it is a law or rule, its own contents and\nexpressions must determine. As, (1.) It is certain that all the\ninternal worship of God (by love, fear, trust, desire, &c.) is\nperfectly commanded in the Scriptures. (2.) The doctrine of Christ\nwhich his ministers must read and preach is perfectly contained in the\nScriptures. (3.) The grand and constantly necessary points of order in\npreaching, are there also expressed: as that the opening of men's\neyes, and the converting of them from the power of Satan to God, be\nfirst endeavoured, and then their confirmation and further\nedification, &c. (4.) Also that we humble ourselves before God in the\nconfession of our sins. (5.) And that we pray to God in the name of\nChrist for mercy for ourselves and others. (6.) That we give God\nthanks for his mercies to the church, ourselves, and others. (7.) That\nwe praise God in his excellencies manifested in his word and works of\ncreation and providence. (8.) That we do this by singing psalms with\nholy joyfulness of heart. (9.) The matter and order of the ordinary\nprayers and praises of christians is expressed in the Scripture (as\nwhich parts are to have precedency in our estimation and desire, and\nordinarily in our expressions). (10.) Christ himself hath determined\nthat by baptizing them into the name of the Father, the Son, and the\nHoly Ghost, men be solemnly entered into his covenant, and church, and\nstate of christianity. (11.) And he hath himself appointed that his\nchurches hold communion with him and among themselves, in the\neucharistical administration of the sacrament of his body and blood,\nrepresented in the breaking, delivering, receiving, and eating the\nconsecrated bread, and in the pouring out, delivering, receiving, and\ndrinking the consecrated wine. (12.) And as for the mutable,\nsubservient circumstances, and external expressions, and actions, and\norders, which were not fit to be, in particular, the matter of a\nuniversal law, but are fit in one place, or at one time, and not\nanother, for these he hath left both in nature and Scripture such\ngeneral laws, by which upon emergent occasions they may be determined;\nand by particular providences he fitteth things, and persons, and\ntimes, and places, so as that we may discern their agreeableness to\nthe descriptions in his general laws: as that all things be done\ndecently, in order, and to edification, and in charity, unity, and\npeace. And he hath forbidden generally doing any thing undecently,\ndisorderly, to the hurt or destruction of our brethren, even the weak,\nor to the division of the church.[27] (13.) And many things he hath\nparticularly forbidden in worship: as making to ourselves any graven\nimage, &c. and worshipping angels, &c.[28]\n\nAnd as to the order and government of the church, (for I am willing to\ndespatch all here together,) this much is plainly determined in\nScripture: 1. That there be officers or ministers under Christ to be\nthe stated teachers of his people, and to baptize, and administer the\nsacrament of his body and blood, and be the mouth and guide of the\npeople in public prayers, thanksgiving, and praises, and to bind the\nimpenitent and loose the penitent, and to be the directors of the\nflocks according to the law of God, to life eternal; and their office\nis described and determined by Christ. 2. It is required that\nchristians do ordinarily assemble together for God's public worship;\nand be guided therein by these their pastors. 3. It is required that\nbesides the unfixed ministers, who employ themselves in converting\ninfidels, and in an itinerant service of the churches, there be also\nstated, fixed ministers, having a special charge of each particular\nchurch; and that they may know their own flocks, and from house to\nhouse, and the people may know their own pastors that are over them in\nthe Lord, and honour them and obey them in all that they teach them\nfrom the word of God for their salvation. 4. The ministers that\nbaptize are to judge of the capacity and fitness of those whom they\nbaptize; whether the adult that are admitted upon their personal\nprofession and covenanting, or infants that are admitted upon their\nparents' profession and entering them into covenant. 5. The pastors\nthat administer the Lord's supper to their particular flocks, are to\ndiscern or judge of the fitness of those persons whom they receive\nnewly into their charge, or whom they admit to communion in that\nsacrament as members of their flock. 6. Every such pastor is also\npersonally to watch over all the members of his flock as far as he is\nable; lest false teachers seduce them, or Satan get advantage of them,\nor any corruption or root of bitterness spring up among them and\ndefile them. 7. It is the duty of the several members of the flock, if\na brother trespass against them, to tell him his faults between them\nand him; and if he hear not, to take two or three, and if he hear not\nthem, to tell the church. 8. It is the pastor's duty to admonish the\nunruly, and call them to repentance, and pray for their conversion. 9.\nAnd it is the pastor's duty to declare the obstinately impenitent\nuncapable of communion with the church, and to charge him to forbear\nit, and the church to avoid him. 10. It is the people's duty to avoid\nsuch accordingly, and have no familiarity with them, that they may be\nashamed; and with such, no, not to eat. 11. It is the pastor's duty to\nabsolve the penitent, declaring the remission of their sin, and\nre-admitting to the communion of the saints. 12. It is the people's\nduty to re-admit the absolved to their communion with joy, and to take\nthem as brethren in the Lord.[29] 13. Though every pastor hath a\ngeneral power to exercise his office in any part of the church, where\nhe shall be truly called to it; yet every pastor hath a special\nobligation (and consequently a special power) to do it over the flock,\nof which he hath received the special charge and oversight. 14. The\nLord's day is separated by God's appointment for the churches'\nordinary holy communion in God's worship under the conduct of these\ntheir guides.[30] 15. And it is requisite that the several particular\nchurches do maintain as much agreement among themselves as their\ncapacity will allow them; and keep due synods and correspondences to\nthat end. Thus much of God's worship, and church order and government,\nat least, is of divine institution, and determined by Scripture, and\nnot left to the will or liberty of man. Thus far the form of\ngovernment (at least) is of divine right.\n\nBut on the contrary, 1. About doctrine and worship; the Scripture is\nno law in any of these following cases, but hath left them\nundetermined. (1.) There are many natural truths which the Scripture\nmeddleth not with: as physics, metaphysics, logic, &c. (2.) Scripture\ntelleth not a minister what particular text or subject he shall preach\non this day or that. (3.) Nor what method his text or subject shall be\nopened and handled in. (4.) Nor what day of the week besides the\nLord's day he shall preach, nor what hour on the Lord's day he shall\nbegin. (5.) Nor in what particular place the church shall meet. (6.)\nNor what particular sins we shall most confess; nor what personal\nmercies we shall at this present time first ask; nor for what we shall\nnow most copiously give thanks: for special occasions must determine\nall these. (7.) Nor what particular chapter we shall now read; nor\nwhat particular psalm we shall now sing. (8.) Nor what particular\ntranslation of the Scripture, or version of the Psalms, we shall now\nuse. Nor into what sections to distribute the Scripture, as we do by\nchapters and verses. Nor whether the Bible shall be printed or\nwritten, or in what characters, or how bound. (9.) Nor just by what\nsign I shall express my consent to the truths or duties which I am\ncalled to express consent to (besides the sacraments and ordinary\nwords). (10.) Nor whether I shall use written notes to help my memory\nin preaching, or preach without. (11.) Nor whether I shall use a\nwriting or book in prayer, or pray without. (12.) Nor whether I shall\nuse the same words in preaching and prayer, or various new\nexpressions. (13.) Nor what utensils in holy administration I shall\nuse; as a temple or an ordinary house, a pulpit, a font, a table,\ncups, cushions, and many such, which belong to the several parts of\nworship. (14.) Nor in what particular gesture we shall preach, or\nread, or hear. (15.) Nor what particular garments ministers or people\nshall wear in time of worship. (16.) Nor what natural or artificial\nhelps to our natural faculties we shall use; as medicaments for the\nvoice, tunes, musical instruments, spectacles, hour-glasses: these and\nsuch like are undetermined in Scripture, and are left to be determined\nby human prudence, not as men please; but as means in order to the\nproper end, according to the general laws of Christ.[31] For Scripture\nis a general law for all such circumstances, but not a particular law.\n\nSo also for order and government, Scripture hath not particularly\ndetermined, 1. What individual persons shall be the pastors of the\nchurch. 2. Or of just how many persons the congregation shall consist.\n3. Or how the pastors shall divide their work where there are many. 4.\nNor how many every church shall have. 5. Nor what particular people\nshall be a pastor's special charge. 6. Nor what individual persons he\nshall baptize, receive to communion, admonish, or absolve. 7. Nor in\nwhat words most of these shall be expressed. 8. Nor what number of\npastors shall meet in synods, for the communion and agreement of\nseveral churches, nor how oft, nor at what time or place, nor what\nparticular order shall be among them in their consultations; with many\nsuch like.\n\nWhen you thus understand how far Scripture is a law to you in the\nworship of God, it will be the greatest direction to you, to keep you\nboth from disobeying God and your superiors; that you may neither\npretend obedience to man for your disobedience to God, nor pretend\nobedience to God against your due obedience to your governors, as\nthose will do that think Scripture is a more particular rule than ever\nChrist intended it: and it will prevent abundance of unnecessary\nscruples, contentions, and divisions.\n\n[Sidenote: What commands of God are not universal nor perpetual.]\n\n_Direct._ XII. Observe well in Scripture the difference between\nChrist's universal laws, (which bind all his subjects in all times and\nplaces,) and those that are but local, personal, or alterable laws;\nlest you think that you are bound to all that ever God bound any\nothers to. The universal laws and unalterable are those which result\nfrom the foundation of the universal and unalterable nature of persons\nand things, and those which God hath supernaturally revealed as\nsuitable constantly to all. The particular, local, or temporary laws\nare those, which either resulted from a particular or alterable nature\nof persons and things as mutually related, (as the law of nature bound\nAdam's sons to marry their sisters, which bindeth others against it,)\nor those which God supernaturally enacted only for some particular\npeople or person, or for the time. If you should mistake all the\nJewish laws for universal laws, (as to persons or duration,) into how\nmany errors would it lead you! So also if you mistake every personal\nmandate sent by a prophet or apostle to a particular man, as obliging\nall, you would make a snare of it. Every man is not to abstain from\nvineyards and wine as the Rechabites were; nor every man to go forth\nto preach in the garb as Christ sent the twelve and seventy disciples;\nnor every man to administer or receive the Lord's supper in an upper\nroom of a house, in the evening, with eleven or twelve only, &c.; nor\nevery one to carry Paul's cloak and parchments, nor go up and down on\nthe messages which some were sent on. And here (in precepts about\nworship) you must know what is the thing primarily intended in the\ncommand, and what it is that is but a subservient means; for many laws\nare universal and immutable as to the matter primarily intended, which\nare but local and temporary as to the matter subservient and\nsecondarily intended. As the command of saluting one another with a\nholy kiss, and using love-feasts in their sacred communion, primarily\nintended the exercising and expressing holy love by such convenient\nsigns as were then in use, and suitable to those times; but that it be\ndone by those particular signs, was subservient, and a local,\nalterable law; as appeareth, 1. In that it is actually laid down by\nGod's allowance. 2. In that in other places and times the same signs\nhave not the same signification and aptitude to that use at all, and\ntherefore would be no such expression of love; or else have also some\nill signification. So it was the first way of baptizing to dip them\nover-head; which was fit in that hot country, which in colder\ncountries it would not be, as being destructive to health, and more\nagainst modesty; therefore it is plain that it was but a local,\nalterable law. The same is to be said of not eating things strangled,\nand blood, which was occasioned by the offence of the Jews; and other\nthe like. This is the case in almost all precepts about the external\nworshipping gestures: the thing that God commandeth universally is a\nhumble, reverent adoration of him by the mind and body. Now the\nadoration of the mind is still the same; but the bodily expression\naltereth according to the custom of countries: in most countries\nkneeling or prostration are the expressions of greatest veneration and\nsubmission: in some few countries it is more signified by sitting with\nthe face covered with their hands: in some it is signified best by\nstanding: kneeling is ordinarily most fit, because it is the most\ncommon sign of humble reverence; but where it is not so, it is not\nfit. The same we must say of other gestures, and of habits: the women\namong the Corinthians were not to go uncovered because of the angels,\n1 Cor. xi. 10, and yet in some places, where long hair or covering may\nhave a contrary signification, the case may be contrary. The very\nfourth commandment, however it was a perpetual law as to the\nproportion of time, yet was alterable as to the seventh day. Those\nwhich I call universal laws, some call moral; but that is no term of\ndistinction, but signifieth the common nature of all laws, which are\nfor the governing of our manners. Some call them natural laws, and the\nother positive: but the truth is, there are some laws of nature which\nare universal, and some that are particular, as they are the result of\nuniversal or particular nature: and there are some laws of nature that\nare perpetual, which are the result of an unaltered foundation: and\nthere are some that are temporary, when it is some temporary,\nalterable thing in nature from whence the duty doth result: so there\nare some positive laws that are universal or unalterable, (during this\nworld,) and some that are local, particular, or temporary only.[32]\n\n_Direct._ XIII. Remember that whatever duty you seem obliged to\nperform, the obligation still supposeth that it is not naturally\nimpossible to you, and therefore you are bound to do it as well as you\ncan: and when other men's force, or your natural disability, hindereth\nyou from doing it as you would, you are not therefore disobliged from\ndoing it at all; but the total omission is worse than the defective\nperformance of it, as the defective performance is worse than the\ndoing of it more perfectly.[33] And in such a case the defects which\nare utterly involuntary are none of yours imputatively at all, but\nhis that hindereth you (unless as some other sin might cause that). As\nif I were in a country where I could have liberty to read and pray,\nbut not to preach, or to preach only once a month and no more; it is\nmy duty to do so much as I can do, as being much better than nothing,\nand not to forbear all, because I cannot do all.\n\n_Object._ But you must forbear no part of your duty? _Answ._ True: but\nnothing is my duty which is naturally impossible for me to do. Either\nI can do it, or I cannot: if I can, I must (supposing it a duty in all\nother respects); but if I cannot, I am not bound to it.\n\n_Object._ But it is not suffering that must deter you, for that is a\ncarnal reason: and your suffering may do more good than your\npreaching. _Answ._ Suffering is considerable either as a pain to the\nflesh, or as an irresistible hinderance of the work of the gospel: as\nit is merely a pain to the flesh, I ought not to be deterred by it\nfrom the work of God; but as it forcibly hindereth me from that work,\n(as by imprisonment, death, cutting out the tongue, &c.) I may\nlawfully foresee it, and by lawful means avoid it, when it is\nsincerely for the work of Christ, and not for the saving of the flesh.\nIf Paul foresaw that the preaching of one more sermon at Damascus was\nlike to hinder his preaching any more, because the Jews watched the\ngates day and night to kill him, it was Paul's duty to be let down by\nthe wall in a basket, and to escape, and preach elsewhere, Acts ix.\n25. And when the christians could not safely meet publicly, they met\nin secret, as John xix. 38; Acts xii. 12, &c. Whether Paul's suffering\nat Damascus for preaching one more sermon, or his preaching more\nelsewhere, was to be chosen, the interest of Christ and the gospel\nmust direct him to resolve: that which is best for the church, is to\nbe chosen.\n\n_Direct._ XIV. Remember that no material duty is formally a duty at\nall times: that which is a duty in its season, is no duty out of\nseason. Affirmative precepts bind not to all times (except only to\nhabits, or the secret intention of our ultimate end, so far as is\nsufficient to animate and actuate the means, while we are waking and\nhave the use of reason). Praying and preaching, that are very great\nduties, may be so unseasonably performed, as to be sins: if forbearing\na prayer, or sermon, or sacrament one day or month, be rationally like\nto procure your help or liberty to do it afterward, when that once or\nfew times doing it were like to hinder you from doing it any more, it\nwould be your duty then to forbear it for that time (unless in some\nextraordinary case): for even for the life of an ox or an ass, and for\nmercy to men's bodies, the rest and holy work of a sabbath might be\ninterrupted; much more for the souls of many. Again I warn you, as you\nmust not pretend the interest of the end against a peremptory,\nabsolute command of God, so must you not easily conclude a command to\nbe absolute and peremptory to that which certainly contradicts the\nend; nor easily take that for a duty, which certainly is no means to\nthat good which is the end of duty, or which is against it. Though yet\nno seeming aptitude as a means, must make that seem a duty, which the\nprohibition of God hath made a sin.\n\n_Direct._ XV. It is ever unseasonable to perform a lesser duty of\nworship, when a greater should be done; therefore it much concerneth\nyou to be able to discern, when two duties are inconsistent, which is\nthen the greater and to be preferred: in which the interest of the end\nmust much direct you; that being usually the greatest which hath the\ngreatest tendency to the greatest good.\n\n_Direct._ XVI. Pretend not one part of God's worship against another,\nwhen all, in their place and order, may be done. Set not preaching and\npraying against each other; nor public and private worship against\neach other; nor internal worship against external; but do all.\n\n_Direct._ XVII. Let not an inordinate respect to man, or common\ncustom, be too strong a bias to pervert your judgments from the rule\nof worship; nor yet any groundless prejudice make you distaste that\nwhich is not to be disliked. The error on these two extremes doth fill\nthe world with corruption and contentions about the worship of God.\nAmong the papists, and Russians, and other ignorant sorts of\nchristians, abundance of corruptions are continued in God's worship by\nthe mere power of custom, tradition, and education; and all seemeth\nright to which they have been long used: and hence the churches in\nsouth, east, and west continue so long overspread with ignorance, and\nrefuse reformation.[34] And on the other side, mere prejudice makes\nsome so much distaste a prescribed form of prayer, or the way of\nworship which they have not been used to, and which they have heard\nsome good men speak against, whose judgments they highliest esteemed,\nthat they have not room for sober, impartial reason to deliberate,\ntry, and judge. Factions have engaged most christians in the world\ninto several parties, whereby Satan hath got this great advantage,\nthat instead of worshipping God in love and concord, they lay out\ntheir zeal in an envious, bitter, censorious, uncharitable reproaching\nthe manner of each other's worship. And because the interest of their\nparties requireth this, they think the interest of the church and\ncause of God requireth it; and that they do God service when they make\nthe religion of other men seem odious: whenas among most christians in\nthe world, the errors of their modes of worship are not so great as\nthe adverse parties represent them (except only the two great crimes\nof the popish worship: 1. That it is not understood, and so is\nsoulless. 2. They worship bread as God himself, which I am not so able\nas willing to excuse from being idolatry). Judge not in such cases by\npassion, partiality, and prejudice.[35]\n\n_Direct._ XVIII. Yet judge in all such controversies with that\nreverence and charity which is due to the universal and the primitive\nchurch. If you find any thing in God's worship which the primitive or\nuniversal church agreed in, you may be sure that it is nothing but\nwhat is consistent with acceptable worship; for God never rejected the\nworship of the primitive or universal church. And it is not so much as\nto be judged erroneous without great deliberation and very good proof.\nWe must be much more suspicious of our own understandings.\n\n_Direct._ XIX. In circumstances and modes of worship not forbidden in\nthe word of God, affect not singularity, and do not easily differ from\nthe practice of the church in which you hold communion, nor from the\ncommands or directions of your lawful governors. It is true, if we are\nforbidden with Daniel to pray, or with the apostles to speak any more\nin the name of Christ, or are commanded as the three witnesses, Dan.\niii. to worship images, we must rather obey God than man;[36] and so\nin case of any sin that is commanded us: but in case of mere different\nmodes, and circumstances, and order of worship, see that you give\nauthority and the consent of the church where you are their due.\n\n_Direct._ XX. Look more to your own hearts than to the abilities of\nthe ministers, or the ceremonies or manner of the churches' worship in\nsuch lesser things. It is heart-work and heaven-work that the sincere\nbeliever comes about; and it is the corruption of his heart that is\nthe heaviest burden, which he groaneth under with the most passionate\ncomplaints: a hungry soul, inflamed with love to God and man, and\ntenderly sensible of the excellency of common truths and duties, would\nmake up many defects in the manner of public administration, and would\nget nearer God in a defective, imperfect mode of worship, than others\ncan do with the greatest helps;[37] when hypocrites find so little\nwork with their hearts and heaven, that they are taken up about words,\nand forms, and ceremonies, and external things, applauding their own\nway, and condemning other men's, and serving Satan under pretence of\nworshipping God.\n\n[18] Read on this subject a small book which I have written, called\n\"Catholic Unity.\"\n\n[19] See Rom. xiv. xv; 1 Cor. viii. 13.\n\n[20] Lev. xix. 2; xx. 7; 1 Pet. i. 16.\n\n[21] The second commandment. Cicero de Nat. Deor. lib. i. p. 46,\nsaith, that Possidonius believed that Epicurus thought there was no\nGod, but put a scorn upon him by describing him like a man, idle,\ncareless, &c. which he would not have done if he had thought there was\na God.\n\n[22] Matt. xv. 2, 3, 6; Mark vii. 3-14; Col. ii. 8, 18, 22.\n\n[23] But with the barbarous it is otherwise, saith Acosta the Jesuit,\np. 249. l. 2. Proderit quam plurimum ritus et signa et omnem externum\ncultum diligenter curare. His quippe et delectantur et detinentur\nhomines animales (N. B.) donec paulatim aboleatur memoria et gustus\npr\u00e6teritorum. So Gr. Nyssen saith in vita Gr. Neoc\u0153s. that they\nturned the pagans' festivals into festivals for the martyrs, to please\nthem the better. Which Beda and many others relate of the practice of\nthose times.\n\n[24] Rom. iii. 7.\n\n[25] Read Plutarch of Superstition.\n\n[26] Isa. ii. 3; i. 10; xlii. 4; Mic. iv. 2; Heb iii. 2, 3, 5; x. 28:\nActs vii. 37, 38; iii. 23; Psal. xix. 7; Isa. v. 24.\n\n[27] Rom. xiii. 9; Matt. xxii. 37; Isa. viii. 16, 20; Acts viii. 25;\nxv. 35, 36; xxvi. 17, 18; 1 John i. 9; Neh. i. 6; Lev. xvi. 21; Phil.\niv. 6; Psal. l. 14; lxix. 30; c. 1, 2, 4; Eph. v. 19; Psal. ix. 11;\nxcv. 1; Luke xi. 2, 3, &c.; Matt. xxviii. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 23-26, 28;\nxiv. 5, 12, 26; 2 Cor. x. 8; xiii. 10; Rom. xv. 2; 1 Cor. xiv. 40;\nRom. xiv. 15, 20; 1 Cor. ix. 20-22; viii. 10; x. 19, 28; 2 Cor. vi.\n16.\n\n[28] Second commandment, Col. ii. 18, &c.; 1 John v. 21; Rev. ii. 14.\n\n[29] Matt. xxviii. 19: Rom. x. 7, 8; Acts xiv. 23; ii. 42; xx. 7, 28;\nEph. iv. 11, 14; Mal. ii. 7; Ezek. iii. 17, 21; 1 Cor. xii. 17, 28;\nCol. i. 28; Acts xxvi. 18; 1 Thess. v. 12; Heb. xiii. 7, 17; Acts\nviii. 37; ii. 37, 38; viii 20, 23; 1 Cor. x. 16; ix. 13, 14; Acts xx.;\n2 Cor. ii. 11; Heb. xii. 15; Deut. x. 8; 2 Tim. iv. 1-3; Matt. xviii.\n15-17; 2 Thess. iii.; 1 Cor. v. 11; 2 John 10, 11; Tit. iii. 10; 1\nCor. v. 3-8; Rom. xvi. 17; 1 Tim. v. 17; Luke x. 16; xii. 42; Acts\nxiii. 23.\n\n[30] Tit. i. 5, 9; 1 Tim. iii. 5; 1 Pet. v. 1-4; Rev. i. 10; Acts xx.\n7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2.\n\n[31] Of which I have spoken more fully in my Disput. 5. of Church\nGovernment, p. 400, &c.\n\n[32] See the advertisement before my book against Infidelity.\n\n[33] See Mr. Truman's book of Natural and Moral Impotency.\n\n[34] Majus fidei impedimentum ex inveterata consuetudine\nproficiscitur: ubique consuetudo magnas vires habet; sed in barbaris\nlonge maximas: quippe ubi rationis est minimum, ibi consuetudo radices\nprofundissimas agit. In omni natura motio eo diuturnior ac\nvehementior, quo magis est ad unum determinata. Jos. Acosta de Ind. l.\n2. p. 249.\n\n[35] See Bishop Jer. Taylor's late book against Popery.\n\n[36] Acts iv. 17, 18; v. 28.\n\n[37] Jam. iii. 15-17.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nDIRECTIONS ABOUT THE CHRISTIAN COVENANT WITH GOD, AND BAPTISM.\n\n\nThough the first part of this book is little more than an explication\nof the christian covenant with God, yet being here to speak of baptism\nas a part of God's worship, it is needful that I briefly speak also of\nthe covenant itself.\n\n_Direct._ I. It is a matter of great importance that you well\nunderstand the nature of the christian covenant, what it is. I shall\ntherefore here briefly open the nature of it, and then speak of the\nreasons of it; and then of the solemnizing it by baptism, and next of\nour renewing it, and lastly of our keeping it.\n\n[Sidenote: The covenant what.]\n\nThe christian covenant is a contract between God and man, through the\nmediation of Jesus Christ, for the return and reconciliation of\nsinners unto God, and their justification, adoption, sanctification,\nand glorification by him, to his glory.\n\nHere we must first consider, who are the parties in the covenant. 2.\nWhat is the matter of the covenant on God's part. 3. What is the\nmatter on man's part. 4. What are the terms of it propounded on God's\npart. 5. Where and how he doth express it. 6. What are the necessary\nqualifications on man's part. 7. And what are the ends and benefits of\nit.\n\nI. The parties are God and man: God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost on\nthe one part, and repenting, believing sinners on the other part. Man\nis the party that needeth it; but God is the party that first offereth\nit. Here note, 1. That God's part of the covenant is made universally\nand conditionally with all mankind, (as to the tenor exacted,) and so\nis in being before we were born. 2. That it is not the Father, Son,\nand Holy Ghost, considered simply as persons in the Godhead; but as\nrelated to man for the ends of the covenant. 3. That it is only\nsinners that this covenant is made with, because the use of it is for\nthe restoration of those that broke a former covenant in Adam. It is a\ncovenant of reconciliation, and therefore supposeth an enmity\nantecedent. 4. When I say that it is repenting and believing sinners\nthat are the party, I mean, (1.) That taking the covenant in its first\nact, it is repentance and faith themselves that are the act, and are\nour very covenanting. (2.) But taking the covenant in its external\nexpression, so it is a repenting, believing sinner that must take it,\nit being but the expression of his repentance and faith, by an\nexplicit contract with God. 5. Note, that though God's covenant be by\none universal act, (of which more anon,) yet man's is to be made by\nthe several acts of the individual persons each one for himself, and\nnot by the acts of societies only.\n\nII. The matter of the covenant on God's part is in general, that he\nwill be our God: more particularly, that God the Father will be our\nreconciled God and Father in Jesus Christ; that God the Son will be\nour Saviour; and God the Holy Ghost will be our Sanctifier. And the\nrelation of a God to us essentially containeth these three parts: 1.\nThat as on the title of creation and redemption he is our Owner, so he\ndoth take us as his own peculiar people. 2. That as he hath title to\nbe our absolute King or Governor, so he doth take us as his subjects.\n3. That he will be our grand Benefactor and felicity, or our most\nloving Father (which compriseth all the rest). And as he will be thus\nrelated to us, so he will do for us all that these relations do\nimport. As, 1. He will do all that belongeth to a Creator for his\ncreature, in our preservation and supplies. 2. He will save us from\nour sins, and from his wrath and hell. 3. And he will sanctify us to a\nperfect conformity to our Head. Also, 1. He will use and defend us as\nhis own peculiar ones. 2. He will govern us by a law of grace and\nrighteousness. 3. He will make us fully happy in his love for ever.\n\nIII. The matter on man's part of the covenant is, 1. In respect of the\n_terminus a quo_, that we will forsake the flesh, the world, and the\ndevil, as they are adverse to our relations and duties to God. 2. In\nregard of the _terminus ad quem_, that we will take the Lord for our\nGod: and more particularly, 1. That we do take God the Father for our\nreconciled Father in Jesus Christ, and do give up ourselves to him as\ncreatures to their Maker. 2. That we do take Jesus Christ for our\nRedeemer, Saviour, and Mediator, as our High Priest, and Prophet, and\nKing, and do give up ourselves to him as his redeemed ones to be\nreconciled to God, and saved by him. 3. That we do take the Holy Ghost\nfor our Regenerator and Sanctifier, and do give up ourselves to be\nperfectly renewed and sanctified by him, and by his operations carried\non to God in his holy service. Also, 1. That we do take God for our\nabsolute Lord or Owner, and do give up ourselves to him as his own. 2.\nThat we take him for our universal, sovereign Governor, and do give up\nourselves unto him as his subjects. 3. That we do take him for our\nmost bountiful Benefactor, and loving Father, and felicity, and do\ngive up ourselves to him as his children, to seek him, and please him,\nand perfectly to love him, delight in him, and enjoy him for ever in\nheaven as our ultimate end. And in consenting to these relations, we\ncovenant to do the duties of them in sincerity.\n\nIV. The terms or conditions which God requireth of man in his covenant\nare, consent, and fidelity or performance: he first consenteth\nconditionally, if we will consent; and he consenteth to be actually\nour God, when we consent to be his people: so that as bare consent,\nwithout any performance, doth found the relation between husband and\nwife, master and servant, prince and people; but the sincere\nperformance of the duties of the relation which we consent to, are\nneedful afterward to continue the relation, and attain the benefits\nand ends; so is it also between God and man. We are his children in\ncovenant as soon as we consent; but we shall not be glorified but on\ncondition of sincere performance and obedience.\n\nV. God's covenant with man is nothing else but the universal promise\nin the gospel; and (to the solemnization) the declaration, and\napplication, and solemn investiture or delivery by his authorized\nministers. 1. The gospel, as it relateth the matters of fact in and\nabout the work of our redemption, is a sacred history. 2. As it\ncontaineth the terms on which God will be served, and commandeth us to\nobey them for our salvation, it is called the law of Christ or grace.\n3. As it containeth the promise of life and salvation conditionally\noffered, it is called God's promise, and covenant (viz. on his part,\nas it is proposed only). 4. When by our consent the condition is so\nfar performed, or the covenant accepted, then God's conditional,\nuniversal promise or covenant, becometh actual and particular as to\nthe effect; and so the covenant becometh mutual between God and man:\nas if a king make an act or law of pardon and oblivion to a nation of\nrebels, saying, Whoever cometh in by such a day, and confesseth his\nfault, and sueth out his pardon, and promiseth fidelity for the\nfuture, shall be pardoned. This act is a law in one respect, and it is\na universal, conditional pardon of all those rebels; or a promise of\npardon; and an offer of pardon to all that it is revealed to: but it\nis an actual pardon to those that come in, and conferreth on them the\nbenefits of the act as if they were named in it, and is their very\ntitle to their pardon, of which their consent is the condition; and\nthe condition being performed, the pardon or collation of the benefit\nbecometh particular and actual, without any new act; it being the\nsense of the law itself, or conditional grant, that so it should do.\nSo as to the reality of the internal covenant interest and benefits,\njustification and adoption, it is ours by virtue of this universal\nconditional covenant, when we perform the condition. But as to our\ntitle _in foro ecclesi\u00e6_, and the due solemnization and investiture,\nit is made ours when God's minister applieth it to us in baptism by\nhis commission; as the rebel that was fundamentally pardoned by the\nact of oblivion, must yet have his personal pardon delivered him by\nthe lord chancellor under the great seal. In this sense ministers are\nthe instruments of God, not only in declaring us to be pardoned, but\nin delivering to us the pardon of our sins, and solemnly investing us\ntherein: as an attorney delivereth possession to one that before had\nhis fundamental title. Thus God entereth into covenant with man.\n\nVI. The qualifications of absolute necessity to the validity of our\ncovenant with God _in foro interiori_, are these: 1. That we\nunderstand what we do as to all the essentials of the covenant; for\n_ignorantis non est consensus_. 2. That it be our own act, performed\nby our natural or legal selves, that is, some one that hath power so\nfar to dispose of us (as parents have of their children). 3. That it\nbe deliberate, sober, and rational, done by one that is _compos\nmentis_, in his wits, and not in drunkenness, madness, or\nincogitancy.[38] 4. That it be seriously done with a real intention of\ndoing the thing, and not histrionically, ludicrously, or in jest. 5.\nThat it be done entirely as to all essential parts; for if we leave\nout any essential part of the covenant, it is no sufficient consent\n(as to consent that Christ shall be our Justifier, but not the Holy\nGhost our Sanctifier). 6. That it be a present consent to be presently\nin covenant with God: for to consent that you will be his servants\nto-morrow or hereafter, but not yet, is but to purpose to be in\ncovenant with him hereafter, and is no present covenanting with him.\n7. Lastly, it must be a resolved and absolute consent, without any\nopen or secret exceptions or reserves.\n\nVII. The fruits of the covenant which God reapeth, (though he need\nnothing,) is the pleasing of his good and gracious will, in the\nexercise of his love and mercy, and the praise and glory of his grace,\nin his people's love and happiness for ever. The fruits or benefits\nwhich accrue to man are unspeakable, and would require a volume\ncompetently to open them: especially that God is our God, and Christ\nour Saviour, Head, Intercessor, and Teacher, and the Holy Ghost is our\nSanctifier; and that God will regard us as his own, and will protect\nus, preserve us, and provide for us, and will govern us, and be our\nGod and joy for ever; that he will pardon us, justify, and adopt us,\nand glorify us with his Son in heaven.\n\n_Direct._ II. When you thus understand well the nature of the\ncovenant, labour to understand the special reasons of it. The reasons\nof the matter of the covenant you may see in the fruits and benefits\nnow mentioned. But I now speak of the reason of it as a covenant _in\ngenere_, and such a covenant _in specie_.\n\n1. In general, God will have man to receive life or death as an\naccepter and keeper, or a refuser or breaker, of his covenant, because\nhe will do it not only as a Benefactor, or absolute Lord, but also as\na Governor, and will make his covenant to be also his law, and his\npromise and benefits to promote obedience; and because he will deal\nwith man as with a free agent, and not as with a brute that hath no\nchoosing and refusing power, conducted by reason: man's life and death\nshall be in his own hands, and still depend upon his own will; though\nGod will secure his own dominion, interest, and ends, and put nothing\nout of his own power by putting it into man's; nor have ever the less\nhis own will, by leaving man to his own will. God will at last, as a\nrighteous Judge, determine all the world to their final joy or\npunishment, according to their own choice while they were in the\nflesh, and according to what they have done in the body, whether it be\ngood or evil, Matt. xxv. Therefore he will deal with us on covenant\nterms.\n\n2. And he hath chosen to rule and judge men according to a covenant of\ngrace, by a Redeemer, and not according to a rigorous law of works,\nthat his goodness and mercy may be the fullier manifested to the sons\nof men; and that it may be easier for men to love him, when they have\nso wonderful demonstrations of his love; and so that their service\nhere, and their work and happiness hereafter, may consist of love, to\nthe glory of his goodness, and the pleasure of his love for ever.\n\n[Sidenote: External baptism, what.]\n\n_Direct._ III. Next understand rightly the nature, use, and end of\nbaptism. Baptism is to the mutual covenant between God and man, what\nthe solemnization of marriage is to them that do before consent; or\nwhat the listing a soldier by giving him colours, and writing his\nname, is to one that consented before to be a soldier.[39] In my\n\"Universal Concord,\" p. 29, 30, I have thus described it: Baptism is\na holy sacrament instituted by Christ, in which a person professing\nthe christian faith (or the infant of such) is baptized in water into\nthe name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost, in signification and\nsolemnization of the holy covenant, in which as a penitent believer\n(or the seed of such) he giveth up himself (or is by the parent given\nup) to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, forsaking the devil, the\nworld, and the flesh, and is solemnly entered a visible member of\nChrist and his church, a pardoned, regenerate child of God, and an\nheir of heaven.\n\n[Sidenote: Complete baptism, what it is.]\n\nAs the word baptism is taken for the mere administration or external\nordinance, so the internal covenanting or faith and repentance of the\n(adult) person to be baptized, is no essential part of it, nor\nrequisite to the being of it; but only the profession of such a faith\nand repentance, and the external entering of the covenant; but as\nbaptism is taken for the ordinance as performed in all its essential\nparts, according to the true intent of Christ in his institution (that\nis, in the first and proper meaning of the word); so the internal\ncovenanting of a penitent, sincere believer, is necessary to the being\nof it. And indeed the word baptism is taken but equivocally or\nanalogically at most, when it is taken for the mere external\nadministration and action: for God doth not institute worship\nordinances for bodily motion only; when he speaketh to man, and\nrequireth worship of man, he speaketh to him as to a man, and\nrequireth human actions from him, even the work of the soul, and not\nthe words of a parrot, or the motion of a puppet. Therefore the word\nbaptism in the first and proper signification, doth take in the inward\nactions of the heart, as well as the outward professions and actions.\nAnd in this proper sense baptism is the mutual covenant between God\nthe Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and a penitent believing sinner,\nsolemnized by the washing of water, in which as a sacrament of his own\nappointment God doth engage himself to be the God and reconciled\nFather, the Saviour and the Sanctifier, of the believer, and taketh\nhim for his reconciled child in Christ, and delivereth to him, by\nsolemn investiture, the pardon of all his sins, and title to the\nmercies of this life and of that which is to come. What I say in this\ndescription of a penitent believer, is also to be understood of the\nchildren of such that are dedicated by them in baptism to God, who\nthereupon have their portion in the same covenant of grace.\n\nThe word baptism is taken in the first sense when Simon Magus is said\nto be baptized, Acts xxviii. And when we speak of it only in the\necclesiastic sense, as it is true baptism _in foro ecclesi\u00e6_; but it\nis taken in the latter sense when it is spoken of as the complete\nordinance of God, in the sense of the institution, and as respecting\nthe proper ends of baptism, as pardon of sin and life eternal; and _in\nforo c\u0153li_.\n\nIn this full and proper sense it is taken by Christ when he saith,\nMark xvi. 16, \"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;\" that\nis, he that believeth, and is by baptism entered into the covenant of\nGod; and in this sense the ancients took it, when they affirmed that\nall that were baptized were regenerated, pardoned, and made the\nchildren of God. And in this sense it is most true, that he that is\nbaptized (that is, is a sincere covenanter) shall be saved if he die\nin that condition that he is then in.[40] All that the minister\nwarrantably baptizeth, are sacramentally regenerate, and are _in foro\necclesi\u00e6_ members of Christ, and children of God, and heirs of heaven:\nbut it is only those that are sincerely delivered up in covenant to\nGod in Christ, that are spiritually and really regenerate, and are\nsuch as shall be owned for members of Christ and children of God _in\nforo c\u0153li_. Therefore it is not unfit that the minister call the\nbaptized, regenerate and pardoned members of Christ, and children of\nGod, and heirs of heaven, supposing that _in foro ecclesi\u00e6_ they were\nthe due subjects of baptism. But if the persons be such as ought not\nto be baptized, the sin then is not in calling baptized persons\nregenerate, but in baptizing those that ought not to have been\nbaptized, and to whom the seal of the covenant was not due.\n\nNone ought to be baptized but those that either personally deliver up\nthemselves in covenant to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,\nprofessing a true repentance, and faith, and consent to the covenant;\nor else are thus delivered up, and dedicated, and entered into\ncovenant in their infancy, by those that, being christians themselves,\nhave so much interest in them and power of them, that their act may be\nesteemed as the infants' act, and legally imputed to them as if\nthemselves had done it. If any others are unduly baptized, they have\nhereby no title to the pardon of sin or life eternal, nor are they\ntaken by God to be in covenant, as having no way consented to it.\n\n_Direct._ IV. When you enter a child into the christian covenant with\nGod, address yourselves to it as to one of the greatest works in the\nworld; as those that know the greatness of the benefit, of the duty,\nand of the danger. The benefit to them that are sincere in the\ncovenant, is no less than to have the pardon of all our sins, and to\nhave God himself to be our God and Father, and Christ our Saviour, and\nthe Holy Ghost our Sanctifier, and to have title to the blessings of\nthis life and of that to come. And for the duty, how great a work it\nis for a sinner to enter into so solemn a covenant with the God of\nheaven, for reconciliation and newness of life, and for salvation! And\ntherefore if any should abuse God by hypocrisy, and take on them to\nconsent to the terms of the covenant, (for themselves, or their\nchildren,) when indeed they do not, the danger of such profaneness and\nabuse of God must needs be great. Do it therefore with that due\npreparation, reverence, and seriousness, as beseemeth those that are\ntransacting a business of such unspeakable importance with God\nAlmighty.\n\n_Direct._ V. Having been entered in your infancy into the covenant of\nGod by your parents, you must, at years of discretion, review the\ncovenant which by them you made, and renew it personally yourselves;\nand this with as great seriousness and resolution as if you were now\nfirst to enter and subscribe it, and as if your everlasting life or\ndeath were to depend on the sincerity of your consent and performance.\nFor your infant baptismal covenanting will save none of you that live\nto years of discretion, and do not as heartily own it in their own\npersons, as if they had been now to be baptized. But this I pass by,\nhaving said so much of it in my \"Book of Confirmation.\"\n\n[Sidenote: Of renewing the covenant oft.]\n\n_Direct._ VI. Your covenant thus, 1. Made; 2. Solemnized by baptism;\n3. And owned at age; must, 4. Be frequently renewed through the whole\ncourse of your lives. As, (1.) Your first consent must be habitually\ncontinued all your days; for if that ceaseth, your grace and title to\nthe benefits of God's covenant ceaseth. (2.) This covenant is\nvirtually renewed in every act of worship to God; for you speak to him\nas your God in covenant, and offer yourselves to him as his covenanted\npeople. (3.) This covenant should be actually renewed frequently in\nprayer and meditation, and other such acts of communion with God. (4.)\nEspecially when after a fall we beg the pardon of our sins, and the\nmercies of the covenant, and on days of humiliation and thanksgiving,\nand in great distresses, or exhilarating mercies. (5.) And the Lord's\nsupper is an ordinance instituted to this very end. It is no small\npart of our christian diligence and watchfulness, to keep up and renew\nour covenant consent.\n\n_Direct._ VII. And as careful must you be to keep or perform your\ncovenant, as to enter it, and renew it; which is done, 1. By\ncontinuing our consent; 2. By sincere obedience; 3. And by\nperseverance. We do not (nor dare not) promise to obey perfectly, nor\npromise to be as obedient as the higher and better sort of christians,\nthough we desire both; but to obey sincerely we must needs promise,\nbecause we must needs perform it.\n\nObedience is sincere, 1. When the radical consent or subjection of the\nheart to God in Christ is habitually and heartily continued. 2. When\nGod's interest in us is most predominant, and his authority and law\ncan do more with us, than any fleshly lust or worldly interest, or\nthan the authority, word, or persuasions of any man whosoever. 3. When\nwe unfeignedly desire to be perfect, and habitually and ordinarily\nhave a predominant love to all that is good, and a hatred to that\nwhich is evil; and had rather do our duty than be excused from it, and\nrather be saved from our sin than keep it.\n\n_Direct._ VIII. While you sincerely consent unto the covenant, live by\nfaith upon the promised benefits of it, believing that God will make\ngood on his part all that he hath promised. Take it for your title to\npardon, sonship, and eternal life. O think what a mercy it is to have\nGod in covenant with you to be your God, your Father, Saviour,\nSanctifier, and felicity! And in this continually rejoice.\n\n[38] Quis vero non doleat baptismo plerosque adultos initio passim et\nnostro tempore non raro ante perfundi quam christianam catechesin vel\nmediocriter teneant, neque an flagitios\u00e6 et superstitios\u00e6 vit\u00e6\np\u0153nitentia tangantur, neque vero id ipsum quod accipiunt, an velint\naccipere, satis constet. Acosta, l. vi. c. 2. p. 520. Nisi petant et\ninstent, christian\u00e6 vit\u00e6 professione donandi non sunt. Idem. p. 521.\nAnd again, While ignorant or wicked men do hasten any how, by right or\nwrong, by guile or force, to make the barbarous people christians,\nthey do nothing else but make the gospel a scorn, and certainly\ndestroy the deserters of a rashly undertaken faith. Id. ibid. p. 522.\n\n[39] See the \"Reformed Liturgy,\" p. 68.\n\n[40] Read the Propositions of the Synod in New England, and the\nDefence of them against Mr. Davenport, about the subject of Baptism.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nDIRECTIONS ABOUT THE PROFESSION OF OUR RELIGION TO OTHERS.\n\n\n_Direct._ I. Understand first how great a duty the profession of true\nreligion is, that you may not think as some foolish people, that every\nman should conceal his religion, or keep it to himself.[41] Observe\ntherefore these reasons following which require it.\n\n1. Our tongues and bodies are made to exercise and show forth that\nacknowledgment and adoration of God which is in our hearts. And as he\ndenieth God with the heart who doth not believe in him and worship him\nin his heart, so he denieth God imputatively with his tongue and life,\nwho doth not profess and honour him with his tongue and life; and so\nhe is a practical atheist. Isa. xlv. 23-25, \"I have sworn by myself,\nthe word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not\nreturn, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.\nSurely shall one say, In the Lord have I righteousness and\nstrength--In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and\nshall glory.\" So Phil. ii. 9-11, \"Wherefore God also hath highly\nexalted him, and given him a name above every name, that at the name\nof Jesus every knee should bow--and that every tongue should confess\nthat Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.\" Isa. xliv.\n5, \"One shall say, I am the Lord's; and another shall call him by the\nname of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the\nLord, and surname himself by the name of Israel.\"\n\n2. The public assemblies, and worship of God, are purposely appointed\nby him, that in them we might make open profession of our religion. He\nthat denieth profession, denieth the public faith and worship of the\nchurch, and denieth baptism and the Lord's supper, which are\nsacraments appointed for the solemn profession of our faith.\n\n3. Our profession is needful to our glorifying God. Men see not our\nhearts, nor know whether we believe in God or not, nor what we believe\nof him, till they hear or see it in our profession and actions. Paul's\nlife and death was a profession of Christ, that in his \"boldness\nChrist might be magnified in his body,\" Phil. i. 20. Matt. v. 14-16,\n\"Ye are the light of the world: a city that is set on a hill cannot be\nhid. Neither do men light a candle to put it under a bushel, but on a\ncandlestick, and it giveth light to all that are in the house. Let\nyour light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and\nglorify your Father which is in heaven.\"\n\n4. Our profession is the means of saving others: that which is secret,\nis no means to profit them. They must see our good works that they may\nglorify God, Phil. i. 12-14.\n\n5. God hath required our open and bold profession of him, with the\nstrictest commands, and upon the greatest penalties. 1 Pet. v. 3,\n\"Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an\nanswer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in\nyou with meekness and fear.\" Rom. x. 9, 10, \"If thou shalt confess\nwith thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God\nhath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart\nman believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is\nmade unto salvation.\" Mark viii. 38, \"Whosoever shall be ashamed of me\nand of my words, in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also\nshall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his\nFather with the holy angels.\"[42]\n\n_Direct._ II. Next, understand what it is in religion that you must\nprincipally profess.[43] It is not every lesser truth, much less every\nopinion of your own, in which you are confident that you are wiser\nthan your brethren. This is the meaning of Rom. xiv. 22, \"Hast thou\nfaith? have it to thyself before God.\" By \"faith\" here is not meant\nthe substance of the christian belief, or any one necessary article of\nit. But a belief of the indifferency of such things as Paul spake of,\nin meats and drinks. If thou know these things to be lawful when thy\nweak brother doth not, and so thou be wiser than he, thank God for thy\nknowledge, and use it to thy own salvation; but do not proudly and\nuncharitably contend for it, and use it uncharitably to the danger of\nanother's soul, much less to the wrong of the church and gospel, and\nthe hinderance of greater truths. 2 Tim. ii. 14, \"Of these things put\nthem in remembrance,\" (that is, of the saints' hope in God's\nfaithfulness,) \"charging them before the Lord that they strive not\nabout words to no profit, but the subverting of the hearers.\" Yet \"for\nthe faith we must earnestly contend,\" Jude 2, 3. 2 Tim. ii. 23, 24,\n\"But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do\ngender strife. And the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be\ngentle to all men.\"\n\nBut that which is the chiefest matter of our profession is, The being\nand perfections of God himself; his love to man, and power over him,\nand man's subjection and obligations unto God; the person, and office,\nand works, and benefits of our Redeemer, with all the duty that we owe\nto him in perfect holiness, and all the hopes that we have in him; the\nhappiness of the saints, the odiousness of sin, and the misery of the\nwicked. These, and such as these, are things that we are called to\nprofess; yet so as not to deny or renounce the smallest truth.\n\n_Direct._ III. Understand also the manner how we must make profession\nof religion. 1. There is a professing by words, and a professing by\nactions. 2. There is a solemn profession by God's public ordinances,\nand an occasional or privater profession by conference, or by our\nconversations. And all these ways must religion be professed.\n\n_Direct._ IV. Understand also the season of each sort of profession,\nthat you omit not the season, nor do it unseasonably. 1. Profession by\nbaptism, Lord's supper, and church assemblies, must be done in their\nseason, which the church guides are the conductors of. 2. Profession\nby an innocent, blameless, obedient life is never out of season. 3.\nProfession by private conference, and by occasional acts of piety,\nmust be when opportunity inviteth us, and they are likely to attain\ntheir ends. 4. The whole frame of a believer's life should be so holy,\nand heavenly, and mortified, and above the world, as may amount to a\nserious profession that he liveth in confident hope of the life to\ncome, and may show the world the difference between a worldling and an\nheir of heaven; between corrupted nature and true grace. The\nprofessors of godliness must be a peculiar people, zealous of good\nworks, and adorned with them.[44]\n\n_Direct._ V. Take special care that your profession be sincere, and\nthat you be yourselves as good as you profess to be. Otherwise, 1.\nYour profession will condemn yourselves. 2. And it will dishonour the\ntruth which you deceitfully profess. There can scarce a greater injury\nbefall a good cause, than to have a bad and shameful patron to defend\nit. Rom. ii. 3, \"And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them\nwhich do such things, and dost the same, that thou shalt escape the\njudgment of God.\" Verse 23-25, \"Thou that makest thy boast of the law,\nthrough breaking the law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is\nblasphemed among the gentiles through you--.\"\n\n_Direct._ VI. Let not your profession be so much of your own sincerity\nas of God and his excellencies: boast not of yourselves, but of God\nand Christ, and the promise, and the hope of true believers; and do it\nto God's praise, and not for your own. Be sure that in all your\nprofession of religion, you be seeking honour to God, and not unto\nyourselves. And then in this manner he that doubteth of his own\nsincerity, yet may and must make profession of Christ and true\nreligion; when you cannot proclaim the uprightness of your own hearts,\nyou may boldly proclaim the excellencies of religion, and the\nhappiness of saints.\n\n_Direct._ VII. Live upon God alone, and trust his all-sufficiency,\nand abhor that pusillanimity and baseness of spirit which maketh men\nafraid or ashamed openly to own the truth. Remember the example of\nyour Lord, who before Pontius Pilate \"witnessed a good confession,\" 1\nTim. vi. 13; who came \"for this end into the world, to bear witness to\nthe truth,\" John xviii. 37. Fear not the face of man, whose breath is\nin his nostrils, and is perishing even while he is threatening.[45] If\nthou believe not that Christ can secure thee from the rage of man,\nthou believest not indeed in Christ. If thou believe not that heaven\nwill satisfy for all that by scorns or cruelties thou sufferest from\nsinners, thou hast not indeed the hope of a believer. And no wonder if\nthou profess not that which thou believest not. But if thou believe\nthat God is God, and Christ is Christ, and heaven is heaven, and the\ngospel is true, thou hast enough in thy belief to secure thee against\nall the scorns and cruelties of man, and to tell thee that Christ will\nbear thy charges, in all that thou sufferest for his sake. Oh what\nabundance are secretly convinced of the truth, and their consciences\nbear witness to the wisdom of the saints, and a holy life; and yet\nthey dare not openly own and stand to the truth which they are\nconvinced of for fear of being mocked by the tongues of the profane,\nor for fear of losing their places and preferments! O wretch, dost\nthou not tremble when thou art ashamed of Christ, to think of the day\nwhen he will be ashamed of thee? Then when he comes in glory none will\nbe ashamed of him! Then where is the tongue that mocked him and his\nservants? Who then will deride his holy ways? Then that will be the\ngreatest glory, which thou art now ashamed of. Canst thou believe that\nday, and yet hide thy profession, through cowardly fear or shame of\nman? Is man so great, and is Christ no greater in thine eyes than so?\nIf he be not more regardable than man, believe not in him: if he be,\nregard him more; and let not a worm be preferred before thy Saviour.\n\n_Direct._ VIII. If any doubt arise, whether thou shouldest now make\nparticular profession of the truth, (as in the presence of scorners,\nor when required by magistrates or others, &c.) let not the advice or\ninterest of the flesh have any hand at all in the resolving of the\ncase; but let it be wholly determined as the interest of Christ\nrequireth. Spare thyself when the interest of Christ requireth it; not\nfor thyself, but for him. But when his interest is most promoted by\nthy suffering, rejoice that thou art any way capable of serving\nhim.[46]\n\n_Direct._ IX. Though sometimes a particular profession of the faith\nmay be unseasonable, yet you must never make any profession of the\ncontrary, either by words or actions. Truth may be sometimes silenced,\nbut a lie may never be professed or approved.\n\n_Direct._ X. If any that profess christianity reproach you for the\nprofession of holiness and diligence, convince them that they\nhypocritically profess the same, and that holiness is essential to\nchristianity: open their baptismal covenant to them, and the Lord's\nprayer, in which they daily pray that God's will may be done on earth\neven as it is in heaven, which is more strictly than the best of us\ncan reach. The difference between them and you is but this, whether we\nshould be christians hypocritically in jest, or in good earnest.\n\n[41] Nemo jam infamiam incutiat; nemo aliud existimet: quin nec fas\nest ulli de sua religione mentiri. Ex eo enim quod aliud a se coli\ndicit quam colit, et culturam et honorem in alterum transferendo, jam\nnon colit quod negavit: dicimus, et palam dicimus et vobis\ntorquentibus lacerati et cruenti vociferamur, Deum colimus per\nChristum. Tertul. Apolog. c. 11.\n\n[42] 2 Tim. ii. 12; Matt. x. 32, 33; Luke ix. 26.\n\n[43] 1 Cor. viii. 1; 2 Cor. x. 8; Rom. xv. 2; 1 Tim. i. 4; Tit. iii.\n9.\n\n[44] Tit. ii. 14; 1 Tim. ii. 10.\n\n[45] The Arians under Valens, and the Vandals, still silenced the\northodox preachers and forbad their meetings, and yet the people\nadhered to their pastors and kept their meetings, while they could.\nS\u00e6pius prohibitum est ut sacerdotes vestri conventus minime\ncelebrarent, nec sua seditione animas subverterunt christianas.\nPr\u00e6cept. Hunner. in Victor. Utic. p. 414.\n\n[46] Matt. x. 18, 23, 32, 33, 38, 39; xii. 14, 15; xiv. 13; John x.\n39; Heb. xi. 27; Acts ix. 25.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nDIRECTIONS ABOUT VOWS AND PARTICULAR COVENANTS WITH GOD.\n\n\n_Tit. 1. Directions for the Right Making such Vows and Covenants._\n\n[Sidenote: What a vow is.]\n\n_Direct._ I. Understand the nature of a vow, and the use to which it\nis appointed.\n\nA vow is a promise made to God. 1. It is not a bare assertion or\nnegation. 2. It is not a mere pollicitation, or expression of the\npurpose or resolution of the mind: for he that saith or meaneth no\nmore than, I am purposed or resolved to do this, may upon sufficient\nreason do the contrary; for he may change his mind and resolution,\nwithout any untruth or injury to any. 3. It is not a mere devoting of\na thing to God for the present by actual resignation. For the present\nactual delivery of a thing to sacred uses is no promise for the\nfuture: though we usually join them both together, yet _devovere_ may\nbe separated from _vovere_. 4. It must be therefore a promise, which\nis, a voluntary obliging ones self to another _de futuro_ for some\ngood. 5. It is therefore implied that it be the act of a rational\ncreature, and of one that in that act hath some competent use of\nreason, and not of a fool, or idiot, or mad-man, or a child that hath\nnot reason for such an act, no nor of a brain-sick or melancholy\nperson, who (though he be _c\u00e6tera sanus_) is either delirant in that\nbusiness, or is irresistibly borne down and necessitated by his\ndisease to vow against the sober, deliberate conclusion of his reason\nat other times, having at the time of vowing, reason enough to strive\nagainst the act, but not self-government enough to restrain a\npassionate, melancholy vow. 6. Whereas some casuists make deliberation\nnecessary, it must be understood that to the being of a vow so much\ndeliberation is requisite as may make it a rational human act, it must\nbe an act of reason; but for any further deliberation, it is necessary\nonly to the well-being, and not to the being of a vow, and without it\nit is a rash vow, but not no vow.[47] 7. When we say, it must be a\nvoluntary act, the meaning is not that it must be totally and\nabsolutely voluntary, without any fear or threatening to induce us to\nit; but only that it be really voluntary, that is, an act of choice,\nby a free agent, that considering all things doth choose so to do. He\nthat hath a sword set to his breast, and doth swear or vow to save his\nlife, doth do it voluntarily, as choosing rather to do it than to die.\nMan having free-will, may choose rather to die, than vow, if he think\nbest: his will may be moved by fear, but cannot be forced by any one,\nor any means whatsoever. 8. When I say that a vow is a promise, I\nimply that the matter of it is necessarily some real or supposed good;\nto be good, or to do good, or not to do evil. Evil may be the matter\nof an oath, but it is not properly a vow, if the matter be not\nsupposed good. 9. It is a promise made to God, that we are now\nspeaking of; whether the name of a vow belong to a promise made only\nto man, is a question _de nomine_, which we need not stop at.\n\n[Sidenote: The sorts of vows.]\n\nA vow is either a simple promise to God, or a promise bound with an\noath or imprecation. Some would appropriate the name of a vow to this\nlast sort only, (when men swear they will do this or that,) which\nindeed is the most formidable sort of vowing; but the true nature of a\nvow is found also in a simple self-obliging promise.\n\n[Sidenote: The use of vows.]\n\nThe true reason and use of vows is but for the more certain and\neffectual performance of our duties: not to make new laws, and duties,\nand religions for us, but to drive on the backward, lingering soul to\ndo its duty, and to break over difficulties and delays: that by\nstrengthening our bonds, and setting the danger before our eyes, we\nmay be excited to escape it.\n\n[Sidenote: The obligation of vows.]\n\nIt is a great question, whether our own vows can add any new\nobligation to that which before lay upon us from the command of God.\nAmesius saith, (Cas. Consc. lib. iv. c. 16.) _Non additur proprie in\nistis nova obligatio, neque augetur in se prior: sed magis agnoscitur\net recipitur a nobis: passive in istis \u00e6que fuimus antea obligati: sed\nactiva recognitione arctius nobis applicatur a nobismetipsis._ Others\ncommonly speak of an additional obligation; and indeed there is a\ndouble obligation added by a vow, to that which God before had laid on\nus, to the matter of that vow. Premising this distinction between\n_obligatio imponentis_, a governing obligation, (which is the effect\nof governing right or authority,) and _obligatio consentientis_, a\nself-obliging by voluntary consent, (which is the effect of that\ndominion which a rational free agent hath over his own actions,) I\nsay, 1. He that voweth doth oblige himself, who before was obliged by\nGod only; and that a man hath a power to oblige himself, is discerned\nby the light of nature, and is the ground of the law of nations, and\nof human converse: and though this is no divine obligation, yet it is\nnot therefore none at all. 2. But moreover he that voweth doth induce\nupon himself a new divine obligation, by making himself the subject of\nit. For example; God hath said, \"Honour the Lord with thy substance:\"\nthis command obligeth me to obey it whether I vow it or not. The same\nGod hath said, \"Pay thy vows to the Most High,\" Psal. l. 14; and,\n\"When thou vowest a vow to God, defer not to pay it,\" Eccles. v. 4.\nThis layeth no obligation on me till I vow; but when I have vowed it\ndoth: so that now I am under a double divine obligation, (one to the\nmatter of the duty, and another to keep my vow,) and under a\nself-obligation of my own vow: whence also a greater penalty will be\ndue if I now offend, than else would have been.\n\nHence you may see what to think of the common determination of\ncasuists concerning vows materially sinful, when they say, a man is\nnot obliged to keep them. It is only thus far true, that God obligeth\nhim not to do that particular thing which he voweth, for God had\nbefore forbidden it, and he changeth not his laws upon man's rash\nvowings; but yet there is a self-obligation which he laid upon himself\nto do it: and this self-obligation to a sinful act, was itself a sin,\nand to be repented of, and not performed; but it bringeth the person\nunder a double obligation to penalty, as a perjured person, even God's\nobligation who bindeth the perjured to penalty, and the obligation of\nhis own consent to the punishment, if there was any oath or\nimprecation in the vow. If it were true that such a person had brought\nhimself under no obligation at all, then he could not be properly\ncalled perjured, nor punished as perjured; but he that sweareth and\nvoweth to do evil, (as the Jews to kill Paul,) though he ought not to\ndo the thing, (because God forbiddeth it,) yet he is a perjured person\nfor breaking his vow, and deserveth the penalty, not only of a rash\nvower, but of one perjured. Thus error may make a man sinful and\nmiserable, though it cannot warrant him to sin.\n\n_Direct._ II. Try well the matter of your vows, and venture not on\nthem till you are sure that they are not things forbidden: things\nsinful or doubtful are not fit matter for a vow: in asserting,\nsubscribing, and witnessing, you should take care, that you know\nassuredly that the matter be true, and venture not upon that which may\nprove false; much more should you take care that you venture not\ndoubtingly in vows and oaths. They are matters to be handled with\ndread and tenderness, and not to be played with, and rashly ventured\non, as if it were but the speaking of a common word: \"Be not rash with\nthy mouth, and let not thy heart be hasty to utter any thing before\nGod,\" Eccles. v. 2. It is a grievous snare that men are oft brought\ninto by ignorant and rash vows;[48] as the case of Jephthah, and\nHerod, and many another tell us for our warning: an error in such\ncases is much more safely and cheaply discerned before, than\nafterwards. To have a rash vow or perjury to repent of, is to set a\nbone in joint, or pull a thorn out of your very eye; and who would\nchoose such pain and smart? \"Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh\nto sin; neither say thou before the angel that it was an error:\nwherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of\nthy hands,\" Eccles. v. 6. \"It is a snare to the man who devoureth that\nwhich is holy, and after vows to make inquiry,\" Prov. xx. 25. Be\ncareful and deliberate to prevent such snares.\n\n_Direct._ III. Vow not in a passion: stay till the storm be over:\nwhether it be anger or desire, or whatever the passion be, delay and\ndeliberate before you vow; for when passion is up, the judgment is\nupon great disadvantage. In your passion you are apt to be most\nperemptory and confident when you are most deceived: if it be your\nduty to vow, it will be your duty to-morrow when you are calm. If you\nsay, that duty must not be delayed, and that you must do it while the\nSpirit moveth you: I answer, Was it not as much a duty before your\npassion was kindled as now? It is no sinful delaying of so great a\nduty, to stay till you have well proved whether it be of God. If it be\nthe Spirit of Christ that moveth you to it, he will be willing that\nyou deliberate and try it by that word which the same Spirit hath\nindited to be your rule. God's Spirit worketh principally upon the\njudgment and the will, by settled convictions, which will endure a\nrational trial: it is liker to be your own spirit which worketh\nprincipally on the passion, and will not endure the trial, nor come\ninto the light, John iii. 18, 19; Isa. viii. 20.\n\n_Direct._ IV. Make not a vow of things indifferent and unnecessary: if\nthey be not good, in a true, comparing, practical judgment, which\nconsidereth all accidents and circumstances, they are no fit matter\nfor a vow. Some say, things indifferent are the fittest matter both\nfor vows and human laws; but either they speak improperly or untruly,\nand therefore dangerously at the best. If an idle word be a sin, then\nan idle action is not a thing to be vowed, because it is not a thing\nto be done, being as truly a sin as an idle word: and that which is\nwholly indifferent is idle; for if it be good for any thing, it is\nnot wholly indifferent; and because it is antecedently useless, it is\nconsequently sinful to be done.\n\n_Object._ I. But those that say things indifferent may be vowed, mean\nnot, things useless or unprofitable to any good end; but only those\nthings that are good and useful, but not commanded: such as are the\nmatter of God's counsels, and tend to man's perfection, as to vow\nchastity, poverty, and absolute obedience.\n\n_Answ._ There are no such things as are morally good, and not\ncommanded: this is the fiction of men that have a mind to accuse God's\nlaws and government of imperfection, and think sinful man can do\nbetter than he is commanded, when none but Christ ever did so\nwell.[49]\n\n_Quest._ I. What is moral goodness in any creature and subject, but a\nconformity to his ruler's will expressed in his law? And if this\nconformity be its very form and being, it cannot be that any thing\nshould be morally good that is not commanded.\n\n_Quest._ II. Doth not the law of God command us to love him with all\nour heart, and soul, and strength, and accordingly to serve him? And\nis it possible to give him more than all; or can God come after and\ncounsel us to give him more than is possible?\n\n_Quest._ III. Doth not the law of nature oblige us to serve God to the\nutmost of our power? He that denieth it, is become unnatural, and must\ndeny God to be God, or deny himself to be his rational creature: for\nnothing is more clear in nature, than that the creature who is\nnothing, and hath nothing but from God, and is absolutely his own,\ndoth owe him all that he is able to do.\n\n_Quest._ IV. Doth not Christ determine the case to his disciples, Luke\nxvii. 10?\n\nA middle between good and evil in morality is a contradiction: there\nis no such thing; for good and evil are the whole of morality: without\nthese species there is no morality.\n\n_Object._ II. It seems then you hold that there is nothing\nindifferent, which is a paradox.\n\n[Sidenote: Whether any things be indifferent?]\n\n_Answ._ No such matter: there are thousands and millions of things\nthat are indifferent; but they are things natural only, and not things\nmoral. They are indifferent as to moral good and evil, because they\nare neither; but they are not _indifferentia moralia_: the\nindifferency is a negation of any morality in them _in genere_, as\nwell as of both the species of morality.[50] Whatsoever participateth\nnot of virtue or vice, and is not eligible or refusable by a moral\nagent as such, hath no morality in it. There may be two words so equal\nas it may be indifferent which you speak; and two eggs so equal, as\nthat it may be indifferent which you eat; but that is no more than to\nsay, the choosing of one before the other is not _actus moralis_:\nthere is no matter of morality in the choice.\n\n_Object._ III. But if there may be things natural that are\nindifferent, why not things moral?\n\n_Answ._ As goodness is convertible with entity, there is no natural\nbeing but is good: as goodness signifieth commodity, there is nothing\nbut is profitable or hurtful, and that is good to one that is hurtful\nto another: but if it were not so, yet such goodness or badness is but\naccidental to natural being; but moral goodness and badness is the\nwhole essence of morality.\n\n_Object._ IV. But doth not the apostle say, \"He that marrieth doth\nwell, and he that marrieth not doth better?\" Therefore all is not sin\nwhich is not best.\n\n[Sidenote: Whether marrying be indifferent?]\n\n_Answ._ The question put to the apostle to decide, was about marrying\nor not marrying, as it belonged to all christians in general, and not\nas it belonged to this or that individual person by some special\nreason differently from others. And so in respect to the church in\ngeneral, the apostle determineth that there is no law binding them to\nmarry, or not to marry: for a law that is made for many must be suited\nto what is common to those many. Now marriage being good for one and\nnot for another, is not made the matter of a common law, nor is it fit\nto be so, and so far is left indifferent: but because that to most it\nwas rather a hinderance to good in those times of the church, than a\nhelp, therefore for the present necessity, the apostle calleth\nmarrying \"doing well,\" because it was not against any universal law,\nand it was a state that was suitable to some; but he calls not\nmarrying \"doing better,\" because it was then more ordinarily suited to\nthe ends of christianity. Now God maketh not a distinct law for every\nindividual person in the church; but one universal law for all: and\nthis being a thing variable according to the various cases of\nindividual persons, was unfit to be particularly determined by a\nuniversal law. But if the question had been only of any one individual\nperson, then the decision would have been thus: though marrying is a\nthing not directly commanded or forbidden, yet to some it is helpful\nas to moral ends, to some it is hurtful, and to some it is so equal or\nindifferent, that it is neither discernibly helpful nor hurtful; now\nby the general laws or rules of Scripture to them that _consideratis\nconsiderandis_ it is discernibly helpful, it is not indifferent, but a\nduty; to them that it is discernibly hurtful, it is not indifferent,\nbut a sin; to them that it is neither discernibly helpful or hurtful\nas to moral ends, it is indifferent, as being neither duty nor sin;\nfor it is not a thing of moral choice or nature at all. But the light\nof nature telleth us that God hath not left it indifferent to men to\nhinder themselves or to help themselves as to moral ends; else why\npray we, \"Lead us not into temptation?\" And marriage is so great a\nhelp to some, and so great a hurt to others, that no man can say that\nit is morally indifferent to all men in the world: and therefore that\nbeing none of the apostle's meaning, it followeth that his meaning is\nas aforesaid.\n\n_Object._ V. But there are many things indifferent in themselves,\nthough not as clothed with all their accidents and circumstances: and\nthese actions being good in their accidents, may be the matter of a\nvow.\n\n_Answ._ True, but those actions are commanded duties, and not things\nindifferent as so circumstantiated. It is very few actions in the\nworld that are made simply duties or sins, in their simple nature\nwithout their circumstances and accidents: the commonest matter of all\nGod's laws, is actions or dispositions which are good or evil in their\ncircumstances and accidents. Therefore I conclude, things wholly\nindifferent are not to be vowed.\n\n_Direct._ V. It is not every duty that is the matter of a lawful vow.\nElse you might have as many vows as duties: every good thought, and\nword, and deed might have a vow. And then every sin which you commit\nwould be accompanied and aggravated with the guilt of perjury. And no\nwise man would run his soul into such a snare. _Object._ But do we\nnot in baptism vow obedience to God? And doth not obedience contain\nevery particular duty? _Answ._ We vow sincere obedience, but not\nperfect obedience. We do not vow that we will never sin, nor neglect a\nduty (nor ought we to do so). So that as sincere obedience respecteth\nevery known duty as that which we shall practise in the bent of our\nlives, but not in perfect constancy or degree, so far our vow in\nbaptism hath respect to all known duties, but no further.\n\n_Direct._ VI. To make a vow lawful, besides the goodness of the thing\nwhich we vow, there must be a rational, discernible probability, that\nthe act of vowing it will do more good than hurt; and this to a wise,\nforeseeing judgment. For this vowing is not an ordinary worship to be\noffered to God (except the baptismal vow, renewed in the Lord's supper\nand at other seasons); but it is left as an extraordinary means, for\ncertain ends, which cannot by ordinary means be attained: and\ntherefore we must discern the season, by discerning the necessity or\nusefulness of it. Swearing is a part of the service of God, but not of\nhis daily worship, nor frequently and rashly to be used, by any that\nwould not be held guilty of taking the name of God in vain: and so it\nis in the case of vowing. Therefore he that will make a lawful vow,\nmust see beforehand, what is the probable benefit of it, and what is\nthe probable hurt or danger: and without this foresight it must be\nrash, and cannot be lawful. And therefore no one can make a lawful\nvow, but wise, foreseeing persons, and those that advise with such,\nand are guided by them, if they be not such themselves; unless in a\ncase where God hath prescribed by his own determining commands (as in\nthe covenant of christianity). Therefore to one man the same vow may\nbe a sin, that to another may be a duty; because one may have more\nreason for it, or necessity of it, and less danger by it, than\nanother. One man may foresee that vowing (in case where there is no\nnecessity) may insnare him either in perplexing doubts, or terrors,\nwhich will make all his life after more irregular or uncomfortable.\nAnother man may discern that he is liable to no such danger.[51]\n\n_Direct._ VII. No man should pretend danger or scruple against his\nrenewing the vow of christianity, or any one essential part of it;\nviz. To take God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost for my God, and\nSaviour, and Sanctifier, my Owner, Governor, and Father; renouncing\nthe devil, the world, and the flesh. Because there is an absolute\nnecessity, _pr\u00e6cepti et medii_, of performing this, and he that doth\nit not shall certainly be damned; and therefore no worse matter can\nstand up against it: he that denieth it, giveth up himself\ndespairingly to damnation. Yet I have heard many say, I dare not\npromise to turn to God, and live a holy life, lest I break this\npromise, and be worse than before. But dost thou not know, that it\nmust be both made and kept, if thou wilt be saved? Wilt thou choose to\nbe damned, for fear of worse? There is but one remedy for thy soul,\nand all the hope of thy salvation lieth upon that alone. And wilt thou\nrefuse that one, for fear lest thou cast it up and die? when thou\nshalt certainly die unless thou both take it, and keep it, and digest\nit.\n\n_Direct._ VIII. About particular sins and duties, deliberate\nresolutions are the ordinary means of governing our lives; and vows\nmust not be used where these will do the work without them. For\nextraordinary means must not be used, when ordinary will serve the\nturn. Nor must you needlessly draw a double guilt upon yourselves in\ncase of sinning. And in mutable or doubtful cases, a resolution may be\nchanged, when a vow cannot. Try therefore what deliberate resolutions\nwill do, with the help of other ordinary means, before you go any\nfurther.\n\n_Direct._ IX. When ordinary resolutions and other helps will not serve\nthe turn, to engage the will to the forbearance of a known sin, or the\nperformance of a known duty, but temptations are so strong as to bear\ndown all, then it is seasonable to bind ourselves by a solemn vow, so\nit be cautelously and deliberately done, and no greater danger like to\nfollow. In such a case of necessity, 1. You must deliberate on the\nbenefits and need. 2. You must foresee all the assaults that you are\nlike to have to tempt you to perjury, that they come not unexpected.\n3. You must join the use of all other means for the keeping of your\nvows.\n\n_Direct._ X. Make not a law and religion to yourselves by your\nvoluntary vows, which God never made you by his authority; nor bind\nyourselves for futurity to all that is a duty at present, where it is\npossible that the change of things may change your duty. God is our\nKing and Governor, and not we ourselves: it is not we, but he, that\nmust give laws to us. We have work enough to do of his appointing; we\nneed not make more to ourselves, as if he had not given us enough.\nVows are not to make us new duties or religions, but to further us in\nthe obedience of that which our Lord hath imposed on us. It is a\nself-condemning sin of foolish will-worshippers, to be busy in laying\nmore burdens on themselves, when they know they cannot do so much as\nGod requireth of them. Yea, some of them murmur at God's laws as too\nstrict, and at the observers of them as too precise, (though they come\nfar short of what is their duty,) and yet will be cutting out more\nwork for themselves.\n\nAnd it is not enough that what you vow be your duty at the present,\nbut you must bind yourselves to it by vows no longer than it shall\nremain your duty. It may be your duty at the present to live a single\nlife; but if you will vow therefore that you will never marry, you may\nbind yourselves to that which may prove your sin: you know not what\nalterations may befall you in your body or estate, that may invite you\nto it. Are you sure that no change shall make it necessary to you? Or\nwill you presume to bind God himself by your vows, that he shall make\nno such alteration? Or if you were never so confident of your own\nunchangeableness, you know not what fond and violent affections\nanother may be possessed with, which may make an alteration in your\nduty. At the present it may be your duty to live retiredly, and avoid\nmagistracy and public employments: but you may not vow it therefore\nfor continuance; for you know not but God may make such alterations,\nas may make it so great and plain a duty, as without flat impiety or\ncruelty, you cannot refuse. Perhaps at the present it may be your duty\nto give half your yearly revenues to charitable and pious uses: but\nyou must not therefore vow it for continuance (without some special\ncause to warrant it); for perhaps the next year it may be your duty to\ngive but a fourth or a tenth part, or none at all, according as the\nprovidence of God shall dispose of your estate and you. Perhaps God\nmay impose a clear necessity on you, of using your estate some other\nway.\n\n_Direct._ XI. If you be under government, you may not lawfully vow\nwithout your governors' consent, to do any thing which you may not\nlawfully do without their consent, in case you had not vowed it. For\nthat were, 1. Actually to disobey them at the present, by making a vow\nwithout the direction and consent of your governors. 2. And thereby to\nbind yourselves to disobey them for the future, by doing that without\nthem, which you should not do without them. But if it be a thing that\nyou may do, or must do, though your governors forbid you, then you may\nvow it though they forbid you (if you have a call from the necessity\nof the vow).\n\n_Direct._ XII. If oaths be commanded us by usurpers that have no\nauthority to impose them, we must not take them in formal obedience to\ntheir commands. For that were to own their usurpation and encourage\nthem in their sin. If we owe them no obedience in any thing, we must\nnot obey them in so great a thing: or if they have some authority over\nus in other matters, but none in this, (as a constable hath no power\nto give an oath,) we must not obey them in the point where they have\nno authority. But yet it is possible that there may be other reasons\nthat may make it our duty to do it, though not as an act of formal\nobedience: as I may take an oath when a thief or murderer requireth\nit, not to obey him, but to save my life. And if any man command me to\ndo that which God commandeth me, I must do it, because God commandeth\nit.\n\n_Direct._ XIII. If a lawful magistrate impose an oath or vow upon you,\nbefore you take it you must consult with God, and know that it is not\nagainst his will. God must be first obeyed in all things; but\nespecially in matters of so great moment, as vows and promises.\n\n_Quest._ I. What if I be in doubt whether the oath or promise imposed\nbe lawful? must I take it, or not? If I take an oath which I judge\nunlawful or false, I am a perjured or profane despiser of God: and if\na man must refuse all oaths or promises, which the magistrate\ncommandeth, if he do but doubt whether they be lawful, then government\nand justice will be injured, while every man that hath ignorance\nenough to make him dubious, shall refuse all oaths and promises of\nallegiance, or for witness to the truth.\n\n_Answ._ I. I shall tell you what others say first in the case of\ndoubting. Dr. Sanderson saith, Pr\u00e6lect. iii. sect. 10, p. 74, 75,\n_Tertius casus est cum quis juramento pollicetur se facturum aliquid\nin se fortassis licitum, quod tamen ipse putat esse illicitum. Ut\nsiquis ante h\u00e6c tempora admittendus ad beneficium (ut vocant)\necclesiasticum, promisisset in publicis sacris observare omnes ritus\nlegibus ecclesiasticis imperatos; vestem scilicet lineam, crucis\nsignum ad sacrum fontem, ingeniculationem in percipiendis symbolis in\nsacra c\u0153na, et id genus alios; quos ipse tamen ex aliquo levi\nprejudicio putaret esse superstitiosos et papisticos: qu\u00e6ritur in hoc\ncasu qu\u00e6 sit obligatio? Pro Resp. dico tria: Dico_ 1. _Non posse tale\njuramentum durante tali errore sine gravi peccato suscipi. Peccat enim\ngraviter qui contra conscientiam peccat, etsi erroneam. Judicium enim\nintellectus cum sit unicuique proxima agendi regula; voluntas, si\njudicium illud non sequatur, deficiens a regula sua, necesse est ut in\nobliquum feratur. Tritum est illud, Qui facit contra conscientiam\n\u00e6dificat ad gehennam. Sane qui jurat in id quod putat esse illicitum,\nnihilominus juraturus esset, si esset revera illicitum: atque ita res\nilla, ut ut alii licita, est tamen ipsi illicita: sententiam ferente\napostolo, Rom._ xiv. 14, _&c._ _Dico_ 2. _Tale juramentum non\nobligare, &c._---- That is, The third case is, when a man promiseth\nby oath that he will do a thing which in itself perhaps is lawful, but\nhe thinketh to be unlawful: as if one before these times being to be\nadmitted to an ecclesiastical benefice, (as they call it,) had\npromised, that in public worship he would observe all the rites\ncommanded in the ecclesiastic laws, to wit, the surplice, the sign of\nthe cross at the sacred font, kneeling in the receiving of the symbols\nin the holy supper, and others the like; which yet out of some light\nprejudice, he thought to be superstitious and papistical. The question\nis, what obligation there is in this case? For answer I say three\nthings: 1. I say that an oath, while such an error lasteth, cannot be\ntaken without grievous sin; for he grievously sinneth, who sinneth\nagainst his conscience, although it be erroneous. For when the\njudgment of the intellect is to every man the nearest rule of action,\nit must be that the will is carried into obliquity, if it follow not\nthat judgment, as swerving from its rule. It is a common saying, He\nthat doth against his conscience, buildeth unto hell: verily he that\nsweareth to that which he thinketh to be unlawful, would nevertheless\nswear if it were indeed unlawful. And so the thing, though lawful to\nanother, is to him unlawful, the apostle passing the sentence, Rom.\nxiv. 14, &c. 2. I say, that such an oath bindeth not, &c.---- Of the\nobligation I shall speak anon;[52] but of the oath or promise, I think\nthe truth lieth here as followeth.\n\n1. The question _de esse_ must first be resolved, before the question\nof knowing or opinion. Either the thing is really lawful which is\ndoubted of, or denied, or it is not. If it be not, then it is a sin to\nswear or promise to it; and here there is no case of error. But if it\nbe really lawful, and the vowing of it lawful, then the obligations\nthat lie upon this man are these, and in this order: (1.) To have a\nhumble suspicion of his own understanding. (2.) To search, and learn,\nand use all means to discern it to be what it is. (3.) In the use of\nthese means to acknowledge the truth. (4.) And then to promise and\nobey accordingly. Now this being his duty, and the order of his duty,\nyou cannot say that he is not obliged to any one part of it, though he\nbe obliged to do it all in this order, and therefore not to do the\nlast first, without the former: for though you question an hundred\ntimes, What shall he do as long as he cannot see the truth? the law of\nGod is still the same; and his error doth not disoblige him: _Nemini\ndebetur commodum ex sua culpa_. So many of these acts as he omitteth,\nso much he sinneth. It is his sin if he obey not the magistrate; and\nit is his sin that he misjudgeth of the thing; and his sin that he\ndoth not follow the use of the means till he be informed. So that his\nerring conscience entangleth him in a necessity of sinning; but\ndisobligeth him not at all from his obedience. 2. But yet this is\ncertain, that in such a case, he that will swear because man biddeth\nhim, when he taketh it to be false, is a perjured, profane despiser of\nGod; but he that forbeareth to swear for fear of sinning against God,\nis guilty only of a pardonable, involuntary weakness.\n\n_Direct._ XIV. Take heed lest the secret prevalency of carnal ends or\ninterest, and of fleshly wisdom, do bias your judgment, and make you\nstretch your consciences to take those vows or promises, which\notherwise you would judge unlawful, and refuse. Never good cometh by\nfollowing the reasonings and interest of the flesh, even in smaller\nmatters; much less in cases of such great importance. Men think it\nfitteth them at the present, and doth the business which they feel\nmost urgent; but it payeth them home with troubles and perplexities\nat the last: it is but like a draught of cold water in a fever. You\nhave some present char to do, or some strait to pass through, in which\nyou think that such an oath, or promise, or profession would much\naccommodate you; and therefore you venture on it, perhaps to your\nperdition. It is a foolish course to cure the parts (yea, the more\nignoble parts) with the neglect and detriment of the whole: it is but\nlike those that cure the itch by anointing themselves with\nquicksilver; which doth the char for them, and sendeth them after to\ntheir graves, or casteth them into some far worse disease. Remember\nhow deceitful a thing the heart is, and how subtly such poison of\ncarnal ends will insinuate itself. Oh how many thousands hath this\nundone! that before they are aware, have their wills first charmed and\ninclined to the forbidden thing, and fain would have it to be lawful;\nand then have brought themselves to believe it lawful, and so to\ncommit the sin; and next to defend it, and next to become the\nchampions of Satan, to fight his battles, and vilify and abuse them,\nthat by holy wisdom and tenderness have kept themselves from the\ndeceit.\n\n\n_Tit. 2. Directions against Perjury and Perfidiousness: Land for\nkeeping Vows and Oaths._\n\n_Direct._ I. Be sure that you have just apprehension of the greatness\nof the sin of perjury.[53] Were it seen of men in its proper shape, it\nwould more affright them from it than a sight of the devil himself\nwould do. I shall show it you in part in these particulars.\n\n[Sidenote: The heinousness of perjury.]\n\n1. It containeth a lie, and hath all the malignity in it which I\nbefore showed to be in lying, with much more. 2. Perjury is a denial\nor contempt of God. He that appealeth to his judgment by an oath, and\ndoth this in falsehood,[54] doth show that either he believeth not\nthat there is a God,[55] or that he believeth not that he is the\nrighteous Governor of the world, who will justly determine all the\ncauses that belong to his tribunal. The perjured person doth as it\nwere bid defiance to God, and setteth him at nought, as one that is\nnot able to be avenged on him. 3. Perjury is a calling for the\nvengeance of God against yourselves. You invite God to plague you, as\nif you bid him do his worst: you appeal to him for judgment in your\nguilt, and you shall find that he will not hold you guiltless.\nImprecations against yourselves are implied in your oaths: he that\nsweareth doth say in effect, Let God judge and punish me as a perjured\nwretch, if I speak not the truth. And it is a dreadful thing to fall\ninto the hands of the living God, for vengeance is his and he will\nrecompence, Heb. x. 30, 31: and when he judgeth the wicked, \"he is a\nconsuming fire,\" Heb. xii. 29. 4. Perjury and perfidiousness are sins\nthat leave the conscience no ease of an extenuation or excuse; but it\nis so heinous a villany, that it is the seed of self-tormenting\ndesperation. Some sins conscience can make shift a while to hide, by\nsaying, It is a controversy; and, Many wise men are of another mind;\nbut perjury is a sin which heathens and infidels bear as free a\ntestimony against (in their way) as christians do. Some sins are\nshifted off by saying, They are little ones. But[56] christians and\nheathens are agreed that perjury is a sin almost as great as the devil\ncan teach his servants to commit. Saith Plutarch,[57] He that\ndeceiveth his enemy by an oath, doth confess thereby, that he feareth\nhis enemy, and despiseth God. Saith Cicero, The penalty of perjury is\ndestruction from God, and shame from man. Saith Q. Curtius,\nPerfidiousness is a crime which no merits can mitigate. Read Cicero de\nOffic. lib. iii. Saith Aristotle, He that will extenuate an oath, must\nsay, that those villanous wretches that think God seeth not, do think\nalso to go away with their perjury unpunished. In a word, the heathens\ncommonly take the revenge of perjury to belong in so special a manner\nto the gods, that they conclude that man, and usually his posterity,\nto be destinated to ruin, that is perjured and perfidious: insomuch\nthat it is written[58] of Agesilaus and many others, that when their\nenemies were perjured, and broke their covenants, they took it for a\nsign of victory, and the best prognostic of their success against\nthem. Plutarch recordeth this story of Clemens, that having made a\ntruce for seven days with the Argives, he set upon them, and killed\nand took many of them in the night; and when he was charged with\nperfidiousness, answered, I made not a truce with them for seven\nnights, but for seven days. But the women fetched arms out of the\ntemples of the gods, and repulsed him with shame, and he ran mad, and\nwith his sword did mangle his own body, and died in a most hideous\nmanner. When conscience is awakened to see such a sin as perjury, no\nwonder if such run mad, or hang themselves; as perfidious Ahithophel\nand Judas did. No doubt but everlasting horror and desperation will be\nthe end of such, if true conversion do not prevent it. 5. It is a sin\nthat ruineth families and societies,[59] like fire that being kindled\nin the thatch, never stoppeth till it have consumed all the house.\nThough \"the curse of the Lord is in the house of the wicked, but he\nblesseth the habitation of the just,\" Prov. iii. 33; yet among all the\nwicked, there are few so commonly marked out with their families to\nshame and ruin, as the perjured. Whatever nation is stigmatized with a\n_fides Punica vel Gr\u00e6ca_, with the brand of perjury, it is not only\ntheir greatest infamy, but, like \"Lord, have mercy on us\" written on\nyour doors, a sign of a destroying plague within.[60] Saith Silius,\n\n    Non illi domus aut conjux aut vita manebit\n    Unquam expers luctus, lachrym\u00e6que: aget \u00e6quore semper\n    Ac tellure premens; aget \u00e6grum nocte dieque;\n    Despecta ac violata fides--\n\nSaith Claudian,\n\n    In prolem dilatarunt perjuria patris,\n    Et p\u0153nam merito filius ore luit.--\n\nSo Tibullus,\n\n    Ah miser: et siquis primo perjuria celat,\n    Sera tamen tacitus p\u0153na venit pedibus.\n\nSaith Pausanias, The fraud that is committed by perjury, falleth upon\nposterity. 6. Perjury and perfidiousness are virtually treason,\nrebellion, and murder against kings and magistrates, and no more to\nbe favoured in a kingdom, by a king that loveth his life and safety,\nthan the plague in a city, or poison to the body. _Tristissimum et\ndomesticum regibus omnibus pharmacum, liberorum, amicorum et exercitus\nperfidia_, saith Appian. What security have princes of their crowns,\nor lives, where oaths and covenants seem not obligatory? There is then\nnothing left but fear of punishment to restrain the violence of any\none that would do them mischief; and craft or strength will easily\nbreak the bonds of fear. He that would dissolve the bond of oaths, and\nteach men to make light of perjury, is no more to be endured in a\nkingdom, than he that openly inviteth the subjects to kill their king,\nor rise up in rebellion against him. If he that breaketh the least of\nGod's commands, and teacheth men so to do, shall be called least in\nthe kingdom of God, Matt. v. 19, then surely he that breaketh the\ngreat commands by the most odious sin of perjury, and teacheth men so\nto do, should neither be great, nor any thing, in the kingdoms of men.\n7. Perjury is the poison of all societies, and of friendship, and of\nhuman converse, and turneth all into a state of enmity, or hostility,\nand teacheth all men to live together like foes. He that is not to be\nbelieved when he sweareth, is never to be believed: and when oaths and\ncovenants signify nothing, and no man can believe another, what are\nthey but as so many foes to one another? How can there be any\nrelations of governors and subjects? of husband and wife? of master\nand servants? or how can there be any trading or commerce, when there\nis no trust? Perjury dissolveth all societies by loosening all the\nbonds of association. Well might Dionys. Halic. lib. iii. say, The\nperfidious are far worse than open enemies, and worthy of far greater\npunishment. For a man may more easily avoid the ambushments of foes,\nand repel their assaults, than escape the perfidiousness of seeming\nfriends. Saith Val. Max. lib. ix. c. 6, Perfidiousness is a hidden and\ninsnaring mischief; whose effectual force is in lying and deceiving:\nits fruit consisteth in some horrid villany; which is ripe and sure\nwhen it hath compassed cruelty with wicked hands; bringing as great\nmischief to mankind, as fidelity bringeth good and safety. He that\nteacheth the doctrine of perjury and perfidiousness, doth bid every\nman shift for himself, and trust no more his friend or neighbour, but\nall take heed of one another, as so many serpents or wild beasts.\nLions and bears may better be suffered to live loose among men, than\nthose that teach men to make light of oaths. 8. Thus also it\ndestroyeth personal love, and teacheth all men to be haters of each\nother: for it can be no better when men become such hateful creatures\nto each other, as not at all to be credited or sociably conversed\nwith. 9. Perjury and perfidiousness do proclaim men deplorate; and\nstigmatize them with this character, that they are persons that will\nstick at the committing of no kind of villany in the world, further\nthan their fleshly interest hindereth them. No charity bindeth a man\nto think that he will make conscience of murder, rebellion, deceit,\nadultery, or any imaginable wickedness, who maketh no conscience of\nperjury and perfidiousness. Such a person alloweth you to judge that\nif the temptation serve, he will do any thing that the devil bids\nhim: and that he is virtually a compound of all iniquity, and\nprepared for every evil work. 10. Lastly, as perjury doth thus\ndissolve societies, and turn mankind into enmity with each other, so\nit would make the misery uncurable, by making even penitents\nincredible. Who will believe him, even while he professeth to repent,\nthat hath showed that when he sweareth he is not to be believed? He\nthat dare forswear himself, dare lie when he pretendeth repentance for\nhis perjury. It must be some deeds that are more credible than words\nand oaths, that must recover the credit of such a man's professions.\nIf perjury have violated any relations, it leaveth the breach almost\nuncurable, because no professions of repentance or future fidelity can\nbe trusted. Thus I have partly showed you the malignity of perjury and\ncovenant-breaking.\n\n_Direct._ II. Be sure that you make no vow or covenant which God hath\nforbidden you to keep. It is rash vowing and swearing which is the\ncommon cause of perjury. You should, at the making of your vow, have\nseen into the bottom of it, and foreseen all the evils that might\nfollow it, and the temptations which were like to draw you into\nperjury. He is virtually perjured as soon as he hath sworn, who\nsweareth to do that which he must not do; the preventive means are\nhere the best.\n\n_Direct._ III. Be sure you take no oath or vow which you are not\nsincerely resolved to perform.[61] They that swear or vow with a\nsecret reserve, that rather than they will be ruined by keeping it,\nthey will break it, are habitually and reputatively perjured persons,\neven before they break it; besides that, they show a base,\nhypocritical, profligate conscience, that can deliberately commit so\ngreat a sin.\n\n_Direct._ IV. See that all fleshly, worldly interest be fully subdued\nto the interest of your souls, and to the will of God. He that at the\nheart sets more by his body than his soul, and loveth his worldly\nprosperity above God, will lie, or swear, or forswear, or do any thing\nto save that carnal interest which he most valueth. He that is carnal\nand worldly at the heart, is false at the heart; the religion of such\na hypocrite will give place to his temporal safety or commodity, and\nwill carry him no further than the way is fair. It is no wonder that a\nproud man, or a worldling, will renounce both God and his true\nfelicity for the world, seeing indeed he taketh it for his god and his\nfelicity; even as a believer will renounce the world for God.[62]\n\n_Direct._ V. Beware of inordinate fear of man, and of a distrustful\nwithdrawing of your heart from God. Else you will be carried to comply\nwith the will of man before the will of God, and to avoid the wrath of\nman before the wrath of God. Read and fear that heavy curse, Jer.\nxvii. 5, 6. God is unchangeable, and hath commanded you so far to\nimitate him, as \"If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to\nbind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word; he shall do\naccording to all that proceedeth out of his mouth,\" Numb. xxx. 2. But\nman is mutable, and so is his interest and his affairs; and therefore\nif you are the servants of men, you must swear one year, and forswear\nit, or swear the contrary, the next: when their interest requireth it,\nyou must not be thought worthy to live among men, if you will not\npromise or swear as they command you; and when their interest\naltereth and requireth the contrary, you must hold all those bonds to\nbe but straws, and break them for their ends.\n\n_Direct._ VI. Be sure that you lose not the fear of God, and the\ntenderness of your consciences. When these are lost, your\nunderstanding, and sense, and life are lost; and you will not stick at\nthe greatest wickedness; nor know when you have done it, what you did.\nIf faith see not God continually present, and foresee not the great\napproaching day, perjury or any villany will seem tolerable, for\nworldly ends: for when you look but to men's present case, you will\nsee that \"the righteous and the wise, and their works, are in the\nhands of God; no man knoweth love or hatred by all that is before\nthem. All things come alike to all; there is one event to the\nrighteous, and to the wicked; to the good, and to the clean, and to\nthe unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not:\nas is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that\nfeareth an oath,\" Eccles. ix. 1, 2. But in the end, men \"shall discern\nbetween the righteous and the wicked,\" Mal. iii. 18. Therefore it is\nthe believing foresight of the end, that by preserving the fear of God\nand tenderness of conscience, must save you from this, and all other\nheinous sin.\n\n_Direct._ VII. Be not bold and rash about such dreadful things as\nvows. Run not as fearlessly upon them as if you were but going to your\ndinner; the wrath of God is not to be jested with. _Usque ad aras_,\nwas the bounds even of a heathen's kindness to his friend. Meddle with\noaths with the greatest fear, and caution, and circumspection. It is\nterrible here to find that you were mistaken, through any temerity, or\nnegligence, or secret seduction of a carnal interest.\n\n_Direct._ VIII. Especially be very fearful of owning any public\ndoctrine, or doing any public act, which tendeth to harden others in\ntheir perjury, or to encourage multitudes to commit the sin.[63] To be\nforsworn yourselves is a dreadful case; but to teach whole nations or\nchurches to forswear themselves, or to plead for it, or justify it as\na lawful thing, is much more dreadful. And though you teach not or own\nnot perjury under the name of perjury, yet if first you will make\nplain perjury to seem no perjury, that so you may justify it, it is\nstill a most inhuman, horrid act. God knoweth I insult not over the\npapists, with a delight to make any christians odious! but with grief\nI remember how lamentably they have abused our holy profession, while\nnot only their great doctors, but their approved general council at\nthe Lateran under Pope Innocent the Third, in the third canon hath\ndecreed that the pope may depose temporal lords from their dominions,\nand give them unto others, and discharge their vassals from their\nallegiance and fidelity, if they be heretics, or will not exterminate\nheretics (even such as the holy men there condemned were, in the\npope's account). To declare to many christian nations, that it is\nlawful to break their oaths and promises to their lawful lords and\nrulers, or their vows to God, and to undertake, by defending or owning\nthis, to justify all those nations that shall be guilty of this\nperjury and perfidiousness, oh what a horrid crime is this! what a\nshame even unto human nature! and how great a wrong to the christian\nname!\n\n_Direct._ IX. Understand and remember these following rules, to\nacquaint you how far a vow is obligatory: which I shall give you for\nthe most part out of Dr. Sanderson, because his decisions of these\ncases are now of best esteem.\n\n_Rule_ I. The general rule laid down Numb. xxx. 2, 3, doth make a vow,\nas such, to be obligatory, though the party should have a secret\nequivocation or intent, that though he speak the words to deceive\nanother, yet he will not oblige himself. Such a reserve not to oblige\nhimself hindereth not the obligation, but proveth him a perfidious\nhypocrite. Dr. Sanderson, p. 23, _Juramentum omne ex sua natura est\nobligatorium: ita ut si quis juret non intendens se obligare,\nnihilominus tamen suscipiendo juramentum ipso facto obligetur_: that\nis, If he so far understand what he doth, as that his words may bear\nthe definition of an oath or vow; otherwise if he speak the words of\nan oath in a strange language, thinking they signify something else,\nor if he speak in his sleep, or deliration, or distraction, it is no\noath, and so not obligatory.\n\n_Rule_ II. Those conditions are to be taken as intended in all oaths,\n(whether expressed or no,) which the very nature of the thing doth\nnecessarily imply[64] (unless any be so brutish as to express the\ncontrary). And these are all reducible to two heads: 1. A natural,\nand, 2. A moral impossibility. 1. Whoever sweareth to do any thing, or\ngive any thing, is supposed to mean, If I live; and if I be not\ndisabled in my body, faculties, estate; if God make it not impossible\nto be, &c. For no man can be supposed to mean, I will do it whether\nGod will or not, and whether I live or not, and whether I be able or\nnot. 2. Whoever voweth or sweareth to do any thing, must be understood\nto mean it, If no change of providence make it a sin; or if I find\nnot, contrary to my present supposition, that God forbiddeth it. For\nno man that is a christian is to be supposed to mean when he voweth, I\nwill do this, though God forbid it, or though it prove to be a sin;\nespecially when men therefore vow it, because they take it to be a\nduty. Now as that which is sinful is morally impossible, so there are\ndivers ways by which a thing may appear or become sinful to us. (1.)\nWhen we find it forbidden directly in the word of God, which at first\nwe understood not. (2.) When the change of things doth make that a\nsin, which before was a duty; of which may be given an hundred\ninstances; as when the change of a man's estate, of his opportunities,\nof his liberty, of his parts and abilities, of objects, of customs, of\nthe laws of civil governors, doth change the very matter of his duty.\n\n_Quest._ But will every change disoblige us? If not, what change must\nit be? seeing casuists use to put it as a condition in general, _rebus\nsic stantibus_. _Answ._ No: it is not every change of things that\ndisobligeth us from the bonds of a vow. For then vows were of no\nconsiderable signification. But, 1. If the very matter that was vowed,\nor about which the vow was, do cease, _cessante materia, cessat\nobligatio_:[65] as if I promise to teach a pupil, I am disobliged when\nhe is dead. If I promise to pay so much money in gold, and the king\nshould forbid gold and change his coin, I am not obliged to it. 2.\n_Cessante termino vel correlato, cessat obligatio_: If the party die\nto whom I am bound, my personal obligation ceaseth. And so the\nconjugal bond ceaseth at death, and civil bonds by civil death. 3.\n_Cessante fine, cessat obligatio_: If the use and end wholly cease, my\nobligation, which was only to that use and end, ceaseth. As if a\nphysician promise to give physic for nothing for the cure of the\nplague, to all the poor of the city; when the plague ceaseth, his end,\nand so his obligation, ceaseth. 4. _Cessante persona naturali relata,\ncessat obligatio personalis_: When the natural person dieth, the\nobligation ceaseth. I cannot be obliged to do that when I am dead,\nwhich is proper to the living. The subject of the obligation ceasing,\nthe accidents must cease. 5. _Cessante relatione vel persona civili,\ncessat obligatio talis, qua talis_: The obligation which lay on a\nperson in any relation merely as such, doth cease when that relation\nceaseth. A king is not bound to govern or protect his subjects if they\ntraitorously depose him, or if he cast them off, and take another\nkingdom (as when Henry III. of France left the kingdom of Poland): nor\nare subjects bound to allegiance and obedience to him that is not\nindeed their king. A judge, or justice, or constable, or tutor, is no\nlonger bound by his oath to do the offices of these relations, than he\ncontinueth in the relation. A divorced wife is not bound by her\nconjugal vow to her husband as before, nor masters and servants, when\ntheir relations cease; nor a soldier to his general by his military\nsacrament, when the army is disbanded, or he is cashiered or\ndismissed.\n\n_Rule_ III. No vows or promises of our own can dissolve the obligation\nlaid upon us by the law of God. For we have no co-ordinate, much less\nsuperior authority over ourselves; our self-obligations are but for\nthe furthering of our obedience.\n\n_Rule_ IV. Therefore no vows can disoblige a man from any present\nduty, nor justify him in the committing of any sin. Vows are to engage\nus to God, and not against him: if the matter which we vow be evil, it\nis a sin to vow it, and a sin to do it upon pretence of a vow. Sin is\nno acceptable sacrifice to God.\n\n_Rule_ V. If I vow that I will do some duty better, I am not thereby\ndisobliged from doing it at all, when I am disabled from doing it\nbetter.[66] Suppose a magistrate, seeing much amiss in church and\ncommonwealth, doth vow a reformation, and vow against the abuses which\nhe findeth; if now the people's obstinacy and rebellion disable him to\nperform that vow, it doth not follow that he must lay down his\nsceptre, and cease to govern them at all, because he cannot do it as\nhe ought, if he were free. So if the pastors of any church do vow the\nreformation of church abuses, in their places, if they be hindered by\ntheir rulers, or by the people, it doth not follow that they must lay\ndown their callings, and not worship God publicly at all, because they\ncannot do it as they would, and ought if they were free; as long as\nthey may worship him without committing any sin. God's first\nobligation on me is to worship him, and the second for the manner, to\ndo it as near his order as I can: now if I cannot avoid the\nimperfections of worship, though I vowed it, I must not therefore\navoid the worship itself (as long as corruptions destroy not the very\nnature of it, and I am put myself upon no actual sin). For I was bound\nto worship God before my vows, and in order of nature before my\nobligation _de modo_: and my vow was made with an implied condition,\nthat the thing were possible and lawful: and when that ceaseth to be\npossible or lawful which I vowed, I must, nevertheless, do that which\nstill remaineth possible and lawful. To give over God's solemn worship\nwith the church, is no reformation. To prefer no worship before\nimperfect worship, is a greater deformation and corruption, than to\nprefer imperfect worship before that which is more perfect. And to\nprefer a worship imperfect in the manner, before no church worship at\nall, is a greater reformation than to prefer a more perfect manner of\nworship before a more imperfect and defective. To worship God decently\nand in order, supposeth that he must be worshipped; and he that doth\nnot worship at all, doth not worship him decently. If a physician vow\nthat he will administer a certain effectual antidote to all his\npatients that have the plague, and that he will not administer a\ncertain less effectual preparation, which some apothecaries, through\ncovetousness or carelessness, had brought into common use, to the\ninjury of the sick; his vow is to be interpreted with these\nexceptions: I will do it if I can, without dishonesty or a greater\nmischief: I will not administer the sophisticated antidote when I can\nhave better: I vow this for my patients' benefit, and not for their\ndestruction. Therefore if the sophisticated antidote is much better\nthan none, and may save men's lives, and the patients grow wilful and\nwill take no other, or authority forbid the use of any other, the\nphysician is neither bound to forsake his calling rather than use it,\nnor to neglect the life of his patients (if their lives indeed lie\nupon his care, and they may not be in some good hopes without him, and\nthe good of many require him not to neglect a few). But he must do\nwhat he can, when he cannot do what he would, and only show that he\nconsenteth not to the sophistication.\n\n_Rule_ VI. Though he that voweth a lawful thing, must be understood to\nmean, if it continue possible and lawful; yet if he himself be the\nculpable cause that afterwards it becometh impossible or unlawful, he\nviolateth his vow. He that voweth to give so much to the poor, and\nafter prodigally wasteth it, and hath it not to give, doth break his\nvow; which he doth not if fire or thieves deprive him of it against\nhis will. He that voweth to preach the gospel, if he cut out his own\ntongue, or culpably procure another to imprison, silence, or hinder\nhim, doth break his vow; which he did not if the hinderance were\ninvoluntary and insuperable: consent doth make the impedition his own\nact.\n\n_Rule_ VII. In the taking and keeping of oaths and vows we must deal\nsimply and openly without equivocation and deceit.[67] Psal. xxiv.\n3-5, \"Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand\nin his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who\nhath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. He\nshall receive the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the\nGod of his salvation.\"\n\n_Rule_ VIII. He that juggleth or stretcheth his conscience by\nfraudulent shifts and interpretations afterwards, is as bad as he that\ndissembleth in the taking of the oath. To break it by deceit, is as\nbad as to take it in deceit. Psal. xv. 1, 4, \"Lord, who shall abide in\nthy tabernacle--he that sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not.\"\nSaith Dr. Sanderson,[68] _Ista mihi aut non cogitare_, &c. \"It seemeth\nto me that the greater part of the men of these times either think\nnot of these things, or at least not seriously; who fear not, at large\nand in express words, without going about, to swear to all that,\nwhatever it be, which is proposed to them by those that have power to\nhurt them: yea, and they take themselves for the only wise men, and\nnot without some disdain deride the simplicity and needless fear of\nthose, that lest they hurt their consciences forsooth, do seek a knot\nin a rush, and oppose the forms prescribed by those that have power to\nprescribe them. And in the mean time they securely free themselves\nfrom all crime and fear of perjury, and think they have looked well to\nthemselves and their consciences, if either when they swear, like\nJesuits, they can defend themselves by the help of some tacit\nequivocation, or mental reservation, or subtle interpretation which is\nstrained and utterly alien from the words; or else after they have\nsworn can find some thing to slip through, some cunning evasion, as a\nwise remedy, by which they may so elude their oath, as that keeping\nthe words, the sense may by some sophism be eluded, and all the force\nof it utterly enervated. The ancient christians knew not this\ndivinity, nor the sounder heathens this moral philosophy. For\notherwise saith Augustine, They are perjured, who keeping the words,\ndeceive the expectation of those they swear to: and otherwise saith\nCicero,\" &c. He goeth on to confirm it at large by argument.\n\n_Rule_ IX. An oath is to be taken and interpreted strictly. Sanderson\nsaith,[69] _Juramenti obligatio est stricti juris_; that is, _non ut\nexcludat juris interpretationem \u00e6quitate temperatam; sed ut excludat\njuris interpretationem gratia corruptam_: \"not as excluding an\nequitable interpretation, but as excluding an interpretation corrupted\nby partiality:\" that it be a just interpretation, between the extremes\nof rigid, and favourable or partial; and in doubtful cases it is safer\nto follow the strict, than the benign or favourable sense. It is\ndangerous stretching and venturing too far in matters of so sacred a\nnature, and of such great importance as vows and oaths.\n\n_Rule_ X. In the exposition of such doubtful oaths and vows, 1. We\nmust specially watch against self-interest or commodity, that it\ncorrupt not our understandings. 2. And we must not take our oaths or\nany part of them in such a sense, as a pious, prudent stander-by that\nis impartial, and no whit interested in the business, cannot easily\nfind in the words themselves.[70]\n\n_Rule_ XI. In doubtful cases the greatest danger must be most\ncarefully avoided, and the safer side preferred: but the danger of the\nsoul by perjury is the greatest, and therefore no bodily danger should\nso carefully be avoided: and therefore an oath that in the common and\nobvious sense seemeth unlawful should not be taken, unless there be\nvery full evidence that it hath another sense. Sand. p. 46, _Nititur\nautem_, &c. This reason leaneth on that general and most useful rule,\nthat in doubtful cases we must follow the safer side: but it is safer\nnot to swear, where the words of the oath proposed, do seem according\nto the common and obvious sense of the words to contain in them\nsomething unlawful; than by a loose interpretation so to lenify them\nfor our own ends, that we may the more securely swear them. For it is\nplain that such an oath may be refused without the peril of perjury;\nbut not that it can be taken without some danger or fear. The same\nrule must guide us also in keeping vows.\n\n_Rule_ XII. It is ordinarily resolved that imposed oaths must be kept\naccording to the sense of the imposer. See Sanders. p. 191, 192. But I\nconceive that assertion must be more exactly opened and bounded. 1.\nWhere justice requireth that we have respect to the will or right of\nthe imposer, there the oath imposed must be taken in his sense; but\nwhether it must be kept in his sense is further to be considered. 2.\nWhen I have done my best to understand the sense of the imposer in\ntaking the oath, and yet mistake it, and so take it (without fraud) in\nanother sense, the question then is somewhat hard, whether I must keep\nit in the sense I took it in, or in his sense, which then I understood\nnot. If I must not keep it in my own sense, which I took it in, then\nit would follow that I must keep another oath, and not that which I\ntook: for it is the sense that is the oath. And I never obliged myself\nto any thing, but according to my own sense: and yet on the other\nside, if every man may take oaths in their private sense, then oaths\nwill not attain their ends, nor be any security to the imposers.\n\nIn this case you must carefully distinguish between the formal\nobligation of the oath or vow as such, and the obligation of justice\nto my neighbour which is a consequent of my vow. And for the former I\nconceive (with submission) that an oath or vow cannot bind me,\nformally as such, in any sense but my own in which _bona fide_ I took\nit. Because formally an oath cannot bind me which I never took: but I\nnever took that which I never meant, nor thought of; if you so define\nan oath as to take in the sense, which is the soul of it.\n\nBut then in regard of the consequential obligation in point of justice\nunto man, the question I think must be thus resolved: 1. We must\ndistinguish between a lawful imposer or contractor, and a violent\nusurper or robber that injuriously compelleth us to swear. 2. Between\nthe obvious, usual sense of the words, and an unusual, forced sense.\n3. Between a sincere, involuntary misunderstanding the imposer, and a\nvoluntary, fraudulent reservation or private sense. 4. Between one\nthat I owe something to antecedently, and one that I owe nothing to\nbut by the mere self-obligation of my vow. 5. Between an imposer that\nis himself the culpable cause of my misunderstanding him, and one that\nis not the cause, but my own weakness or negligence is the cause. 6.\nBetween a case where both senses may be kept, and a case where they\ncannot, being inconsistent. Upon these distinctions, I thus resolve\nthe question.\n\n_Prop._ I. If I fraudulently and wilfully take an oath in a sense of\nmy own, contrary to the sense of the imposer, and the common and just\nsense of the words themselves, I am guilty of perfidiousness and\nprofaneness in the very taking of it.[71]\n\n_Prop._ II. If it be long of my own culpable ignorance or negligence\nthat I misunderstood the imposer, I am not thereby disobliged from the\npublic sense.\n\n_Prop._ III. When the imposer openly putteth a sense on the words\nimposed contrary to the usual, obvious sense, I am to understand him\naccording to his own expression, and not to take the oath, as imposed\nin any other sense.\n\n_Prop._ IV. If the imposer refuse or neglect to tell me his sense any\notherwise than in the imposed words, I am to take and keep them\naccording to the obvious sense of the words, as they are commonly used\nin the time and place which I live in.\n\n_Prop._ V. If it be long of the imposer's obscurity, or refusing to\nexplain himself, or other culpable cause, that I mistook him, I am not\nbound to keep my oath in his sense, as different from my own (unless\nthere be some other reason for it).\n\n_Prop._ VI. If the imposer be a robber or usurper, or one that I owe\nnothing to in justice, but what I oblige myself to by my oath, I am\nnot then bound at all to keep my oath in his sense, if my own sense\nwas according to the common use of the words.\n\n_Prop._ VII. Though I may not lie to a robber or tyrant that unjustly\nimposeth promises or oaths upon me, yet if he put an oath or promise\non me which is good and lawful in the proper, usual sense of the\nwords, though bad in his sense, (which is contrary to the plain\nwords,) whether I may take this to save my liberty or life, I leave to\nthe consideration of the judicious: that which may be said against it\nis, that oaths must not be used indirectly and dissemblingly: that\nwhich may be said for it is, 1. That I have no obligation to fit my\nwords to his personal, private sense. 2. That I deceive him not, but\nonly permit him to deceive himself, as long as it is he and not I that\nmisuseth the words. 3. That I am to have chief respect to the public\nsense; and it is not his sense, but mine, that is the public sense. 4.\nThat the saving of a man's life or liberty is cause enough for the\ntaking a lawful oath.\n\n_Prop._ VIII. In case I misunderstood the imposed oath through my own\ndefault, I am bound to keep it in both senses, (my own and the\nimposer's,) if both be consistent and lawful to be done. For I am\nbound to it in my own sense, because it was formally my oath or vow\nwhich I intended. And I am bound to it in his sense, because I have in\njustice made the thing his due. As if the king command me to vow that\nI will serve him in wars against the Turk; and I misunderstand him as\nif he meant only to serve him with my purse; and so I make a vow with\nthis intent, to expend part of my estate to maintain that war; whereas\nthe true sense was that I should serve him with my person: in this\ncase, I see not but I am bound to both.\n\nIndeed if it were a promise that obliged me only to the king, then I\nam obliged no further and no longer than he will; for he can remit his\nown right: but if by a vow I become obliged directly to God himself as\na party, then no man can remit his right, and I must perform my vow as\nmade to him.\n\n_Rule_ XIII. If any impose an ambiguous oath, and refuse to explain\nit, and require you only to swear in these words, and leave you to\nyour own sense, Dr. Sanderson thinketh that an honest man should\nsuspect some fraud in such an oath, and not take it at all till all\nparties are agreed of the sense.[72] And I think he should not take it\nat all, unless there be some other cause that maketh it his duty. But\nif a lawful magistrate command it, or the interest of the church or\nstate require it, I see not but he may take it, on condition that in\nthe plain and proper sense of the words the oath be lawful, and that\nhe openly profess to take it only in that sense.\n\n_Rule_ XIV. If any power should impose an oath, or vow, or promise,\nwhich in the proper, usual sense were downright impious, or\nblasphemous, or sinful, and yet bid me take it in what sense I\npleased, though I could take it in such a sense as might make it no\nreal consent to the impiety, yet it would be impious in the sense of\nthe world, and of such heinous consequence as will make it to be\nunlawful. As if I must subscribe, or say, or swear these words, There\nis no God; or, Scripture is untrue; though it is easy to use these or\nany words in a good sense, if I may put what sense I will upon them,\nyet the public sense of them is blasphemy; and I may not publicly\nblaspheme, on pretence of a private right sense and intention.\n\n_Rule_ XV. If the oath imposed be true in the strict and proper sense,\nyet if that sense be not vulgarly known, nor sufficiently manifest to\nbe the imposer's sense, and if the words are false or blasphemous in\nthe vulgar sense of those that I have to do with, and that must\nobserve and make use of my example, I must not take such an oath,\nwithout leave to make my sense as public as my oath. As if I were\ncommanded to swear, That God hath no foreknowledge, no knowledge, no\nwill, &c.; it were easy to prove that these terms are spoken primarily\nof man, and that they are attributed to God but analogically or\nmetaphorically, and that God hath no such human acts _formaliter_, but\n_eminenter_, and that _forma dat nomen_, and so that strictly it is\nnot knowledge and will in the primary, proper notion, that God hath at\nall, but something infinitely higher, for which man hath no other\nname. But though thus the words are true and justifiable in the\nstrictest, proper sense, yet are they unlawful, because they are\nblasphemy in the vulgar sense: and he that speaks to the vulgar is\nsupposed to speak with the vulgar; unless he as publicly explain them.\n\n_Rule_ XVI. If the supreme power should impose an oath or promise,\nwhich in the ordinary, obvious sense were sinful, and an inferior\nofficer would bid me take it in what sense I pleased, I might not\ntherefore take it: because that such an officer hath no power to\ninterpret it himself; much less to allow me to take it in a private\nsense. But if the lawgiver that imposeth it bid me take it in what\nsense I will, and give me leave to make my sense as public as my oath,\nI may take it, if the words be but dubious, and not apparently false\nor sinful: (so there be no reason against it, _aliunde_, as from ill\nconsequents, &c.)\n\n_Rule_ XVII. If any man will say in such a case, (when he thinketh\nthat the imposer's sense is bad,) I take not the same oath or\nengagement which is imposed, but another in the same words, and I\nsuppose not inferior officers authorized to admit any interpretation,\nbut I look at them only as men that can actually execute or not\nexecute the laws upon me; and so I take a vow of my own according to\nmy own sense, though in their words, as a means of my avoiding their\nseverities: as this is a collusion in a very high and tender business,\nso that person (if the public sense of the oath be sinful) must make\nhis professed sense as public as his oath or promise; it being no\nsmall thing to do that which in the public sense is impious, and so to\nbe an example of perfidiousness to many.\n\n_Rule_ XVIII. Though an oath imposed by a usurper or by violence is\nnot to be taken in formal obedience, nor at all, unless the greatness\nof the benefit require it, yet being taken it is nevertheless\nobligatory[73] (supposing nothing else do make it void). Man is a free\nagent, and cannot be forced, though he may be frightened: if he swear\nto a thief for the saving of his life, he voluntarily doth choose the\ninconveniences of the oath, as a means to save his life. Therefore\nbeing a voluntary act it is obligatory; else there should be no\nobligation on us to suffer for Christ, but any thing might be sworn or\ndone to escape suffering: see of this Dr. Sanderson largely, Pr\u00e6lect.\niv. sect. 14-16. The imposition and the oath are different things: in\nthe imposition, a thief or tyrant is the party commanding, and I am\nthe party commanded; and his having no authority to command me, doth\nnullify only his command, and maketh me not obliged to obey him, nor\nto take it in any obedience to him; but yet if I do take it without\nany authority obliging me, (as private oaths are taken,) it is still\nan oath or vow, in which the parties are God and man; man vowing and\nmaking himself a debtor to God; and God hath authority to require me\nto keep my vows, when men have no authority to require me to make\nthem. All men confess that private vows bind; and the nullity of the\nimposer's authority, maketh them but private vows. This case is easy,\nand commonly agreed on.\n\n_Rule_ XIX. If in a complex vow or promise there be many things which\nprove materially unlawful, and one or more that are lawful, the\nconjunction of the things unlawful doth not disoblige me from the vow\nof doing the lawful part. Otherwise a man might make void all his vows\nto God, and oaths and covenants with men, by putting in something that\nis evil with the good; and so God, and the king, and our neighbours\nwould have their debts paid by our sin and injury done them on the\nbye.\n\n_Rule_ XX. If some part of that which you vowed become impossible,\nthat doth not disoblige you from so much as remaineth possible. As if\nyou vow allegiance to the king, and tyrants or disability hinder you\nfrom serving him as subjects in some one particular way, you remain\nstill obliged to serve him by those other ways in which you are yet\ncapable to serve him. So if you had taken an oath against popery, to\npreach against it, and reject the practice of it, and for ever\nrenounce it; this would not bind you from the common truths and duties\nof christianity, which papists hold in common with all other\nchristians: nor could you preach against popery, if you were hindered\nby imprisonment, banishment, or restraint; but you have still power to\nforbear approving, consenting, subscribing, or practising their\nerrors; and this you are still bound to do.\n\n_Rule_ XXI. Though you are not bound to do that of your vow which\nchanges have made impossible or unlawful, yet if another change make\nthem possible and lawful again, your obligation doth return afresh\n(unless you made it with such limitation). It is not a temporary\ncessation of the matter, or end, or correlate, that will perpetually\ndischarge you from your vow. If your wife be taken captive many years,\nwhen she returneth, you are bound to the duties of a husband. If the\nking be expelled by usurpers, you are bound at present to so much duty\nas is possible, and to obey him as your actual governor when he\nreturneth. But in the case of servants and soldiers, and other\ntemporary relations, it is otherwise; for a removal may end the\nrelation itself. If you promise to preach the gospel, to medicate the\nsick, to relieve the poor, to reform your families, &c. you are not\nhereby obliged to do it while any unresistible impediment maketh it\nimpossible; but when the hinderance ceaseth, you are obliged to do it\nagain; the matter and your capacity being restored.\n\n_Rule_ XXII. Therefore many a vow and promise may be lawfully\nunperformed, which may not be renounced or disclaimed. When you are\ntaken captives you must forbear your duty to your king, your father,\nyour husband or wife, but you may not therefore renounce them, and\nsay, I have no obligation to them: no, not to the death; because they\nare relations for life; and how improbable soever it may seem that you\nshould be returned to them, yet God can do it, and you must wait on\nhim.\n\n_Rule_ XXIII. A former vow or promise is not nullified by a latter\nthat contradicteth it.[74] Otherwise a man might disoblige himself at\nhis pleasure. Yet he that maketh contrary vows, obligeth himself to\ncontraries and impossibles; and bringeth a necessity of perjury on\nhimself, for not doing the things impossible which he vowed. And in\nsome cases a later promise to men may null a former, when we made the\nformer with the reserve of such a power or liberty, or are justly\nsupposed to have power, to recall a former promise: or when it is the\nduty of a mutable relation which we vow, (as of a physician, a\nschoolmaster, &c.) and by a later vow we change the relation itself\n(which we may still lawfully change).\n\n_Rule_ XXIV. The _actus jurandi_ must still be distinguished from the\n_materia juramenti_; and it very often cometh to pass that the act of\nswearing (or the oath as our act) is unlawfully done, and was a sin\nfrom the beginning, and yet it is nevertheless obligatory as long as\nthe _res jurata_, the matter sworn, is lawful or necessary.[75] Dr.\nSanderson instanceth in Joshua's oath to the Gibeonites. The nature of\nthe thing is proof enough; for many a thing is sinfully done, for want\nof a due call, or manner, or end, that yet is done, and is no nullity.\nA man may sinfully enter upon the ministry, that yet is bound to do\nthe duty of a minister; and many marriages are sinful that are no\nnullities.\n\n[Sidenote: What is the nullity of an oath.]\n\n_Rule_ XXV. The nullity of an oath _ab initio_, is _quando realiter\nvel reputative non juravimus_; when really or reputatively we did not\nswear. The sinfulness of an oath is when we did swear really but\nunlawfully as to the ground, or end, or matter, or manner, or\ncircumstances. Really that man did not swear, 1. Who spake not\n(mentally nor orally) the words of an oath. 2. Who thought those words\nhad signified no such thing, and so had no intent to swear either\nmentally or verbally. As if an Englishman be taught to use the words\nof an oath in French, and made believe that they have a contrary\nsense. 3. Who only narratively recited the words of an oath, as a\nreporter or historian, without a real or professed intent of swearing.\nReputatively he did not swear, 1. Who spake the words of an oath in\nhis sleep, or in a deliration, distraction, madness, or such prevalent\nmelancholy as mastereth reason; when a man is not _compos mentis_, his\nact is not _actus humanus_. (2.) When a man's hand is forcibly moved\nby another against his will to subscribe the words of an oath or\ncovenant; for if it be totally involuntary it is not a moral act. But\nwords cannot be forced; for he that sweareth to save his life, doth do\nit voluntarily to save his life. The will may be moved by fear, but\nnot forced. Yet the person that wrongfully frighteneth another into\nconsent, or to swear, hath no right to any benefit which he thought to\nget by force or fraud; and so _in foro civili_ such promises, or\ncovenants, or oaths may _quoad effectum_ be reputatively null; and he\nthat by putting his sword to another man's breast doth compel him to\nswear or subscribe and seal a deed of gift, may be judged to have no\nright to it, but to be punishable for the force; but though this\ncovenant or promise be null _in foro humano_, because the person\ncannot acquire a right by violence, yet the oath is not a nullity\nbefore God; for when God is made a party, he hath a right which is\ninviolable; and when he is appealed to or made a witness, his name\nmust not be taken in vain. 3. It is a nullity reputatively when the\nperson is naturally incapable of self-obligation, as in infancy, when\nreason is not come to so much maturity as to be naturally capable of\nsuch a work; I say naturally incapable, for the reasons following.\n\n_Rule_ XXVI. We must distinguish between a natural incapacity of\nvowing or swearing at all, and an incapacity of doing it lawfully; and\nbetween a true nullity, and when the oath is only _quasi nullum_, or\nas null _quoad effectum_, or such as I must not keep. There are many\nreal oaths and vows which must not be kept, and so far are _quasi\nnulla_ as to the effecting of the thing vowed; but they are not simply\nnull; for they have the effect of making the man a sinner and\nperjured. They are sinful vows, and therefore vows. A natural\nincapacity proveth it no vow at all; but if I am naturally capable,\nand only forbidden, (by God or man,) this maketh it not no vow, but a\nsinful vow, of which some must be kept and some must not.\n\n[Sidenote: Cases in which a vow must not be kept.]\n\nIn these following cases a real vow is _quasi nullum_, or must not be\nkept.\n\n1. In case the thing vowed (all things considered) be a thing which\nGod hath forbidden to be done; that is, in case it be a thing in\nitself evil; but if the thing in itself be a duty, though there be\nsome inseparable sins which we shall be guilty of in the performance,\nwe must not therefore leave the duty itself undone which we have\nvowed: as if I vow to praise God, and yet am sure that I cannot praise\nhim without a sinful defect of that love and delight in him which is\ndue, I must not therefore forbear to praise him; else we must cast off\nall other duty, because we cannot do it without some sin. But yet,\nthough in case of unwilling infirmity, we must thus do the duty though\nwe are sure to sin in it, yet in case of any chosen, voluntary sin,\nwhich we have an immediate power to avoid, we must rather forbear the\nduty itself (vowed or not vowed) than commit such a sin; as if I vow\nto preach the gospel, and am forcibly hindered unless I would\nvoluntarily tell one lie, or commit one sin wilfully for this liberty;\nI ought rather never to preach the gospel; nor is it then a duty, but\nbecome morally impossible to me; as if in France or Spain I may not\npreach unless I would take Pope Pius's Trent confession or oath. Nay,\nif those very defects of love, and wandering thoughts, which now\ninseparably cleave to my best performances, were morally and\nimmediately in my power, and I could avoid them, I ought not\nelectively and by consent to commit them, for any liberty of duty, but\nrather to forbear the duty itself as no duty to me when it cometh upon\nsuch conditions; for then it is supposed that I could serve God better\nwithout that duty, because I could love him more, &c.\n\nYet here is observable a great deal of difference between omissions\nand commissions. A man may never commit a sin that good may come by\nit, though he vowed the good; but a man may ofttimes omit that which\nelse would have been his duty, to do some good which he hath vowed;\nfor negative commands bind _semper et ad semper_; but the affirmative\ndo not (at least as to outward duty); therefore in case of necessity a\nman may himself consent to the present omission of some good, for the\nescaping of greater, unavoidable omissions another time, or for the\nperforming of a vow or greater duty which is to be preferred.\n\n2. A vow is not to be kept, when the matter of it is unjust and\ninjurious to another (unless you have his consent): as if you vow to\ngive away another man's lands or goods, or to do him wrong by word or\ndeed; or if you vow to forbear to pay him his due, or to do that which\nyou owe him: as if a servant vow to forbear his master's work (unless\nit be so small an injury as he can otherwise repair); or a husband, or\nwife, or parents, or children, or prince, or subjects should vow to\ndeny their necessary duties to each other. Here man's right together\nwith God's law doth make it unjust to perform such vows.\n\n3. A vow is as null or not to be kept, when the matter is something\nthat is morally or civilly out of our power to do: as if a servant, or\na child, or subject vow to do a thing, which he cannot do lawfully\nwithout the consent of his superior: this vow is not simply null, for\nit is a sinful vow (unless it was conditional). Every rational\ncreature is so far _sui juris_, as that his soul being immediately\nsubject to God, he is capable of obliging himself to God; and so his\nvow is a real sinful vow, when he is not so far _sui juris_ as to be\ncapable of a lawful vowing, or doing the thing which he voweth. Such a\none is bound to endeavour to get his superior's consent, but not\nwithout it to perform his vow; no, though the thing in itself be\nlawful. For God having antecedently bound me to obey my superiors in\nall lawful things, I cannot disoblige myself by my own vows.\n\nYet here are very great difficulties in this case, which causeth\ndifference among the learnedest, pious casuists. 1. If a governor have\nbeforehand made a law for that which I vow against, it is supposed by\nmany that my vow is not to be kept, (the thing being not against the\nlaw of God,) because the first obligation holdeth. 2. Yet some think\nthat magistrates' penal laws binding but _aut ad obedientiam aut ad\np\u0153nam_, to obedience or punishment, I am therefore obliged in\nindifferent things to bear his penalty, and to keep my vow.[76] 3. But\nif I first make an absolute vow in a thing indifferent, (as to drink\nno wine, or to wear no silks, &c.) and the magistrate afterwards\ncommand it me, some think I am bound to keep my vow; because though I\nmust obey the magistrate in all things lawful, yet my vow hath made\nthis particular thing to be to me unlawful, before the magistrate made\nit a duty. 4. Though others think that even in this case the general\nobligation to obey my superiors preventeth my obliging myself to any\nparticular which they may forbid in case I had not vowed it, or\nagainst any particular which they may command. 5. Others distinguish\nof things lawful or indifferent, and say that some of them are such as\nbecome accidentally so useful or needful to the common good, the end\nof government, that it is fit the magistrate make a law for it, and\nthe breaking of that law will be so hurtful, that my vow cannot bind\nme to it, as being now no indifferent thing; but other indifferent\nthings they say belong not to the magistrate to determine of (as what\nI shall eat or drink, whether I shall marry or not, what trade I shall\nbe of, how each artificer, tradesman, or professor of arts and\nsciences shall do the business of his profession, &c.) And here the\nmagistrate they think cannot bind them against their vows, because\ntheir power of themselves in such private cases is greater than his\npower over them in those cases. All these I leave as so many questions\nunfit for me to resolve in the midst of the contentions of the\nlearned. The great reasons that move on both sides you may easily\ndiscern. 1. Those that think an oath in lawful things, obligeth not\ncontrary to the magistrate's antecedent or subsequent command, are\nmoved by this reason, That else subjects and children might by their\nvows exempt themselves from obedience, and null God's command of\nobeying our superiors. 2. Those that think a vow is obligatory against\na magistrate's command, are moved by this reason, Because else, say\nthey, a magistrate may at his pleasure dispense with all vows, except\nin things commanded before by God: for he may come after and cross our\nvows by his commands, which, against the pope's pretensions,\nprotestants have denied to be in the power of any mortal man. And God,\nsay they, hath the first right, which none can take away. I must not\nbe forward in determining where rulers are concerned; only to those\nthat may and must determine it, I add these further materials to be\nconsidered of.\n\n1. It is most necessary to the decision of this case, to understand\nhow far the inferior that voweth was _sui juris_, and had the power of\nhimself when he made the vow, as to the making of it, and how far he\nis _sui juris_ as to the act which he hath vowed; and to that end to\nknow, in a case where there is some power over his act, both in his\nsuperior and in himself, whether his own power, or his superior's, as\nto that act, be the greater.\n\n2. It is therefore needful to distinguish much between those acts that\nare of private use and signification only, and those that\n(antecedently to the ruler's command) are of public use and nature, or\nsuch as the ruler is as much concerned in as the inferior.\n\n3. It is needful to understand the true intent and sense of the\ncommand of our superior; whether it be really his intent to bind\ninferiors to break their vows, or whether they intend only to bind\nthose that are not so entangled and pre-engaged by a vow, with a tacit\nexception of those that are.[77] And what is most just must be\npresumed, unless the contrary be plain.\n\n4. It must be discerned whether the commands of superiors intend any\nfurther penalty than that which is affixed in their laws: as in our\npenal laws about using bows and arrows, and about fishing, hunting,\n&c.; whether it be intended that the offender be guilty of damnation,\nor only that the threatened temporal penalty do satisfy the law; and\nwhether God bind us to any further penalty than the superior\nintendeth.\n\n5. The end of the laws of men must be distinguished from the words;\nand a great difference must be put between those forbidden acts that\ndo no further harm than barely to cross the letter of the law, or will\nof a superior, and those that cross the just end of the command or\nlaw; and that either more or less, as it is more or less hurtful to\nothers, or against the common good: for then the matter will become\nsinful in itself.\n\n6. Whether perjury, or the unwilling violation of human laws, be the\ngreater sin, and which in a doubtful case should be most feared and\navoided, it is easy to discern.\n\n_Rule_ XXVII. A vow may be consequently made null or void, 1. By\ncessation of the matter, or any thing essential to it, (of which\nbefore,) or by a dispensation or dissolution of it by God to whom we\nare obliged. No doubt it is in God's power to disoblige a man from\nhis vow; but how he ever doth such a thing is all the doubt:\nextraordinary revelations being ceased, there is this way yet\nordinary, viz. by bringing the matter which I vowed to do, under some\nprohibition of a general law, by the changes of his providence.\n\n_Rule_ XXVIII. As to the power of man to dispense with oaths and vows,\nthere is a great and most remarkable difference between those oaths\nand vows where man is the only party that we are primarily bound to,\nand God is only appealed to as witness or judge, as to the keeping of\nmy word to man; and those oaths or vows where God is also made (either\nonly or conjunct with man) the party to whom I primarily oblige\nmyself. For in the first case man can dispense with my oath or vow, by\nremitting his own right, and releasing me from my promise; but in the\nsecond case no created power can do it. As e. g. if I promise to pay a\nman a sum of money, or to do him service, and swear that I will\nperform it faithfully; if upon some after bargain or consideration he\nrelease me of that promise, God releaseth me also, as the witnesses\nand judge have nothing against a man, whom the creditor hath\ndischarged. But if I swear or vow that I will amend my life, or reform\nmy family of some great abuse, or that I will give so much to the\npoor, or that I will give up myself to the work of the gospel, or that\nI will never marry, or never drink wine, or never consent to popery or\nerror, &c.; no man can dispense with my vow, nor directly disoblige me\nin any such case; because no man can give away God's right: all that\nman can do in any such case is, to become an occasion of God's\ndisobliging me: if he can so change the case, or my condition, as to\nbring me under some law of God, which commandeth me the contrary to my\nvow, then God disobligeth me, or maketh it unlawful to keep that vow.\nAnd here because a vow is commonly taken for such a promise to God, in\nwhich we directly bind ourselves to him, therefore we say, that a vow\n(thus strictly taken) cannot be dispensed with by man; though in the\nsense aforesaid, an oath sometimes may.\n\nThe papists deal most perversely in this point of dispensing with\noaths and vows; for they give that power to the pope over all the\nchristian world, who is a usurper, and none of our governor, which\nthey deny to princes and parents that are our undoubted governors: the\npope may disoblige vassals from their oaths of allegiance to their\nprinces, (as the council of Lateran before cited,) but no king or\nparent may disoblige a man from his oath to the pope: nay, if a child\nvow a monastical life, and depart from his parents, they allow not the\nparents to disoblige him.\n\n_Rule_ XXIX. In the determining of controversies about the obligation\nof oaths and vows, it is safest to mark what Scripture saith, and not\nto presume, upon uncertain pretence of reason, to release ourselves,\nwhere we are not sure that God releaseth us.\n\n_Rule_ XXX. That observable chapter, Numb. xxx. about dispensations,\nhath many things in it that are plain for the decision of divers great\nand usual doubts; but many things which some do collect and conclude\nas consequential or implied, are doubtful and controverted among the\nmost judicious expositors and casuists.\n\n1. It is certain that this chapter speaketh not of a total nullity of\nvows _ab initio_, but of a relaxation, or disannulling of them by\nsuperiors. For, 1. Bare silence (which is no efficient cause) doth\nprove them to be in force. 2. It is not said, She is bound, or not\nbound; but, Her vow and bond shall stand, ver. 4, 7, 9, 11: or, shall\nnot stand, ver. 5, 12: and, He shall make it of none effect, ver. 8.\nThe Hebrew, ver. 5, signifieth, _Quia annihilavit pater ejus illud_.\nAnd ver. 8, _Et si in die audire virum ejus, annihilaverit illud, et\ninfregerit vitam ejus_.[78]--3. It is expressly said, that she had\nbound her soul before the dissolution. 4. It is said, The Lord shall\nforgive her, ver. 5, 8, 12, which signifieth a relaxation of a former\nbond. Or at the most, the parent's silence is a confirmation, and his\ndisowning it hindereth only the confirmation. So the Chaldee\nparaphrase; the Samaritan and Arabic, _Non erunt confirmata_; the\nSyriac, _Rata vel irrita erunt_.\n\n2. It is certain that a father hath the power of relaxation here\nmentioned as to an unmarried daughter, in her youth living in his\nhouse, and a husband over his wife; for it is the express words of the\ntext.\n\n3. It is certain that this power extendeth to vows about all things in\nwhich the inferior is not _sui juris_, but is under the superior's\ncare and oversight, and cannot perform it (in case there had been no\nvow) without the superior's consent.\n\n4. It is certain that it extendeth not only to matters concerning the\ngovernors themselves, but concerning vows to God, as they are good or\nhurtful to the inferiors.\n\n5. It is certain that there are some vows so necessary and clearly for\nthe inferior's good, that in them he is _sui juris_, and no superior\ncan suspend his vows: as to have the Lord for his God; and not to\ncommit idolatry, murder, theft, &c. No superior can disoblige us here;\nfor the power of superiors is only for the inferior's indemnity and\ngood.\n\n6. It is certain that the superior's recall must be speedy or in time,\nbefore silence can signify consent, and make a confirmation of the\nvow.\n\n7. It is certain that if the superior have once ratified it by silence\nor consent, he cannot afterwards disannul it.\n\n8. It is agreed, that if he awhile dissent and disannul it, and\nafterwards both inferior and superior consent again, that it remaineth\nratified.\n\n9. It is agreed that the superior that can discharge the vow of the\ninferior, cannot release himself from his own vows. If the pope could\nrelease all men, who shall release him?\n\nBut in these points following there is no such certainty or agreement\nof judgments, because the text seemeth silent about them, and men\nconjecture variously as they are prepared. 1. It is uncertain whether\nany but women may be released by virtue of this text: 1. Because the\ntext expressly distinguishing between a man and a woman doth first\nsay, _Si vir_----If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to\nbind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word; he shall do\naccording to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. And 2. Because\nwomen are only instanced in, when Scripture usually speaketh of them\nin the masculine gender, when it includeth both sexes, or extendeth it\nto both. 3. And in the recapitulation in the end, it is said by way of\nrecital of the contents, ver. 16, \"These are the statutes which the\nLord commanded Moses between a man and his wife; between the father\nand his daughter--in her youth in her father's house:\" as if he would\ncaution us against extending it any further. And though many good\nexpositors think that it extendeth equally to sons as to daughters,\nin their minority, because there is a parity of reason, yet this is an\nuncertain conjecture: 1. Because God seemeth by the expression to\nbound the sense. 2. Because God acquainteth not man with all the\nreasons of his laws. 3. Because there may be special reasons for an\nindulgence to the weaker sex in such a weighty case. And though still\nthere is a probability it may extend to sons, it is good keeping to\ncertainties in matters of such dreadful importance as oaths and vows\nto God.\n\n2. It is uncertain whether this power of disannulling vows do belong\nalso to other superiors,[79] to princes, to inferior magistrates, to\npastors, masters, to commanders, as to their soldiers, as well as to\nparents and husbands. Some think it doth, because there is, say they,\na parity of reason. Others think it is dangerous disannulling oaths\nand vows upon pretences of parity of reason, when it is uncertain\nwhether we know all God's reasons: and they think there is not a\nparity, and that it extendeth not to others. 1. Because parents and\nhusbands are so emphatically named in the contents in the end, ver.\n16. 2. Because it had been as easy to God to name the rest. 3. Because\nthere is no instance in Scripture of the exercise of such a power,\nwhen there was much occasion for it. 4. Because else vows signify no\nmore in a kingdom than the king please, and in an army than the\ngeneral and officers please, and among servants than the master\nplease; which is thought a dangerous doctrine. 5. Because there will\nbe an utter uncertainty when a vow bindeth and when it doth not to\nalmost all the people in the world; for one superior may contradict\nit, and another or a hundred may be silent: the king and most of the\nmagistrates through distance will be silent, when a master, or a\njustice, or a captain that is at hand may disannul it: one officer may\nbe for it, and another against it; a master or a pastor may be for it,\nand the magistrate against it: and so perjury will become the most\ncontroverted sin, and a matter of jest. 6. Because public magistrates,\nand commanders, and pastors, have not the near and natural interest in\ntheir inferiors as parents and husbands have in their children and\nwives; and therefore parents have not only a restraining power, (as\nhusbands here also have,) but also a disposing power of the relation\nof their infant children, and may enter them in baptism into the vow\nand covenant of christianity, the will and act of the parents standing\nfor the child's till he come to age; but if you say that, upon a\nparity of reason, all princes, and rulers, and pastors may do so with\nall that are their inferiors, it will seem incredible to most\nchristians. 7. Because public magistrates are justly supposed to be so\ndistant from almost all their individual subjects, as not to be\ncapable of so speedy a disowning their personal vows. Whatever this\ntext doth, it is certain that other texts enough forbid covenants and\ncombinations against the persons, or power, or rights of our\ngovernors, and not only against them, but without them, in cases where\nour place and calling alloweth us not to act without them. But it is\ncertain that God, who commanded all Israel to be entered successively\ninto the covenant of circumcision with him, would not have held them\nguiltless for refusing that covenant, if the prince had been against\nit. And few divines think that a subject, or soldier, or servant, that\nhath vowed to forbear wine, or feasting, or marriage, is discharged,\nif his prince, or captain, or masters be against it. Jonathan and\nDavid were under an oath of friendship, (called the Lord's oath, 2\nSam. xxi. 7). Saul as a parent could not discharge Jonathan, as being\na man at full age. Qu\u00e6re whether Saul as a king being against it, did\nnull the oath to David and Jonathan? No; the Scripture showeth the\ncontrary. 8. Because else that benefit which God extendeth only to a\nweaker sort, would extend to any, the wisest and most learned persons\nthrough the world, whose vows to God, even for the afflicting of their\nown souls, may be nulled by the king or other superiors. Many such\nreasons are urged in this case.\n\n3. It is uncertain whether this chapter extend to assertory or\ntestimonial oaths (if not certain that it doth not): it speaketh but\nof binding their souls to God, which is to offer or do something which\nby error may prove prejudicial to them. But if a parent or husband\n(much more a king or general) might nullify all the testimonial oaths\nof their inferiors that are given in judgment, or discharge all their\nsubjects from the guilt of all the lies or false oaths which they\nshall take, it would make a great change in the morality of the world.\n\n4. It is not past all controversy how far this law is yet in force:\nseeing the Mosaical law as such is abrogated; this can be now no\nfurther in force than as it is the law of nature, or some way\nconfirmed or revived by Christ. The equity seemeth to be natural.\n\n_Rule_ XXXI. It is certain that whoever this power of disannulling\nvows belongeth to, and to whomsoever it may be given, that it\nextendeth not to discharge us from the promise or vow of that which is\nantecedently our necessary duty, by the law of God. Else they should\ndispense with the law of God, when none but the lawgiver can relax or\ndispense with his laws (unless it be one superior to the lawgiver):\ntherefore none can dispense with the laws of God. But I speak this but\nof a duty necessary also as a means to our salvation, or the good of\nothers, or the honouring of God: for otherwise as to some smaller\nthings, the duty may be such as man cannot dispense with, and yet a\nvow to do that duty may be unnecessary and sinful: as if I swear to\nkeep all the law of God, and never to sin, or never to think a sinful\nthought; to do this is good, but to vow it is bad, because I may\nforeknow that I shall break it.\n\n_Rule_ XXXII. In some cases a vow may oblige you against that which\nwould have been your duty if you had not vowed, and to do that which\nwould else have been your sin: viz. if it be such a thing as is sin or\nduty but by some lesser accident, which the accident of a vow may\npreponderate or prevail against. As if you swear to give a penny to a\nwandering beggar, or to one that needeth it not, which by all\ncircumstances would have been an unlawful misemploying of that which\nshould have been better used; yet it seemeth to me your duty to do it\nwhen you have moved it. To cast away a cup of drink is a sin, if it be\ncauselessly; but if you vow to do it, it is hard to say that a man\nshould rather be perjured than cast away a cup of drink, or a penny,\nor a pin. The Jesuits think it lawful to exercise the obedience of\ntheir novices by bidding them sometimes cast a cup of wine into the\nsink, or do some such action which causelessly done were sin: and\nshall not a vow require it more strongly? Suppose it would be your\nduty to pray or read at such or such an hour of the day (as being\nfittest to your body and occasions); yet if you have (foolishly) vowed\nagainst it, it seemeth to me to be your duty to put it off till\nanother time. For perjury is too great a thing to be yielded to on\nevery such small occasion. Dr. Sanderson[80] _ubi supra_ giveth this\ninstance: If there be a law that no citizen elected to it shall refuse\nthe office of a pr\u00e6tor; and he that doth refuse it shall be fined:\nCaius sweareth that he will not bear the office: his oath is unlawful,\n(and disobedience would have been his sin if he were free,) yet it\nseems he is bound to pay his fine, and disobey the precept of the law,\nrather than break his vow.\n\n_Rule_ XXXIII. There are so great a number of sins and duties that are\nsuch by accidents and circumstantial alterations, and some of these\ngreater and some less, that it is a matter of exceeding great\ndifficulty in morality to discern when they are indeed sins and duties\nand when not, which must be by discerning the preponderancy of\naccidents; and therefore it must be exceeding difficult to discern\nwhen a vow shall weigh down any of these accidents, and when not.\n\n_Rule_ XXXIV. The exceeding difficulty and frequency of such cases\nmaketh it necessary to those that have such entanglements of vows, to\nhave a very wise and faithful counsellor to help them better to\nresolve their particular cases, upon the knowledge of every\ncircumstance, than any book or general rules can do, or any that are\nnot so perfectly acquainted with the case. And oh what great ability\nis necessary in divines that are employed in such works!\n\n_Rule_ XXXV. Thus also the case must be resolved whether an oath bind\nthat hindereth a greater good which I might do if I had not taken it.\nIn some cases it may bind: as if I swear to acquaint none with some\nexcellent medicine which I could not have known myself unless I had so\nsworn; or in case that the breaking of the oath will do more hurt to\nme or others than the good comes to which I omit:[81] or in case, all\nthings considered, the doing of that good _hic et nunc_ is not my\nduty: see Dr. Sanderson of the difficulties here also, p. 78, 79.\n\n_Rule_ XXXVI. No personal hurt or temporal loss is any sufficient\ncause for the violation of an oath.[82] He that taketh a false oath,\nor breaketh a promissory oath, for the saving of his life, or a\nthousand men's lives, or for lands or riches, or crowns and kingdoms,\nhath no considerable excuse for his perfidiousness and perjury, all\ntemporal things being such inconsiderable trifles in comparison of the\nwill and pleasure of God, and life everlasting: that which will not\njustify a lie, will much less justify perjury.[83]\n\n_Rule_ XXXVII. If the matter of an oath prove only a temptation to\nsin, and not sin itself, it must be kept: but with the greater\nvigilancy and resolution. As if a man have married a froward wife that\nwill be a temptation to him all his life, he is not disobliged from\nher.\n\n_Rule_ XXXVIII. If the matter of an oath be such as maketh me directly\nthe tempter of myself or others, it is a sin, and not to be kept,\nunless some greater good preponderate that evil. For though it be no\nsin to be tempted, yet it is a sin to tempt: though it be no sin to\ntempt by a necessary trial, (as a master may lay money before a\nsuspected servant to try whether he be a thief,) nor any sin to tempt\naccidentally by the performance of a duty (as a holy life doth\naccidentally tempt a malignant person to hatred and persecution); yet\nit is a sin to be directly and needlessly a tempter of ourselves or\nothers unto sin; and therefore he that voweth it must not perform it.\nAs if you had vowed to persuade any to unchastity, intemperance,\nerror, rebellion, &c.\n\n[Sidenote: Of accidental evil or temptation vowed.]\n\n_Rule_ XXXIX. If the matter of an oath be such as accidentally layeth\nso strong a temptation before men, (especially before a multitude,) as\nthat we may foresee it is exceeding likely to draw them into sin, when\nthere is no greater good to preponderate the evil of such a\ntemptation, it is a sin to do that thing, though in performance of a\nvow. When actions are good or evil only by accident, then accidents\nmust be put in the balance against each other, and the weightiest must\npreponderate. As in matter of temporal commodity or discommodity, it\nis lawful to do that action which accidentally bringeth a smaller hurt\nto one man, if it bring a greater good to many; or which hurteth a\nprivate person to the great good of the commonwealth; but it is not\nlawful to do that which clearly tendeth (though but by accident) to do\nmore hurt than good: as to sell powder and arms, when we foresee it\nwill be used against the king and kingdom; or to sell ratsbane, when\nyou foresee it is like to be used to poison men. Much more should the\nsalvation of many or one be preferred before our temporal commodity;\nand therefore for a lesser good, we may not tempt men to evil, though\nbut accidentally: as he that liveth where there is but little need of\ntaverns or ale-houses, and the common use of them is for drunkenness,\nit is unlawful for him there to sell ale or wine, unless he can keep\nmen from being drunk with it (as if they take it home with them, or be\nunruly, he cannot). For thus to be a foreknowing tempter and occasion,\nunnecessarily, is to be a moral cause. Two things will warrant a man\nto do that which by accident tempteth or occasioneth other men to sin:\none is a command of God, when it is a duty which we do: the other is a\ngreater good to be attained by the action, which cannot be attained in\na less dangerous way. As in a country where there is so great a\nnecessity of ale-houses and taverns that the good that is done by them\nis greater than the hurt is like to be, though some will be drunk; it\nis lawful to use these trades, though some be hurt by it. It is lawful\nto sell flesh, though some will be gluttonous; it is lawful to use\nmoderate, decent ornaments, though some vain minds will be tempted by\nthe sight to lust; as it is lawful to go to sea though some be\ndrowned. To act a comedy, or play at a lawful game, with all those\ncautions, which may secure you that the good of it is like to be\ngreater than the hurt, is not unlawful: but to set up a common\nplay-house, or gaming-house, where we may foresee that the mischief\nwill be far greater than the good, (though the acts were lawful in\nthemselves,) this is but to play the devil's part, in laying snares\nfor souls: men are not thus to be ticed to hell and damned in sport,\nthough but accidentally, and though you vowed the act.\n\n[Sidenote: Of scandal.]\n\n_Rule_ XL. Thus also must the case of scandal be resolved:[84] as\nscandal signifieth an action that occasioneth another to sin, or a\nstumblingblock at which we foresee he is like to fall to the hurt of\nhis soul, (which is the sense that Christ and his apostles usually\ntake it in,) so it is the same case with this last handled, and needs\nno other resolution: but as scandal signifieth (in the late abusive\nsense) the mere displeasing of another, or occasioning him to censure\nyou for a sinner, so you must not break a vow to escape the censure or\ndispleasure of all the world. Otherwise pride would be still\nproducing perjury, and so two of the greatest sins would be\nmaintained.\n\n_Rule_ XLI. Though in the question about the obligation of an oath\nthat is taken ignorantly, or by deceit, there be great difficulties,\nyet this much seemeth clear: 1. That he that is culpably ignorant is\nmore obliged by his vow or contract while he useth all the outward\nform, than he that is inculpably ignorant. 2. That though the deceit\n(as the force) of him that I swear to, do forfeit his right to what I\npromise him, yet my oath or vow obligeth me to do or to give the\nthing, having interested God himself in the cause. 3. That all such\nerrors of the essentials of an oath or vow as nullify it, (of which I\nspake before,) or make the matter sinful, do infer a nullity in the\nobligation (or that it must not be kept). But no smaller error (though\ncaused by deceit) doth disoblige.\n\nThe commonest doubt is, Whether an error about the very person that I\nswear to, and this caused by his own deceit, do disoblige me? All\ngrant that I am obliged notwithstanding any circumstantial error (as\nif I think a woman rich whom I marry, and she prove poor; or wise and\ngodly, and she prove foolish or ungodly: yea, if the error be about\nany integral part; as if I think she had two eyes or legs, and she\nhave but one): and all grant that an error about an essential part,\nthat is, which is essential to the relation or thing vowed, (if\ninculpable at least,) disobligeth: as if I took a man in marriage\nthinking he had been a woman; or if I took a person for a pastor, a\nphysician, a counsellor, a pilot, that hath no tolerable ability or\nskill in the essentials of any of those professions. But whether I am\nbound if I swear to Thomas thinking it was John, or if I marry Leah\nthinking she is Rachel, is the great doubt. And most casuists say I am\nnot: and therefore I dare not be bold to contradict them.[85] But I\nmuch suspect that they fetched their decision from the lawyers; who\ntruly say, that _in foro civili_ it inferreth no obligation: but\nwhether it do not oblige me ethically, and _in foro conscienti\u00e6 et\nc\u0153li_, I much doubt,[86] 1. Because it seemeth the very case of\nJoshua and the Israelites, who by the guile of the Gibeonites were\ndeceived into an _error personarum_, taking them to be other persons\nthan they were: and yet that this oath was obligatory, saith Dr.\nSanderson, is apparent, (1.) In the text itself, Josh. ix. 19. (2.) In\nthe miracle wrought for that victory which Joshua obtained in\ndefending the Gibeonites when the sun stood still, Josh. x. 8, 13.\n(3.) In the severe revenge that was taken on the lives of Saul's\nposterity for offering to violate it, 2 Sam. xxi. 2. 2. And this\nseemeth to be the very case of Jacob, who took not himself disobliged\nfrom Leah notwithstanding the mistake of the person through deceit.\nAnd though the _concubitus_ was added to the contract, that obliged\nmost as it was the perfecting of the contract, which an oath doth as\nstrongly. 3. And the nature of the thing doth confirm my doubt;\nbecause when I see the person before me there is the _individuum\ndeterminatum_, in the _h\u00e6c homo_, and so all that is essential to my\nvow is included in it: if I mistake the name, or the quality, or\nbirth, or relations of the person, yet my covenant is with this\ndeterminate person that is present, though I be induced to it by a\nfalse supposition that she is another. But this I leave to the\ndiscussion of the judicious.\n\n_Rule_ XLII. The question also is weighty and of frequent use, if a\nman vow a thing as a duty in obedience to God and conscience, which he\nwould not have done if he had taken it to be no duty, and if he\nafterwards find that it was no duty, is he obliged to keep this vow?\nAnd the true answer is, that the discovery of his error doth only\ndiscover the nullity of his obligation to make that vow, and to do the\nthing antecedently to the vow; but if the thing be lawful, he is bound\nto it by his vow notwithstanding the mistake which induced him to make\nit.\n\n_Rule_ XLIII. Vows about trifles (not unlawful) must be kept though\nthey are sinfully made.[87] As if you vow to take up a straw, or to\nforbear such a bit or sort of meat, or garment, &c. But to make such\nis a great profanation of God's name, and a taking it in vain as\ncommon swearers do.\n\n_Rule_ XLIV. A general oath, though taken upon a particular occasion,\nmust be generally or strictly interpreted (unless there be special\nreasons for a restraint, from the matter, end, or other evidence). As\nif you are afraid that your son should marry such a woman, and\ntherefore swear him not to marry without your consent; he is bound\nthereby neither to marry that woman nor any other. Or if your servant\nhaunt one particular ale-house, and you make him forswear all houses\nin general, he must avoid all other. So Dr. Sanderson instanceth in\nthe oath of supremacy, p. 195.\n\n_Rule_ XLV. He that voweth absolutely or implicitly to obey another in\nall things, is bound to obey him in all lawful things, where neither\nGod, nor other superior or other person is injured; unless the nature\nof the relation, or the ends or reasons of the oath, or something\nelse, infer a limitation as implied.\n\n_Rule_ XLVI. Still distinguish between the falsehood in the words as\ndisagreeing to the thing sworn, and the falsehood of them as\ndisagreeing from the swearer's mind. The former is sometimes\nexcusable, but the latter never.\n\nThere are many other questions about oaths that belong more to the\nchapter of contracts and justice between man and man; and thither I\nrefer them.\n\n[47] Viris gravibus vehementer displicere animadverti, quod ab indis\ntestimonium jure-jurando exigitur, cum constet eos facillime pejerare,\nutpote qui neque juramenti vim sentiant neque veritatis studio\ntangantur, sed testimonium eo modo dicant, quo credunt. Judici\ngratissimum fore, aut a primo su\u00e6 factionis homine edocti sunt. Hos\nigitur jurare compellere et ipsis exitiosum propter perjuria, &c.\nAcosta, p. 345.\n\n[48] Vid. Sanderson de Juram. Pr\u00e6lect. vii. Sect. 14. Juramentum\noblatum reluctante vel dubitante conscientia non est suscipiendum: 1.\nQuia quod non est ex fide peccatum est. 2. Quia jurandum est in\njudicio: quod certe is non facit qui contra conscienti\u00e6 su\u00e6 judicium\nfacit, &c. ad finem.\n\n[49] See the fourteenth Article of the church of England, against\nvoluntary works, over and above God's commandments, as impious.\n\n[50] Stoici indifferentia distinguunt: 1. Ea qu\u00e6 neque ad\nf\u0153licitatem neque ad inf\u0153licitatem conferunt, ut sunt diviti\u00e6,\nsanitas, vires, gloria, &c. Nam et sine his contingit f\u0153licem esse;\ncum earum usus vel rectus f\u0153licitatis, vel pravus inf\u0153licitatis,\nauthor sit. 2. Qu\u00e6 neque appetitum neque occasionem movent, ut pares\nvel impares habere capillos, &c. Laert. in Zenone.\n\n[51] Plutarch. Quest. Roman. 44. Why may not priests swear? Resp. Is\nit because an oath put to free-born men, is as it were the rack and\ntorture offered them? For certain it is that the soul as well as the\nbody of the priest, ought to continue free, and not to be forced by\nany torture. Or that we must not distrust them in small matters, who\nare to be believed in great and divine things? Or because the peril of\nperjury would reach in common to the whole commonwealth, if a wicked,\nand ungodly, and forsworn person should have the charge and\nsuperintendency of the prayers, vows, and sacrifices made in behalf of\nthe city? Page 866.\n\n[52] See before, chap. iii. gr. direct. 10.\n\n[53] See part i. chap. ix. tit. 2, 3.\n\n[54] See Casaubon's Exercit. 202.\n\n[55] Cotta in Cic. de Nat. Deor. l. 1. to prove that some hold there\nis no God, saith, Quid de sacrilegis, de impiis, de perjuris dicemus,\nsi carbo, &c. putasset esse Deos, tam perjurus aut impius non fuisset,\np. 25, 26.\n\n[56] One of Canutus's laws (26.) was, that perjured persons, with\nsorcerers, idolaters, strumpets, breakers of wedlock, be banished the\nrealm: cited by Bilson of Subject. p. 202. How few would be left in\nsome lands if this were done!\n\n[57] Plut. in Lysand. Cicer. de Leg. lib. iii. Curt. lib. vii. Arist.\nRhet. c. 17.\n\n[58] \u00c6lian. Vari. Hist. lib. xiv.\n\n[59] Though as Moder. Polic. saith, Princ. 7, It is a huge advantage\nthat man hath in a credulous world, that can easily say and swear to\nany thing: and yet so palliate his perjuries as to hide them from the\ncognizance of the most. Gabionitarum irritum f\u0153dus, calliditate\nlicet extortum, nonnullis intulisse exitium, &c. Gildas in Prolog.\n\n[60] Haud amentum justiti\u00e6 est fides, i. e. dictorum conventorumque\nconstantia et veritas. Cicero.\n\n[61] Lege distinctionem Grotii inter \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd et \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03bf\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd,\nAnnot. in Matt. v. 33. Modern Policy, (supposed Dr. Sandcroft's,)\nPrinc. 7. 1. We are ready to interpret the words too kindly,\nespecially if they be ambiguous; and it is hard to find terms so\npositive, but they may be eluded indeed, or seem to us to be so, if we\nbe disposed. 2. Some are invited to illicit promises, _qua illicite_,\nbecause they know them to be invalid. 3. Some are frighted into these\nbonds by threats and losses, and temporal concernments, and then they\nplease themselves that they swear by duress, and so are disengaged. 4.\nSome are oath-proof, &c.\n\n[62] It is one of Solon's sayings in Laertius, p. 51, Probitarem\njure-jurando certiorem habe. What will not an atheistical impious\nperson say or swear, for advantage?\n\n[63] Nunc nunc qui f\u0153dera rumpit, Ditatur: Qui servat eget.\nClaudian.\n\n[64] See Dr. Sanders. p. 47, and 197.\n\n[65] Cicero de Leg. lib. 1. proveth that right is founded in the law\nof nature, more than in man's laws; else, saith he, men may make evil\ngood, and good evil, and make adultery, perjury, &c. just by making a\nlaw for them.\n\n[66] How often perjury hath ruined christian princes and states all\nhistory doth testify. The ruin of the Roman empire by the Goths, was\nby this means. Alaricus having leave to live quietly in France,\nStilico comes in perniciem Reipub. Gothos pertentans, dum eos insidiis\naggredi cuperet, belli summam Saulo pagano duci commisit: qui ipso\nsacratissimo die Pasch\u00e6, Gothis nil tale suspicantibus, super eos\nirruit, magnamque eorum partem prostravit. Nam primum perturbati\nGothi, ac propter religionem cedentes, demum arma corripiunt,\nvictoremque virtute potiori prosternunt exercitum: hinc in rabiem\nfuroris excitantur. C\u0153ptum iter deferentes, Romam contendunt\npetere, cuncta igne ferroque vastantes: nec mora; venientes urbem\ncapiunt, devastant, incendunt, &c. Paul. Diaconus, lib. 3.\n\n[67] Sanders. p. 30, 31.\n\n[68] Sanders. p. 32-41.\n\n[69] Sanders. p. 41-44. Ubi de justo sensu ambigitur, longe satius est\net natur\u00e6 rei accommodatius, strictiore quam benigniore uti\ninterpretatione. ibid. p. 44.\n\n[70] Sanders. p. 45.\n\n[71] They were ill times that Abbas Uspergensis describeth Chron. p.\n320. Ut omnis homo jam sit perjurus, et pr\u00e6dictis facinoribus\nimplicatus, ut vix excusari possit, quin sit in his, sicut populus,\nsic et sacerdos: Oh that this calamity had ended with that age! Et. p.\n321. Principes terrarum et barones, arte diabolica edocti, nec\ncurabant juramenta infringere, nec fidem violare, et jus omne\nconfundere.\n\n[72] Sand. p. 193. Cas. 48.\n\n[73] Sanders. p. 122-133.\n\n[74] Sanders. p. 50.\n\n[75] Sanders. p. 55, 56. In quo casu locum habet quod vulgo dicitur,\nFieri non debet, factum valet: possumus ergo distinguere, juramentum\ndici illicitum duobus modis. Vel respectu rei jurat\u00e6, vel respectu\nactus jurandi: Juramentum illicitum respectu rei jurat\u00e6 nullatenus\nobligat: Juramentum illicitum respectu actus jurandi obligat, nisi\naliunde impediatur.\n\n[76] Sanderson, p. 72, 73. Dico ordinarie quia fortassis possunt dari\ncasus in quibus juramentum quod videtur alicui legi communitatis aut\nvocationis adversari, etsi non debuerit suscipi, susceptum tamen\npotest obligare: ut e. g. in lege p\u0153nali disjunctiva. See the\ninstances which he addeth. Joseph took an oath of the Israelites, to\ncarry his bones out of Egypt, Gen. l. 25. What if Pharaoh forbid them?\nAre they acquit? The spies swore to Rahab, Josh. ii. 12, 18. Had they\nbeen quit if the rulers had acquit them?\n\n[77] Read of this at large, Amesii Cas. Cons. l. v. c. 5. qu. 4.\n\n[78] And si infringendo infregerit ea vir ejus, v. 12. Vir ejus\ninfregit ea, v. 13.\n\n[79] Dr. Sanderson, Pr\u00e6lect. 4. sect. 5. p. 104, 105, limiteth it to\nDe his rebus in quibus subest: in those same things in which one is\nunder another's government; adding, sect. 6, a double exception: Of\nwhich one respecteth the person of the swearer, the other the consent\nof the superior: the first is that As to the person of the swearer,\nthere is scarce any one that hath the use of reason that is so fully\nunder another's power, but that in some things he is _sui juris_, at\nhis own power: and there every one may do as pleases himself, without\nconsulting his superior, so as that by his own act, without his\nsuperior's license, he may bind himself. 2. As to the consent of a\nsuperior, A tacit consent, antecedent or consequent, sufficeth. Quasi\ndiceret, si dissensum suum vel uno die dissimulet, votum in perpetuum\nstabilivit.\n\n[80] Sanderson, p. 73.\n\n[81] Sanders. Pr\u00e6l. iii. sect. 12.\n\n[82] Psal. xv. 4.\n\n[83] Sanders. p. 80, 81.\n\n[84] Sanders. p. 82.\n\n[85] Ibid. p. 122.\n\n[86] Sanders. p. 120, 121. This seemeth the case of Isaac in blessing\nJacob: the _error person\u00e6_ caused by Jacob's own deceit did not\nnullify the blessing, because it was fixed on the determinate person\nthat it was spoken to.\n\n[87] Sanders. p. 84.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nDIRECTIONS TO THE PEOPLE CONCERNING THEIR INTERNAL AND PRIVATE DUTY TO\nTHEIR PASTORS, AND THE IMPROVEMENT OF THEIR MINISTERIAL OFFICE AND\nGIFTS.\n\n\nThe people's internal and private duty to their pastors (which I may\ntreat of without an appearance of encroachment upon the work of the\ncanons, rubrics, and diocesans) I shall open to you in these\ndirections following.\n\n_Direct._ I. Understand first the true ground, and nature, and reasons\nof the ministerial office, or else you will not understand the\ngrounds, and nature, and reasons of your duty to them. The nature and\nworks of the ministerial office I have so plainly opened already that\nI shall refer you to it to avoid repetition.[88] Here are two sorts of\nreasons to be given you: 1. The reasons of the necessity of the\nministerial work. 2. Why certain persons must be separated to this\nwork, and it must not be left to all in common.\n\nThe necessity of the work itself appeareth in the very nature of it,\nand enumeration of the parts of it.[89] Two sorts of ministers Christ\nhath made use of for his church: the first sort was for the revelation\nof some new law or doctrine, to be the church's rule of faith or life;\nand these were to prove their authority and credibility by some divine\nattestation, which was especially by miracles; and so Moses revealed\nthe law to the Jews, and (Christ and) the apostles revealed the\ngospel. The second sort of ministers are appointed to guide the church\nto salvation by opening and applying the rule thus already sealed and\ndelivered: and these, as they are to bring no new revelations or\ndoctrines of faith, or rule of life, so they need not bring any\nmiracle to prove their call or authority to the church; for they have\nno power to deliver any new doctrine or gospel to the church, but only\nthat which is confirmed by miracles already. And it is impudence to\ndemand that the same gospel be proved by new miracles by every\nminister that shall expound or preach it: that would make miracles to\nbe no miracles.\n\n[Sidenote: The work of the ministry.]\n\nThe work of the ordinary ministry (such as the priests and teachers\nwere under the law, and ordinary pastors and teachers are under the\ngospel) being only to gather and govern the churches, their work lay\nin explaining and applying the word of God, and delivering his\nsacraments, and now containeth these particulars following: 1. To\npreach the gospel for the conversion of the unbelieving and ungodly\nworld. And that is done, partly by expounding the words by a\ntranslation into a tongue which the hearers or readers understand; and\npartly by opening the sense and matter.[90] 2. In this they are not\nonly teachers, but messengers sent from God the Father, Son, and Holy\nGhost, to charge, and command, and entreat men in his name to repent\nand believe, and be reconciled to God; and in his name to offer them a\nsealed pardon of all their sins, and title to eternal life.[91] 3.\nThose that become the disciples of Christ, they are (as his stewards)\nto receive into his house, as fellow-citizens of the saints, and of\nthe household of God; and as his commissioned officers, to solemnize\nby baptism their entrance into the holy covenant, and to receive their\nengagement to God, and to be the messengers of God's engagement unto\nthem, and by investiture to deliver them by that sacrament the pardon\nof all their sin, and their title by adoption to eternal life; as a\nhouse is delivered by the delivery of a key; or land, by a twig and\nturf; or knighthood, by a sword or garter, &c. 4. These ministers are\nto gather these converts into solemn assemblies and ordered churches,\nfor their solemn worshipping of God, and mutual edification,\ncommunion, and safe proceeding in their christian course.[92] 5. They\nare to be the stated teachers of the assemblies, by expounding and\napplying that word which is fit to build them up. 6. They are to be\nthe guides of the congregation in public worship, and to stand between\nthem and Christ in things pertaining to God, as subservient to Christ\nin his priestly office; and so both for the people, and also in their\nnames, to put up the public prayers and praises of the church to God.\n7. It is their duty to administer to them, as in the name and stead of\nChrist, his body and blood as broken and shed for them, and so in the\nfrequent renewals of the holy covenants, to subserve Christ\nespecially in his priestly office, to offer and deliver Christ and his\nbenefits to them, and to be their agent in offering themselves to God.\n8. They are appointed to oversee and govern the church, in the public\nordering of the solemn worship of God, and in rebuking any that are\nthere disorderly, and seeing that all things be done to\nedification.[93] 9. They are appointed as teachers for every\nparticular member of the church to have private and personal recourse\nto, (as far as may be,) for the resolving of their weighty doubts, and\ninstruction in cases of difficulty and necessity, and for the settling\nof their peace and comfort. 10. They are appointed as physicians under\nChrist, to watch over all the individual members of their charge, and\ntake care that they be not infected with heresy, or corrupted by vice;\nand to admonish the offenders, and reduce them into the way of truth\nand holiness, and if they continue impenitent after public admonition,\nto reject them from the communion of the church, and command the\nchurch to avoid them. 11. They are as to bind over the impenitent to\nanswer their contumacy at the bar of Christ, so to absolve the\npenitent, and comfort them, and require the church to re-admit them to\ntheir communion. 12. They are appointed as stewards in the household\nof Christ, to have a tender care of the very bodily welfare of their\nflocks, so as to endeavour the supplying of their wants, and stirring\nup the rich to relieve the poor, and faithfully (by themselves or the\ndeacons) to distribute what is intrusted with them for that use. 13.\nThey are especially to visit the sick, and when they are sent for, to\npray for them and with them, and to instruct them in their special\npreparations for death, and confirm them against those last assaults.\n14. They are appointed to be the public champions of the truth, to\ndefend it against all heretical and profane opposers, and thereby to\npreserve the flock from being seduced. 15. They are appointed to be\n(under Christ the Head) the nerves and ligaments of the several\nchurches, by which they are kept not only in vigour by communication\nof nutriment, but also in concord, and such communion as they are\ncapable of, by the correspondencies, and consultations, and councils\nof their pastors.[94] All these are the distinct and special uses to\nwhich Christ hath appointed the office of the sacred ministry; which\nhaving but named to you, I need to say no more to show you the\nexcellency, and necessity, and benefits of it.\n\nHerein also the reasons are apparent, why Christ did institute this\nsacred office. 1. Because it was meet his kingdom should have\nofficers, suited to his work in the administration of it. 2. It was\nmeet that they be men like ourselves, that we can familiarly converse\nwith. 3. The great necessity of his church required it, where the most\nare weak, and insufficient to perform all these offices for\nthemselves; and cannot well subsist without the support of others. It\nwas meet therefore that the pastors were selected persons, wiser, and\nholier, and stronger than the people, and fit for so great and\nnecessary a work. 4. It was requisite also to the order of the church;\nfor if it were like an army without officers, there would be nothing\nbut confusion, and neither order nor edification.\n\nBy this you may also see the nature and reasons of your obedience to\nyour pastors: as they are not appointed to govern you by force,[95]\nbut willingly, \"not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind, not as\nbeing lords over God's heritage, but as ensamples to the flock,\" 1\nPet. v. 1-3, so you must willingly and cheerfully obey them in their\nwork. As their government[96] is not by any bodily penalties or\nmulcts, (for that is the magistrate's work and not theirs,) but a\ngovernment by the force of truth and love; so your obedience of them\nconsisteth in the loving and thankful reception of the truth which\nthey teach you, and the mercies which they offer you from Christ.\n\nYou see then that the reasons of your obedience are manifold. 1. Some\nof them from God: he hath sent his messengers to you, and set his\nofficers over you; and Christ hath told you that he that heareth them\nheareth him, and he that despiseth them despiseth him, and him that\nsent him, Luke x. 16: he commandeth you to hear and obey them as his\nofficers. 2. From themselves: they have authority by their commission,\nand they have ability in their qualifications, which require your\nobedience and improvement. 3. From yourselves. Have you reason to obey\nyour natural parents on whom your livelihood in the world dependeth?\nHave you reason to obey him that tendereth you a pardon from the king\nwhen you are condemned? or that offereth you gold or riches in your\nwant? or that inviteth you to a feast in a time of famine? or that\noffereth to defend and save you from your enemies? Much more have you\nreason to obey Christ's ministers when they call you to repentance,\nand offer you pardon of sin, and peace, and salvation, and eternal\nlife. Did you ever hear a man so mad or churlish, as to say to one\nthat offered him riches, or liberty, or life, I am not bound to obey\nyou; offer them to those that you have authority over? When the office\nof the ministry is as well subservient to Christ as a Saviour and\nBenefactor, as to Christ as your Teacher and your King, the very\nnature of their work engageth you to obey them as you love yourselves.\nIf you were in hell, and Christ should send for you out, you would not\nrefuse to go, till the messenger had proved his authority. And when\nyou are the heirs of hell, condemned by the law, and going thither,\nwill you refuse to turn back, and yield to the offers and commands of\ngrace, till you have skill enough to read the minister's commission?\n\nBy this also you see, that the power of your pastors is not absolute,\nnor coercive and lordly, but ministerial.[97] And though the papists\nmake a scorn of the word \"minister,\" it is but in that pride, and\npassion, and malice which maketh them speak against their knowledge:\nfor their pope himself calleth himself the servant of God's servants;\nand Paul saith, 1 Cor. iv. 1, \"Let a man so account of us as of the\nministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.\" 1 Cor.\niii. 5, \"Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom\nye believed?\" 2 Cor. iii. 6, \"Who made us able ministers of the new\ntestament.\" 2 Cor. vi. 4, \"In all things approving ourselves as the\nministers of God.\" Even magistrates, yea, and angels, are not too good\nto be called (and used as) the ministers of God for the good of his\nservants, Rom. xiii. 3, 6; \"and to minister for them who shall be\nheirs of salvation,\" Heb. i. 7, 14. Yea, Christ himself is so called,\nRom. xv. 8. And therefore you have no more excuse for your\ndisobedience, than for refusing his help that would pull you out of\nfire or water when you are perishing. You see here that your pastors\ncannot command you what they list, nor how they list. They have\nnothing to do with the magistrate's work; nor can they usurp the power\nof a master over his servants, nor command you how to do your work and\nworldly business (except in the morality of it). In the fifteen\nparticulars before mentioned their work and office doth consist, and\nin those it is that you owe them a rational obedience.\n\n_Direct._ II. Know your own pastors in particular: and know both what\nyou owe to a minister as a minister of Christ in common, and what you\nowe him moreover as your pastor by special relation and charge.[98]\nWhen any minister of Christ delivereth his word to you, he must be\nheard as a minister of Christ, and not as a private man; but to your\nown pastor you are bound in a particular relation, to an ordinary and\nregular attendance upon his ministry in all the particulars before\nmentioned that concern you. Your own bishop must in a special manner\nbe obeyed:\n\n1. As one that laboureth among you, and is over you in the Lord, and\nadmonisheth you, and preacheth to you the word of God,[99] watching\nfor your souls as one that must give account, 1 Thess. v. 12; Heb.\nxiii. 7, 17; and as one that ruleth well, and especially that\nlaboureth in the word and doctrine, 1 Tim. v. 17; \"teaching you\npublicly and from house to house, taking heed to himself, and to all\nthe flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made him an overseer, not\nceasing to warn every one night and day with tears,\" Acts xx. 19, 20,\n24, 28, 31, 33. \"Preaching Christ, and warning every man, and teaching\nevery man in all wisdom, that he may present every man perfect in\nChrist,\" Col. i. 28.\n\n2. He is to be obeyed as the guide of the congregation in the\nmanagement of God's public worship. You must seriously and reverently\njoin with him every Lord's day at least in the public prayers and\npraises of the church, and not ordinarily go from him to another.\n\n3. You must receive from him or with him, the sacrament of the body\nand blood of Christ: which of old was administered every Lord's day,\nand that only in the church where the bishop was, that is, in every\nchurch of the faithful: for, as Ignatius most observably saith,[100]\n\u1f13\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2--UNUM ALTARE OMNI ECCLESI\u00c6, ET UNUS EPISCOPUS CUM\nPRESBYTERIO ET DIACONIS.--IN EVERY CHURCH there is ONE ALTAR, and ONE\nBISHOP, WITH THE PRESBYTERY and DEACONS.--So in his Epist. ad Magnes.\nCome all as one, to the temple of God, as to one altar, as to one\nJesus Christ. And saith Tertullian,[101] _Eucharist\u00e6 Sacramentum--nec\nde aliorum manu quam pr\u00e6sidentium sumimus_: We take not the sacrament\nof the eucharist from the hand of any but the president.\n\n4. You must have recourse to him especially for the resolution of your\nweighty doubts, in private.[102]\n\n5. You must hear your bishops and repent, when in meekness and love\nthey convince and admonish you against your sins, and not resist the\nword of God which they powerfully and patiently lay home to your\nconsciences, nor put them with grief to cut you off, as impenitent in\nscandalous sins, from the communion of the church.\n\n6. You must, after any scandalous sin which hath brought you under the\ncensure of the church, go humble yourselves by penitent confession,\nand crave absolution and restoration to the communion of the church.\n\n7. Your public church alms should ordinarily be deposited into the\nbishop's hands, who relieveth the orphans and widows, and is the\ncurator or guardian to all absolutely that are in want, saith Ignatius\nto Polycarp, cited by Dr. Hammond on 1 Cor. xii. 28.[103]\n\n8. You must send for him in your sickness to pray with you and advise\nyou. See Dr. Hammond on James v. 14. And on 1 Cor. xii. 28, he saith,\nPolycarp himself speaking of the elders or bishops saith, They visit\nand take care of all that are sick, not neglecting the widows, the\norphans, or the poor. And Dr. Hammond on James v. 14, showeth out of\nantiquity,[104] that One part of the bishop's office is set down, that\nthey are those that visit all the sick. Not but that a stranger may be\nmade use of also; but ordinarily and especially your own bishop must\nbe sent for; because as you are his special charge, and he \"watcheth\nfor your souls as one that must give account,\" Heb. xiii. 17, so it is\nsupposed that he is better acquainted with your spiritual state and\nlife than others are, and therefore in less danger of wronging you by\nmistake and misapplications; for it is supposed that you have\nacquainted him with your personal condition in your health, having\ntaken him as your ordinary counsellor for your souls, and that he hath\nacquainted himself with your condition, and confirmed you, and watched\nover you by name, as Ignatius to Polycarp bishop of Smyrna saith,[105]\n_S\u00e6pe congregationes fiant: ex nomine omnes qu\u00e6re: servos et ancillas\nne despicias_, as bishop Usher's old Latin translation hath it: Let\ncongregations be often held; inquire after all by name: despise not\nservants and maids. The bishop took notice of every servant and maid\nby name; and he had opportunity to see whether they were in the\ncongregation.\n\n9. You must use him as your leader or champion against all heretics,\ninfidels, and subtle adversaries of the truth, with whom you are\nunable to contend yourselves, that your bishops may clear up and\ndefend the cause of Christ and righteousness, and by irresistible\nevidence, stop the mouths of all gainsayers.[106] It is for your own\nbenefit, and not for theirs, that you are required in all these works\nof their office to use them and readily obey them. And what hurt can\nit do you to obey them in any of these?\n\n_Direct._ III. Understand how it is that Christ doth authorize and\nsend forth his ministers, lest wolves and deceivers should either\nobtrude themselves upon you as your lawful pastors, or should alienate\nyou from those that God hath set over you, by puzzling you in subtle\nquestioning or disputing against their call. Not only Paul's warnings,\nActs xx. 30, and 2 Tim. iii. 6, but lamentable experience, telleth us\nwhat an eager desire there is in proud and self-conceited men, to\nobtrude themselves as teachers and pastors on the churches, to creep\ninto houses and lead people captive, and draw away disciples after\nthem, and say (and perhaps think) that others are deceivers, and none\nare the true teachers indeed but they. And the first part of the art\nand work of wolves, is to separate you from your pastors, and catch up\nthe stragglers that are thus separated. The malice, and slanders, and\nlies, and railing of hirelings and deceivers, and all the powers of\nhell, are principally poured out on the faithful pastors and leaders\nof the flocks. The principal work of the Jesuits against you, is to\nmake you believe that your pastors are no true pastors, but uncalled\nprivate persons, and mere usurpers: and the reason must be, because\nthey have not an ordination of bishops successively from the apostles\nwithout interruption.[107] I confess if our interruptions had been\nhalf as lamentable as theirs, (by their schisms, and variety of popes\nat once; and popes accused, or condemned by general councils, for\nheretics; and their variety of ways of electing popes, and their\nincapacities by simony, usurpation, &c.) I should think at least that\nour ancestors had cause to have questioned the calling of some that\nwere then over them. But I will help you in a few words to discern the\njuggling of these deceivers, by showing you the truth concerning the\nway of Christ's giving his commission to the ministers that are truly\ncalled, and the needlessness of the proof of an uninterrupted\nsuccession of regular ordination, to your reception of your pastors\nand their ministrations.\n\nThe ministerial commission is contained in, and conveyed by, the law\nof Christ, which is the charter of the church, and every true bishop\nor pastor hath his power from Christ, and not at all from the\nefficient conveyance of any mortal man: even as kings have their power\nnot from man, but from God himself; but with this difference, that in\nthe church Christ hath immediately determined of the species of church\noffices, but in the civil government, only of the genus (absolutely\nand immediately).[108] You cannot have a plainer illustration, than by\nconsidering how mayors, and bailiffs, and constables are annually made\nin corporations: the king by his charter saith, that every year at a\ncertain time the free-men or burgesses shall meet, and choose one to\nbe their mayor, and the steward or town-clerk shall give him his oath,\nand thus or thus he shall be invested in his place, and this shall be\nhis power and work, and no other. So the king by his law appointeth\nthat constables and churchwardens shall be chosen in every parish.\nNow let our two questions be here decided: 1. Who is it that giveth\nthese officers their power? 2. Whether an uninterrupted succession of\nsuch officers through all generations since the enacting of that law,\nbe necessary to the validity of the present officer's authority? To\nthe first, It is certain that it is the king by his law or charter\nthat giveth the officers their power; and that the corporations and\nparishes do not give it them by electing or investing them; yea,\nthough the king hath made such election and investiture to be in a\nsort his instrument in the conveying it, it is but as the opening of\nthe door to let them in, _sine quo non_; but it doth not make the\ninstruments to be at all the givers of the power, nor were they the\nreceiving or containing mediate causes of it. The king never gave them\nthe power which the officers receive, either to use, or to give; but\nonly makes the electors his instruments to determine of the person\nthat shall receive the power immediately from the law or charter; and\nthe investers he maketh his instruments of solemnizing the tradition\nand admission: which if the law or charter make absolutely necessary\n_ad esse officii_, it will be so; but if it make it necessary only _ad\nmelius esse_, or but for order and regular admittance when no\nnecessity hindereth it, the necessity will be no more. And to the\nsecond question, It is plain that the law, which is the _fundamentum\njuris_, remaining still the same, if a parish omit for divers years to\nchoose any constable or churchwarden, yet the next time they do choose\none according to law, the law doth authorize him, nevertheless, though\nthere was an interruption or vacancy so long; and so in corporations\n(unless the law or charter say the contrary): so is it in the present\ncase. 1. It is the established law of Christ, which describeth the\noffice, determineth of the degree and kind of power, and granteth or\nconveyeth it, when the person is determined of by the electors and\nordainers, though by ordination the delivery and admission is\nregularly to be solemnized; which actions are of just so much\nnecessity as that law hath made them, and no more. 2. And if there\nwere never so long an interruption or vacancy, he that afterward\nentereth lawfully, so as to want nothing which the law of Christ hath\nmade necessary to the being of the office, doth receive his power\nnevertheless immediately from the law of Christ. And Bellarmine\nhimself saith, that it is not necessary to the people, and to the\nvalidity of sacraments and offices to them, to know that their pastors\nbe truly called or ordained: and if it be not necessary to the\nvalidity of sacraments, it is not necessary to the validity of\nordination. And W. Johnson[109] confesseth to me that consecration is\nnot absolutely necessary _ad esse officii_ to the pope himself: no,\nnor any one sort of electors in his election, p. 133. And in his Repl.\nTerm. Expl. p. 45, he saith, Neither papal nor episcopal jurisdiction\n(as all the learned know) depends of episcopal or papal ordination:\nnor was there ever interruptions of successions in episcopal\njurisdiction in any see, for want of that alone, that is necessary for\nconsecrating others validly, and not for jurisdiction over them. You\nsee then how little sincerity is in these men's disputations, when\nthey would persuade you to reject your lawful pastors as no true\nministers of Christ, for want of their ordination or succession.\n\n_Direct._ IV. Though the sacraments and other ministerial offices are\nvalid, when a minister is qualified (in his abilities and call) but\nwith so much as is essential to the office, though he be defective in\ndegree of parts and faithfulness, and have personal faults which prove\nhis own destruction; yet so great is the difference between a holy,\nheavenly, learned, judicious, experienced, skilful, zealous,\nlaborious, faithful minister, and an ignorant, ungodly, idle,\nunskilful one, and so highly should every wise man value the best\nmeans and advantages to his eternal happiness, that he should use all\nlawful means in his power to enjoy and live under such an able, godly,\npowerful ministry, though he part with his worldly wealth and pleasure\nto attain it.[110] I know no evil must be done for the attainment of\nthe greatest helps; (for we cannot expect that God should bless a\nsinful course, or that our sin should tend to the saving of our\nsouls;) and I know God can bless the weakest means, when they are such\nas he appointeth us to use; and can teach us by angels when he denieth\nus the help of men: but Scripture, reason, and experience tell us,\nthat ordinarily he worketh morally by means, and fitteth the means to\nthe work which he will do by them: and as he doth not use to light men\nby a clod or stone, but by a candle, nor by a rotten post or glow-worm\nso much as by a torch or luminary; so he doth not use to work as much\nby an ignorant, drunken, idle person, who despiseth the God, the\nheaven, the Christ, the Spirit, the grace, the sacred word which he\npreacheth, and vilifieth both his own and other men's souls, as he\ndoth by an able and compassionate minister. And the soul is of so much\nmore worth than the body, and eternal things than temporal, that a\nlittle commodity to the soul in order to the securing of our\nsalvation, must be preferred before a great deal of worldly riches: he\nthat knoweth what his soul, his Saviour, and heaven is worth, will not\neasily sit down contented, under such a dark, and dull, and starving\nminister, as he feeleth he can but little profit by, if better may be\nhad on lawful terms. He that feeleth no difference between the\nministry of these two sorts of men, it is because he is a stranger to\nthe work of the gospel on the soul: and \"if the gospel (in its truth,\nor worth, or use) be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, the god of\nthis world having blinded their minds.\"[111] It must be no small\nmatter that must satisfy a serious christian to cast his soul upon any\nhurtful or dangerous disadvantage. Though Daniel and his companions\nmay live well on pulse, yea, and Ezekiel upon bread baked with dung,\nwhen God will have it so, yet no wise man will choose such a diet:\nespecially if his diseases require the exactest diet, or his weakness\nthe most restorative, and all too little; which, alas, is the common\ncase. Yet this caution you must here take with you, 1. That you\npretend not your own benefit, to the common loss or hurt of others. 2.\nAnd that you consider as well where you may do most good, as where you\nmay get most; for the way of greatest service, is the way of greatest\ngain.\n\n[Sidenote: The order and credit of ministerial teaching the doctrine\nof salvation.]\n\n_Direct._ V. Understand what sort and measure of belief it is that you\nowe to your teachers, that so your incredulity hinder not your faith\nin Christ, nor your over-much credulity betray you to heresy, nor make\nyou the servants of men, contrary to Matt. xxiii. 8-10; Eph. iv. 13; 2\nCor. i. 24; Acts xx. 30. We see on one side how many poor souls are\ncheated into schism and dangerous errors, by forsaking their teachers\nand refusing their necessary help, and all upon this pretence, that\nthey must not make men the lords of their faith, nor pin their faith\non the minister's sleeve, nor take their religion upon trust. And on\nthe other side we see among the papists, and in every sect, what\nlamentable work is made by an over-much credulity and implicit belief\nof ambitious, worldly, factious, proud, and erroneous guides. That you\nmay escape both these extremes, you must observe the truth of these\nconclusions following, which show you what it is that your teachers\nhave to reveal unto you, and in what order, and how far the several\nparticulars are, or are not to be taken upon their words.\n\nAnd first, as a preparative, it is presupposed, (1.) That you find\nyourself ignorant, and one that needeth a teacher; for if you think\nyou know all that you need to know already, you are like a full bottle\nthat will hold no more. (2.) It is presupposed that you take the man\nthat you learn of to be wiser than yourself, and fit to teach you;\neither because fame or other men's reports have told you so, (as the\nwoman, John iv. drew the Samaritans to Christ,) or because his own\nprofession of skill doth make you think so (as you will hearken to him\nthat professeth to be able to teach you any art or science); or else\nbecause your present hearing his discourse doth convince you of his\nwisdom; by one of these means you are brought to think that he is one\nthat you may learn of, and is fit for you to hear (so that here is no\nneed that first you take him to be infallible, or that you know which\nis the true church, as the papists say). These are supposed.\n\n[Sidenote: To know yourself.]\n\nThe doctrines which he is to teach you are these, and in this method\nto be taught. 1. He will teach you the natural knowledge of yourself;\nthat being a man, you are a rational, free agent, made by another for\nhis will and use, and by him to be ruled in order to your ultimate\nend, being wholly his, and at his disposal.\n\n[Sidenote: To know God and holiness.]\n\n2. He will next teach you that there is a God that made you, and what\nhe is, and what relation he standeth in to you, and you to him, as\nyour Creator, your Owner, your Ruler, and your Benefactor, and your\nEnd: and what duty you owe him in these relations, to submit to him,\nand resign yourselves to him as his own, to be obedient to all his\nlaws, and to love him and delight in him; and this with all your\nheart, and soul, and might; even to serve him with all the powers of\nyour soul and body, and with your estates and all his blessings.\n\n[Sidenote: To know the life to come.]\n\n3. He will next teach you that this God hath made your souls immortal,\nand that there is a life after this where everlasting happiness or\nmisery will be your part, and where the great rewards and punishments\nare executed by the Judge of all the world as men have behaved\nthemselves in this present life. That your end and happiness is not\nhere, but in the life to come, and that this life is the way and time\nof preparation, in which everlasting happiness is won or lost.\n\nThus far he needeth no supernatural proof of what he saith; but can\nprove it all to you from the light of nature: and these things you are\nnot primarily to receive of him as a testifier by mere believing him;\nbut as a teacher, by learning of him the evidences by which you may by\ndegrees come to know these things yourselves.\n\nYet it is supposed that all along you give him so much credit as the\ndifference between his knowledge and yours doth require, so far as it\nappeareth to you; as you will hear a physician, a lawyer, a\nphilosopher, or any man, with reverence, while he discourseth of the\nmatters of his own profession; as confessing his judgment to be better\nthan yours, and therefore more suspecting your own apprehensions than\nhis. Not but that the truth may compel you to discern it, though you\nshould come with no such reverence or respect to him; but then you\ncast yourself upon much disadvantage irrationally; and this human\nbelief of him is but a medium to your learning, and so to the\nknowledge of the matter; so that you do not stop and rest in his\nauthority or credibility, but only use it in order to your discovery\nof that evidence which you rest in, which as a teacher he acquaints\nyou with.\n\nThese things being thus far revealed by natural light, are (usually)\nat first apprehended by natural reason, not so as presently to put or\nprove the soul in a state of saving grace; but so as to awaken it to\nmake further inquiry; and so when the soul is come so far as to see\nthe same truths by supernatural grace in the supernatural revelation\nof the holy Scriptures, then they become more effectual and saving,\nwhich before were known preparatorily; and so the same truths are then\nboth the objects of knowledge and of faith.\n\n[Sidenote: To know that Christ, faith, repentance, and obedience, is\nthe way to it.]\n\n4. Having acquainted you with man's ultimate end and happiness in the\nlife to come, the next thing to be taught you by the ministers of\nChrist, is, that Christ as our Saviour, and faith, and repentance,\nand sincere obedience to be performed by us through his grace, is the\nway to heaven, or the means by which we must attain this end. Though\nthe knowledge of the preacher's wisdom, piety, and credibility remove\nsome impediments which would make the receiving of this the more\ndifficult to you, yet you are not to take it barely on his word, as a\npoint of human faith; but you are to call for his proof of it, that\nyou may see better reasons than his affirmations for the entertainment\nof it.\n\n[Sidenote: To know that this is true because God hath revealed it; or\nit is his word.]\n\n5. The proof that he will give you is in these two propositions: 1.\nGod's revelations are all true. 2. This is one of God's revelations:\nthis is an argument, Whatsoever God saith is true: but this God saith,\ntherefore this is true. The first proposition you are not to take upon\nthe trust of his word, but to learn of him as a teacher to know it in\nits proper evidence; for it is the formal object of your faith: the\nveracity of God is first known to you, by the same evidence and means\nas you know that there is a God; and then it is by the force of this\nthat you believe the particular truths which are the material object\nof faith. And the second proposition, that God hath revealed this, is\norderly to be first proved, and so received upon its proper evidence;\nand not taken merely upon your teacher's word: yet if you do believe\nhim by a human faith as a man that is likely to know what he saith,\nand this in order to a divine faith, it will not hinder, but help your\ndivine faith and salvation; and is indeed no more than is your duty.\n\nHere note, 1. That primarily these two great principles of faith, God\nis true, and this is God's revelation, are not themselves _credenda_,\nthe material objects of divine faith, but of knowledge. 2. That yet\nthe result of both is _de fide_, matter of faith. 3. And the same\nprinciples are secondarily _de fide_, as it is that there is a God.\nFor though they are first to be known by natural evidence, yet when\nthe Scripture is opened to us, we shall find them there revealed; and\nso the same thing may be the object both of knowledge and of faith. 4.\nAnd faith itself is a sort of knowledge; for though human faith have\nthat uncertainty in its premises, (for the most part,) as forbiddeth\nus to say, (properly,) I know this to be true, because such a man said\nit; yet divine faith hath that certainty which may make it an\nexcellent sort of knowledge; as I have proved copiously elsewhere. In\nbelieving man we argue thus, Whatsoever so wise and honest a man\nsaith, is credible, that is, most likely to be true: but this he\nsaith; therefore, &c. But in believing God we argue thus, Whatever God\nsaith is credible, that is, as infallible truth: but this God saith;\ntherefore, &c. So that the word credible, signifieth not the same\nthing in the two arguments; nor are divine faith and human faith the\nsame.\n\n[Sidenote: To know that the gospel is his word.]\n\n6. The next thing that the preacher hath to teach you, is the proof of\nthe aforesaid minor proposition (for the major was proved in the proof\nof a Deity); and that is thus: The gospel which Christ and his\napostles first preached, and is now delivered in the sacred\nScriptures, is the word, or infallible revelation, of God: but this\ndoctrine, that Christ, with faith, and repentance, and obedience on\nour parts, are the way to life eternal, is the gospel which Christ and\nhis apostles first preached, &c.; therefore it is the word of God. For\nthe minor you need not take your teacher's word, if you can read; for\nyou may see it in the Bible (of which more anon): but the major is\nthat which all men desire to be assured of, That the gospel is God's\nword. And for that, though a belief of your teacher is a help and\ngood preparatory, yet you are not there to stop, but to use him as a\nteacher to show you the truth of it in the proofs: or else you must\ntake any thing for God's word, which your teacher affirmeth to be\nsuch. And the proof which he will give you, must be some divine\nattestation which may be showed to those whom we would convince.\n\n[Sidenote: The Divine attestation of the gospel.]\n\n7. The divine attestation, which he is next to show you, hath many\nparts, that it may be complete and satisfactory. 1. God's antecedent\ntestimony. 2. His inherent or impressed testimony. 3. His adherent,\nconcomitant testimony. 4. His subsequent testimony. 1. God's\nantecedent testimony by which he attested the gospel, is the train of\npromises, prophecies, types, and the preparing ministry of John, which\nall foretold Christ, and were fulfilled in him. 2. God's impressed\ntestimony is that image and superscription of God, (in his governing\nwisdom, holiness, and love,) which is inimitably engraven on the\ngospel; as an image upon a seal, which is thereby made the instrument\nto imprint the same on other things. Thus as the sun, the gospel\nshineth, and proveth itself by its proper light. 3. The concomitant\nattestation of God, is that of multitudes of certain, uncontrolled\nmiracles, done by Christ and his apostles, which proved the approving\nhand of God, and oblige all rational creatures to believe a testimony\nso confirmed to them. Among these, Christ's own resurrection and\nascension, and the gifts of his apostles, are the chief. 4. The\nsubsequent attestation of God is, the power and efficacy of the\ngospel, in calling and sanctifying unto Christ a peculiar people,\nzealous of good works, and directing and confirming them against all\ntemptations and torments to the end; producing that same image of God\non the souls of his elect, which is (more perfectly) engraven on the\nworld itself; making such changes, and gathering such a people unto\nGod, as no other doctrine ever did. And all these four attestations\nare but one, even the Holy Spirit, who is become the great witness of\nChrist and his gospel in the world: viz. 1. The Spirit of prophecy is\nthe antecedent attestation. 2. The holy image which the Spirit hath\nprinted on the gospel itself, is the inherent evidence. 3. The\nmiracles of the Spirit, is the concomitant attestation or evidence. 4.\nAnd the sanctifying work of the Spirit is the subsequent attestation,\nrenewed and accompanying it to the end of the world. So that the\nargument runs thus, That doctrine which hath this witness of the Holy\nGhost, antecedently in such prophecies, inherently bearing his image\nso inimitably, accompanied by so many certain, uncontrolled miracles,\nand followed and attended with such matchless success in the\nsanctification of the body of Christ, is fully attested by God to be\nhis own: but such is the doctrine of the gospel; therefore, &c. The\nmajor you are not to take upon trust from your teachers, though your\nesteem of their judgment may the better dispose you to learn; but you\nare to discern the evidences of truth which is apparent in it. For he\nthat denieth this, must by force of argument be driven to deny, 1.\nEither that God is the Governor of the world; or that he is the\nsupreme, but say he is controlled by another. 2. Or that he is good\nand true; and must affirm that he either governeth the world by mere\ndeceits, and undiscernible lies, or that he hath given up the power to\nsome one that so governeth it: all which is but to affirm that there\nis no God (which is supposed to be proved before).\n\n[Sidenote: To know the matters of fact subservient to our faith.]\n\n8. There now remaineth nothing to be taught you, as to prove the truth\nof the gospel, but only those matters of fact which are contained and\nsupposed in the minor of the two last arguments: and they are these\nparticulars. 1. That there were such persons as Christ and his\napostles, and such a gospel preached by them. 2. That such miracles\nwere done by them, as are supposed. 3. That both doctrine and miracles\nwere committed to writing by them, in the Scriptures, for the\ncertainer preserving them to the church's use.[112] 4. That churches\nwere planted, and souls converted and confirmed by them in the first\nages, many of whom did seal them with their blood. 5. That there have\nbeen a succession of such churches as have adhered to this Christ and\ngospel. 6. That this which we call the Bible is that very book\ncontaining those sacred writings afore-mentioned. 7. That it hath been\nstill copied out and preserved without any such depravation or\ncorruption as might frustrate its ends. 8. That the copies are such\nout of which we have them translated, and which we show. 9. That they\nare so truly translated as to have no such corruptions or mistakes, as\nto frustrate their ends, or make them unapt for the work they were\nappointed to. 10. That these particular words are indeed here written\nwhich we read; and these particular doctrines containing the\nessentials of christianity, together with the rest of the material\nobjects of faith.\n\nAll these ten particulars are matters of fact that are merely\nsubservient to the constituting principles of our faith, but yet very\nneedful to be known. Now the question is, How these must be known and\nreceived by us so as not to invalidate our faith? and how far our\nteachers must be here believed? And first it is very useful to us to\ninquire, How so many of these matters of fact as were then existent\nwere known to the first christians? As how knew they in those days\nthat there were such persons as Christ and his apostles? that they\npreached such doctrines, and spake such languages, and did such works,\nand that they wrote such books, and sent such epistles to the\nchurches, and that churches were hereby converted and confirmed, and\nmartyrs sealed this with their blood, &c.? It is easy to tell how they\nwere certain of all these; even by their own eyes, and ears, and\nsensible observation, as we know that there are Englishmen live in\nEngland; and those that were remoter from some of the matters of fact,\nknew them by such report of those that did see them, as those among us\nthat never saw the king, or court, or his restoration, do know that\nsuch a thing there was, and such a person there is. Thus they knew it\nthen.\n\nFrom whence I note, 1. That in those days it was not necessary to the\nbeing of true faith, that any supernatural testimony of the Spirit, or\nany other sort of proof, than their very senses and reason, should\nacquaint them with those matters of fact which they were eye-witnesses\nof. 2. That credible report or history was then the means for any one\nthat saw not a matter of fact, to know as much as they that saw it. 3.\nThat therefore this is now the way also of producing faith. Some\nthings we have yet sight and sense for; as that such Bibles and such\nchurches are existent; that such holy effects this doctrine hath upon\nthe soul (which we see in others by the fruits, and after feel in\nourselves): the rest we must know by history, tradition, or report.\n\nAnd in the reception of these historical passages note further, 1.\nThat human belief is here a naturally necessary means to acquaint us\nwith the matter of our divine belief. 2. That there are various\ndegrees of this belief, and some need more of it by far than others,\naccording to the various degrees of their ignorance:[113] as he that\ncannot read himself, must know by human belief (in great part) that\nthe preacher readeth truly, or that such words indeed are in the\ngospel as he saith are there; but a literate person may know this by\nhis eye-sight, and not take it upon trust. So he that understandeth\nnot Hebrew and Greek, must take it upon trust that the Scripture is\ntruly translated; but another that understandeth those tongues, may\nsee it with his eyes. 3. History being the proper means to know\nmatters of fact that are done in times past, and out of our sight, the\nsame industry that is necessary to a thorough acquaintance with other\nhistory, is necessary to the same acquaintance with this. 4. That the\ncommon beginning of receiving all such historical truths is first by\nbelieving our teachers so far as becometh learners, and in the mean\ntime going on to learn till we come to know as much as they, and upon\nthe same historical evidence as they. 5. That if any man be here\nnecessitated to take more than others upon the trust or belief of\ntheir teachers, it is long of their ignorance: and therefore if such\ncry out against their taking things on trust, it is like a mad-man's\nraving against them that would order him; or as if one should reproach\na nurse for feeding infants, and not letting them feed themselves.\n_Oportet discentem credere._ He that will not believe his teacher will\nnever learn. If a child will not believe his master that tells him\nwhich are the letters, the vowels, and consonants, and what is their\npower, and what they spell, and what every word signifieth in the\nlanguage which he is teaching him, will he be ever the better for his\nteaching? 6. That he that knoweth these historical matters no\notherwise than by the belief of his particular teacher, may\nnevertheless have a divine and saving faith; for though he believe by\na human faith that these things were done, that this is the same book,\n&c., yet he believeth the gospel itself (thus brought to his\nknowledge) because God is true that hath attested it. Even as it was a\nsaving faith in Mary and Martha, that knew by their eyes and ears, and\nnot only by belief, that Lazarus was raised, and that Christ preached\nthus and thus to them; but believed his doctrine to be true, because\nof God's veracity who attested it. 7. That it is the great wisdom and\nmercy of God to his weak and ignorant people, to provide them teachers\nto acquaint them with these things, and to vouchsafe them such a help\nto their salvation, as to make it a standing office in his church to\nthe end of the world, that the infants and ignorant might not be cast\noff, but have fathers, and nurses, and teachers to take care of them.\n8. But especially mark, that yet these infants have much disadvantage\nin comparison of others, that know all these matters of fact by the\nsame convincing evidence as their teachers; and that he that followeth\non to learn it as he ought, may come to prove these subservient\nmatters of fact, by such a concurrence of evidences, as amounteth to\nan infallibility or moral certainty, beyond mere human faith as such:\nas e. g. an illiterate person that hath it but from others, may be\ncertain that it is indeed a Bible which is ordinarily read and\npreached to him; and that it is so truly translated as to be a\nsufficient rule of faith and life, having no mistake which must hazard\na man's salvation; because the Bible in the original tongues is so\ncommonly to be had, and so many among us understand it, and there is\namong them so great a contrariety of judgments and interests, that it\nis not possible but many would detect such a public lie, if any should\ndeal falsely in so weighty and evident a case. There is a moral\ncertainty (equal to a natural) that some actions will not be done by\nwhole countries, which every individual person hath power and natural\nliberty to do: as e. g. there is no man in the kingdom but may\npossibly kill himself, or may fast to-morrow, or may lie in bed many\ndays together; and yet it is certain, that all the people in England\nwill do none of these: so it is possible that any single person may\nlie even in a palpable public case, as to pretend that this is a Bible\nwhen it is some other book, or that this is the same book that was\nreceived from the apostles by the churches of that age, when it is not\nit, &c.; but for all the country, and all the world that are competent\nwitnesses, to agree to do this, is a mere impossibility, I mean such a\nthing as cannot be done without a miracle, yea, a universal miracle.\nAnd more than so, it is impossible that God should do a miracle to\naccomplish such a universal wickedness and deceit; whereas it is\npossible that natural causes by a miracle may be turned out of course,\nwhere there is nothing in the nature of God against it (as that the\nsun should stand still, &c.). We have a certainty that there was a\nJulius C\u00e6sar, a William the Conqueror, an Aristotle, a Cicero, an\nAugustine, a Chrysostom, and that the laws and statutes of the land\nwere really enacted by the kings and parliaments whose names they\nbear; because the natural and civil interests of so many thousands\nthat are able to detect it, could never be reconciled here to a\ndeceit. When judges and counsellors, kings and nobles, and plaintiffs\nand defendants, utter enemies, are all agreed in it, it is more\ncertain to a single person than if he had seen the passing of them\nwith his eyes. So in our case, when an office was established in the\nchurch, to read and preach this gospel in the assemblies; and when all\nthe congregations took it as the charter of their salvation, and the\nrule of their faith and life; and when these pastors and churches were\ndispersed over all the christian world, who thus worshipped God from\nday to day; and all sects and enemies were ready to have detected a\nfalsification or deceit; it is here as impossible for such a kind of\nhistory, or tradition, or testimony to be false, in such material\npoints of fact, as for one man's senses to deceive him, and much more.\n\nThus I have at once showed you the true order of the preaching, and\nproofs, and receiving of the several matters of religion, and how and\ninto what our faith must be resolved; and how far your teachers are to\nbe believed. And here you must especially observe two things: 1. That\nthere can be no danger in this resolution of faith, of derogating\neither from the work of the Holy Ghost, or the Scriptures'\nself-evidence, or any other cause whatever; because we ascribe nothing\nto history or tradition which was ascribed to any of these causes by\nthe first christians; but only put our reception by tradition,\ninstead of their reception immediately by sense: our receiving by\ninfallible history, is but in the place of their receiving by sight;\nand not in the place of self-evidence of Scripture, or any testimony\nor teaching of the Spirit. The method is exactly laid down, Heb. ii.\n3, 4, \"How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation; which at\nthe first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by\nthem that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs\nand wonders, and divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost,\naccording to his own will?\" Here is the sum of what I have been\nsaying.\n\n2. Observe also the great difference between us and the papists in\nthis controversy of using tradition in the resolution of our faith. 1.\nThey decide the main question in gross by tradition, viz. Whether the\nScripture be the word of God? But we only decide the questions about\nhistory or matters of fact by it, which are subservient to the other.\n2. The tradition which most of them plead, is nothing but the\nauthoritative judgment of the successive pastors of the church in a\ngeneral council confirmed by the pope; and as another faction among\nthem saith, The reception of the whole church, both laity and clergy;\nand this church must be only the Roman faction. But the tradition\nwhich we plead is the concurrent testimony of friends and foes,\northodox and heretics; and of all the churches throughout the world,\nboth Greek and Latin, Ethiopian, Armenian, protestants, &c. And this\ntestimony we plead, not merely as a human testimony, much less as such\nas is credible chiefly for the mere power (real or pretended) of the\ntestifiers; but as such as by a concurrence of testimonies and\ncircumstances hath (besides the teachers' authority) the evidences of\ninfallible moral certainty, in the very history; as we have of the\nstatutes of the realm.\n\n_Direct._ VI. Understand what kind and measure of obedience it is that\nyou owe your lawful pastors, that you neither prove schismatical and\nunruly, nor yet have a hand in setting up idols and usurpations in the\nchurch. This you may learn from the foregoing description of the\npastor's work. The kind of your obedience is commensurate to the kind\nof his office and work. You are not to obey your pastors, as civil\nmagistrates that bear the sword; nor as physicians, to tell you what\nyou must do for your health; nor as artificers, to command you how to\nplough, and sow, and trade, &c. (except in the morality of these); but\nit is as your teachers and guides in matters of salvation that you\nmust obey them.[114] And that not as prophets or lawgivers to the\nchurch; but as the stated officers of Christ, to open and apply the\nlaws that he hath given, and determine of such circumstances as are\nsubservient thereunto. Not as those that have dominion of your faith,\nor may preach another gospel, or contradict any truth of God, which by\nScripture or nature he hath revealed, or can dispense with any duty\nwhich he hath commanded; but as those that have all their power from\nGod, and for God and your salvation, and the good of other men's\nsouls; to edification only, and not to destruction: particular cases I\nhere purposely forbear.\n\n_Direct._ VII. Be sure that you look on them as the officers of Christ\nin all that they do as such; and see not only their natural, but\ntheir ecclesiastical persons, that through them you may have to do\nwith God. Especially in preaching, and administering the sacraments,\nand binding the impenitent, and absolving the penitent, and comforting\nthe sad and humbled souls. All the holiness, and life, and power of\nyour spiritual converse with them consisteth in your seeing and\nconversing with God in them, and using them as his messengers or\nofficers, that deliver his message and do his work, and not their own.\nIf you disobey them in his work, it is God that you disobey; and if\nthey teach you his word, or deliver you Christ and his benefits in the\nsacraments, it is Christ himself that doth it by them as his\ninstruments, so far as they do it according to his commission and his\nwill. This observing Christ in their teaching will possess you with\ndue reverence and care, and cause you to do it as a holy work; and to\nsee Christ in them, delivering and sealing his covenant to you, will\nvery much increase your joy; when man as man is but a shadow.\n\n_Direct._ VIII. Make use of their help in private, and not in public\nonly: as the use of a physician is not only to read a lecture of\nphysic to his patients, but to be ready to direct every person\naccording to their particular case (there being such variety of\ntemperatures, diseases, and accidents, that in dangerous cases the\ndirection of the judicious is needful in the application); so here, it\nis not the least of the pastoral work, to oversee the individuals, and\nto give them personally such particular advice as their case\nrequireth. Never expect that all thy books, or sermons, or prayers, or\nmeditations should serve thy turn without the counsel of thy pastors,\nin greater cases; for that were but to devise how to prove God's\nofficers needless to his church. If thou be an ignorant or unconverted\nsinner, go to the minister, and ask him, what thou must do to be\nsaved? and resolve to follow his sound advice. If thou be in doubt of\nany weighty point of faith or godliness, or assaulted perilously by\nany adversary, or need his advice for thy settled peace, thy assurance\nof pardon and salvation, and thy preparation for death; go ask counsel\nof thy pastors, and receive their help with readiness and\nthankfulness: or if thou live where there is none that is able and\nwilling thus to help thee, remove to them that are such, if lawfully\nthou canst.\n\n_Direct._ IX. Assist you pastors in the work of God, by the duties of\nyour places which tend thereto: labour by your holy, serious\nconference, to instruct the ignorant, and convince the unbelieving,\nand convert the ungodly, and strengthen the weak, with whom you have\nfit opportunity for such work. Labour by your holy examples, by love,\nand concord, and meekness, and sobriety, and contempt of the world,\nand a heavenly life, to \"shine as lights in the midst of a dark and\ncrooked generation.\" Preach all of you, by the examples of your\nblameless, humble, holy lives. Oh how abundantly would this course\npromote the success of the public preaching of the gospel! If you\nwould cause those men to see the glory and power of the gospel in your\nholy and heavenly lives, who cannot see it in itself: then many that\nwould not be won by the word, might be won without it (to seek after\nit at least) by your conversations.[115] Thus all must preach and be\nhelpers of the ministers of Christ.\n\n_Direct._ X. Forsake not your faithful pastors to follow deceivers;\nbut adhere to them who spend and are spent for you; defend their\ninnocency against false accusers; and refuse them not such maintenance\nas is needful to their entire giving up themselves to that holy work\nto which they are devoted.[116] Read and study well Eph. iv. 13-15;\nActs xx. 30. It is for your sakes that your faithful pastors are\nsingled out in the world to bear the slanders and contradictions of\nthe wicked; and to lead the way in the fiery trial. If they would\nforsake you, and that sacred truth and duty that is needful to your\nsalvation, and sell you up into the hands of cruel and deceitful men,\nit were as easy for them to have the applause of men, and the\nprosperity of the world, as others: it is perfidious ingratitude to\nforsake them in trial, that must lose their lives and all the world,\nrather than forsake you or betray your souls; or to grudge them food\nand raiment that lay by the gainful employments of the world, that\nthey may attend continually on the service of your souls.\n\n[88] Disput. ii. of Church Government, chap. i. and Universal Concord.\n\n[89] Of the difference between fixed and unfixed ministers, see my\nDisput. ii. iii. of Church Government, and Jos. Acosta lib. v. c. 21,\n22, de Missionibus.\n\n[90] Rom. x. 7, 14; Mark xvi. 15; Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.\n\n[91] 2 Cor. v. 19-21; Acts xxvi. 17, 18; Eph. ii. 19; Acts ii. 37-40.\n\n[92] Tit. i. 7; 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2; Matt. xxviii. 19, 20; Acts xx. 32; 1\nCor. iii. 11, 12.\n\n[93] Acts xiv. 23; 2 Tim. ii. 2; Acts xiii. 3; ii. 41, 42; vi. 2; xx.\n7, 28; 1 Tim. v. 17; Titus i. 5; Acts xx. 30, 31; Col. i. 28; Eph. iv.\n11, 42; Mal. ii. 7; 1 Tim. v. 17.\n\n[94] 1 Cor. xiv. 16, 26; Acts xx. 7, 36; James v. 14; Acts vi. 4; ii.\n42; Phil. i. 4; Neh. xi. 24; xi. 17; 1 Cor. xi. 24; x. 16; Heb. vii.\n7; Tit. ii. 15; i. 9, 11; 1 Tim. v. 19; iii. 5; Tit. iii. 10; Matt.\nxviii. 17, 18; 1 Cor. v. 4, 11, 13; Eph. iv. 13, 14; Acts xv.\n\n[95] Princes may force their subjects by the temporal sword which they\nbear: bishops may not force their flock with any corporal or external\nviolence. Bilson, Christ. Subjection, p. 525.\n\n[96] Dr. Hammond Annot. q. d. The bishops of your several churches, I\nexhort--Take care of your several churches, and govern them, not as\nsecular rulers, by force, but as pastors do their sheep, by calling\nand going before them, that so they may follow of their own accord. If\nyou would know the true nature and extent of the bishop's work and\noffice, read carefully the said Dr. Hammond's Paraphrase on Acts xx.\n20, 28; Heb. xiii. 7, 17; 1 Tim. v. 17; 1 Thess. v. 12; Heb. xiii.;\nAnnot. a. Tit. iii. 10; 1 Cor. xii. 28; Annot. e. Jam. v. 14; Annot.\nActs xi. 30; Annot. b. Acts xiv. 23.\n\n[97] Chrysost. cited by Bilson. p. 525. But if any man wander from the\nright path of the christian faith, the pastor must use great pains,\ncare, and patience. For he may not be forced, nor constrained with\nterror, but only persuaded to return entirely to the truth.----A\nbishop cannot cure men with such authority as a shepherd doth his\nsheep.--For of all men christian bishops may least correct the faults\nof men by force, p. 526. Matt. xx. 26; Mark x. 43. See Psal. ciii. 21;\nciv. 4; Isa. xvi. 6; Jer. xxxiii. 21; Joel i. 9, 13; ii. 17; 2 Cor.\nxi. 23; Acts xxvi. 26; Rom. xv. 16; Eph. iii. 7; Col. i. 23, 25; 1\nTim. iv. 6; 1 Thess. iii. 2; Col. i. 7.\n\n[98] Functiones in ecclesia perpetu\u00e6 sunt du\u00e6, Presbyterorum et\nDiaconorum: Presbyteros voco cum omni ecclesia veteri eos, qui\necclesiam pascunt verbi pr\u00e6dicatione, sacramentis et clavibus; qu\u00e6\njure divino sunt individua. Grotius de Imperio, p. 267. c. 10.\n\n[99] Bishop Jer. Taylor of Repentance, Pref. \"I am sure we cannot give\naccount of souls of which we have no notice.\"\n\n[100] Ignat. Epis. ad Philad. Vid. Mead's Disc. of Churches, p. 48-50.\n\n[101] Tertull. de Coron. Milit. c. 3.\n\n[102] It is very observable that Acosta saith, l. vi. c. 12, that they\nfound it an old custom among the Indians to confess their sins to the\npriests before the gospel came thither.\n\n[103] See more in Dr. Hammond, ibid.\n\n[104] Vid. Canon. Apost. 5. 32. Et Concil. Antioch. c. 5. Et Concil.\nCarthag. 4. Can. 35.\n\n[105] Vid. Just. Mart. Apol. 2. Vid. Tertul. Apol. c. 39.\n\n[106] I hope all this will tell you what a bishop indeed is.\n\n[107] Grot. de Imp. p. 273. Pastorum est ordinare pastores. Neque id\nofficium eis competit, qua hujus aut illius ecclesi\u00e6 pastores sunt,\nsed qua ministri ecclesi\u00e6 catholic\u00e6.\n\n[108] See in Grotius de Imper. sum. potest. p. 269. The necessary\ndistinction of, 1. Ipsa facultas pr\u00e6dicandi sacramenta et claves\nadministrandi, quod Mandatum vocat. 2. Applicatio hujus facultatis ad\ncertam personam, viz. Ordinatio. 3. Applicatio hujus person\u00e6 ad certum\nc\u0153tum et locum, viz. Electio. 4. Illud quo certa persona in certo\nloco ministerium suum exercet publico pr\u00e6sidio ac publica authoritate,\nviz. Confirmatio, p. 273. Constat muneris institutionem a Deo esse;\nordinationem a pastoribus, confirmationem publicam a summa potestate.\nSo that the doubt is only about election. Which yet must be\ndifferenced from consent.\n\n[109] See my Disput. with him of the Successive Visibility of the\nChurch, p. 336.\n\n[110] Cyprian. Epis. 68. Plebs obsequens pr\u00e6ceptis dominicis a\npeccatore pr\u00e6posito separare se debet. Which Grotius de Imper. p. 230,\nciting saith, Jubentur enim singuli, multo magis universi, cavere\nprophetas falsos, alienum pastorem fugere, ab iis declinare qui\ndissidia faciunt et offensas contra doctrinam. 2. Imperatur fidelibus\nfamiliarem eorum consuetudinem declinare, qui fratres, &c. 2 Cor. v.;\nRom. xvi. 17; John x.; 2 Tim. iii. 6; 2 Thess. iii. 6, 14; 2 Cor. iv.\n3, 4.\n\n[111] Satan or their own worldly advantages, saith Dr. Hammond. Dan.\ni. 12, 13; Ezek. iv. 12, 15. Read c. iii. Acosta excellently rebuking\nthe negligence of their priests that taught the Indians the catechism\nidly, and without explication, or calling them to account about the\nsense, and then laid all the fault on the blockishness of the people,\nwhen Tota catechizendi ratio erat umbratilis, et ludicr\u00e6 similis: ego\nvero (inquit) si homines ingenio acerrimo, et discendi percupidi tales\npr\u00e6ceptores nacti essent, nihil aliud quam ut duplo ignoratiores\nevaderent, doceri isto modo arbitrarer. Olim in symbolo addiscendo et\nintelligendo, mysteriisque fidei agnoscendis viri ingenio pr\u00e6stantes\net literatura celebres, diu in catechumenorum ordine tenebantur, cum\necclesiastica disciplina vigeret; neque ante ad fidei sacramentum\nadmittebantur, quam multas ab episcopo de symbolo conciones audissent,\ndiu et multum cum catechista contulissent; post quas omnes curas et\nmeditationes, magnum erat si recta sentirent, consentanea\nresponderent, &c. And he addeth, p. 360, Equidem sic opinor, neque ab\nea opinione avelli unquam potero, quin pessimo pr\u00e6ceptori omnes esse\nauditores hebetes credam. A bad teacher hath always bad scholars. Even\nin the Roman church how little their authority can do against\nprofaneness and negligence, the same Acosta showeth, l. 6. c. 2. p.\n519. Cum in provinciali concilio Limensi ab omnibus Peruensibus\nepiscopis c\u00e6terisque gravibus viris ad ea vitia emendenda multum oper\u00e6\net studii collatum sit, atque edita extent egregia decreta de\nreformatione permulta, nihil tamen amplius perfectum est, quam si ab\notiosis nautis de republica moderanda consultatum esset. Bonific.\nMogunt. Ep. iii. mentioneth it as the error of a new-sprung sect, that\nheinous sinners even so continuing may be priests. And Ep. lxxiii. it\nis said, No man may be made a priest, that hath sinned mortally after\nbaptism, and, Si iis qui tam in episcopatu vel presbyterio positus\nmortale peccatum aliquod admiserit, non debet offerre panes Domino,\nquanto magis patienter retrahat se ab hoc non tam honore quam onere,\net aliorum locum qui digni sunt non ambiat occupare. Qui enim in\nerudiendis et instituendis ad virtutem populis pr\u00e6est, necesse est, ut\nin omnibus sanctus sit, et in nullo reprehensibilis habeatur. Qui enim\naliquem de peccato arguit, ipse a peccato debet esse immunis. Auct.\nBib. Pat. Tom. ii. p. 81. If there were somewhat too much strictness\nin the ancient exclusion of them that heinously sinned after baptism\nfrom the priesthood, let us not be as much too loose.\n\n[112] Est enim mirabilis qu\u00e6dam continuatio seriesque rerum, ut alia\nex alia nexa, et omnes inter se apt\u00e6 colligat\u00e6que videantur. Cic. De\nNatur. Deor. pag. 6.\n\n[113] By all this it is easy to gather whether a pastor may do his\nwork _per alium_. Saith Grotius de Imp. p. 290, 291, Nam illud quod\nquis per alium facit per se facere videtur ad eas duntaxat pertinet\nactiones quarum causa efficiens proxima a jure indefinita est. Yet\npeople should labour after such maturity and stedfastness, that they\nmight be able to stand if their pastors be dead or taken from them by\npersecution, yea, or forsake the truth themselves. Victor. Utic. saith\nof the people in Africa when their pastors were banished, and others\nmight not be ordained in their steads: Inter h\u00e6c tamen Dei populus in\nfide consistens, ut examina apum cereas \u00e6dificantia mansiones,\ncrescendo melleis fidei claviculis firmabatur. Quanto magis\naffligebantur, tanto magis multiplicabantur. Victor. p. 382.\n\n[114] We may not offer any violence, but only persuade: we have not so\ngreat authority given us by the laws, as to repress offenders; and if\nit were lawful for us so to do, we have no use of any such violent\npower: for that Christ crowneth them which abstain from sin, not of a\nforced, but of a willing mind and purpose. Chrys. citante Bilson of\nSubjection, p. 526. Et ibid. ex Hilar. If this violence were used for\nthe true faith, the doctrine of bishops would be against it: God\nneedeth no forced service. He requireth no constrained confession. I\ncannot receive any man but him that is willing: I cannot give ear, but\nto him that entreateth, &c. Ita et Origen. ibid. citat. 2 Cor. i. 24;\nGal. i. 7, 8; 2 Cor. x. 8; xiii. 10.\n\n[115] Acts xviii. 24, 26, 27; Rom. xvi. 3; John iii. 8; Eph. iv. 29; 1\nPet. iv. 11; Phil. ii. 15; Matt. v. 16; 1 Pet. iii. 1, 2; 2 Pet. iii.\n11: 1 Pet. i. 15, 16; ii. 12; Heb. iii. 13; Heb. x. 24.\n\n[116] 1 Thess. v. 12, 13; 2 Tim. ii. 10; 2 Cor. iv. 15; 1 Thess. iii.\n9; i. 5; Matt. xxvi. 56; 2 Tim. iv. 16; Gal. vi. 6, 10; 1 Cor. ix.;\nCol. i. 24.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nDIRECTIONS FOR THE DISCOVERY OF THE TRUTH AMONG CONTENDERS, AND THE\nESCAPE OF HERESY AND DECEIT.\n\n\nThough truth be naturally the object of man's understanding, to which\nit hath a certain inclination, and though it be a delightful thing to\nknow the truth;[117] yet that which is saving meeteth with so much\nopposition in the flesh, and in the world, that while it is applauded\nin the general, it is resisted and rejected in particulars; and yet\nwhile the use of holy truth is hated and obstinately cast away, the\nname and the barren profession of it is made the matter of the\nglorying of hypocrites, and the occasion of reproaching dissenters as\nheretics, and the world is filled with bloody persecutions, and\ninhuman, implacable enmities and divisions, by a wonderful zeal for\nthe name of truth, even by those men that will rather venture on\ndamnation, than they will obey the truth which they so contend for.\nMultitudes of men have tormented or murdered others as heretics, who\nthemselves must be tormented in hell for not being christians. It\nconcerneth us therefore to deal very wisely and cautelously in this\nbusiness.\n\n_Direct._ I. Take heed lest there be any carnal interest or lust which\nmaketh you unwilling to receive the truth, or inclineth you to error,\nthat it may serve that interest or lust. It is no small number of men\nthat are strangers or enemies to the truth, not because they cannot\nattain the knowledge of it, but because they would not have it to be\ntruth. And men of great learning and natural parts are frequently thus\ndeceived and led into error by a naughty, carnal, biassed heart;\neither because that error is the vulgar opinion, and necessary to\nmaintain their popular reputation, and avoid reproach; or because it\nis the way of men in power, and necessary to their preferment and\ngreatness in the world; or because the truth is contrary to their\nfleshly lusts and pleasures, or contrary to their honour and worldly\ninterest, and would hazard their reputations or their lives. How loth\nis a sensual, ungodly man to believe that \"without holiness none shall\nsee God,\" and that he \"that is in Christ is a new creature, and that\nif any man have not the Spirit of Christ, the same is none of his, and\nthat if they live after the flesh they shall die!\"[118] How loth is\nthe ambitious minister to believe that the way of Christ's service\nlieth not in worldly pomp, or ease, or pleasures; but in taking up the\ncross and following Christ in self-denial, and in being as the servant\nof all, in the unwearied performance of careful oversight and\ncompassionate exhortations unto all the flock! Let a controversy be\nraised about any of these points, and the mind of lazy, ambitious men\ndoth presently fall in with that part which gratifieth their fleshly\nlusts, and excuseth them from that toilsome way of duty which they\nalready hate. The secret lusts and vices of a false, hypocritical\nheart, are the commonest and the powerfulest arguments for error; and\nsuch men are glad, that great men or learned men will give so much\nease to their consciences, and shelter to their reputations, as to\ncountenance, or make a controversy at least of that which their lusts\ndesire to be true. Above all therefore see that you come not to\ninquire after truth with an unsanctified heart, and unmortified lusts,\nwhich are a bias to your minds, and make you warp from the truth which\nyou inquire after; for if the carnal mind neither is nor can be\nsubject to the law of God, you may easily perceive that it will be\nloth to believe it; when in so doing they believe their own\ncondemnation. An honest, sanctified heart is fittest to entertain the\ntruth.\n\n_Direct._ II. Seek after the truth for the love of truth, and love it\nespecially for its special use, as it formeth the heart and life to\nthe image and will of God; and not for the fanciful delight of\nknowing; much less for carnal, worldly ends.[119] No means are used at\nall as means, where the end is not first determined of. And to do the\nsame thing materially to another end, is not indeed to do the same;\nfor thereby it is made another thing. Your physician will come to you\nif you seek to him as a physician; but not if you send to him to mend\nyour shoes. So if you seek knowledge for the true ends of knowledge,\nto fill your hearts with the love of God, and guide your lives in\nholiness and righteousness, God is engaged to help you in the search.\nBut if you seek it only for to please your pride or fancy, no wonder\nif you miss of it; and it is no great matter whether you find it or\nnot, for any good it is like to do you. Every truth of God is\nappointed to be his instrument, to do some holy work upon your heart:\nlet the love of holiness be it that maketh you search after truth, and\nthen you may expect that God should be your teacher.\n\n_Direct._ III. Seek after truth without too great or too small regard\nto the judgment of others; neither contemn them, nor be captivated to\nthem. Use the help of the wise; but give not up your reason absolutely\nto any. Engage not yourselves in a party, so as to espouse their\nerrors, or implicitly to believe whatever they say; for this breedeth\nin you a secret desire to please your party, and interesteth you in\ntheir dividing interest, and maketh you betray the truth to be\naccounted orthodox by those you value.[120]\n\n_Direct._ IV. Take heed of pride, which will make you dote upon your\nown conceits, and cause you to slight the weightiest reasons that are\nbrought by others, for your conviction. And if once you have espoused\nan error, it will engage all your wit, and zeal, and diligence to\nmaintain it; it will make you uncharitable and furious against all\nthat cross you in your way; and so make you either persecutors, (if\nyou stand on the higher ground,) or sect leaders, or church dividers,\nand turbulent and censorious, if you are on the lower ground. There is\nvery great reason in Paul's advice for the choice of a bishop, 1 Tim.\niii. 6, \"Not a novice; lest being lifted up with pride he fall into\nthe condemnation of the devil.\" It is no more wonder to see a proud\nman erroneous, and in the confidence of his own understanding, to rage\nagainst all that tell him he is mistaken, than to hear a drunken man\nboasting of his wit, to the increase of his shame.\n\n_Direct._ V. Take heed of slothfulness, and impatience in searching\nafter truth, and think not to find it in difficult cases, without both\nhard and patient studies, and ripeness of understanding to enable you\ntherein; and suspect all opinions which are the offspring of idleness\nand ease, whatever divine illumination they may pretend (except as you\ntake them from others upon trust (in a slothful way) who attained them\nby diligent studies). For God that hath called men to labour, doth use\nto give his blessing to the laborious. And he that hath said by his\nSpirit, 1 Tim. iv. 15, \"Meditate upon these things; give thyself\nwholly to them, that thy profiting may appear to all,\" doth\naccordingly cause those men to profit, who seek it in this laborious\nway of his appointment; and he that hath said, \"The desire of the\nslothful killeth him,\" doth not use to bless the slothful with his\nteachings. He that will say to him in judgment, \"Thou wicked and\nslothful servant,\" will not encourage the slothfulness which he\ncondemneth.[121] \"My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my\ncommandments with thee; so that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom,\nand apply thine heart to understanding; yea, if thou criest after\nknowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; if thou seekest\nher as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; then shalt\nthou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God:\nfor the Lord giveth wisdom,\" Prov. ii. 1-6. Mark here to whom God\ngiveth wisdom: all the godly are taught of God; but mark here how it\nis that he teacheth them. Not while they scorn at studies and\nuniversities, and look that their knowledge should cost them nothing,\nor that the Spirit should be instead of serious studies, or that their\nunderstandings should discern what is true or false at the first\nappearance; but while they think no pains or patience too great to\nlearn the truth in the school of Christ.\n\n_Direct._ VI. Keep out passion from your disputes, and in the\nmanagement of all your controversies in religion. For though passion\nbe useful both antecedently to the resolution of the will, and\nconsequently to the effectual execution of its resolutions, yet it is\ncommonly a very great seducer of the understanding, and strangely\nblindeth and perverteth the judgment;[122] so that a passionate man is\nseldom so far from the truth, as when he is most confident he is\ndefending it. When passion hath done boiling, and the heart is\ncooled, and leaveth the judgment to do its work without any clamour or\ndisturbance, it is strange to see how things will appear to you to be\nquite of another tendency and reason, than in your passion you\nesteemed them.\n\n_Direct._ VII. Keep up a sense of the evil and danger of both\nextremes; and be not so wholly intent upon the avoiding of one\nextreme, as to be fearless of the other. The narrow minds of\nunexperienced men are hardly brought to look on both sides them, and\nto be duly sensible of the danger of both extremes; but while they are\ntaken up only with the hating and opposing one sort of errors, they\nforget those on the other side. And usually the sin or error which we\nobserve not, is more dangerous to us than that which we do observe (if\nthe wind of temptation set that way).\n\n_Direct._ VIII. When you detect any ancient error or corruption,\ninquire into its original; and see whether reformation consist not\nrather in a restitution of the primitive state, than in an extirpation\nof the whole. Even in popery itself there are many errors and ill\ncustoms, which are but the corruption of some weighty truth, and the\ndegenerating of some duty of God's appointment; and to reduce all, in\nsuch cases, to the primitive verity, is the way of wise and true\nreformation; and not to throw away that which is God's, because it is\nfallen into the dirt of human depravation. But in cases where all is\nbad, there all must be rejected.\n\n_Direct._ IX. Pretend not to truth and orthodoxness against christian\nlove and peace; and so follow truth, as that you lose not love and\npeace by it; \"as much as in you lieth, live peaceably with all men,\"\nRom. xii. 18. Charity is the end of truth, 1 Cor. xiii. and it is a\nmad use of means, to use them against the end. Make sure of the\nsincerity of your charity, and hold it fast; and then no error that\nyou hold will be destructive to you: but if you know more than others,\nand use your knowledge to the weakening of your love, you are but (as\nour first parents) deceived and destroyed by a desire of fleshly,\nuneffectual knowledge. Such \"knowledge puffeth up, but charity\nedifieth,\" 1 Cor. viii. 1. To contend for truth, to the loss of love\nin yourselves, and the destruction of it among others, is but to choke\nyourselves with excellent food, and to imitate that orthodox, catholic\nphysician, that gloried that he killed his patients _secundem artem_,\nby the most accurate method and excellent rules of art that men could\ndie by.\n\n_Direct._ X. Pretend no truth against the power and practice of\ngodliness.[123] For this also is its proper end; if it be not truth\nthat is according to godliness, it is no truth worthy our seeking or\ncontending for. And if it be contrary to godliness in itself, it is no\ntruth at all; therefore if it be used against godliness, it is used\ncontrary to the ends of truth. Those men that suppress or hinder the\nmeans of knowledge, and holiness, and concord, and edification, under\npretence of securing, defending, or propagating the orthodox belief,\nwill find one day, that God will give them as little thanks for their\nblind, preposterous zeal for truth, as a tender father would do to a\nphysician, that killed his children because they distasted or spit out\nhis medicines. It is usually a pitiful defence of truth that is made\nby the enemies of godliness.\n\n\n_More near and particular Directions against Error._\n\n_Direct._ I. Begin at the greatest, most evident, certain, and\nnecessary truths, and so proceed orderly to the knowledge of the less,\nby the help of these:[124] as you climb by the body of the tree unto\nthe branches. If you begin at those truths, which spring out of\ngreater common truths, and know not the premises, while you plead for\nthe conclusion, you abuse your reason, and lose the truth and your\nlabour both: for there is no way to the branches but by ascending from\nthe stock. The principles well laid, must be your help to all your\nfollowing knowledge.\n\n_Direct._ II. The two first things which you are to learn are, what\nman is, and what God is: the nature and relation of the two parties,\nis the first thing to be known in order to the knowledge of the\ncovenant itself, and all following transactions between God and\nman.[125] One error here will introduce abundance. A thousand other\npoints of natural philosophy you may safely be ignorant of; but if you\nknow not what man is, what reason is, what natural free-will is, and\nwhat the inferior sensitive faculties are, as to their uses, it will\nlay you open to innumerable errors. In the nature of man, you must see\nthe foundation of his relations unto God: and if you know not those\ngreat relations, the duties of which must take up all our lives, you\nmay easily foresee the consequents of such ignorance or error. So if\nyou know not what God is, and what his relations to us are, so far as\nis necessary to our living in the duties of those relations, the\nconsequents of your ignorance will be sad. If learned men be but\nperverted in their apprehensions of some one attribute of God, (as\nthose that think his goodness is nothing but his benignity, or\nproneness to do good, or that he is a necessary agent, doing good _ad\nultimum posse_, &c.) what abundance of horrid and impious consequents\nwill follow!\n\n_Direct._ III. Having soundly understood both these and other\nprinciples of religion, try all the subsequent truths hereby, and\nreceive nothing as truth that is certainly inconsistent with any of\nthese principles.[126] Even principles that are not of sense, may be\ndisputed till they are well received; and with those that have not\nreceived them: but afterwards they are not to be called in question;\nfor then you would never proceed nor build higher, if you will stand\nquestioning all your grounds. Indeed no truth is inconsistent with any\nother truth: but yet when two dark or doubtful points are compared\ntogether, it is hard to know which of them to reject. But here it is\neasy; nothing that contradicteth the true nature of God or man, or any\nprinciple, must be held.\n\n_Direct._ IV. Believe nothing which certainly contradicteth the end of\nall religion. If it be of a natural or necessary tendency to\nungodliness, against the love of God, or against a holy and heavenly\nmind and conversation, it cannot be truth, whatever it pretend.\n\n_Direct._ V. Be sure to distinguish well betwixt revealed and\nunrevealed things: and before you dispute any question, search first\nwhether the resolution be revealed or not: and if it be not, lay it\nby; and take it as part of your necessary submission, to be ignorant\nof what God would have you ignorant, as it is part of your obedience\nto labour to know what God would have you know. And when some things\nunrevealed are mixed in the controversy, take out those and lay them\nby, before you go any further, and see that the resolution of the rest\nbe not laid upon them, nor twisted with them, to entangle the whole in\nuncertainty or confusion.[127] Thus God instructed Job, by convincing\nhim of his ignorance, and showing him how many things were past his\nknowledge.[128] Thus Christ instructed Nicodemus about the work of\nregeneration, so as to let him know that though the necessity of it\nmust be known, yet the manner of the Spirit's accesses to the soul\ncannot be known, John iii. 7, 8. And Paul in his discourse of election\ntakes notice of the unsearchable depths, and the creature's unfitness\nto dispute with God, Rom. ix. When you find any disputes about\npredetermination or predestination resolved into such points as these:\nWhether God do by physical, premoving influx, or by concourse, or by\nmoral operation _ut finis_, determine or specify moral acts of man?\nWhether a positive decree _quoad actum_ be necessary to the negation\nof effects (as that such a one shall not have grace given him, or be\nconverted or saved; that all the millions of possible persons, names,\nand things shall not be future)? What understanding, will, or power\nare formally in God? How he knoweth future contingents? with a hundred\nsuch like; then remember that you make use of this rule, and say with\nMoses, Deut. xxix. 29, \"The secret things belong to the Lord our God,\nbut those things that are revealed unto us and to our children for\never, that we may do all the words of his law.\" There are many rare,\nprofound discoveries much gloried of by the masters of several sects,\nof which you may know the sentence of the Holy Ghost, by that\ninstance, Col. ii. 18, \"Let no man beguile you of your reward, in a\nvoluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those\nthings which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind.\"\nReverently withdraw from things that are unrevealed, and dispute them\nnot.\n\n_Direct._ VI. Be a careful and accurate (though not a vain)\ndistinguisher; and suffer not ambiguity and confusion to deceive you.\nSuspect every word in your question, and anatomize it, and agree upon\nthe sense of all your common terms, before you dispute with any\nadversary. It is not only in many words, but in one word or syllable\nthat so much ambiguity and confusion may be contained, as may make a\nlong dispute to be but a vain and ridiculous wrangling.[129] Is it not\na ridiculous business to hear men dispute many hours about the _cur\ncredis_, and into what faith is to be resolved; and in the end come to\nunderstand, that by cur one of them speaks of the _principium_ or\n_causa veritatis_, and the other of the _principium patefactionis_, or\nthe _evidentia veritatis_, or some other cause? And when one speaks of\nthe resolution of his faith as into the formal object, and another\ninto the subservient testimony or means, or into the proofs of divine\nattestation, or many other causes? Or to hear men dispute, Whether\nChrist died for all; when by \"for\" one man meaneth \"for the benefit of\nall,\" and another means \"in the place or stead of all, or for the sins\nof all as the procuring cause, &c.?\" Yet here is but a syllable to\ncontain this confusion! What a tedious thing is it to read long\ndisputes between many papists and protestants, about justification,\nwhile by justification one meaneth one thing, and another meaneth\nquite another thing! He that cannot force every word to make a plain\nconfession of its proper signification, that the thing intended may be\ntruly discerned in the word, he will but deceive himself and others,\nwith a wordy, insignificant dispute.\n\n_Direct._ VII. Therefore be specially suspicious of metaphors; as\nbeing all but ambiguities till an explication hath fixed or determined\nthe sense. It is a noisome thing to hear some dispute upon an\nunexplained metaphorical word, when neither of them have enucleated\nthe sense, and when there are proper words enow.\n\n_Direct._ VIII. Take special notice of what kind of beings your\ninquiry or disputation is, and let your terms be adapted and\ninterpreted according to the kind of beings you dispute of. As if you\nbe inquiring into the nature of any grace, as faith, repentance,\nobedience, &c. remember that it is _in genere moris_, a moral act; and\ntherefore the terms are not to be understood as if you disputed about\nmere physical acts, which are considered but _in genere entis_. For\nthat object which must essentiate one moral act, containeth many\nphysical particles, which will make up many physical acts.[130] If you\ntake such a man for your king, your commander, your master, your\nphysician, &c. if you should at the bar, when you are questioned for\nunfaithfulness, dispute upon the word take, whether it be an act of\nthe fantasy, or sense, or intellect, or will, &c. would you not be\njustly laughed at? So when you ask, What act faith or repentance is?\nwhich contain many particular physical acts. When you dispute of\ndivinity, policy, law, war, &c. you must not use the same terms in the\nsame sense, as when you dispute of physics, or metaphysics.\n\n_Direct._ IX. Be sure in all your disputes that you still keep\ndistinguished before your eyes, the order of being, and the order of\nknowing: that the questions _de esse_ lying undetermined in your way,\ndo not frustrate all your dispute about the question _de cognoscere_.\nAs in the question, Whether a man should do such or such a thing, when\nhe thinketh that it is God's command? How far conscience must be\nobeyed? It must first be determined _de esse_, whether indeed the\nthing be commanded or lawful, or not? before the case can be\ndetermined about the obligation that followeth my apprehension. For,\nwhatever my conscience or opinion say of it, the thing either is\nlawful or it is not: if it be lawful, or a duty, the case is soon\ndecided; but if it be not lawful, the error of my conscience altereth\nnot God's law, nor will it make it lawful unto me. I am bound first to\nknow and then to do what God revealeth and commandedeth; and this I\nshall be bound to, whatever I imagine to the contrary; and to lay by\nthe error which is against it.\n\n_Direct._ X. Be sure when you first enter upon an inquiry or dispute,\nthat you well discover how much of the controversy is verbal _de\nnomine_, and how much is material _de re_;[131] and that you suffer\nnot your adversary to go on upon a false supposition, that the\ncontroversy is _de re_, when it is but _de nomine_. The difference\nbetween names and things is so wide, that you would think no\nreasonable man should confound them: and yet so heedless in this point\nare ordinary disputers, that it is a usual thing to make a great deal\nof stir about a controversy before they discern whether it be _de\nnomine_ or _de re_. Many a hot and long dispute I have heard, which\nwas managed as about the very heart of some material cause, (as about\nman's power to do good, or about the sufficiency of grace, or about\njustification, &c.) when the whole contest between the disputers was\nonly or principally _de nomine_, and neither of them seemed to take\nnotice of it. Be sure as soon as you peruse the terms of your\nquestion, to sift this thoroughly, and dispute verbal controversies\nbut as verbal, and not as real and material. We have real differences\nenow: we need not make them seem more by such a blind or heedless\nmanner of disputing.[132]\n\n_Direct._ XI. Suffer not a rambling mind in study, nor a rambling\ntalker in disputes, to interrupt your orderly procedure, and divert\nyou from your argument before you bring it to the natural issue. But\ndeceiving sophisters, and giddy-headed praters, will be violent to\nstart another game, and spoil the chase of the point before you: but\nhold them to it, or take them to be unworthy to be disputed with, and\nlet them go (except it be where the weakness of the auditors requireth\nyou to follow them in their wild-goose chace). You do but lose time in\nsuch rambling studies or disputes.\n\n_Direct._ XII. Be cautelous of admitting false suppositions; or at\nleast of admitting any inference that dependeth upon them. In some\ncases a supposition of that which is false may be made, while it no\nway tends to infer the truth of it; but nothing must be built upon\nthat falsehood, as intimating it to be a truth. False suppositions\ncunningly and secretly worked into arguments, are very ordinary\ninstruments of deceit.\n\n_Direct._ XIII. Plead not uncertainties against certainties: but make\ncertain points the measure to try the uncertain by. Reduce not things\nproved and sure to those that are doubtful and justly controverted;\nbut reduce points disputable to those that are past doubt.\n\n_Direct._ XIV. Plead not the darker texts of Scripture against those\nthat are more plain and clear, nor a few texts against many that are\nas plain; for that which is interpreted against the most plain and\nfrequent expressions of the same Scripture is certainly\nmisinterpreted.\n\n_Direct._ XV. Take not obscure prophecies for precepts. The obscurity\nis enough to make you cautelous how you venture yourself in the\npractice of that which you understand not: but if there were no\nobscurity, yet prophecies are no warrant to you to fulfil them; no,\nthough they be for the church's good. Predictions tell you but _de\neventu_ what will come to pass, but warrant not you to bring it to\npass. God's prophecies are ofttimes fulfilled by the wickedest men and\nthe wickedest means: as by the Jews in killing Christ, and Pharaoh in\nrefusing to let Israel go, and Jehu in punishing the house of Ahab.\nYet many self-conceited persons think that they can fetch that out of\nthe revelations or the prophecies of Daniel, that will justify very\nhorrid crimes, while they use wicked means to fulfil God's prophecies.\n\n_Direct._ XVI. Be very cautelous in what cases you take men's practice\nor example to be instead of precept, in the sacred Scriptures. In one\ncase a practice or example is obligatory to us as a precept; and that\nis, when God doth give men a commission to establish the form or\norders of his church and worship, (as he did to Moses and to the\napostles,) and promiseth them his Spirit to lead them into all truth,\nin the matters which he employeth them in: here God is engaged to keep\nthem from miscarrying; for if they should, his work would be ill done,\nhis church would be ill constituted and framed, and his servants\nunavoidably deceived. The apostles were authorized to constitute\nchurch officers and orders for continuance; and the Scripture, which\nis written for a great part historically, acquaints us what they did\n(as well as what they said and wrote) in the building of the church,\nin obedience to their commission (at least in declaring to the world\nwhat Christ had first appointed). And thus if their practice were not\nobligatory to us, their words also might be avoided by the same\npretences. And on this ground (at least) the Lord's day is easily\nproved to be of divine appointment and obligation. Only we must see\nthat we carefully distinguish between both the words and practice of\nthe apostles which were upon a particular and temporary occasion (and\nobligation) from those that were upon a universal or permanent ground.\n\n_Direct._ XVII. Be very cautelous what conclusions you raise from any\nmere works of Providence. For the bold and blind exposition of these,\nhath led abundance into most heinous sins: no providence is instead of\na law to us; but sometimes and ofttimes Providence changeth the matter\nof our duty, and so occasioneth the change of our obligations (as when\nthe husband dieth, the wife is disobliged, &c.) But men of worldly\ndispositions do so over-value worldly things, that from them they\nventure to take the measure of God's love and hatred, and of the\ncauses which he approveth or disapproveth in the world. And the wisdom\nof God doth seem on purpose, to cause such wonderful, unexpected\nmutations in the affairs of men, as shall shame the principles or\nspirits of these men, and manifest their giddiness and mutability to\ntheir confusion. One year they say, This is sure the cause of God, or\nelse he would never own it as he doth; another year they say, If this\nhad been God's cause he would never have so disowned it: just as the\nbarbarians judged of Paul when the viper seized on his hand. And thus\nGod is judged by them to own or disown by his prospering or\nafflicting, more than by his word.\n\n_Direct._ XVIII. In controversies which much depend on the sincerity\nor experience of godly men, take heed that you affect not singularity,\nand depart not from the common sense of the godly. For the workings of\nGod's Spirit are better judged of by the ordinary tenor of them, than\nby some (real or supposed) case that is extraordinary.\n\n_Direct._ XIX. In controversies which most depend on the testimony of\nantiquity, depart not from the judgment of the ancients. They that\nstood within view of the days of the apostles could better tell what\nthey did, and what a condition they left the churches in, than we can\ndo. To appeal to the ancients in every cause, even in those where the\nlater christians do excel them, is but to be fools in reverence of our\nforefathers' wisdom. But in points of history, or any thing in which\nthey had the advantage of their posterity, their testimony is to be\npreferred.\n\n_Direct._ XX. In controversies which depend on the experience of\nparticular christians or of the church, regard most the judgment of\nthe most experienced, and prefer the judgment of the later ages of the\nchurch before the judgment of less experienced ages (except the\napostolical age, that had the greater help of the Spirit). An\nancient, experienced christian or divine is more to be regarded in\nmany points, which require experience, than many of the younger sort,\nthat are yet more zealous and of quicker understanding and expression\nthan the elder. So those that we call the fathers or ancients were\nindeed in the younger ages of the church, and we that are fallen into\nthe later and more experienced age, have all the helps of the wisdom\nand experience of the ages that were before us: and therefore God will\nrequire at our hands an account of these greater talents which we have\nreceived! As it were unexcusable now in a physician that hath the help\nof such voluminous institutions, observations, and experiments of\nformer ages, to know no more than those former times that had no such\nhelps; so would it be as unexcusable for this present age of the\nchurch to be no wiser than those former ages. When Aquinas, Scotus,\nAriminensis, and other schoolmen, delivered the doctrine of\nchristianity to the church in a dress so far different from Ignatius,\nIren\u00e6us, Tertullian, Cyprian, or any of those former ages, they\ncertainly thought that they had attained to a far greater excellency\nand accurateness in the knowledge of divinity than those their\nancestors had attained: and whatever they swear in the Trent oath, of\nnot expounding any Scripture otherwise than the fathers do, I doubt\nnot but Suarez, and Vasquez, and others of their modern schoolmen,\nthought so too, and would have been loth to be accounted wise in the\nmeasure only of those ancients.[133] The later and elder ages of the\nchurch have had abundant experience, e. g. of the tendency of ambition\nand papal aspirings and usurpations; of the mischiefs of composing and\nimposing the popish missals and numerous ceremonies, and of their\nimplicit faith, and their concealment of the Scriptures from the\nvulgar, and many such points; and if we are never the wiser for all\nthis experience, we are the more unexcusable; and may be judged as the\nneglecters of our greater helps.\n\n_Direct._ XXI. In controversies which depend most upon skill in the\nlanguages, philosophy, or other parts of common learning, prefer the\njudgment of a few that are the most learned in those matters, before\nthe judgment of the most ancient, or the most godly, or of the\ngreatest numbers, even whole churches, that are unlearned. In this\ncase neither numbers, nor antiquity, nor godliness will serve turn:\nbut as one clear eye will see further than ten thousand that are\npurblind, so one Jerom or Origen may judge better of a translation, or\nthe grammatical sense of a text, than a hundred of the other fathers\ncould. One man that understandeth a language is fitter to judge of it,\nthan a whole nation that understand it not. One philosopher is fitter\nto judge of a philosophical question, than a thousand illiterate\npersons. Every man is most to be regarded in the matters which he is\nbest acquainted with.\n\n_Direct._ XXII. In controversies of great difficulty, where divines\nthemselves are disagreed, and a clear and piercing wit is necessary,\nregard more the judgment of a few acute, judicious, well-studied\ndivines, that are well versed in those controversies, than of a\nmultitude of dull and common wits that think to carry it by the\nreputation of their number.[133] It is too certainly attested by\nexperience, that judicious men are very few, and that the multitude of\nthe injudicious that have not wit enough to understand them, nor\nhumility enough to confess it, and to learn of them, have yet pride\nand arrogancy enough to contradict them, and often malice enough to\nvilify them. In such differences it is not only a sign of a wise man\nto be content with the approbation of a few, but also to have but few\napprovers (except where the injudicious do implicitly believe those\nfew that are judicious). Commonly a very few that are wiser than the\nmultitude, are fain to stand by, and compassionate not only the world\nbut the church, and see the disease, and the easy remedy, and all in\nvain; while they are but neglected or despised by the rest, that will\nnot be made wiser by them.\n\n_Direct._ XXIII. In all contentions hold close to that which all sides\nare agreed in; there is so much agreed on, even between the papists\nand the protestants, as would certainly save them all, if all of them\ndid sincerely believe, love, and practise it; for they all confess\nthat the whole canonical Scripture is true. Therefore be more studious\nsincerely to hold and improve those common truths which they all\nprofess, than to oppose the particular opinions of any, further than\nthat common truth requireth it. See that the articles of the common\ncreed which all profess, be unfeignedly believed by you; and that the\npetitions in the Lord's prayer be sincerely and earnestly put up to\nGod; and that the ten commandments be heartily and entirely obeyed;\nand then no error or difference will be damning to you.\n\n_Direct._ XXIV. Take nothing as necessary to salvation in point of\nfaith, nor as universally necessary in point of practice, which the\nuniversal church in every age since Christ did not receive. For if any\nthing be necessary to salvation which the church received not in every\nage, then the church itself of that age could not be saved; and then\nthe church was indeed no church; for Christ is the Saviour of his\nbody. But certainly Christ had in every age a church of saved ones,\nwho openly professed all that was of common necessity to salvation. An\nopinion may be true which accuseth the generality in the church of\nsome error or imperfection; for it is most certain that the church on\nearth is composed of none (that have the use of reason) but erring and\nimperfect members; but no opinion can be true that condemneth all the\nchurch to hell, in any one age; for the Head and Husband of the church\nmust be her Judge.\n\n_Direct._ XXV. Be not borne down by the censoriousness of any, to\noverrun your own understanding and the truth, and to comply with them\nin their errors and extremes;[134] but hold to the truth and keep your\nstation: Jer. xv. 19, \"Let them return unto thee, but return thou not\nunto them.\" It is too usual for the younger and more injudicious sort\nof christians to be most zealous about some little opinions,\nceremonies, and words, and to censure all those that differ from them,\nwith such bitter censures, (as ungodly, false-hearted, &c.) that\nhereupon some of the more judicious forsake the truth and simplicity\nof the gospel, to comply with these censurers merely to escape them\n(or, as some say, that they may keep an interest in them to do them\ngood): but such carnal compliances, though with the most zealous men,\nwill bring nothing home at last but repentance and shame: truth, which\nis the means of the good of souls, must not be betrayed as for the\ngood of souls.\n\n_Direct._ XXVI. Doubt not of well-proved truths, for every difficulty\nthat appeareth against them. There is scarce any truth in the world so\nplain, but in your own thoughts, or in the cavils of a wrangling wit,\nthere may such difficulties be raised as you can hardly answer: and\nthere is scarce any thing so evident, that some will not dispute\nagainst. You see that even the learnedest Jesuits, and all the clergy\nof the Roman kingdom, will not stick to dispute all the world (if they\ncould) out of the belief of all their senses, while they maintain that\nbread is not bread, and wine is not wine. And yet, how many princes,\nlords, and rulers follow them, and many millions of the people;\nbecause they are not able to confute them. If they had said that a man\nis no man, but a worm, Psal. xxii. 6, they might in reason have\nexpected as much belief.\n\n_Direct._ XXVII. Abuse not your own knowledge by subjecting it to your\ncarnal interest or sensuality. He that will sin against his\nconscience, and will not obey the knowledge which he hath, doth\ndeserve to be given over to blindness and deceit, and to lose even\nthat which he hath, and to be forsaken till he believe and defend a\nlie:[135] \"that all they might be damned who obeyed not the truth, but\nhad pleasure in unrighteousness,\" 2 Thess. ii. 10-12. God will not\nhold him guiltless who debaseth his sacred truth so far, as to make it\nstoop to his commodity and lust; where he is a teacher he will be a\nking, and sendeth his truth as the instrument of his government, and\nnot as a slave or pander to the flesh. He that will \"do God's will\nshall know it,\" John vii. 17; but the carnal mind that cannot be\nsubject to God's law, is unfit to receive it, because it is\nspiritually discerned, Rom. viii. 7; 1 Cor. ii. 14.\n\n[117] Nitebatur Socrates summi ingenii acumine, non tam illos ex\nsententia refellere, quam ipse quid verum esset invenire. Laert. in\nSocrat.\n\n[118] Heb. xii. 14. 2 Cor. v. 17; Rom. viii. 9, 13.\n\n[119] Socrates de ethice, et in officinis, et in publico quotidie\nphilosophans, ea potius inquirenda hortabatur, qu\u00e6 mores instruerent,\net quorum usus nobis domi esset necessarius. Laert. in Socrat.\n\n[120] Non tam auctoritatis in disputando, quam rationis momenta\nqu\u00e6renda sunt, Cic. Nat. Deo. p. 6. Obest plerumque iis, qui discere\nvolunt, auctoritas eorum, qui se docere profitentur. Desinunt enim\nsuum judicium adhibere: id habent ratum, quod ab eo, quem probant,\njudicatum vident. Ibid. p. 7.\n\n[121] Prov. xxiv. 30; xxi. 25; Matt. xxv. 26.\n\n[122] Qu\u00e6 du\u00e6 virtutes in disputatore prim\u00e6 sunt, eas ambas in Hubero\ndeprehendi, patientiam adversarium prolixe sua explicantem audiendi,\net lenitatem etiam aspere dicta perferendi, inq. Scultetus post. disp.\nCurric. p. 33.\n\n[123] 1 Tim. vi. 3; Tit. i. 1; 1 Tim. iv. 7, 8; vi. 5, 6, 11; 2 Pet.\ni. 3; iii. 11.\n\n[124] See chap. ii. direct. 3.\n\n[125] Ut Deum noris, etsi ignores et locum et faciem, sic animum tibi\ntuum notum esse oportet, etiam si ignores et locum et formam. Cicero\n1. Tuscul.\n\n[126] Nulla erga Deos pietas est, nisi honesta de numine deorum ac\nmente opinio sit. Cicero pro Planc.\n\n[127] Non ii sumus quibus nihil verum esse videatur; sed ii qui\nomnibus veris fals\u00e6 qu\u00e6dam adjuncta esse dicamus, tanta similitudine\nut, &c. Cic. de Nat. Deor. p. 7.\n\n[128] Job xxxviii-xli.\n\n[129] See my preface before the second part of the Saints' Rest, edit.\n3, &c. A man of judgment shall hear ignorant men differ, and know that\nthey mean one thing. And yet they themselves will never agree. L.\nBacon, Ess. 3.\n\n[130] As I have showed in my Dispute of Saving Faith with Dr. Barlow,\nand of Justification.\n\n[131] Non ex verbis res, sed ex rebus verba esse inquirenda, ait\nMyson. in Laert. p. 70. Bas. 1 Edit.\n\n[132] It is a noble work that Mr. Le Blanck of Sedan is about to this\npurpose, stating more exactly than hath yet been done all the\ncontroversies between us and the papists: which how excellently he is\nlike to perform I easily conjecture by the Disputes of his upon\nJustification, &c. which I have seen.\n\n[133] Satis triumphat veritas si apud paucos bonosque accepta: nec\nindoles ejus est placere multis. Lipsius.\n\n[134] Thus Peter and Barnabas erred, Gal. ii.\n\n[135] Matt. xxv. 29; Rom. xiv. 22.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nDIRECTIONS FOR THE UNION AND COMMUNION OF SAINTS, AND THE AVOIDING\nUNPEACEABLENESS AND SCHISM.\n\n\nThe peace and concord of believers is a thing that almost all those\nplead for, who call themselves believers; and yet a thing that almost\nall men hinder and resist while they commend it.[136] The discord and\ndivisions of believers, are as commonly spoken against, and by the\nsame men, as commonly fomented. The few that are sincere (both rulers\nand private men) desire concord and hate divisions in love to holiness\nwhich is promoted by it, and in love to the church, and good of souls,\nand the honour of religion and the glory of God; and the few of those\nthat are experienced, wise, judicious persons, do choose the means\nthat is fittest to attain these ends, and do prudently and constantly\nprosecute them accordingly; but these being in the world as a spoonful\nof fresh water cast into the sea, or a spoonful of water cast into the\nflames of a house on fire, no wonder if the brinish sea be not\nsweetened by them, nor the consuming, raging fire quenched by them.\nThe other rulers of the world and of the churches, are for concord and\nagainst division, because this tendeth to the quieting of the people\nunder them, and the making of men submissive and obedient to their\nwills, and so to confirm their dignities, dominions, and\ninterests.[137] And all men that are not holy, being predominantly\nselfish, they would all be themselves the centre of that union, and\nbond of that concord which they desire: and they would have it\naccomplished upon such terms and by such means as are most agreeable\nto their principles and ends; in which there are almost as many minds\nas men: so that among all the commenders of unity and concord, there\nare none that take the way to attain it, but those that would centre\nit all in God, and seek it upon his terms, and in his way. The rest\nare all tearing unity and peace in pieces, while they commend it, and\nthey fight against it while they seek it; every man seeking it for\nhimself, and upon his own terms, and in his own way; which are so\nvarious and inconsistent, that east and west may sooner meet than\nthey.\n\nYet must the sons of God be still the sons of peace, and continue\ntheir prayers and endeavours for unity, how small soever be the hopes\nof their success: \"If it be possible, as much as in us lieth, we must\nlive peaceably with all men,\" Rom. xii. 18. So far must they be from\nbeing guilty of any schisms or unlawful divisions of the church, that\nthey must make it a great part of their care and work to preserve the\nunity and peace of christians. In this therefore I shall next direct\nthem.\n\n_Direct._ I. Understand first wherein the unity of christians and\nchurches doth consist: or else you will neither know how to preserve\nit, nor when you violate it.[138] Christians are said to be united to\nChrist, when they are entered into covenant with him, and are become\nhis disciples, his subjects, and the members of his (political) body.\nThey are united to one another when they are united to Christ their\ncommon Head, and when they have that spirit, that faith, that love,\nwhich is communicated to every living member of the body. This union\nis not the making of many to be one christian, but of many christians\nto be one church; which is considerable either as to its internal\nlife, or its external order and profession. In the former respect the\nbonds of our union are, 1. The heart covenant (or faith). 2. And the\nSpirit: the consent of Christ and of ourselves concurring, doth make\nthe match or marriage between us; and the Spirit communicated from him\nto us is as the nerves or ligaments of the body, or rather as the\nspirits which pass through all. The union of the church considered\nvisibly in its outward policy, is either that of the whole church, or\nof the particular churches within themselves, or of divers particular\nchurches accidentally united. 1. The union of the whole is essential,\nintegral, or accidental. The essential union is that relation of a\nhead and members, which is between Christ and all the visible members\nof his church: the foundation of it is the mutual covenant between\nChrist and them, considered on their part as made externally, whether\nsincerely or not: this is usually done in baptism, and is the chiefest\nact of their profession of the faith. Thus the baptismal covenant doth\nconstitute us members of the visible church. The integral and\naccidental union I pass by now. 2. Besides this union of the universal\nchurch with Christ the universal Head, there is in all particular\norganized churches, a subordinate union, (1.) Between the pastor and\nthe flock. (2.) Between the people one towards another;[139] which\nconsisteth in these their special relations to each other. 3. And\nthere is an accidental union of many particular churches: as when they\nare united under one civil government; or consociated by their pastors\nin one synod or council. These are the several sorts of church union.\n\n_Direct._ II. Understand also wherein the communion of christians and\nchurches doth consist; that you may know what it is that you must hold\nto. In the universal church your internal communion with Christ\nconsisteth in his communication of his Spirit and grace, his word and\nmercies unto you; and in your returns of love, and thanks, and\nobedience unto him; and in your seeking to him, depending on him, and\nreceivings from him: your internal communion with the church or\nsaints, consisteth in mutual love, and other consequent affections,\nand in praying for and doing good to one another as yourselves,\naccording to your abilities and opportunities. Your external communion\nwith Christ and with most of the church in heaven and earth, is not\nmutually visible and local; for it is but a small number comparatively\nthat we ever see; but it consisteth in Christ's visible communication\nof his word, his officers, and his ordinances and mercies unto you,\nand in your visible learning and reception of them, and obedience to\nhim, and expressions of your love and gratitude towards him. Your\nexternal communion with the universal church, consisteth in the\nprayers of the church for you, and your prayers for the church; in\nyour holding the same faith, and professing to love and worship the\nsame God, and Saviour, and Sanctifier, in the same holy ordinances, in\norder to the same eternal end.\n\nYour external communion in the same particular congregations,\nconsisteth in your assembling together to hear the preaching of God's\nword, and to receive the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ,\nand pray and praise God, and to help each other in knowledge and\nholiness, and walk together in the fear of the Lord.\n\nYour communion with other neighbour churches, lieth in praying for and\ncounselling each other, and keeping such correspondencies as shall be\nfound necessary to maintain that love, and peace, and holiness which\nall are bound to seek, according to your abilities and opportunities.\n\nNote here, that communion is one thing, and subjection is another. It\nis not your subjection to other churches that is required to your\ncommunion with them. The churches that Paul wrote to at Rome, Corinth,\nGalatia, Ephesus, Philippi, &c. had communion together according to\ntheir capacities in that distance; but they were not subject one to\nanother, any otherwise than as all are commanded to be subject to each\nother in humility, 1 Pet. v. 5. The church of Rome now accuseth all\nthe christians in the world of separating from their communion, unless\nthey will take them for their rulers, and obey them as the mistress\nchurch: but Paul speaketh not one syllable to any of the churches of\nany such thing, as their obedience to the church of Rome. To your own\npastors you owe subjection statedly as well as communion; and to other\npastors of the churches of Christ (fixed or unfixed) you owe a\ntemporary subjection so far as you are called to make use of them (as\nsick persons do to another physician, when the physician of the\nhospital is out of the way): but one church is not the ruler of\nanother, or any one of all the rest, by any appointment of the King of\nthe church.\n\n_Direct._ III. By the help of what is already said, you are next\ndistinctly to understand how far you are bound to union or communion\nwith any other church or person, and what distance, separation, or\ndivision is a sin, and what is not: that so you may neither\ncauselessly trouble yourselves with scruples, nor trouble the church\nby sinful schism.\n\n[Sidenote: What unity is among all christians.]\n\nI. There must be a union among all churches and christians in these\nparticulars. 1. They have all but one God. 2. And one Head and\nSaviour, Jesus Christ. 3. And one Sanctifier, the Holy Ghost. 4. And\none ultimate end and hope, even the fruition of God in heaven. 5. And\none gospel to teach them the knowledge of Christ, and contain the\npromise of their salvation. 6. And one kind of faith that is wrought\nhereby. 7. And one and the same covenant (of which baptism is the\nseal) in which they are engaged to God. 8. And the same instrumental\nfounders of our faith, under Jesus Christ, even the prophets and\napostles. 9. And all members of the same universal body. 10. And all\nhave the same new nature and holy disposition, and the same holy\naffections, in loving God and holiness, and hating sin. 11. They all\nown, as to the essential parts, the same law of God, as the rule of\ntheir faith and life, even the sacred canonical Scriptures. 12. Every\nmember hath a love to the whole, and to each other, especially to the\nmore excellent and useful members; and an inclination to holy\ncommunion with each other. 13. They have all a propensity to the same\nholy means and employment, as prayer, learning the word of God, and\ndoing good to others.[140] All these things the true living members of\nthe church have in sincerity, and the rest have in profession.\n\n[Sidenote: What diversity will be in the church.]\n\nII. There will be still a diversity among the churches and particular\nchristians in these following points, without any dissolution of the\nfore-described unity. 1. They will not be of the same age or standing\nin Christ; but some babes, some young men, and some fathers. 2. They\nwill not have the same degrees of strength, of knowledge, and of\nholiness: some will have need to be fed with milk, and be unskilful in\nthe word of righteousness. 3. They will differ in the kind and measure\nof their gifts: some will excel in one kind, and some in another, and\nsome in none at all. 4. They will differ in their natural temper,\nwhich will make some to be more hot and some more mild, some more\nquick and some more dull, some of more regulated wits and some more\nscattered and confused. 5. They will differ in spiritual health and\nsoundness: one will be more orthodox and another more erroneous; one\nwill have a better appetite to the wholesome word than others that are\ninclining to novelties and vain janglings; one will walk more\nblamelessly than another; some are full of joy and peace, and others\nfull of grief and trouble. 6. They differ much in usefulness and\nservice to the body: some are pillars to support the rest, and some\nare burdensome and troublers of the church. 7. It is the will of\nChrist that they differ in office and employment: some being pastors\nand teachers to the rest. 8. There may be much difference in the\nmanner of their worshipping God; some observing days and difference of\nmeats and drinks, and forms and other ceremonies, which others observe\nnot: and several churches may have several modes. 9. These differences\nmay possibly, by the temptation of Satan, arise to vehement\ncontentions; and not only to the censuring and despising of each\nother, but to the rejecting of each other from the communion of the\nseveral churches, and forbidding one another to preach the gospel, and\nthe banishing or imprisoning one another, as Constantine himself did\nbanish Athanasius, and as Chrysostom and many another have felt. 10.\nHence it followeth that as in the visible church some are the members\nof Christ, and some are indeed the children of the devil, some shall\nbe saved and some be damned, even with the sorest damnation, (the\ngreatest difference in the world to come being betwixt the visible\nmembers of the church,) so among the godly and sincere themselves they\nare not all alike amiable or happy, but they shall differ in glory as\nthey do in grace.[141] All these differences there have been, are, and\nwill be in the church, notwithstanding its unity in other things.\n\n[Sidenote: Schism what, and of how many sorts.]\n\nIII. The word schism cometh from \u03c3\u03c7\u03af\u03b6\u03c9, _disseco_, _lacero_, and\nsignifieth any sinful division among christians. Some papists (as\nJohnson) will have nothing called schism, but a dividing oneself from\nthe catholic church: others maintain that there is nothing in\nScripture called schism, but making divisions in particular\nchurches.[142] The truth is, (obvious in the thing itself,) that there\nare several sorts of schism or division. 1. There is a causing\ndivisions in a particular church, when yet no party divideth from that\nchurch, much less from the universal. Thus Paul blameth the divisions\nthat were among the Corinthians, while one said, I am of Paul, and\nanother, I am of Apollos, &c. 1 Cor. iii. 3. And 1 Cor. xi. 18, \"I\nhear that there be divisions among you:\" not that they separated from\neach other's communion, but held a disorderly communion. Such\ndivisions he vehemently dissuadeth them from, 1 Cor. i. 10. And thus\nhe persuadeth the Romans, (xvi. 17,) to \"mark them which cause\ndivisions and offences among them, contrary to the doctrine which they\nhad learned, and avoid them;\" which it seems therefore were not such\nas had avoided the church first. He that causeth differences of\njudgment and practice, and contendings in the church, doth cause\ndivisions, though none separate from the church.\n\n2. And if this be a fault, it must be a greater fault to cause\ndivisions from, as well as in, a particular church, which a man may do\nthat separateth not from it himself: as if he persuade others to\nseparate, or if he sow those tares of error which cause it, or if he\ncauselessly excommunicate or cast them out.\n\n3. And then it must be as great a sin to make a causeless separation\nfrom the church that you are in yourself, which is another sort of\nschism. If you may not divide in the church, nor divide others from\nthe church, then you may not causelessly divide the common from it\nyourselves.\n\n4. And it is yet a greater schism, when you divide not only from that\none church, but from many, because they concur in opinion with that\none (which is the common way of dividers).\n\n5. And it is yet a greater schism, when whole churches separate from\neach other, and renounce due communion with each other without just\ncause: as the Greeks, Latins, and protestants in their present\ndistance, must some of them (whoever it is) be found guilty.\n\n6. And yet it is a greater schism than this, when churches do not only\nseparate from each other causelessly, but also unchurch each other,\nand endeavour to cut off each other from the church universal, by\ndenying each other to be true churches of Christ. It is a more\ngrievous schism to withdraw from a true church as no church, than as a\ncorrupt church; that is, to cut off a church from Christ, and the\nchurch catholic, than to abstain from communion with it as a\nscandalous or offending church.\n\n7. It is yet, _c\u00e6teris paribus_, a higher degree of schism to divide\nyourselves (a person or a church) from the universal church without\njust cause, though you separate from it but _secundum quid_, in some\naccidental respect where unity is needful (for where unity is not\nrequired, there disunion is no sin): yet such a person that is\nseparate but _secundum quid_, from something accidental, or integral,\nbut not essential to the catholic church, is still a catholic\nchristian, though he sin.\n\n[Sidenote: A heretic and apostate what.]\n\n8. But as for the highest degree of all, viz. to separate from the\nuniversal church _simpliciter_, or in some essential respect, this is\ndone by nothing but by heresy or apostasy. However the papists make\nmen believe that schismatics that are neither heretics nor apostates,\ndo separate themselves wholly or simply from the catholic church, this\nis a mere figment of their brains. For he that separateth not from the\nchurch in any thing essential to it, doth not truly and simply\nseparate from the church, but _secundum quid_, from something\nseparable from the church. But whatever is essential to the church is\nnecessary to salvation; and he that separateth from it upon the\naccount of his denying any thing necessary to salvation, is a heretic\nor apostate: that is, if he do it, as denying some one (or more)\nessential point of faith or religion, while he pretendeth to hold all\nthe rest, he is a heretic: if he deny the whole christian faith, he is\na flat apostate: and these are more than to be schismatics.\n\nThe word heresy also is variously taken by ecclesiastic writers.\nAustin will have heresy to be an inveterate schism: Jerom maketh it to\nbe some perverse opinion: some call every schism which gathereth a\nseparated party from the rest, by the name of heresy; some call it a\nheresy if there be a perilous error though without any schism; some\ncall it a heresy only when schism is made, and a party separated upon\nthe account of some perilous error. Some say this error must be\ndamnable, that is, in the essentials of religion; and some say, it is\nenough if it be but dangerous. Among all these, the commonest sense of\na heretic is, one that obstinately erreth in some essential point, and\ndivideth from the communion of other christians upon that account. And\nso Par\u00e6us and many protestants take heresy for the species, and schism\nfor the genus. All schism is not heresy; but all heresy, say they, is\nschism. Remember that all this is but a controversy _de nomine_, and\ntherefore of small moment.\n\n[Sidenote: Who are true schismatics.]\n\nBy this that I have said you may perceive who they be that are guilty\nof church divisions: As, 1. The sparks of it are kindled, when proud\nand self-conceited persons are brain-sick in the fond estimation of\ntheir own opinions, and heart-sick by a feverish zeal for the\npropagating of them. Ignorant souls think that every change of their\nopinions is made by such an accession of heavenly light, that if they\nshould not bestir them to make all of the same mind, they should be\nbetrayers of the truth, and do the world unspeakable wrong. When they\nmeasure and censure men as they receive or reject their peculiar\ndiscoveries or conceits, schism is in the egg.\n\n2. The fire is blown up, when men are desirous to have a party follow\nthem and cry them up, and thereupon are busy in persuading others to\nbe of their mind, and do speak \"perverse things to draw away disciples\nafter them,\" Acts xx. 30; and when they would be counted the masters\nof a party.\n\n3. The flames break forth, when by this means the same church, or\ndivers churches, do fall into several parties burning in zeal against\neach other, abating charity, censuring and condemning one another,\nbackbiting and reviling each other, through envy and strife;[143] when\nthey look strangely at one another, as being on several sides, as if\nthey were not children of the same Father, nor members of the same\nbody; or as if Christ were divided, one being of Paul, and another of\nApollos, and another of Cephas, and every one of a faction, letting\nout their thoughts in jealousies and evil surmises of each other;\nperverting the words and actions of each to an ugly sense, and\nsnatching occasions to represent one another as fools or odious to the\nhearers, as if you should plainly say, I pray you hate or despise\nthese people whom I hate and despise. This is the core of the\nplague-sore; it is schism in the bud.\n\n4. When people in the same church do gather into private meetings, not\nunder the guidance of their pastors, to edify one another in holy\nexercises in love and peace, but in opposition to their lawful\npastors, or to one another, to propagate their singular opinions, and\nincrease their parties, and speak against those that are not on their\nside; schism is then ready to bring forth and multiply, and the swarm\nis ready to come forth and be gone.\n\n5. When these people actually depart, and renounce or forsake the\ncommunion of the church, and cast off their faithful pastors, and draw\ninto a separated body by themselves, and choose them pastors and call\nthemselves a church, and all without any just, sufficient cause: when\nthus churches are gathered out of churches, before the old ones are\ndissolved, or they have any warrant to depart; when thus pastor is set\nup against pastor, church against church, and altar against altar;\nthis is schism ripe and fruitful; the swarm is gone, and hived in\nanother place.\n\n6. If now the neighbour churches, by their pastors in their synods,\nshall in compassion seek to reclaim these stragglers, and they justify\ntheir unjust separation, and contemn the counsel of the churches and\nministers of Christ; this is a confirmed, obstinate schism.\n\n7. If they shall also judge that church to be no church from which\nthey separated, and so cut off a part of the body of Christ by an\nunrighteous censure, and condemn the innocent, and usurp authority\nover their guides; this is disobedience and uncharitableness with\nschism.\n\n8. If they shall also condemn and unchurch all the other churches that\nare not of their mind and way, and renounce communion with them all,\nand so condemn unjustly a great part of the body of Christ on earth,\nthis is to add fury and rebellion to an uncharitable schism. And if to\ncover their sin, they shall unjustly charge these churches which they\nreject, with heresy or wickedness, they do but multiply their crimes\nby such extenuations.\n\n9. If the opinion that all this ado is made for, be a damning error,\nagainst some essential point of the true religion, then it is heresy\nas well as schism.\n\n10. If this separation from the church be made in defence of an\nungodly life, against the discipline of the church; if a wicked sort\nof men shall withdraw from the church to avoid the disgrace of\nconfession or excommunication; and shall first cast off the church,\nlest the church should proceed to cast out them; and so they separate\nthat they may have none to govern and trouble them but themselves;\nthis is a profane, rebellious schism. This is the common course of\nschism when it groweth towards the height.\n\n11. Besides all these, there is yet a more pernicious way of schism,\nwhich the church or court of Rome is guilty of: they make new articles\nof faith, and new points of religion, and a new worship--of God, shall\nI say, or of bread as if it were a god? And all these they put into a\nlaw, and impose them on all the other churches; yea, they put them\ninto an oath, and require men to swear that without any doubting they\nbelieve them to be true: they pretend to have authority for all this,\nas Rome is the mistress of all other churches. They set up a new\nuniversal head, as an essential part of the catholic church, and so\nfound or feign a new kind of catholic church: and he that will not\nobey them in all this, they renounce communion with him; and to hide\nthis horrid, notorious schism, they call all schismatics that are not\nthus subjected to them.\n\n12. And to advance their schism to the height, as far as arrogance can\naspire, they not only refuse communion with those from whom they\nseparate, but condemn them as no pastors, no churches, no christians,\nthat are not subject to them in this their usurpation; and they, that\nare but about the third or fourth part (at most) of the christian\nworld, do condemn the body of Christ to hell (even all the rest)\nbecause they are not subjects of the pope.\n\nBesides all this criminal, odious schism, of imposers or separaters,\nthere is a degree of schism or unjust division, which may be the\ninfirmity of a good and peaceable person. As if a humble, tender\nchristian should mistakingly think it unlawful to do some action, that\nis imposed upon all that will hold communion with that particular\nchurch (such as Paul speaketh of Rom. xiv. if they had been imposed);\nand if he, suspecting his own understanding, do use all means to know\nthe truth, and yet still continueth in his mistake; if this christian\ndo forbear all reviling of his superiors, and censuring those that\ndiffer from him, and drawing others to his opinion, but yet dare not\njoin with the church in that which he taketh to be a sin, this is a\nsinful sort of withdrawing, because it is upon mistake; but yet it is\nbut a pardonable infirmity, consistent with integrity and the favour\nof God.\n\n[Sidenote: What separation is a duty.]\n\nIV. In these cases following separation is our duty and not a sin.\n1. The church's separation from the unbelieving world is a necessary\nduty: for what is a church, but a society dedicated or sanctified to\nGod, by separation from the rest of the world? 2 Cor. vi. 17, 18,\n\"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the\nLord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you, and\nwill be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters,\nsaith the Lord Almighty.\" The church is a holy people, and therefore a\nseparated people.[144]\n\n2. If a church apostatize and forsake the faith, or if they turn\nnotoriously heretical, denying openly any one essential article of the\nfaith, and this not only by an undiscerned consequence, but directly\nin express terms or sense, it is our duty to deny to hold communion\nwith such apostates or heretics; for it is their separating from\nChrist that is the sinful separation, and maketh it necessary to us to\nseparate from them. But this is no excuse to any church or person,\nthat shall falsely accuse any other church or person of heresy,\n(because of some forced or disowned consequences of his doctrine,) and\nthen separate from them when they have thus injured them by their\ncalumnies or censures.\n\n3. We are not bound to own that as a church which maketh not a visible\nprofession of faith and holiness; that is, if the pastors and a\nsufficient number of the flock make not this profession. For as the\npastor and flock are the constituent parts of the church, politically\nconsidered, so profession of faith and holiness is the essential\nqualification of the members. If either pastors or people want this\nprofession, it is no political church; but if the people profess true\nreligion, and have no pastors, it is a community of believers, or a\nchurch unorganized, and as such to be acknowledged.\n\n4. If any shall unlawfully constitute a new political church form, by\nmaking new constitutive officers to be its visible head, which Christ\nnever appointed, we are not to hold communion with the church in its\ndevised form or polity; though we may hold communion with the members\nof it considered as christians and members of the universal church.\nMark well, that I do not say that every new devised officer\ndisobligeth us from such communion, but such as I describe; which I\nshall fullier open.\n\n[Sidenote: Whether any form of church government be of divine\nappointment; and whether man may appoint any other?]\n\n_Quest._ May not men place new officers in the church; and new forms\nof government which God never instituted? Or is there any form and\nofficers of divine institution?\n\n_Answ._ Though I answered this before, I shall here briefly answer it\nagain. 1. There are some sorts of officers that are essential to the\npolity, or church form, and some that are only needful to the\nwell-being of it, and some that are only accidental. 2. There is a\nchurch form of God's own institution, and there is a superadded human\npolity, or form. There are two sorts of churches, or church forms, of\nGod's own institution. The first is the universal church considered\npolitically as headed by Jesus Christ: this is so of divine\nappointment, as that it is an article of our creed. Here if any man\ndevise and superinduce another head of the universal church, which God\nnever appointed, though he pretend to hold his sovereignty from Christ\nand under him, it is treason against the sovereignty of Christ, as\nsetting up a universal government or sovereign in his church without\nhis authority and consent. Thus the pope is the usurping head of a\nrebellion against Christ, and in that sense by protestants called\nantichrist; and he is guilty of the rebellion that subscribeth to or\nowneth his usurpation, or sweareth to him as his governor, though he\npromise to obey him but _in licitis et honestis_; because it is not\nlawful or honest to consent to a usurper's government. If a usurper\nshould traitorously, without the king's consent, proclaim himself\nvice-king of Ireland or Scotland, and falsely say that he hath the\nking's authority, when the king disclaimeth him, he that should\nvoluntarily swear obedience to him in things lawful and honest, doth\nvoluntarily own his usurpation and treason. And it is not the\nlawfulness and honesty of the matter which will warrant us to own the\nusurpation of the commander.[145] And secondly, there is another\nsubordinate church form of Christ's institution; that is, particular\nchurches consisting of pastors and people conjoined for personal\ncommunion in God's worship. These are to the universal church, as\nparticular corporations are to a kingdom, even such parts of it as\nhave a distinct subordinate polity of their own: it is no city or\ncorporation, if they have not their mayors, bailiffs, or other chief\nofficers, subject to the king, as governors of the people under him:\nand it is no particular church, in a political sense, but only a\ncommunity, if they have not their pastors to be under Christ, their\nspiritual conductors in the matters of salvation; as there is no\nschool which is not constituted of teacher and scholars. That\nparticular organized political churches are of Christ's institution,\n(by his Spirit in the apostles,) is undeniable. Acts xiv. 23, \"They\nordained them elders in every church.\" Tit. i. 5, \"Ordain elders in\nevery city, as I commanded thee.\" Acts xx. 17, \"He sent to Ephesus and\ncalled the elders of the church.\" Ver. 28, \"Take heed to yourselves\nand to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you\noverseers, to feed the church of God.\" So 1 Thess. v. 12, 13; Heb.\nxiii. 7, 17, 24, &c. 1 Cor. vii. 23, \"If the whole church be come\ntogether into one place,\" &c. Thus far it is no question but church\nforms and government is of divine appointment; and man can no more\nalter this, or set up such other, without God's consent, than a\nsubject can alter or make corporations without the king's consent. 3.\nBut besides these two sorts of divine institution, there are other\nallowable associations which some call churches. God hath required\nthese particular churches to hold such communion as they are capable\nof, for promoting the common ends of christianity; and prudence is\nleft to determine of the times, and places, and manner of their\npastors' assemblies, councils, and correspondencies according to God's\ngeneral rules. If any will call these councils, or the associations\nengaged for special correspondencies, by the name of churches, I will\nnot trouble any with a strife about the name. In this case, so far as\nmen have power to make that association or combination which they call\na church, so also if they make officers suited to its ends, not\nencroaching upon the churches or officers of Christ's own institution,\nI am none of those that will contend against them; nor will this allow\nus to deny communion with them. And in those churches which Christ\nhimself hath instituted, there are officers that make but for the\nintegrity, and not for the political essence of the church: as\ndeacons, and all pastors or presbyters more than one. For it is not\nessential to it to have any deacons, or many pastors. As to this sort\nof officers, Christ hath appointed them, and it is not in man's power\nto alter his institution, nor to set up any such like in co-ordination\nwith these: but yet if they should do so, as long as the true\nessentials of the church remain, I am not to deny communion with that\nchurch, so I own not this corruption. 4. But there are also as\ncircumstantial employments about God's worship, so officers to do\nthose employments, which men may lawfully institute: as clerks,\nchurchwardens, door-keepers, ringers, &c. It is not the adding of\nthese that is any sin. By this time you may see plainly both how far\nchurches, officers, and church government is _jure divino_, and how\nfar man may or may not add or alter, and what I meant in my\nproposition, viz. That if men introduce a new universal head to the\nchurch catholic, or a new head to particular churches, instead of that\nof Christ's institution, this is, _in sensu politico_, to make new\nspecies of churches, and destroy those that Christ hath instituted\n(for the _pars gubernans_ and _pars gubernata_ are the essential\nconstituents of a church). And with such a church, as such, in specie,\nI must have no communion (which is our case with the papal church);\nthough with the material parts of that church, as members of Christ, I\nmay hold communion still.\n\n5. If particular members are guilty of obstinate impenitency in true\nheresy, or ungodliness, or any scandalous crime, the church may and\nmust remove such from her communion; for it is the communion of\nsaints. And the offender is the cause of this separation.\n\n6. If a whole church be guilty of some notorious, scandalous sin, and\nrefuse with obstinacy to repent and reform, when admonished by\nneighbour churches, or if that church do thus defend such a sin in any\nof her members, so as openly to own it; other churches may refuse\ncommunion with her, till she repent and be reformed. Or if they see\ncause to hold communion with her in other respects, yet in this they\nmust have none.[146]\n\n7. If any church will admit none to her personal communion, but those\nthat will take some false oath, or subscribe any untruth, or tell a\nlie, though that church do think it to be true, (as the Trent oath\nwhich their priests all swear,) it is not lawful to do any such\nunlawful thing to obtain communion with that church: and he that\nrefuseth in this case to commit this sin, is no way guilty of the\nseparation, but is commendable for being true to God.[147] And though\nthe case may be sad to be deprived of the liberty of public worship,\nand the benefits of public communion with that church, yet sin is\nworse, and obedience is better than sacrifice.[148] God will not be\nserved with sin, nor accept the sacrifice of a disobedient fool,\nEccles. v. 1, 2. Nor must we lie to glorify him, nor do evil that good\nmay come by it: just is the damnation of such servers of God, Rom. i.\n7, 8. All public worship is rather to be omitted, than any one sin\ncommitted to enjoy it (though neither should be done where it is\npossible to do better). It is not so unwise to think to feed a man\nwith poisons, as to think to serve God acceptably by sin.\n\n8. If any one church would ambitiously usurp a governing power over\nothers, (as Rome doth over the world,) it is no unwarrantable\nseparation to refuse the government of that usurping church. We may\nhold communion with them as christians, and yet refuse to be their\nsubjects. And therefore it is a proud and ignorant complaint of the\nchurch of Rome, that the protestants separate from them as to\ncommunion, because they will not take them for their governors.\n\n9. If any by violence will banish or cast out the true bishops or\npastors of the church, and set up usurpers in their stead, (as in the\nArians' persecution it was commonly done,) it is no culpable\nseparation, but laudable, and a duty, for the people to own their\nrelation to their true pastors, and deny communion with the usurpers:\nas the people of the eastern churches did commonly refuse communion\nwith the intruding bishops, even to the death, telling the civil\nrulers, that they had bishops of their own, to whom they would adhere.\n\n10. If a true church will obstinately deny her members the use of any\none ordinance of God, as preaching or reading Scripture, or prayer, or\npraise, or discipline, while it retaineth all the rest, though we may\nnot separate from this church as no church, (which yet in the case of\ntotal rejection of prayer or praise, is very questionable at least,)\nyet if we have opportunity, we must remove our local communion to a\nmore edifying church, that useth all the public ordinances of God:\nunless the public good forbid, or some great impediment or contrary\nduty be our excuse.\n\n11. If a true church will not cast out any impenitent, notorious,\nscandalous sinner, though I am not to separate from the church, yet I\nam bound to avoid private familiarity with such a person, that he may\nbe ashamed, and that I partake not of his sin.[149]\n\n12. As the church hath diversity of members, some more holy, and some\nless, and some of whose sincerity we have small hope, some that are\nmore honourable, and some less, some that walk blamelessly, and some\nthat work iniquity; so ministers and private members are bound to\ndifference between them accordingly, and to honour and love some far\nabove others, whom yet we may not excommunicate; and this is no sinful\nseparation.[150]\n\n13. If the church that I live and communicate with, do hold any\ntolerable error, I may differ therein from the church, without a\nculpable separation. Union with the church may be continued with all\nthe diversities before mentioned, direct. iii.\n\n14. In case of persecution in one church or city, when the servants of\nChrist do fly to another, (having no special reason to forbid it,)\nthis is no sinful separation, Matt. x. 23.\n\n15. If the public service of the church require a minister or private\nchristian to remove to another church, if it be done deliberately and\nupon good advice, it is no sinful separation.\n\n16. If a lawful prince or magistrate command us to remove our\nhabitation, or command a minister from one church to another, when it\nis not notoriously to the detriment of the common interest of\nreligion, it is no sinful separation to obey the magistrate.\n\n17. If a poor christian that hath a due and tender care of his\nsalvation, do find that under one minister his soul declineth and\ngroweth dead, and under another that is more sound, and clear, and\nlively, he is much edified to a holy and heavenly frame and life, and\nif hereupon, preferring his salvation before all things, he remove to\nthat church and minister where he is most edified, without unchurching\nthe other by his censures, this is no sinful separation, but a\npreferring the one thing needful before all.\n\n18. If one part of the church have leisure, opportunity, cause, and\nearnest desires to meet oftener for the edifying of their souls, and\nredeeming their time, than the poorer, labouring, or careless and less\nzealous part will meet, in any fit place, under the oversight and\nconduct of their pastors, and not in opposition to the more public,\nfull assemblies, as they did, Acts xii. 12, to pray for Peter at the\nhouse of Mary, \"where many were gathered together praying;\" and Acts\nx. 1, &c. this is no sinful separation.\n\n19. If a man's own outward affairs require him to remove his\nhabitation from one city or country to another, and there be no\ngreater matter to prohibit it, he may lawfully remove his local\ncommunion from the church that he before lived with, to that which\nresideth in the place he goeth to. For with distant churches and\nchristians I can have none but mental communion, or by distant means\n(as writing, messengers, &c.); it is only with present christians that\nI can have local, personal communion.\n\n20. It is possible in some cases that a man may live long without\nlocal, personal communion with any christians or church at all, and\nyet not be guilty of sinful separation. As the king's ambassador or\nagent in a land of infidels, or some traveller, merchants, factors, or\nsuch as go to convert the infidels, or those that are banished or\nimprisoned. In all these twenty cases, some kind of separation may be\nlawful.\n\n21. One more I may add, which is, when the temples are so small, and\nthe congregations so great, that there is no room to hear and join in\nthe public worship; or when the church is so excessively great, as to\nbe uncapable of the proper ends of the society; in this case to divide\nor withdraw, is no sinful separation. When one hive will not hold the\nbees, the swarm must seek themselves another, without the injury of\nthe rest.\n\nBy all this you may perceive, that sinful separation is first in a\ncensorious, uncharitable mind, condemning churches, ministers, and\nworship causelessly, as unfit for them to have communion with. And\nsecondly, it is in the personal separation which is made in pursuance\nof this censure: but not in any local removal that is made on other\nlawful grounds.\n\n_Direct._ IV. Understand and consider well the reasons why Christ so\nfrequently and earnestly presseth concord on his church, and why he so\nvehemently forbiddeth divisions. Observe how much the Scripture\nspeaketh to this purpose, and upon what weighty reasons. Here are four\nthings distinctly to be represented to your serious consideration. 1.\nHow many, plain, and urgent are the texts that speak for unity, and\ncondemn division. 2. The great benefits of concord. 3. And the\nmischiefs of discord and divisions in the church. 4. And the\naggravations of the sin.\n\nI. A true christian, that hateth fornication, drunkenness, lying,\nperjury, because they are forbidden in the word of God, will hate\ndivisions also when he well observeth how frequently and vehemently\nthey are forbidden, and concord highly commended and commanded. John\nxvii. 21-23, \"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me,\nand I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may\nbelieve that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I\nhave given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them,\nand thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the\nworld may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou\nhast loved me.\" Here you see, that the unity of the saints must be a\nspecial means to convince the infidel world of the truth of\nchristianity, and to prove God's special love to his church, and also\nto accomplish their own perfection. 1 Cor. i. 10, \"Now I beseech you,\nbrethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the\nsame thing, and that there be no divisions (or schisms) among you; but\nthat ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same\njudgment. For it hath been declared to me of you, my brethren,--that\nthere are contentions among you.\" 1 Cor. iii. 3, \"For ye are yet\ncarnal: for whereas there is among you envying, (zeal,) and strife,\nand divisions, (or parties, or factions,) are ye not carnal, and walk\nas men? For while one saith, I am of Paul, and another, I am of\nApollos, are ye not carnal?\" Phil. ii. 1-4, \"If there be any\nconsolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of\nthe Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, fulfil ye my joy, that ye be\nlike-minded, having the same love, of one accord, of one mind. Let\nnothing be done through strife or vain-glory, but in lowliness of mind\nlet each esteem others better than themselves.\" Rom. xvi. 17, 18, \"Now\nI beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions (or parties)\nand offences, (or scandals,) contrary to the doctrine which ye have\nlearned, and avoid them.\" Abundance more such texts may be\nrecited.[151]\n\n[Sidenote: The benefits of concord.]\n\nII. The great benefits of the concord of christians are these\nfollowing. 1. It is necessary to the very life of the church and its\nseveral members, that they be all one body. As their union with Christ\nthe head and principle of their life is principally necessary, so\nunity among themselves is secondarily necessary, for the conveyance\nand reception of that life which floweth to all from Christ. For\nthough the head be the fountain of life, yet the nerves and other\nparts must convey that life unto the members; and if any member be cut\noff or separated from the body, it is separated also from the head,\nand perisheth. Mark well those words of the apostle, Eph. iv. 3-16,\n\"Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.\nThere is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope\nof your calling: one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father\nof all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. But unto\nevery one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of\nChrist.--And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some,\nevangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the\nsaints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of\nChrist, till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the\nknowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, unto the measure of the\nstature of the fulness of Christ: that--speaking the truth in love, we\nmay grow up into him in all things, which is the Head, even Christ;\nfrom whom the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by every\njoint of supply, according to the effectual working in the measure of\nevery part, maketh increase of the body to the edifying of itself in\nlove.\" See here how the church's unity is necessary to its life and\nincrease, and to the due nutrition of all the parts.\n\n2. The unity of the church, and the concord of believers, is necessary\nto its strength and safety; for Christ also strengtheneth as well as\nquickeneth them by suitable means. Woe to him that is alone! but in\nthe army of the Lord of hosts we may safely march on, when stragglers\nare catched up or killed by the weakest enemy. A threefold cord is not\neasily broken. Enemies both spiritual and corporal are deterred from\nassaulting the church or any of its members, while they see us walk in\nour military unity and order. In this posture every man is a blessing\nand defence unto his neighbour. As every soldier hath the benefit of\nall the conduct, wisdom, and valour of the whole army, while he\nkeepeth in his place; so every weak christian hath the use and benefit\nof all the learning, the wisdom, and gifts of the church, while he\nkeepeth his station, and walketh orderly in the church. The hand, the\neye, the ear, the foot, and every member of the body, is as ready to\nhelp or serve the whole, and every other particular member, as itself;\nbut if it be cut off, it is neither helpful, nor to be helped. Oh what\nmercy is it for every christian, that is unable to help himself, to\nhave the help of all the church of God! their directions, their\nexhortations, their love, their prayer, their liberality and\ncompassion, according to their several abilities and opportunities! as\ninfants and sick persons have the help of all the rest of the family\nthat are in health.\n\n3. Unity and concord, as they proceed from love, so they greatly\ncherish and increase love; even as the laying of the wood or coals\ntogether is necessary to the making of the fire, which the separating\nof them will put out.[152] Holy concord cherisheth holy converse and\ncommunion; and holy communion powerfully kindleth holy love. When the\nservants of Christ do see in each other the lustre of his graces, and\nhear from each other the heavenly language which floweth from a divine\nand heavenly mind, this potently kindleth their affections to each\nother, and maketh them close with those as the sons of God, in whom\nthey find so much of God; yea, it causeth them to love God himself in\nothers, with a reverent, admiring, and transcendent love, when others,\nat the best, can love them but as men. Concord is the womb and soil of\nlove, although it be first its progeny. In quietness and peace the\nvoice of peace is most regarded.\n\n4. Unity and concord is the church's beauty: it maketh us amiable even\nto the eye of nature, and venerable and terrible even to the eye of\nmalice. A concord in sin is no more honour, than it is for conquered\nmen to go together in multitudes to prison or captivity; or for beasts\nto go by droves unto the slaughter. But to see the churches of Christ\nwith one heart and soul acknowledging their Maker and Redeemer, and\nsinging his praise as with one voice, and living together in love and\nconcord, as those that have one principle, one rule, one nature, one\nwork, one interest, and hope, and end, this is the truly beauteous\nsymmetry, and delectable harmony. Psal. cxxxiii. \"Behold how good and\nhow pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like\nthe precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard,\neven Aaron's beard, that went down to the skirts of his garment. As\nthe dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descendeth upon the mountains\nof Zion: for there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for\nevermore.\" The translators well put this as the contents of this\npsalm, \"The benefit of the communion of saints.\"\n\n5. The concord of believers doth greatly conduce to the successes of\nthe ministry, and propagation of the gospel, and the conviction of\nunbelievers, and the conversion and salvation of ungodly souls. When\nChrist prayeth for the unity of his disciples, he redoubled this\nargument from the effect or end, \"that the world may believe that thou\nhast sent me;\" and \"that the world may know that thou hast sent me,\nand hast loved them,\" &c. John xvii. 21, 23. Would this make the world\nbelieve that Christ was sent of God? Yes, undoubtedly if all\nchristians were reduced to a holy concord, it would do more to win the\nheathen world, than all other means can do without it. It is the\ndivisions and the wickedness of professed christians, that maketh\nchristianity so contemned by the Mahometans, and other infidels of the\nworld; and it is the holy concord of christians that would convince\nand draw them home to Christ. Love, and peace, and concord are such\nvirtues, as all the world is forced to applaud, notwithstanding\nnature's enmity to good. When the first christian church \"were all\nwith one accord in one place, and continued daily with one accord in\nthe temple, and breaking bread from house to house partook of food\nwith gladness and singleness of heart,\" and when \"the multitude of\nbelievers were of one heart and of one soul,\" Acts ii. 1, 46; iv. 32,\nthen did \"God send upon them the Holy Ghost, and then were three\nthousand converted at a sermon,\" Acts ii. 41; and with \"great power\ngave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and\ngreat grace was upon them all,\" Acts iv. 33.\n\n[Sidenote: How our concord would promote the conversion of infidels.]\n\nOur concord in religion hath all these advantages for the converting\nof unbelievers and ungodly men. 1. It is a sign that there is a\nconstraining evidence of truth in that gospel which doth convince so\nmany; a concurrent satisfaction and yielding to the truth, is a\npowerful testimony for it. 2. They see then that religion is not a\nmatter of worldly policy and design, when so many men of contrary\ninterests do embrace it. 3. And they see it is not the fruit of\nmelancholy constitutions, when so many men of various temperatures\nentertain it. 4. They may see that the gospel hath power to conquer\nthat self-love and self-interest which is the most potent thing in\nvitiated nature: otherwise it could never make so many unite in God as\ntheir common interest and end. 5. They may see that the gospel and\nSpirit of Christ are stronger than the devil and all the allurements\nof the flesh and world, when they can make so many agree in the\nrenouncing of all earthly vanities, for the hopes of everlasting life.\n6. They will see that the design and doctrine of christianity are good\nand excellent, beseeming God, and desirable to man; when they see that\nthey produce so good effects, as the love, and unity, and concord of\nmankind. 7. And it is an exceeding great and powerful help to the\nconversion of the world in this respect, because it is a thing so\nconspicuous in their sight, and so intelligible to them, and so\napproved by them. They are little wrought on by the doctrine of Christ\nalone, because it is visible or audible but to few, and understood by\nfewer, and containeth many things which nature doth distaste; but the\nholy concord of believers is a thing that they are more able to\ndiscern and judge of, and do more generally approve. The holy concord\nof christians must be the conversion of the unbelieving world, if God\nhave so great a mercy for the world; which is a consideration that\nshould not only deter us from divisions, but make us zealously study\nand labour with all our interest and might, for the healing of the\nlamentable divisions among christians, if we have the hearts of\nchristians, and any sense of the interest of Christ.\n\n6. The concord of christians doth greatly conduce to the ease and\npeace of particular believers. The very exercise of love to one\nanother doth sweeten all our lives and duties; we sail towards heaven\nin a pleasant calm, with wind and tide, when we live in love and peace\ntogether. How easy doth it make the work of godliness! How light a\nburden doth religion seem, when we are all as of one heart and soul!\n\n7. Lastly, consider whether this be not the likest state to heaven,\nand therefore have not in it the most of christian excellency and\nperfection? In heaven there is no discord, but a perfect consort of\nglorified spirits, harmoniously loving and praising their Creator. And\nif heaven be desirable, holy concord on earth is next desirable.\n\n[Sidenote: The mischiefs of division.]\n\nIII. On the contrary, consider well of the mischiefs of divisions. 1.\nIt is the killing of the church, (as much as lieth in the dividers,)\nor the wounding it at least. Christ's body is one, and it is sensible;\nand therefore dividing it tendeth directly to the destroying it, and\nat least will cause its smart and pain. To reform the church by\ndividing it, is no wiser than to cut out the liver, or spleen, or\ngall, to cleanse them from the filth that doth obstruct them, and\nhinder them in their office; you may indeed thus cleanse them, but it\nwill be a mortal cure. As he that should divide the kingdom into two\nkingdoms dissolveth the old kingdom, or part of it at least, to erect\ntwo new ones; so he that would divide the catholic church into two,\nmust thereby destroy it, if he could succeed; or destroy that part\nwhich divideth itself from the rest. Can a member live that is cut off\nfrom the body, or a branch that is separated from the tree?\n\n[Sidenote: Whether papists or protestants are schismatics.]\n\n_Quest._ O but, say the Romanists, why then do you cut off yourselves\nfrom us? the division is made by you, and we are the church, and you\nare dead till you return to us. How will you know which part is the\nchurch, when a division is once made? _Answ._ Are you the church? Are\nyou the only christians in the world? The church is, all christians\nunited in Christ their Head. You traitorously set up a new usurping\nhead; and proclaim yourselves to be the whole church, and condemn all\nthat are not subjects to your new head: we keep our station, and\ndisclaim his usurpation, and deny subjection to you, and tell you that\nas you are the subjects of the pope, you are none of the church of\nChrist at all; from this treasonable conspiracy we withdraw ourselves;\nbut as you are the subjects of Christ we never divided from you, nor\ndenied you our communion.[153] Let reason judge now who are the\ndividers. And is it not easy to know which is the church in the\ndivision? It is all those that are still united unto Christ: if you or\nwe be divided from Christ and from christians that are his body, we\nare then none of the church; but if we are not divided from Christ, we\nare of the church still: if part of a tree (though the far greater\npart) be cut off or separated from the rest, it is that part (how\nsmall soever) that still groweth with the root that is the living\ntree. The Indian fig tree, and some other trees, have branches that\ntake root when they touch the ground: if now you ask me whether the\nbranches springing from the second root, are members of the first\ntree, I answer, 1. The rest that have no new root are more undoubtedly\nmembers of it. 2. If any branches are separated from the first tree,\nand grow upon the new root alone, the case is out of doubt. 3. But if\nyet they are by continuation joined to both, that root which they\nreceive their nutriment most from, is it which they most belong to.\nSuppose a tyrant counterfeit a commission from the king to be\nvice-king in Ireland, and proclaim all them to be traitors that\nreceive him not; the king disclaimeth him, the wisest subjects\nrenounce him, and the rest obey him but so as to profess they do it\nbecause they believe him to be commissioned by the king. Let the\nquestion be now, who are the dividers in Ireland? and who are the\nking's truest subjects? and what head it is that denominateth the\nkingdom? and who are the traitors? This is your case.\n\n2. Divisions are the deformities of the church. Cut off a nose, or\npluck out an eye, or dismember either a man or a picture, and see\nwhether you have not deformed it. Ask any compassionate christian, ask\nany insulting enemy, whether our divisions be not our deformity and\nshame, the lamentation of friends, and the scorn of enemies?\n\n3. The church's divisions are not our own dishonour alone, but the\ninjurious dishonour of Christ, and religion, and the gospel. The world\nthinketh that Christ is an impotent king, that cannot keep his kingdom\nat unity in itself, when he hath himself told us, that \"every kingdom\ndivided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or\nhouse divided against itself shall not stand,\" Matt. xii. 25. They\nthink the gospel tendeth to division, and is a doctrine of dissension,\nwhen they see divisions and dissensions procured by it; they impute\nall the faults of the subjects to the King, and think that Christ was\nconfused in his legislation, and knew not what to teach or command,\nbecause men are confounded in their opinions or practices, and know\nnot what to think or do. If men misunderstand the law of Christ, and\none saith, This is the sense, and another saith, That is the sense,\nthey are ready to think that Christ spake nonsense, or understood not\nhimself, because the ignorant understand him not: who is there that\nconverseth with the ungodly of the world, that heareth not by their\nreproach and scorns how much God and religion are dishonoured by the\ndivisions of religious people?\n\n4. And thus also our divisions do lamentably hinder the progress of\nthe gospel, and the conversion and salvation of the ungodly world:\nthey think they have small encouragement to be of your religion, while\nyour divisions seem to tell them, that you know not what religion to\nbe of yourselves. Whatever Satan or wicked men would say against\nreligion to discourage the ungodly from it, the same will exasperated\npersons in these divisions say against each other's way; and when\nevery one of you condemneth another, how should the consciences of the\nungodly persuade them to accept salvation in any of those ways, which\nyou thus condemn? Doubtless the divisions of the christian world have\ndone more to hinder the conversion of infidels, and keep the heathen\nand Mahometan world in their damnable ignorance and delusions, than\nall our power is able to undo; and have produced such desolations of\nthe church of Christ, and such a plentiful harvest and kingdom for the\ndevil, as every tender christian heart is bound to lament with tears\nof bitterness. If it must be that such offences shall come, yet woe to\nthose by whom they come!\n\n5. Divisions lay open the churches of Christ, not only to the scorn,\nbut to the malice, will, and fury of their enemies. A kingdom or house\ndivided cannot stand, Matt. xii. 25. Where hath the church been\ndestroyed, or religion rooted out, in any nation of the earth, but\ndivisions had a principal hand in the effect? Oh what desolations have\nthey made among the flocks of Christ! As Seneca and others opened\ntheir veins and bled to death, when Nero or such other tyrants did\nsend them their commands to die; even so have many churches done by\ntheir divisions, to the gratifying of Satan, the enemy of souls.\n\n6. Divisions among christians do greatly hinder the edification of the\nmembers of the church; while they are possessed with envyings and\ndistaste of one another, they lose all the benefit of each other's\ngifts, and of that holy communion which they should have with one\nanother.[154] And they are possessed with that zeal and wisdom, which\nJames calleth earthly, sensual, and devilish, which corrupteth all\ntheir affections, and turneth their food to the nourishment of their\ndisease, and maketh their very worshipping of God to become the\nincrease of their sin. Where divisions and contentions are, the\nmembers that should grow up in humility, meekness, self-denial,\nholiness, and love, do grow in pride, and perverse disputings, and\npassionate strivings, and envious wranglings; the Spirit of God\ndeparteth from them, and an evil spirit of malice and vexation taketh\nplace; though, in their passion, they know not what spirit they are\nof: whereas if they be of one mind, and live in peace, the God of love\nand peace will be with them. What lamentable instances of this\ncalamity have we in many of the sectaries of this present time;\nespecially in the people called quakers, that while they pretend to\nthe greatest austerities, do grow up to such a measure of sour pride,\nand uncharitable contempt of others, and especially of all superiors,\nand hellish railing against the holiest ministers and people, as we\nhave scarce known or ever read of.\n\n[Sidenote: The Greek word is zeal.]\n\n7. These divisions fill the church with sin, even with sins of a most\nodious nature. They introduce a swarm of errors, while it becomes the\nmode for every one to have a doctrine of his own, and to have\nsomething to say in religion which may make him notable. \"Of your own\nselves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away\ndisciples after them,\" Acts xx. 30. They cherish pride, and malice,\nand belying others, (the three great sins of the devil,) as naturally\nas dead flesh breedeth worms; they destroy impartial, christian love,\nas naturally as bleeding doth consume our vital heat and moisture.\nWhat wickedness is it that they will not cherish? In a word, the\nScripture telleth us that \"where envying and strife is, there is\nconfusion, and every evil work.\" (And is not this a lamentable way of\nreformation of some imaginary or lesser evils?)\n\n8. These divisions are the grief of honest spectators, and cause the\nsorrows of those that are guilty of them. They make all their duties\nuneasy to them, and turn their religion into a bitter, unpleasant,\nwrangling toil; like oxen in the yoke that strive against each other,\nwhen they should draw in order and equality. What a grievous life is\nit to husband and wife, or any in the family, if they live in discord?\nSo is it to the members of the church. When once men take the kingdom\nof God to consist of meats, or drinks, or ceremonies, which consisteth\nin righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, and turn to\nstrive about unedifying questions, they turn from all the sweetness of\nreligion.[155]\n\n9. Sects and divisions lead directly to apostasy from the faith.\nNothing is more in the design of Satan, than to confound men so with\nvariety of religions, that they may think there is no certainty in\nany; that so both the ignorant spectators may think all religion is\nbut fancy and deceit, and the contenders themselves wheel about from\nsect to sect, till they come to the point where they first set out,\nand to be at last deliberately of no religion, who at first were of\nnone for want of deliberation. And it is no small success that Satan\nhath had by this temptation.\n\n10. The divisions of christians do oft proceed to shake states and\nkingdoms, having a lamentable influence upon the civil peace; and this\nstirreth up princes' jealousies against them, and to the use of those\nseverities, which the suffering party takes for persecution; yea, and\nTurks, and all princes that are enemies to reformation and holiness,\ndo justify themselves in their cruelest persecutions, when they see\nthe divisions of christians, and the troubles of states that have\nfollowed thereupon. If christians, and protestants in special, did\nlive in that unity, peace, and order as their Lord and Ruler\nrequireth them to do, the consciences of persecutors would even worry\nand torment them, and make their lives a hell on earth, for their\ncruelty against so excellent a sort of men; but now when they see them\nall in confusions, and see the troubles that follow hereupon, and hear\nthem reviling one another, they think they may destroy them as the\ntroublers of the earth, and their consciences scarce accuse them for\nit.\n\n[Sidenote: The aggravations of schism.]\n\nIV. It is necessary also for your true understanding the malignity of\nthis sin, that you take notice of the aggravations of it, especially\nas to us. 1. It is a sin against so many, and clear, and vehement\nwords of the Holy Ghost, (which I have partly before recited,) that it\nis therefore utterly without excuse: whoredoms, and treasons, and\nperjury are not oftener forbidden in the gospel than this.\n\n2. It is contrary to the design of Christ in our redemption; which was\nto reconcile us all to God, and unite and centre us all in him: \"To\ngather together in one the children of God that are scattered abroad,\"\nJohn xi. 52. \"To gather together in one all things in Christ,\" Eph. i.\n10. \"To make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace,\" Eph.\nii. 15. And shall we join with Satan the divider and destroyer,\nagainst Christ the reconciler, in the very design of his redemption?\n\n3. It is contrary to the design of the Spirit of grace, and contrary\nto the very nature of christianity itself. \"By one Spirit we are all\nbaptized into one body--and have all been made to drink into one\nSpirit,\" 1 Cor. xii. 13. \"As there is one body and one Spirit, so it\nis our charge to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,\"\nEph. iv. 3, 4. The new nature of christians doth consist in love, and\ndesireth the communion of saints as such; and therefore the command of\nthis special love is called the new commandment, John xvii. 21; xiii.\n34; xv. 12, 17. And they are said to be taught of God to love one\nanother, 1 Thess. iv. 9. As self-preservation is the chief principle\nin the natural body, which causeth it to abhor the wounding or\namputation of its members, and to avoid division as destruction,\nexcept when a gangrened member must be cut off, for the saving of the\nbody; so it is also with the mystical body of Christ. He is senseless\nand graceless that abhorreth not church wounds.\n\n4. These divisions are sins against the nearest bonds of our high\nrelations to each other:[156] \"We are brethren, and should there be\nany strife among us?\" Gen. xiii. 8. \"We are all the children of God by\nfaith in Christ Jesus,\" Gal. iii. 26. We are the fellow-members of the\nbody of Christ; and should we tear his body, and separate his members,\nand cut his flesh, and break his bones? Eph. v. 23, 30. \"For as the\nbody is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one\nbody being many, are one body, so also is Christ,\" 1 Cor. xii. 12. \"As\nwe have many members in one body--so we being many are one body in\nChrist; and every one members one of another,\" Rom. xii. 4, 5. He that\nwoundeth or dismembereth your own bodies, shall scarce be taken for\nyour friend; and are you Christ's friends, when you dismember or wound\nhis body?[157] Is it lovely to see the children or servants in your\nfamily together by the ears? Are civil wars for the safety of a\nkingdom? Or doth that tend to the honour of the children of God, which\nis the shame of common men? Or is that the safety of his kingdom,\nwhich is the ruin of all others? \"We are all fellow-citizens with the\nsaints, and of the household of God,\" Eph. ii. 19. \"We are God's\nbuilding,\" 1 Cor. iii. 9. \"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God;\nand that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the\ntemple of God, him shall God destroy: for the temple of God is holy,\nwhich temple ye are,\" 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17. Will he destroy the\ndefilers, and will he love the dividers and destroyers? If it be so\ngreat a sin to go to law unnecessarily with our brethren, or to wrong\nthem, 1 Cor. vi. 8, what is it to disown them, and cast them off? And\nif they that salute and love only their brethren, and not also their\nenemies, are not the children of God, Matt. v. 47, what are they that\nseparate from and condemn even their brethren?\n\n5. Church dividers either would divide Christ himself between them, or\nelse would rob him of a great part of his inheritance: and neither of\nthese is a little sin. If you make several bodies, you would have\nseveral heads; and is Christ divided? saith the apostle, 1 Cor. i. 13.\nWill you make him a sect-master? He will be your common head as\nchristians; but he will be no head of your sects and parties. (I will\nnot name them.) Or would you tear out of the hands of Christ any part\nof his possessions? Will he cut them off, because you cut them off?\nWill he separate them from himself, because you separate from them, or\nseparate them from you? Will he give them a bill of divorce, whenever\nyou are pleased to lay any odious accusation against them? Who shall\ncondemn them, when it is he that justifieth them? Who shall separate\nthem from the love of God? Can your censure or separation do it, when\nneither life, nor death, nor any creature can do it? Rom. viii. 33,\n&c. Hath he not told you, that \"he will give them eternal life, and\nthey shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of his\nhand?\" John x. 28. Will he lose his jewels, because you cast them away\nas dirt? He suffered more for souls than you, and better knoweth the\nworth of souls! And do you think that he will forget so dear a\npurchase? or take it well that you rob him of that which he hath\nbought so dearly? Will you give the members and inheritance of Christ\nto the devil, and say, They are Satan's, and none of Christ's? \"Who\nart thou that judgest another man's servant?\"\n\n6. Church dividers are guilty of self-ignorance, and pride, and great\nunthankfulness against that God that beareth with so much in them, who\nso censoriously cast off their brethren. Wert thou ever humbled for\nthy sin? Dost thou know who thou art, and what thou carriest about\nthee, and how much thou offendest God thyself? If thou do, surely thou\nwilt judge tenderly of thy brethren, as knowing what a tender hand\nthou needest, and what mercy thou hast found from God. Can he cruelly\njudge his brethren to hell upon his petty differences, who is sensible\nhow the gracious hand of his Redeemer did so lately snatch him from\nthe brink of hell? Can he be forward to condemn his brethren, that\nhath been so lately and mercifully saved himself?\n\n7. Church dividers are the most successful servants of the devil,\nbeing enemies to Christ in his family and livery. They gratify Satan,\nand all the enemies of the church, and do the very work that he would\nhave them do, more effectually than open enemies could do it. As\nmutineers in an army may do more to destroy it, than the power of the\nenemy.\n\n8. It is a sin that contradicteth all God's ordinances and means of\ngrace; which are purposely to procure and maintain the unity of his\nchurch. The word and baptism is to gather them into one body, and the\nLord's supper to signify and maintain their concord, as being one\nbread, and one body, 1 Cor. x. 17. And all the communion of the church\nis to express and to maintain this concord. The use of the ministry is\nmuch to this end, to be the bonds and joints of this unity of\nbelievers, Eph. iv. 13, 14, 16. All these are contemned and frustrated\nby dividers.\n\n9. Church division is a sin (especially to us) against as great and\nlamentable experiences as almost any sin can be. About sixteen hundred\nyears the church hath smarted by it. In many countries where the\ngospel prospered, and churches flourished, division hath turned all\ninto desolation, and delivered them up to the curse of Mahometanism\nand infidelity. The contentions between Constantinople and Rome, the\neastern and the western churches, have shaken the christian interest\nupon earth, and delivered up much of the christian world to tyranny\nand blindness, and given advantage to the papacy to captivate and\ncorrupt much of the rest, by pretending itself to be the centre of\nunity. Oh what glorious churches, where the learned writers of those\nages once lived, are now extinct, and the places turned to the worship\nof the devil and a deceiver, through the ambition and contentions of\nthe bishops, that should have been the bonds of their unity and peace!\nBut doth England need to look back into history, or look abroad in\nforeign lands, for instances of the sad effects of discord? Is there\nany one, good or bad, in this age, that hath spent his days in such a\nsleep, as not to know what divisions have done, when they have made\nsuch ruins in church and state, and kindled such consuming flames, and\nraised so many sects and parties, and filled so many hearts with\nuncharitable rancour, and so many mouths with slanders and revilings,\nand turned so many prayers into sin, by poisoning them with pride and\nfactious oppositions, and hath let out streams of blood and fury over\nall the land? He that maketh light of the divisions of christians in\nthese kingdoms, or loveth not those that speak against them, doth show\nhimself to be so impenitent in them, as to be one of those terrible\neffects of them, that should be a pillar of salt to warn after-ages to\ntake heed.\n\n10. Yea, this is a heinous aggravation of this sin, that commonly it\nis justified, and not repented of, by those that do commit it. When a\ndrunkard or a whoremonger will confess his sin, a church divider will\nstand to it and defend it; and woe to them that call evil good, and\ngood evil! Impenitency is a terrible aggravation of sin.\n\n11. And it is yet the more heinous, in that it is commonly fathered\nupon God. If a drunkard or whoremonger should say, God commandeth me\nto do it, and I serve God by it, would you not think this a horrid\naggravation? When did you ever know a sect or party, how contrary\nsoever among themselves, but they all pretended God's authority, and\nentitled him to their sin, and called it his service, and censured\nothers as ungodly, or less godly, that would not do as bad as they?\nSt. James is put to confute them that thought this wisdom was from\nabove, and so did glory in their sin, and lie against the truth, when\ntheir wisdom was from beneath, and no better than earthly, sensual,\nand devilish. For the \"wisdom from above, is first pure, then\npeaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy,\" &c. James\niii. 17.\n\n12. Church divisions are unlike to our heavenly state, and in some\nregard worse than the kingdom of the devil, for he would not destroy\nit by dividing it against itself, Matt. xii. 26. Oh what a blessed\nharmony of united holy souls, will there be in the heavenly Jerusalem,\nwhere we hope to dwell for ever! There will be no discords, envyings,\nsidings, or contendings, one being of this party, and another of that;\nbut in the unity of perfect love, that world of spirits with joyful\npraise will magnify their Creator. And is a snarling envy or jarring\ndiscord the likely way to such an end? Is the church of Christ a Babel\nof confusion? Should they be divided, party against party, here, that\nmust be one in perfect love for ever?[158] Shall they here be\ncondemning each other, as none of the children of the Most High, who\nthere must live in sweetest concord? If there be shame in heaven, you\nwill be ashamed to meet those in the delights of glory, and see them\nentertained by the Lord of love, whom you reviled and cast out of the\nchurch or your communion, causelessly, on earth.\n\nRemember now that schism, and making parties and divisions in the\nchurch, is not so small a sin as many take it for: it is the\naccounting it a duty, and a part of holiness, which is the greatest\ncause that it prospereth in the world; and it will never be reformed\ntill men have right apprehensions of the evil of it. Why is it that\nsober people are so far and free from the sins of swearing,\ndrunkenness, fornication, and lasciviousness, but because these sins\nare under so odious a character, as helpeth them easily to perceive\nthe evil of them. And till church divisions be rightly apprehended, as\nwhoredom, and swearing, and drunkenness are, they will never be well\ncured. Imprint therefore on your minds the true character of them,\nwhich I have here laid down, and look abroad upon the effects, and\nthen you will fear this confounding sin, as much as a consuming\nplague.\n\n[Sidenote: Two hinderances of our true apprehensions of schism.]\n\nThe two great causes that keep divisions from being hated as they\nought, are, 1. A charitable respect to the good that is in church\ndividers, carrying us to overlook the evil of the sin; judging of it\nby the persons that commit it, and thinking that nothing should seem\nodious that is theirs, because many of them are in other respects of\nblameless, pious conversations. And indeed every christian must so\nprudently reprehend the mistakes and faults of pious men, as not to\nasperse the piety which is conjunct; and therefore not to make their\npersons odious, but to give the person all his just commendations for\nhis piety, while we oppose and aggravate his sin; because Christ\nhimself so distinguisheth between the good and the evil, and the\nperson and the sin, and loveth his own for their good while he hateth\ntheir evil; and so must we; and because it is the grand design of\nSatan, by the faults of the godly to make their persons hated first,\nand their piety next, and so to banish religion from the world; and\nevery friend of Christ must show himself an enemy to this design of\nSatan. But yet the sin must be disowned and opposed, while the person\nis loved according to his worth. Christ will give no thanks for such\nlove to his children, as cherisheth their church-destroying sins.\nThere is no greater enemy to sin than Christ, though there be no\ngreater friend to souls. Godliness was never intended to be a fortress\nfor iniquity; or a battery for the devil to mount his cannons on\nagainst the church; nor for a blind to cover the powder-mines of hell.\nSatan never opposeth truth, and godliness, and unity so dangerously,\nas when he can make religious men his instruments. Remember therefore\nthat all men are vanity, and God's interest and honour must not be\nsacrificed to theirs, nor the Most Holy be abused, in reverence to the\nholiest of sinful men.\n\nThe other great hinderance of our due apprehension of the sinfulness\nof divisions, is our too deep sense of our sufferings by superiors,\nand our looking so much at the evil of persecutions, as not to look at\nthe danger of the contrary extreme. Thus under the papacy, the people\nof Germany at Luther's reformation were so deeply sensible of the\npapal cruelties, that they thought by how many ways soever men fled\nfrom such bloody persecutors, they were very excusable. And while men\nwere all taken up in decrying the Roman idolatry, corruptions, and\ncruelties, they never feared the danger of their own divisions till\nthey smarted by them. And this was once the case of many good people\nhere in England, who so much hated the wickedness of the profane and\nthe haters of godliness, that they had no apprehensions of the evil of\ndivisions among themselves: and because so many profane ones were wont\nto call sober, godly people, schismatics and factious, therefore the\nvery names began with many to grow into credit, as if they had been of\ngood signification, and there had been really no such sin as schism\nand faction to be feared: till God permitted this sin to break in upon\nus with such fury, as had almost turned us into a Babel, and a\ndesolation. And I am persuaded God did purposely permit it, to teach\nhis people more sensibly to know the evil of that sin by the effects,\nwhich they would not know by other means: and to let them see when\nthey had reviled and ruined each other, that there is that in\nthemselves which they should be more afraid of, than of any enemy\nwithout.\n\n_Direct._ V. Own not any cause which is an enemy to love; and pretend\nneither truth, nor holiness, nor unity, nor order, nor any thing\nagainst it.[159] The spirit of love is that one vital spirit which\ndoth animate all the saints. The increase of love is the powerful\nbalsam that healeth all the church's wounds; though loveless, lifeless\nphysicians think that all these wounds must be healed by the sword.\nAnd indeed the weapon-salve is now become the proper cure. It is the\nsword that must be medicated, that the wounds made by it may be\nhealed. The decays of love are the church's dissolution; which first\ncauseth scissures and separations, and in process crumbleth us all to\ndust: and therefore the pastors of the church are the fittest\ninstruments for the cure, who are the messengers of love, and whose\ngovernment is paternal, and hurteth not the body; but is only a\ngovernment of love, and exercised by all the means of love. All\nchristians in the world confess that love is the very life and\nperfection of all grace, and the end of all our other duties, and that\nwhich maketh us like to God; and that if love dwelleth in us, God\ndwelleth in us; and that it will be the everlasting grace, and the\nwork of heaven, and the happiness of souls; and that it is the\nexcellent way, and the character of saints, and the new commandment.\nAnd all this being so, it is most certain that no way is the way of\nGod, which is not the way of love; and therefore what specious\npretences soever they may have, and one may cry up truth, and another\nholiness, and another order, and another unity itself, to justify\ntheir envyings, hatred, cruelties, it is most certain that all such\npretences are satanical deceits.[160] And if they bite and devour one\nanother, they are not like the sheep of Christ, but shall be devoured\none of another, Gal. v. 15. \"Love worketh no ill to his neighbour:\ntherefore love is the fulfilling of the law,\" Rom. xiii. 10. When\npapists that show their love to men's souls by racking their bodies,\nand frying them in the fire, can make them apprehensive of the\nexcellency of that kind of love, they may use it to the healing of the\nchurch. In the mean time as their religion is, such is their concord,\nwhile all those are called members of their union, and professors of\ntheir religion, who must be burnt to ashes if they say the contrary.\nThey that give God an image and carcass of religion, are thus content\nwith the image and carcass of a church for the exercise of it. And if\nthere were nothing else but this to detect the sinfulness of the sect\nof quakers, and many more, it is enough to satisfy any sober man, that\nit cannot be the way of God. God is not the author of that spirit and\nway which tends to wrath, emulation, hatred, railing, and the\nextinction of christian love, to all save their own sect and party.\nRemember, as you love your souls, that you shun all ways that are\ndestructive to universal christian love.\n\n_Direct._ VI. Make nothing necessary to the unity of the church, or\nthe communion of christians, which God hath not made necessary, or\ndirected you to make so.[161] By this one folly, the papists are\nbecome the most notorious schismatics on earth; even by making new\narticles of faith, and new parts of worship, and imposing them on all\nchristians, to be sworn, subscribed, professed, or practised, so as\nthat no man shall be accounted a catholic, or have communion with\nthem, (or with the universal church, if they could hinder it,) that\nwill not follow them in all their novelties. They that would subscribe\nto all the Scriptures, and to all the ancient creeds of the church,\nand would do any thing that Christ and his apostles have enjoined, and\ngo every step of that way to heaven that Peter and Paul went, as far\nas they are able, yet if they will go no further, and believe no more,\n(yea, if they will not go against some of this,) must be condemned,\ncast out, and called schismatics by these notorious schismatics. If he\nhold to Christ the universal Head of the church, and will not be\nsubject or sworn to the pope, the usurping head, he shall be taken as\ncut off from Christ. And there is no certainty among these men what\nmeasure of faith, and worship, and obedience to them, shall be judged\nnecessary to constitute a church member: for as that which served in\nthe apostles' days, and the following ages, will not serve now, nor\nthe subscribing to all the other pretended councils until then will\nnot serve without subscribing to the creed or council of Trent; so\nnobody can tell, what new faith, or worship, or test of christianity,\nthe next council (if the world see any more) may require: and how many\nthousand that are Trent catholics now, may be judged heretics or\nschismatics then, if they will not shut their eyes, and follow them\nany whither, and change their religion as oft as the papal interest\nrequireth a change. Of this Chillingworth, Hales, and Dr. H. More have\nspoken plainly.[162] If the pope had imposed but one lie to be\nsubscribed, or one sin to be done, and said \"All nations and persons\nthat do not this, are no christians, or shall have no communion with\nthe church,\" the man that refuseth that imposed lie or sin, is\nguiltless of the schism, and doth but obey God, and save his soul; and\nthe usurper that imposeth them, will be found the heinous schismatic\nbefore God, and the cause of all those divisions of the church. And so\nif any private sectary shall feign an opinion or practice of his own\nto be necessary to salvation or church communion, and shall refuse\ncommunion with those that are not of his mind and way, it is he, and\nnot they, that is the cause of the uncharitable separation.\n\n_Direct._ VII. Pray against the usurpations or intrusions of impious,\ncarnal, ambitious, covetous pastors into the churches of Christ.[163]\nFor one wicked man in the place of a pastor, may do more to the\nincrease of a schism or faction, than many private men can do. And\ncarnal men have carnal minds and carnal interests, which are both\nunreconcilable to the spiritual, holy mind and interest; for the\n\"carnal mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to his law, nor\ncan be,\" Rom. viii. 7. \"And they that are in the flesh cannot please\nGod,\" ver. 8. And you may easily conceive what work will be made in\nthe ship, when an enemy of the owner hath subtilly possessed himself\nof the pilot's place! He will charge all that are faithful as\nmutineers, because they resist him when he would carry all away. And\nif an enemy of Christ shall get to be governor of one of his regiments\nor garrisons, all that are not traitors shall be called traitors, and\ncashiered, that they hinder not the treason which he intendeth. And\n\"as then he that was born after the flesh, persecuted him that was\nborn after the Spirit, even so it is now: but what saith the\nScripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son,\" &c. Gal. iv. 29, 30.\nIt is not the sacred office of the ministry, nor the profession of the\nsame religion, that will cure the enmity of a carnal heart, against\nboth holiness and the holy seed. The whole business of the world from\nage to age is but the management of that war, proclaimed at sin's\nfirst entrance into the world, between the seed of the woman and the\nserpent, Gen. iii. 15; and none of the serpent's seed are more cruel\nor more successful, than those of them that creep into the armies of\nChrist; and especially that get the conduct of his regiments.[164]\nNeither brotherhood nor unity of professed religion, would hold the\nhands of malignant Cain from murdering his brother Abel. The same\nreligion, and father, and family reconciled not scoffing Ishmael to\nIsaac, or profane Esau to his brother Jacob. The family of Christ, and\nan apostle's office, did not keep Judas from being a traitor to his\nLord. If carnal men invade the ministry, they take the way of ease,\nand honour, and worldly wealth, and strive for dominion, and who shall\nbe the greatest, and care not how great their power and jurisdiction\nare, nor how little their profitable work is; and their endeavour is\nto fit all matters of worship and discipline to their ambitious,\ncovetous ends; and the spiritual worshipper shall be the object of\ntheir hate: and is it any wonder if the churches of Christ be torn by\nschism, and betrayed to profaneness, where there are such unhappy\nguides?[165]\n\n_Direct._ VIII. In a special manner, take heed of pride; suspect it\nand subdue it in yourselves, and do what you can to bring it into\ndisgrace with others.[166] \"Only by pride cometh contention,\" Prov.\nxiii. 10. I never yet saw one schism made, in which pride conjunct\nwith ignorance was not the cause: nor ever did I know one person\nforward in a schism, (to my remembrance,) but pride was discernibly\nhis disease. I do not here intend (as the papists) to charge all with\nschism or pride, that renounce not their understandings, and choose\nnot to give up themselves to a bestial subjection to usurpers or their\npastors: he that thinks it enough that his teacher hath reason and be\na man, instead of himself, and so thinketh it enough that his teacher\nbe a christian and religious; must be also content that his teacher\nalone be saved: (but then he must not be the teacher of such a damning\nway:) but by pride I mean a plain overvaluing of his own\nunderstanding, and conceits and reasonings, quite above all the\nevidences of their worth, and an undervaluing and contempt of the\njudgments and reasonings of far wiser men, that had evidence enough to\nhave evinced his folly and error to a sober and impartial man.\nUndoubtedly it is the pride of priests and people, that hath so\nlamentably in all ages torn the church. He that readeth the histories\nof schisms and church confusions, and marketh the effects which this\nage hath showed, will no more doubt whether pride were the cause, than\nwhether it was the wind that blew down trees and houses, when he seeth\nthem one way overturned by multitudes, where the tempest came with\ngreatest force. Therefore a bishop must be \"no novice, lest being\nlifted up with pride (\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c6\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2) he fall into the\ncondemnation of the devil,\" 1 Tim. iii. 6. And if such stars fall from\nheaven, no wonder if they bring many down headlong with them. Humble\nsouls dwell most at home, and think themselves unworthy of the\ncommunion of their brethren, and are most quarrelsome against their\nown corruptions. \"They do nothing in strife and vain-glory, but in\nlowliness of mind each one esteemeth other better than themselves,\"\nPhil. ii. 2, 3; and \"judge not lest they be judged,\" Matt. vi. 1. And\nis it likely such should be dividers of the church? But proud men must\neither be great and domineer, and as Diotrephes, 3 John 9, 10, love to\nhave the pre-eminence, and cast the brethren out of the church, and\nprate against their faithfullest pastors with malicious words; or else\nmust be noted for their supposed excellencies, and set up themselves,\nand speak perverse things, to draw away disciples after them, Acts xx.\n30; and think the brethren unworthy of their communion, and esteem all\nothers below themselves; and, as the church of Rome, confound\ncommunion and subjection, and think none fit for their communion that\nobey them not, or comply not with their opinion and will. There is no\nhope of concord where pride hath power to prevail.\n\n_Direct._ IX. Take heed of singularity, and narrowness of mind, and\nunacquaintedness with the former and present state of the church and\nworld. Men that are bred up in a corner, and never read nor heard of\nthe common condition of the church or world, are easily misled into\nschism, through ignorance of those matters of fact that would preserve\nthem. Abundance of this sort of honest people that I have known, have\nknown so little beyond the town or country where they lived, that they\nhave thought they were very catholic in their communion, because they\nhad one or two congregations, and divided not among themselves. But\nfor the avoiding of schism, 1. Look (with pity) on the unbelieving\nworld, and consider that christians of all sorts are but a sixth part\nof the whole earth. And then, 2. Consider of this sixth part how small\na part the reformed churches are. And if you be willing to leave\nChrist any church at all, perhaps you will be loth to separate yet\ninto a narrower party, which is no more to all the world, than one of\nyour cottages is to the whole kingdom. And is this all the kingdom on\nearth that you will ascribe to Christ? Is the King of the church, the\nKing only of your little party? Though his flock be but a little\nflock, make it not next to none; as if he came into the world on so\nlow a design as the gathering of your sect only. The less his flock\nis, the more sinful it is to rob him of it, and make it lesser than it\nis. It is a little flock, if it contained all the christians,\nprotestants, Greeks, Armenians, Abassines, and papists on the earth.\nBe singular and separate from the unbelieving world, and spare not;\nand be singular in holiness from profane and nominal hypocritical\nchristians; but affect not to be singular in opinion or practice, or\nseparated in communion, from the universal church, or generality of\nsound believers: or if you forsake some common error, yet hold still\nthe common love and communion with all the faithful, according to your\nopportunities. 3. And it will be very useful when you are tempted to\nseparate from any church for the defectiveness of its manner of\nworship, to inquire how God is worshipped in all the churches on\nearth, and then consider, whether if you lived among them you would\nforsake communion with them all, for such defects (while you are not\nforced to justify or approve them).[167] 4. And it is very useful to\nread church history, and to understand what heresies have been in\ntimes past, and what havoc schisms have caused among christians: for\nif this much had been known by well meaning persons in our days, we\nshould not have seen those same opinions applauded as new light, which\nwere long ago exploded as old heresies: nor should we have seen many\nhonest people, taking that same course to reform the church now, and\nadvance the gospel, which in so many ages and nations hath heretofore\ndestroyed the church, and cast out the gospel. A narrow soul, that\ntaketh all Christ's interest in the world, to lie in a few of their\nseparated meetings, and shutteth up all the church in a nutshell, must\nneeds be guilty of the foulest schisms. It is a catholic spirit and\ncatholic principles, loving a christian as a christian, abhorring the\nvery names of sects and parties as the church's wounds, that must make\na catholic indeed.\n\n_Direct._ X. Understand well the true difference between the visible\nchurch and the world, lest you should think that you are bound to\nseparate as much from a corrupted church as from the world. It is not\ntrue faith, but the profession of true faith, that maketh a man fit to\nbe acknowledged a member of the visible church. If this profession be\nunsound, and accompanied with a vicious life, it is the sin and misery\nof such a hypocrite, but it doth not presently put him as far\nunrelated to you, as if he were an infidel without the church! If you\nask what advantage have such unsound church members? I answer with the\napostle, Rom. iii. 1, 2, \"Much every way, chiefly because unto them\nare committed the oracles of God.\" Chap. ix. 4, \"To them pertaineth\nthe adoption and the glory and covenants, and the giving of the law,\nand the service of God, and the promises.\" Till the church find cause\nto cast them out, they have the external privileges of its communion.\nIt hath made abundance to incur the guilt of sinful separation to\nmisunderstand those texts of Scripture that call christians to\nseparate from heathens, infidels, and idolaters: as 2 Cor. vi. 17,\n\"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the\nLord,\" &c. The text speaketh only of separating from the world who are\ninfidels and idolaters, and no members of the church; and ignorant\npeople ordinarily expound it, as if it were meant of separating from\nthe church because of the ungodly that are members of it: but that God\nthat knew why he called his people to separate from the world, doth\nnever call them to separate from the church universal, nor from any\nparticular church by a mental separation so as to unchurch them. We\nread of many loathsome corruptions in the churches of Corinth,\nGalatia, Laodicea, &c.; but yet no command to separate from them. So\nmany abuse Rev. xviii. 4, \"Come out of her, my people;\" as if God\ncommanded them to come out of a true church because of its corruptions\nor imperfections, because he calleth them out of Babylon! It is true,\nyou must partake with no church in their sins, but you may partake\nwith any church in their holy profession and worship, so far as you\ncan do it without partaking with them in their sins.\n\n_Direct._ XI. Understand what it is that maketh you partakers of the\nsins of a church, or any member of it, lest you think you are bound to\nseparate from them in good, as well as in evil. Many fly from the\npublic assemblies, lest they partake of the sins of those that are\nthere present. Certainly nothing but consent (direct or indirect) can\nmake their faults to become yours. And therefore nothing which\nsignifieth not some such consent should be on that account avoided. 1.\nIf you by word, or subscription, or furtherance, own any man's sin,\nyou directly consent to it. 2. If you neglect any duty which lieth\nupon you for the cure of his sin, you indirectly consent; for you\nconsent that he shall rather continue in his sin, than you will do\nyour part to help him out of it. Consider therefore how far you are\nbound to reprove any sin, or to use any other means for the\nreformation of it, whether it be in the pastor or the people; and if\nyou neglect any such means, your way is to reform your own neglect,\nand do your duty, and not to separate from the church, before you have\ndone your duty to reform it. But if you have done all that is your\npart, then the sin is none of yours, though you remain there present.\n\n[Sidenote: Whether presence be not a consent to sin.]\n\nIt is a turbulent fancy and disquieting error of some people, to think\nthat their presence in the assembly, and continuance with the church,\ndoth make them guilty of the personal faults of those they join with:\nif so, who would ever join with any assembly in the world? _Quest._\nBut what if they be gross and scandalous sinners that are members of\nthe church? _Answ._ If you be wanting in your duty to reform it, it is\nyour sin; but if bare presence made their sins to be ours, it would\nalso make all the sins of the assembly ours; but no word of God doth\nintimate any such thing. Paul never told the churches of Galatia and\nCorinth so, that had so many defiled members. _Quest._ But what if\nthey are sins committed in the open assembly, even by the minister\nhimself in his praying, preaching, and other administrations? and what\nif all this be imposed on him by a law, and so I am certain beforehand\nthat I must join with that which is unwarrantable in God's worship?\n_Answ._ The next direction containeth those distinctions that are\nnecessary to the answer of this.\n\n_Direct._ XII. Distinguish carefully, 1. Between a minister's personal\nfaults and his ministerial faults. 2. Between his tolerable weaknesses\nand his intolerable insufficiencies. 3. And between the work of the\nminister and of the congregation. And then you will see your doubt\nresolved in these following propositions.\n\n1. A minister's personal faults (as swearing, lying, drunkenness, &c.)\nmay damn himself, and must be matter of lamentation to the church, and\nthey must do their best to reform them, or to get a better pastor by\nany lawful means.[168] But in case they cannot, his sin is none of\ntheirs, nor doth it make his administration null or ineffectual; nor\nwill it allow you to separate from the worship which he administereth.\nThough many of the priests were wicked men, the godly Jews were not\nthereby disobliged from God's public worship, or sacrifices which were\nto be offered by their hands. Otherwise how sad a case were the church\nin, that must answer for the sins which they never committed, nor\ncould reform. But no Scripture chargeth this upon them.\n\n2. It is not all ministerial faults that will allow you to separate\nfrom or disown a minister; but only those that prove him or his\nministration utterly intolerable.[169] Such are, 1. An utter\ninsufficiency in knowledge or utterance for the necessary parts of the\nministerial work: as if he be not able to teach the necessary points\nof the christian religion, nor to administer the sacraments and other\nparts of public worship. 2. If he set himself to oppose the very ends\nof his ministry, and preach down godliness, or any part of it that is\nof necessity to salvation: for then he doth the devil's work, in\nseeking the damnation of souls, and so maketh himself the devil's\nminister, and is not the minister of Christ: for the end is essential\nto the relation. Herein I include a preacher of heresy that doth\npreach up any damning error, and preach down any necessary saving\ntruth; that is, that preacheth such error as subverteth either faith\nor godliness, and doth more harm in the church than good. 3. If he so\ndeprave God's public worship as to destroy the substance of it, and\nmake it unacceptable, and offer up a public false worship to God,\nwhich he disowneth in the very matter of it. As if he put up blasphemy\nfor praise and prayer, or commit idolatry, or set up new sacraments,\nand guide the people thus in public worship. As the papist priests do\nthat adore bread with divine worship, and pray to the dead, and offer\nreal sacrifices for them, &c.: such worship is not to be joined in. 4.\nOr if they impose any actual sin upon the people: as in their responds\nto speak any falsehood, or to adore the bread, or the like: these\nfaults discharge us from being present with such pastors at such\nworship. But besides these there are many ministerial faults which\nwarrant not our separation. As, 1. The internal vices of the pastor's\nmind though manifested in their ministration: as some tolerable errors\nof judgment, or envy and pettish opposition to others. \"Some indeed\npreach Christ of envy and strife, and some of good will: the one\npreach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add\naffliction to my bonds; but the other of love,\" &c. Phil. i. 15. Here\nis an odious vice in the public ministry, even an endeavour to\nincrease the sufferings of the apostle; yet it was lawful to hear such\npreachers; though not to prefer them before better. Most sects among\nchristians are possessed with a tang of envy and uncharitableness\nagainst dissenters, which useth to break forth in their preaching and\npraying: and yet it is lawful to join with such. 2. It is not unlawful\nto join with a minister that hath many defects and infirmities in his\nministration or manner of worship: as if he preach with some\nignorance, disorder, unfit expressions or gestures, unmeet\nrepetitions; or if he do the like in prayer, or in the sacraments,\nputting something last that should be first, and leaving out something\nthat should be said, or praying coldly and formally. These and such\nlike are faults which we should do our best to reform; and we should\nnot prefer such a ministry before a better; but it is lawful and a\nduty to join with such, when we have no better. For all men are\nimperfect, and therefore the manner of worship as performed by them\nwill be imperfect. Imperfect men cannot be perfect in their\nministrations: we must join with a defective and imperfect mode of\nworship, or join with none on earth: and we must perform such or none\nourselves. Which of you dare say that in your private prayers, you\nhave no disorder, vain repetitions, flatness, or defects? 3. It is not\nunlawful to join with a minister that hath some material error or\nuntruth in his preaching or praying, so be it we be not called to\napprove it, or make it ours, and so it be not pernicious and\ndestructive to the ends of his ministry. For all men have some error,\nand they that have them may be expected sometimes to vent them. And\nit is not our presence that is any signification of our consent to\ntheir mistakes. If we run away from all that vent any untruth or\nmistake in public or private worship, we shall scarce know what church\nor person we may hold communion with: the reason of this followeth.\n\n3. The sense of the church, and all its members, is to be judged of by\ntheir public professions, and not by such words of a minister which\nare his own, and never had their consent. I am by profession a\nchristian, and the Scripture is the professed rule of my religion; and\nwhen I go to the assemblies, I profess to worship God according to\nthat rule: I profess myself a hearer of a minister of the gospel, that\nis to preach the word of God, and that hath promised in his\nordination, out of the holy Scriptures to instruct the people\ncommitted to his charge, and to teach nothing (as required of\nnecessity to eternal salvation) but that which he shall be persuaded\nmay be concluded and proved by the Scripture. This he professed when\nhe was ordained, and I profess by my presence, only to hear such a\npreacher of the gospel, and worship God with him in those ordinances\nof worship, which God hath appointed. Now if this man shall drop in\nany mistake in preaching, or modify his prayers or administrations\namiss, and do his part weakly and disorderly, the hearers are no way\nguilty of it by their presence. For if I must run away from God's\npublic worship because of men's misperformance, 1. I should join with\nnone on earth; for a small sin may no more be wilfully done or owned\nthan a greater. 2. And then another man's weakness may disoblige me\nand discharge me from my duty. To order and word his prayers and\npreaching aright, is part of the minister's own work, and not the\npeople's; and if he do it well, it is no commendation to me that am\npresent, but to himself; and therefore if he do it amiss, it is no\nfault of mine or dispraise to me, but to himself. If the\ncommon-council of London, or the court of aldermen, agree to petition\nthe king for the renewing of their charter, and commit the expressing\nof their request to their recorder, in their presence; if he petition\nfor something else instead of that which he was intrusted with, and so\nbetray them in the substance of his business, they are openly to\ncontradict him and disown his treachery or mistake; but if he deliver\nthe same petition which he undertook with stammering, disorder,\ndefectiveness, and perhaps some mixture of untruths in his additional\nreasons and discourse, this is his failing in the personal performance\nof his duty, and no way imputable to them that sent him, and are\npresent with him, though (in modesty) they are silent and speak not to\ndisown it; for how can it be their fault that a man is wanting in his\npersonal sufficiency and duty (unless it be that they choose not a\nbetter). And whether he speak _ex tempore_ or more deliberately, in a\nwritten form or without, in words that other men taught him or wrote\nfor him, or in words of his own devising, it altereth not their case.\n\n[Sidenote: Of imposed defective liturgies.]\n\n_Object._ But if a man fail through weakness in his own performance, I\nknow not of that beforehand; but if his faulty manner of praying be\nprescribed and imposed on him by a law, then I know it beforehand, and\ntherefore am guilty of it.\n\n_Answ._ To avoid confusion, fix upon that which you think is the thing\nsinful. 1. Either it is because the prayers are defective and faulty.\n2. Or because they are imposed. 3. Or because you know the fault\nbeforehand. But none of all these can prove your joining with them\nsinful. 1. Not because they are faulty; for you may join with as\nfaulty prayers, you confess, if not imposed.[170] 2. Not because\nimposed, (1.) Because that is an extenuation, and not an aggravation:\nfor it proveth the minister less voluntary of the two than those are\nthat do it without any command, though the error of their own\njudgments (as most erroneous persons will). (2.) Because (though\nlawful things oft become unlawful when superiors forbid them, yet) no\nreason can be given why a lawful thing should become unlawful, because\na lawful superior doth command it. Else superiors might take away all\nour christian liberty, and make all things unlawful to us by\ncommanding them. You would take it for a wild conceit in your children\nor servants, if they say, when you bid them learn a catechism, or use\na form of prayer, It was lawful to us till you commanded us to do it;\nbut because you bid us do it, it is unlawful. If it be a duty to obey\ngovernors in all lawful things, then it is not a sin to obey them. 3.\nAnd it is not your knowing beforehand that maketh it unlawful: for, 1.\nI know in general beforehand, that all imperfect men will do\nimperfectly; and though I know not the particular, that maketh it\nnever the lawfuller, if foreknowledge itself did make it unlawful. 2.\nIf you know that e. g. an antinomian or some mistaken preacher would\nconstantly drop some words for his error in prayer or preaching, that\nwill not make it unlawful in your own judgment for you to join, if it\nbe not a flat heresy. 3. It is another man's error or fault that you\nforeknow, and not your own; and therefore foreknowledge maketh it not\nyour own. 4. God himself doth as an universal cause of nature concur\nwith men in those acts which he foreknoweth they will sinfully do; and\nyet God is not to be judged either an author or approver of the sin\nbecause of such concurrence and foreknowledge: therefore our\nforeknowledge maketh us no approvers, or guilty of the failings of any\nin their sacred ministrations, unless there be some other guilt. If\nyou say that it is no one of these that maketh it unlawful, but all\ntogether, you must give us a distinct argument to prove that the\nconcurrence of these three will prove that unlawful, which cannot be\nproved so by any of them alone, for your affirmation must not serve\nthe turn; and when we know your argument, I doubt not but it may be\nanswered. One thing I still confess may make any defective worship to\nbe unlawful to you; and that is, when you prefer it before better, and\nmay (without a greater inconvenience) enjoy an abler ministry, and\npurer administration, but will not.\n\n_Object._ But he that sitteth by in silence, in the posture as the\nrest of the congregation, seemeth to consent to all that is said and\ndone: and we must avoid all appearance of evil.\n\n_Answ._ The appearance of evil which is evil indeed, must be always\navoided; but that appearance of evil which is indeed good, must not be\navoided. We must not forsake our duty lest we seem to sin: that were\nbut to prefer hypocrisy before sincerity, and to avoid appearances\nmore than realities. The omission of a duty is a real sin; and that\nmust not be done to avoid a seeming sin. And whom doth it appear so\nto? If it appear evil to the blind or prejudiced, it is their eyes\nthat must be cured; but if it appear so to the wise, then it is like\nit is evil indeed: for a wise man should not judge that to be evil\nthat is not. But I confess that in a case that is altogether\nindifferent, even the mistakes of the ignorant may oblige us to\nforbear: but the worship of God must not be so forborne. It is an\nirrational fancy to think that you must be uncivil, by contradicting,\nor covering your heads, or doing something offensive to the\ncongregation, when any thing is said or done which you disallow. Your\npresence signifieth your consent to all that you profess, even to\nworship God according to his word, and not to all the human\nimperfections that are there expressed.\n\n_Direct._ XIII. Distinguish carefully between your personal private\nduties, and the duty of the pastor or church with which you must\nconcur. And do not think, that if the church or pastor do not their\nduty, that you are bound to do it for them. To cast out an obstinate,\nimpenitent sinner by sentence from the communion of the church, is the\npastor's or church's duty, and not yours, unless in concurrence or\nsubserviency to the church. Therefore if it be not done, inquire\nwhether you did your duty towards it: if you did, the sin is none of\nyours; for it is not in your power to cast out all that are unworthy\nfrom the church. But private familiarity is in your power to refuse;\nand with such know not to eat.\n\n_Direct._ XIV. Take the measure of your accidental duties more from\nthe good or hurt of the church, or of many, than from the immediate\ngood or hurt that cometh to yourself. You are not to take that for the\nstation of your duty, which you feel to be most to the commodity of\nyour souls; but that in which you may do God most service. If the\nservice of God for the good of many, require you to stay with a weaker\nminister, and defective administrations, you will find in the end that\nthis was not only the place of your duty, but also of your benefit:\nfor your life is in God's hands, and all your comforts; and that is\nthe best way to your peace and happiness, in which you are most\npleasing unto God, and have his promise of most acceptance and grace.\nI know the least advantage to the soul must be preferred before all\nearthly riches; but not before the public good. Yea, that way will\nprove most advantageous to us, in which we exercise most obedience.\n\n_Direct._ XV. Take heed of suffering prejudice and fancy to go for\nreason, and raise in your minds unjustifiable distastes of any way or\nmode of worship. It is wonderful to see what fancy and prejudice can\ndo! Get once a hard opinion of a thing, and your judgments will make\nlight of all that is said for it, and will see nothing that should\nreconcile you to it. Partiality will carry you away from equity and\ntruth. Abundance of things appear now false and evil, to men that once\nimagine them to be so, which would seem harmless, if not laudable, if\nthey were tried by a mind that is clear from prejudice.\n\n_Direct._ XVI. Judge not of doctrines and worship by persons, but\nrather of persons by their doctrine and worship (together with their\nlives). The world is all prone to be carried by respect to persons. I\nconfess where any thing is to be taken upon trust, we must rather\ntrust the intelligent, experienced, honest, and credible, than the\nignorant and incredible; but where the word of God must be our rule,\nit is perverse to judge of things by the persons that hold them or\noppose them: sometimes a bad man may be in the right, and a good man\nin the wrong. Try the way of the worst men before you reject it (in\ndisputable things). And try the opinions and way of the best and\nwisest before you venture to receive them.\n\n_Direct._ XVII. Enslave not yourselves to any party of men, so as to\nbe over-desirous to please them, nor over-fearful of their censure.\nHave a respect to all the rest of the world as well as them. Most men\nthat once engage themselves in a party, do think their honour and\ninterest is involved with them, and that they stand or fall with the\nfavour of their party, and therefore make them (before they are\naware) the masters of their consciences.\n\n_Direct._ XVIII. Regard more the judgment of aged, ripe, experienced\nmen, that have seen the fruits of the various courses of professors of\nreligion, than of the young, unripe, unexperienced, hot-headed sort.\nZeal is of great use to execute the resolutions of a well-informed\nman: and the zeal of others is very useful to warm the hearts of such\nas do converse with them. But when it comes to matter of judgment\nonce, to decide a case of difficulty, aged experience hath far the\nadvantage; and in no cases more, than in those where peace and concord\nare concerned, where rash, hot-headed youth is very prone to\nprecipitant courses, which must be afterwards repented of.\n\n_Direct._ XIX. When fervent, self-conceited people would carry down\nall by censoriousness and passion, it is time for the pastors and the\naged and riper sort of christians openly to rebuke them, and appear\nagainst them, and stand their ground, and not to comply with the\nmisguided sort to escape their censures. Nothing hath more caused\nschisms in the church (except the pride and ambition of the clergy)\nthan that the riper and more judicious sort of people, together with\nthe ministers themselves, have been so loth to lie under the bitter\ncensures of the unexperienced, younger, hotter sort; and to avoid such\ncensures and keep in with them, they have followed those whom they\nshould have led, and have been drawn quite beyond their own\nunderstandings. God hath made wisdom to be the guide of the church,\nand zeal to follow and diligently execute the commands of wisdom. Let\nignorant, well meaning people censure you as bitterly as they please,\nyet keep your ground, and be not so proud or weak as to prefer their\ngood esteem before their benefit, and before the pleasing of God. Sin\nnot against your knowledge to escape the censure of the ignorant. If\nyou do, God will make those men your scourges whom you so much\novervalued: and they shall prove to their spiritual fathers as\ncockered children (like Absalom) do to their natural fathers, and\nperhaps be the breaking of your hearts. But if the pastors and the\nriper, experienced christians will stand their ground, and stick\ntogether, and rebuke the exorbitancies of the censorious younger ones,\nthey will maintain the credit of the gospel, and keep the truth, and\nthe church's peace, and the hotspurs will in time either repent and be\nsober, or be shamed and disabled to do much hurt.\n\n_Direct._ XX. Take heed how you let loose your zeal against the\npastors of the church, lest you bring their persons and next their\noffice into contempt, and so break the bonds of the church's unity and\npeace. There is no more hope of maintaining the church's unity and\nconcord without the ministry, than of keeping the strength or unity of\nthe members without the nerves. If these nerves be weak or labour of a\nconvulsion or other disease, it is curing and strengthening them, and\nnot the cutting them asunder, that must prove to the welfare and\nsafety of the body. Meddle with the faults of the ministry only so far\nas tendeth to a cure, of them or of the church, but not to bring them\ninto disgrace, and weaken their interest in the people, and disable\nthem from doing good. Abhor that proud, rebellious spirit, that is\nprone to set up itself against the officers of Christ, and under\npretence of greater wisdom or holiness, to bring their guides into\ncontempt; and is picking quarrels with them behind their back, to make\nthem a scorn or odious to the hearers. Indeed a minister of Satan that\ndoth more harm in the church than good, must be so detected as may\nbest disable him from doing harm. But he that doth more good than\nhurt, must so be dissuaded from the hurt as not to be disabled from\nthe good. \"My brethren, be not many masters, (or teachers,) knowing\nthat ye shall receive the greater condemnation,\" James iii. 1.\n\n_Direct._ XXI. Look more with an eye of charity on what is good in\nothers and their worship of God, than with an eye of malice to carp at\nwhat appeareth evil. Some men have such distempered eyes, that they\ncan see almost nothing but faultiness in any thing of another party\nwhich they look at; envy and faction make them carp at every word and\nevery gesture: and they make no conscience of aggravating every\nfailing, and making idolatry of every mistake in worship, and making\nheresy or blasphemy of every mistake in judgment, and making apostasy\nof every fall; nay, perhaps the truth itself shall have no better a\nrepresentation. As Dr. H. More well noteth, It would do much more good\nin the world, if all parties were forwarder to find out and commend\nwhat is good in the doctrine and worship of all that differ from them.\nThis would win them to hearken to reforming advice, and would keep up\nthe credit of the common truths and duties of religion in the world,\nwhen this envious snarling at all that others do, doth tend to bring\nthe world to atheism, and banish all reverence of religion, together\nwith christian charity, from the earth.\n\n_Direct._ XXII. Keep not strange to those from whom you differ, but be\nacquainted with them, and placidly hear what they have to say for\nthemselves: or else converse with them in christian love in all those\nduties in which you are agreed, and this (if you never talk of your\ndifferences) will do much to reconcile you in all the rest.[171] It is\nthe common way of division, uncharitableness, yea, and cruelty at\nlast, to receive hard reports of those that differ from us behind\ntheir backs, and to believe and aggravate all, and proceed to\ndetraction and contention at a distance, and in the dark, and never be\nfamiliarly acquainted with them at all. There is something in the\napprehension of places, and persons, and things, by the eye-sight,\nwhich no reports are able to match: and so there is that satisfaction\nabout men by familiar acquaintance, which we cannot attain by hearsay\nfrom any, how judicious soever. All factions commonly converse\ntogether, and seek no familiar converse with others, but believe them\nto be any thing that is naught, and then report them to be so, before\nthey ever knew the persons of whom they speak. I am persuaded this is\none of the greatest feeders of enmity, uncharitableness, contention,\nand slanders in the world. I speak it upon great observation and\nexperience, I have seldom heard any man bitterly oppose the servants\nof Christ, but either grossly wicked, or those that never had much\nacquaintance with them; and I see commonly, how bitter soever men were\nbefore, when once they converse together, and grow acquainted, they\nare more reconciled. The reason is, partly because they find less evil\nand more good in one another than before they did believe to be in\nthem; and partly because uncharitableness and malice, being an ugly\nmonster, is bolder at a distance, but ashamed of itself before your\nface: and therefore the pens of the champions of malice are usually\nmore bitter than their tongues when they speak to you face to face. Of\nall the furious adversaries that have raged against me in the latter\npart of my life, I remember not one enemy that I have, or ever had,\nthat was ever familiar or acquainted with me; and I have myself heard\nill reports of many, which by personal acquaintance I have found to be\nall false. Keep together, and either silence your differences, or\ngently debate them; yea, rather chide it out, then withdraw asunder.\nFamiliarity feedeth love and unity.\n\n_Direct._ XXIII. Whenever you look at any corruption in the church,\nlook also at the contrary extreme, and see and avoid the danger of one\nas well as of the other. Be sure every error and church corruption\nhath its extreme, and if you do not see it, and the danger of it, you\nare the liker to run into it. Look well on both sides if you would be\nsafe.\n\n_Direct._ XXIV. Worship God yourselves in the purest manner, and under\nthe most edifying ministry that lawfully you can attain; but be not\ntoo forward to condemn others that reach not to your measure, or\nattain not so much happiness; and deny not personal communion\nsometimes, with churches that are more blemished, and less fit for\ncommunion. And when you cannot join locally with them, let them have\nthe communion of your hearts, in faith and charity, and prayer for\neach other. I fear not here openly to tell the world, that if I were\nturned loose to my own liberty, I would ordinarily worship God in that\nmanner that I thought most pure and agreeable to his will and word;\nbut I would sometimes go to the churches of other christians, that\nwere fit for christian communion, if there were such about me;\nsometimes to the independents, sometimes to the moderate anabaptists,\nsometimes to such as had a liturgy as faulty as that of the Greek or\nthe Ethiopian churches; to show by my practice, what communion my\nheart hath with them all.\n\n_Direct._ XXV. Take heed that you interest not religion or the church\nin civil differences.[172] This error hath divided and ruined many\nfamous churches, and most injuriously made the holy truth and worship\nof God to be a reproach and infamy among selfish, partial, carnal men.\nWhen princes and states fall out among themselves, they will needs\ndraw the ministers to their sides, and then one side will certainly\ncondemn them, and call them all that self-interest and malice can\ninvent; and commonly when the controversy is only in point of law or\npolitics, it is religion that bears the blame of all: and the\ndifferences of lawyers and statesmen must be charged upon divines,\nthat the devil may be able to make them useless, as to the good of all\nthat party that is against them, and may make religion itself be\ncalled rebellion. And oh that God would maintain the peace of\nkingdoms; and kings and subjects were all lovers of peace, the rather\nbecause the differences in states do cause so commonly divisions in\nthe church. It would make a man wonder (and a lover of history to\nlament) to observe in the differences between the pope and Henry the\nfourth, and other emperors, how the historians are divided, one half\ncommending him that the other half condemneth; and how the bishops and\nchurches were one half for the pope, and the other for the emperor;\nand one half still accounted rebels or schismatics by the other,\nthough they were all of one religion. It is more to ruin the church,\nthan kingdoms, that Satan laboureth so much to kindle wars, and breed\ncivil differences in the world; and therefore let him that loveth the\nchurch's peace, be an obedient subject, and an enemy of sedition, and\na lover and defender of the civil peace and government in the place\nthat God hath set him in: for this is pleasing unto God.\n\nI know there are some, that with too bloody and calamitous success,\nhave in most ages given other kind of directions for the extirpation\nof error, heresy, and schism, than I have here given:[173] but God\nhath still caused the most wise, and holy, and charitable, and\nexperienced christians to bear their testimony against them. And he\nhath ever caused their way of cruelty to turn to their own shame: and\nthough (like treasons and robberies) it seem for the time present to\nserve their turn, it is bitterness in the end, and leaveth a stinking\nmemorial of their names and actions to posterity. And the treatises of\nreconcilers, (such as our Halls, Ushers, Bergius, Burroughs, and many\nother,) by the delectable savour of unity and charity, are sweet and\nacceptable to prudent and peaceable persons, though usually\nunsuccessful with the violent that needed them.\n\nBesides the forecited witness of Sir Francis Bacon, &c. I will here\nadd one of the most ancient, and one or two of this age, whom the\ncontrary-minded do mention with the greatest honour. Justin Martyr,\nDial. cum Tryph. doth at large give his judgment, that a judaizing\nchristian, who thinketh it best to be circumcised and keep the law of\nMoses, be suffered in his opinion and practice, and admitted to the\ncommunion and privileges of the church, and loved as one that may be\nsaved in that way, so be it he do not make it his business to persuade\nothers to his way, and teach it as necessary to salvation or\ncommunion; for such he doth condemn.\n\nKing James by the pen of Is. Casaubon telleth Cardinal du Perron, that\n\"His Majesty thinketh, that for concord there is no nearer way, than\ndiligently to separate things necessary from the unnecessary, and to\nbestow all our labour that we may agree in the things necessary, and\nthat in things unnecessary there may be place given for christian\nliberty. The king calleth these things simply necessary, which either\nthe word of God expressly commandeth to be believed or done, or which\nthe ancient church did gather from the word of God by necessary\nconsequence.----\"\n\nGrotius Annot. in Matt. xiii. 41, is so full and large upon it, that I\nmust entreat the reader to peruse his own words; where by arguments\nand authority he vehemently rebuketh the spirit of fury, cruelty, and\nuncharitableness, which under pretence of government, discipline, and\nzeal, denieth that liberty and forbearance, even to heretics and\noffenders, (much more when to the faithful ministers of Christ,) which\nhuman frailty hath made necessary, and Christ hath commanded his\nservants to grant. Concluding, _Ubi solitudinem fecerant, pacem\nappellabant_ (as Tertul.). _Et his omnibus obtendi solet studium\ndivini nominis; sed plerumque obtendi tantum. Nam Deus dedignatur\ncoacta servitia; nec placere illi potest quod vi humana exprimitur.\nReipsa solent qui id faciunt non nomini divino, sed suis honoribus,\nsuis commodis et tranquillitati consulere; quod scit ille qui mentes\nintrospicit. Atque ita fit, ut lolium evellatur cum tritico,\ninnocentes cum nocentibus: immo ut triticum s\u00e6pe sumatur pro lolio:\nnon enim tam bene agitur cum rebus humanis, ut semper meliora pluribus\naut validioribus placeant: sed ut in grege taurus, ita inter homines,\nqui viribus est editior, imbecilliorem c\u00e6dit: et iidem s\u00e6pe qu\u00e6 pati\nse qu\u00e6rebantur, mox in alios audent.--Lege c\u00e6tera._\n\nAgain, I entreat those that would escape the sin of schism, to read\nseriously the foresaid Treatises of peacemakers; especially Bishop\nHall's \"Peacemaker;\" Bishop Usher's \"Sermon on Ephes. iv. 3;\" and Mr.\nJeremy Burroughs' \"Irenicum:\" to which I may add Mr. Stillingfleet's\n\"Irenicum,\" for the hot contenders about church government; though I\nbelieve all the substance of church order to be of divine institution:\nand Jac. Acontii \"Stratag. Satan\u00e6.\"\n\nAnd it must be carefully noted, that one way by which Satan tempteth\nmen into church divisions, is by an over-vehement zeal against\ndividers; and so he would draw the rulers of the world, under pretence\nof a zeal for unity and peace, to raise persecutions against all that\nare guilty of any excess of scrupulosity about church communion, or of\nany principles or practices which a little swerve from true\ncatholicism: and so by the cruelty of their penalties, silencing\nministers, and vexing the people, they much increase the divisions\nwhich they would heal: for when Satan cannot do his work barefaced and\ndirectly, he useth to be the forwardest in seeming to do good, and to\ntake part with Christ, and truth, and godliness; and then his way is\nto over-do: he will be over-orthodox, and over-godly, and\nover-peaceable, that he hug the church and truth to death, by his too\nhard embracements. As in families and neighbourhoods, some cross words\nmust be passed over if we would have peace; and he that for every\nprovoking, unpeaceable word of another, will raise a storm, shall be\nhimself the most unpeaceable: so is it in the church; he that cannot\nbear with the weaknesses of the younger sort of christians, who are\ntoo much inclined by their zeal against sin, to dividing ways, but\nwill presently let fly at them as schismatics, and make them odious,\nand excommunicate or punish them according to his wrath, shall\nincrease the zeal and the number of dividers, and prove himself the\ngreatest divider.\n\nAnd by this violence and destroying zeal of orthodox rulers, against\nthe real faults and infirmities of some separating, well meaning men,\na far greater number of heterodox rulers are encouraged to persecute\nthe most learned, sober, and peaceable ministers, and the most godly\nand faithful of their subjects, who dare not conform to all their\nunrighteous edicts, and ecclesiastical laws, in things forbidden by\nthe law of Christ: and all this is done upon pretence of promoting\nunity and peace, and suppressing heresy and schism. And so persecution\nbecometh the devil's engine to keep out the gospel and godliness from\nthe infidel world, and to keep them under in the christian world.\n\n_Sed tamen sive illud (Origenis de Redemptione futura diabolorum)\nerror est, ut ego sentio; sive h\u00e6resis ut putatur, non solum reprimi\nnon potuit multis animadversionibus sacerdotum, sed nequaquam tam late\nse potuisset effundere, nisi contentione crevisset_: inquit\nPosthumianus in Sulp. Severi Dialog. i.\n\n_Sed non fuit animus ibi consistere, ubi recens fratern\u00e6 cladis\nfervebat invidia. Nam etsi fortasse videantur parere episcopis\ndebuisse, non ob hanc tamen causam multitudinem tantam sub Christi\nconfessione viventem, pr\u00e6sertim ab episcopis oportuisset affligi._ Id.\nibid. speaking of the bishops provoking the secular power to afflict\nthe monks of Alexandria for defending Origen.\n\nWhen the emperor Constantius would by violence force the orthodox to\nhold communion with the Arians, he did but make the breach the wider.\nRead Lucifer Calaritanus _de non conveniendo cum h\u00e6reticis_ (in\nBiblioth. Patr. tom. ix. p. 1045, &c.). The emperor saith, that the\northodox were enemies to peace, and unity, and brotherly love, and\nthat he was resolved to have unity and peace in his dominions:\ntherefore he imprisoned the orthodox and banished them. _Propterea\nodis nos, quia concilium vestrum malignantium execremur; propterea in\nexilio sumus; propterea in carcere necamur; propterea nobis solis\nprohibetur conspectus; idcirco reclusi in tenebras custodimur ingenti\ncustodia: hujus rei causa nullus ad nos visendos admittitur hominum;\nquia videlicet noluerimus vobiscum impiis sacrilegis ullam scelerum\nvestrorum habere societatem._ Ibid. p. 1050. Which stirred up this\nbishop in particular to go too far from free communion even with the\npenitent Arians, and heap up more scriptures against that communion\nwhich the emperor commanded, than any had done before. _Nobis dicebas,\nPacem volo fieri; et in corde tuo manens adversarius religionis\nnostr\u00e6, cogitabat per te facere nos idololatras, &c._ p. 1051.\n_Consilia vestra contra suam prolata ecclesiam reprobat Deus: nec enim\npotest odire populum suum, h\u00e6reditatem suam, et amare vos filios\npestilenti\u00e6, vos persecutores servorum suorum: dixisti, Facite pacem\ncum episcopis sect\u00e6 me\u00e6 Arrianis, et estote in unum; et dicit Dei\nSpiritus, vias impiorum noli exequi, neque \u00e6muleris viam iniquorum.\n&c.----Dulce quibusdam videtur, quo tibi regi in amicitias jungantur\nsuscipiendo h\u00e6resin tuam: sed amarius felle sensuri cum tecum in\nperpetuum c\u0153perint in perpetua gehenna sentire, qui tecum esse\ndeligerunt, tunc dicturi, V\u00e6 nobis, qui Constantium Imperatorem Deo\npr\u00e6posuerimus._ Abundance more he writeth to prove that the emperor\nbeing a heretic, they must have no communion with him or his bishops.\nAnd when the emperor complained hereupon, that they wronged and\ndishonoured him whom they should honour, the said Lucifer wrote his\nnext book, _de non parcendo in Deum delinquentibus_; which beginneth,\n_Superatum te, Imperator, a Dei servis ex omni cum conspexisses parte,\ndixisti passum te ac pati a nobis contra monita sacrarum Scripturarum\ncontumeliam: dicis nos insolentes extitisse, circa te quem honorari\ndecuerit. Si quisquam Dei cultorum pepercit apostatis, sint vera qu\u00e6\ndicis de nobis_; and so he heapeth up as many texts for rough dealing\nwith offending kings; I give this one instance to show the fruits of\nviolence, as pretended for peace and unity.\n\nOf the persecutions of the faithful in most ages, even by professed\nchristians themselves, and God's disowning that spirit of cruelty by\nhis special providences, all church history maketh mention: and how\nthe names of such persecuting hypocrites have stunk in the nostrils of\nall sober men when their tragedy was fully acted and understood.\nEspecially the poor churches called Waldenses, Picards, and\nAlbigenses, have felt the grievousest effects of this tyranny, and yet\nhave the testimony of the best and wisest men, to have been the purest\nand the nearest to the apostolic simplicity in all the world; and the\nmemory of their enemies and persecutors is an abhorrence to the sons\nof charity and peace. Read Lasitius and Commenius of their discipline,\nand Bishop Usher de Eccles. succes. et statu. I will recite one\nnotable passage mentioned by Thuanus and Commenius, the one Hist. lib.\nxxxvi. the other de bono Unit. et Ord. Discipl. p. 59. Maximilian,\nthat good and moderate emperor, being one day in the coach with Joh.\nCrato only, (his chief physician and a learned protestant), lamenting\nthe divisions of christians, asked Crato, which sort he thought came\nnearest to the apostolic simplicity: he answered, He thought that\nhonour belonged to the brethren called Picards. The emperor said, He\nthought so too: which Crato acquainting them with, encouraged them to\ndedicate to him a book of part of their devotions; for the year before\nGod had thus marvellously saved him from having a hand in their blood.\nJoachimus a Nova Domo, chancellor of Bohemia, went to Vienna, and\ngave the emperor no rest, till he had procured him to subscribe a\nmandate for the reviving of a former persecuting mandate against them:\nhaving got his commission, and passing just out of the gates of\nVienna, as he was upon the bridge over the Danubius, the bridge brake\nunder him, and he and all his retinue fell into that great and\nterrible water; and all were drowned except six horsemen, and one\nyoung nobleman, who, seeing his lord in the waves, catched hold of his\ngold chain, and held him till some fishermen came in boats, but found\nhim dead, and his box with the commission sunk past recovery. This\nnobleman who survived, was sensible of God's judgment, and turned to\nthe brethren in religion, and the mandate was no further prosecuted.\n(Such another story Bishop Usher was wont to tell how Ireland was\nsaved from persecution in Queen Mary's days.)\n\nBut it is the most heinous cruelty, when, as in Daniel's case, there\nare laws of impiety or iniquity, made of purpose to entrap the\ninnocent, by them that confess, We shall find no fault against this\nDaniel, except it be concerning the law of his God: and then men must\nbe taken in these spiders' webs, and accused as schismatical, or what\nthe contrivers please. And especially when it is real holiness which\nis hated, and order, unity, concord, peace, or obedience to our\npastors, is made the pretence, for the malicious oppression of it.\nGildas and Salvian have told church governors of this at large: and\nmany of the persecuted protestants have more largely told the Roman\nclergy of it.\n\nIt is a smart complaint of him that wrote the Epist. de malus\nDoctoribus, ascribed to Pope Sixtus III. _Hujus doctrin\u00e6 causa (pro\nsanctitate scilicet) paucos amicos conquirunt, et plures inimicos,\nnecesse est enim eos qui peccatorum vitia condemnant, tantos habere\ncontrarios, quantos exercere vitia delectat: inde est etiam quod\niniquis et impiis factionibus opprimuntur: quod criminibus falsis\nappetuntur, quod h\u00e6resis etiam perfunduntur infamia: quod hic omnis\ninimicorum suorum sermo ab ipsorum sumit obtrectatione materiam. Sed\nquid mirum ut flagitiosis h\u00e6resis videatur doctrina justiti\u00e6? Quibus\ntamen h\u00e6resis? Ipsorum secretum patet tantum inimicis, cum si fides\ndictis inesset, amici illud potius scire potuissent, &c._\n\nThe cause is, saith Prosper de vit. Contempl. lib. i. cap. 20. et ex\neo Hilitgarius Camarac. lib. v. cap. 19. _Sed nos pr\u00e6sentibus\ndelectati, dum in hac vita commoda nostra et honores inquirimus, non\nut meliores sed ut ditiores, non ut sanctiores, sed ut honoratiores\nsimus, c\u00e6teris festinamus. Nec gregem Domini qui nobis pascendus,\ntuendusque commissus est, sed nostras voluntates, dominationem,\ndivitias, et c\u00e6tera blandimenta carnaliter cogitamus. Pastores dici\nvolumus, nec tamen esse contendimus. Officii non vitamus laborem,\nappetimus dignitatem; immundorum spirituum feras a grege dilacerando\nnon pellimus; et quod eis remanserat, ipsi consumimus: quando\npeccantes divites vel potentes non solum non arguimus, sed etiam\nveneramur; ne nobis aut munera solita offensi non dirigant, aut\nobsequia desiderata subducant: ac sic muneribus eorum et obsequiis\ncapti, immo per h\u00e6c illis addicti, loqui eis de peccato suo aut\nde futuro judicio formidamus; ad hoc tantum potentes effecti, ut nobis\nin subjectos dominationem tyrannicam vindicemus; non ut afflictos\ncontra violentiam potentum qui in eos ferarum more s\u00e6viunt,\ndefendamus. Inde est quod tam a potentibus hujus mundi, quam a nobis,\nquod pejus est, nonnulli graviter fatigati deperiunt, quos se de manu\nnostra Dominus requisiturum terribiliter comminatur_----\n\nSulp. Severus also toucheth the sore when he saith, Hist. lib. ii.\n_Certatim gloriosa in certamina ruebatur, multoque avidius tum\nmartyria gloriosis mortibus qu\u00e6rebantur, quam nunc episcopatus pravis\nambitionibus appetuntur._\n\nBut when he saith, ibid. after Constantine's delivery of the church,\n_Neque ulterius persecutionem fore credimus, nisi eam quam sub fine\njam s\u00e6culi antichristus exercebit_, either he was grossly mistaken, or\nelse those are the instruments of antichrist that are not thought so.\n\nIt is a most notable instance to our purpose which Severus ends his\nhistory with, of the mischievous zeal of orthodox Ithacius and Idacius\nagainst Priscillian and his gnostics; and worthy of the study of the\nprelates of the church: _Idacius sine modo et ultra quam oportuit\nIstantium sociosque ejus lacessens, facem nascenti incendio subdidit:\nut exasperaverit malos potius quam compresserit_. In sum, they got the\nmagistrate to interpose and banish the gnostics, who quickly learned,\nby bribing court officers, to turn the emperor against the orthodox\nfor themselves; till the zeal of Idacius and Ithacius grew so hot as\nto accuse even the best men, yea, St. Martin himself, of favouring the\ngnostics: and at last got another tyrannical emperor to put\nPriscillian and many other gnostics to death, though they withdrew\nfrom the accusation, as tending to their own confusion. And Severus\nsaith, _Certe Ithacium nihil pensi, nihil sancti habuisse definio:\nfuit enim audax, loquax, impudens, sumptuosus, veneri et gul\u00e6 plurimum\nimpertiens. Hic stultiti\u00e6 eo usque processerat, ut omnes etiam sanctos\nviros, quibus aut studium inerat iectionis, aut propositum erat\ncertare jejuniis, tanquam Priscilliani socios et discipulos, in crimen\narcesseret. Ausus etiam miser est, Martino episcopo, viro plane\napostolis conferendo, palam objectare h\u00e6resis infamiam:----quia non\ndesinebat increpare Ithacium, ut ab accusatione desisteret._ And when\nthe leaders were put to death, the heresy increased more, and honoured\nPriscillian as a martyr, and reproached the orthodox as wicked\npersecutors: and the end was, that the church was filled by it with\ndivisions and manifold mischiefs, and all the most godly made the\ncommon scorn. _Inter h\u00e6c plebs Dei et optimus quisque, probro atque\nludibrio habebatur._ They are the last words of Severus's History; and\nchanging the names are calculated for another meridian, and for later\nyears.\n\n[136] Of this subject I have written already, 1. My \"Universal\nConcord.\" 2. My \"Catholic Unity.\" 3. Of the \"True Catholic Church.\" 4.\nMy \"Christian Concord.\"\n\n[137] Read over Sir Francis Bacon's third Essay; and Hales of Schism.\n\n[138] In veste Christi varietas sit; scissura non sit. They be two\nthings, unity and uniformity. Lord Bacon, Essay iii.\n\n[139] 1 Thess. v. 12, 13.\n\n[140] Gal. iii. 20; iv. 5, 6; Eph. iv. 5; 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13; 1 Pet.\ni. 16; Eph. iv. 11-13; ii. 20, 21, 19; 1 John iii. 11, 14, 23; Psal.\ncxxii. 2; 1 Pet. ii. 1, 2; John iii. 6; Heb. x. 25; 1 Cor. x. 16, 17;\nRom. xii. 1; Eph. ii. 10, 11.\n\n[141] 1 John ii. 12-14; Heb. v. 11-13; Matt. xvii. 2; xiii. 31; Rom.\nxiv. 1, 2, 21; xv. 1; 1 Cor. viii. 7, 10, 12; ix. 22; Acts xx. 35;\nLuke i. 6; Phil. ii. 15; Gal. ii. 9, 11, 13, 14; 1 Thess. v. 4; 1 Cor.\niii. 1, 4, 5; Eph. iv. 11, 12,13; Rom. xiv.; xv.; Col. ii. 18, 22;\nPhil. ii. 20, 21; 1 Cor. xii. 22, 24; 1 Sam. ii. 30; Matt. xxiii. 11;\nLuke xxii. 26; Matt. xx. 23; Luke xx. 30; Matt. xix. 30; xx. 16.\n\n[142] The true placing the bonds of unity importeth exceedingly. Which\nwill be done if the points fundamental, and of substance in religion,\nwere truly discerned and distinguished from points not merely of\nfaith, but of opinion, order, or good intention. This is a thing that\nmay seem to many a matter trivial, and done already; but if it were\ndone less partially it would be embraced more generally. L. Bacon,\nEssay iii.\n\n[143] James iii. 13-17.\n\n[144] 1 Pet. ii. 5, 7, 9. Leg. Grotium de Imp. p. 230, 231.\n\n[145] Leg. Grotium de Imp. p. 223, 226.\n\n[146] But not denying her to be a church, unless she cast off some\nessential part; but so disowning her as in 2 Thess. iii.\n\n[147] Where any church retaining the purity of doctrine doth require\nthe owning of and conforming to any unlawful or suspected practice,\nmen may lawfully deny conformity to and communion with that church in\nsuch things, without incurring the guilt of schism. Mr. Stillingfleet.\nIren. p. 117.\n\n[148] 1 Sam. xv. 22; Prov. xv. 8.\n\n[149] 2 John x. 11; 2 Tim. iii. 5; Rom. xvi. 17; 1 Cor. v. 11.\n\n[150] Matt. xiii. 41, 30; Jer. xv. 19; 1 Cor. xii. 23, 24.\n\n[151] See Rom. xiv. throughout; Rom. xv. 12, 5-7; Eph. iv. 4-7; 1 Pet.\niii. 6; 1 Cor. xii. throughout; Phil. iii. 15, 16; Acts ii. 1, 46; iv.\n32; Rom. xii. 4, 5; Psal. cxxxiii; 1 Cor. viii; 1 Tim. i. 4; James\niii.\n\n[152] Peace containeth infinite blessings: it strengtheneth faith: it\nkindleth charity. The outward peace of the church distilleth into\npeace of conscience: and it turneth the writing and reading of\ncontroversies into treatises of mortification and devotion. Against\nprocuring unity by sanguinary persecutions, see Lord Bacon, Essay iii.\nSurely there is no better way to stop the rising of new sects and\nschisms, than to reform abuses, to compound the smaller differences,\nto proceed mildly, and not with sanguinary persecutions, and rather to\ntake off the principal authors by winning and advancing them, than to\nenrage them by violence and bitterness. Lord Bacon in his Essay lviii.\n_Ira hominis non implet justitiam Dei._ And it was a notable\nobservation of a wise father, that those which held and persuaded\npressure of consciences, were commonly interested therein themselves\nfor their own ends. Id. Essay iii. p. 19.\n\n[153] Concil. Tolet. 4. c. 16. 28. q. 1. Ca. Jud\u00e6i qui--allow\nseparation from a Jewish husband, if after admonition he will not be a\nchristian: and so doth Acosta and his Concil. Limens. l. 6. c. 21, and\nother Jesuits, and allow the marrying of another: and sure the\nconjugal bond is faster than that of a pastor and his flock: may not a\nman then change his pastor when his soul is in apparent hazard?\n\n[154] Eph. iv. 16; 1 Tim. i. 4; Rom. xv. 19; Acts ix. 31.\n\n[155] Rom. xiv. 17; 1 Tim. i. 4.\n\n[156] Rom. viii. 16; ix. 26; 1 John v. 2.\n\n[157] Quicquid ad multitudinem vergit, antipathiam continet; et quanto\nmagis multitudo augetur, tanto et antipathia: quicquid vero ad\nunitatem tendit, sympathiam habet; et quanti magis ad unitatem\naccedit, tanto pariori sympathia augetur. Paul Scaliger, Epist. Cath.\nlib. iii. p. 176.\n\n[158] Eph. xiv. 13-16.\n\n[159] Phil. i. 9; 1 Thess. iv. 9; Col. ii. 2; 1 Thess. iii. 12; Phil.\nii. 12; Lev. xviii. 9; 1 Pet. i. 22; 1 Thess. v. 3; Rom. xii. 9, 10; 2\nTim. i. 7; Heb. x. 24; 1 Cor. xii. 31; Gal. v. 6, 13.\n\n[160] 1 John iv. 7, 8; John xiii. 35; James iii. 15; 1 John iv. 16;\nGal. v. 19-22; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; 1 Tim. vi. 11; Gal. v. 14; 1 Cor.\nxiii; Eph. iv. 2, 15, 16; Col. i. 4.\n\n[161] See Mr. Stillingfleet, Iren. p. 119, 120. Bilson for christian\nsubjection, p. 525.\n\n[162] Dr. H. More saith, Myst. Redempt. p. 495. l. 10. c. 2. There is\nscarce any church in christendom at this day that doth not obtrude,\nnot only falsehood, but such falsehoods that will appear to any free\nspirit pure contradictions and impossibilities; and that with the same\ngravity, authority, and importunity, that they do the holy oracles of\nGod. Now the consequents of this must needs be sad; For what knowing\nand conscientious man, but will be driven off, if he cannot assert the\ntruth, without open asserting of a gross lie? Id. p. 526. And as for\nopinions, though some may be better than other some, yet none should\nexclude from the fullest enjoyments of either private or public\nrights; supposing there be no venom of the persecutive spirit mingled\nwith them; but every one that professeth the faith of Christ, and\nbelieveth the Scriptures in the historical sense, &c. See Hales of\nSchism, p. 8.\n\n[163] In ecclesiis plus certaminum gignunt verba hominum quam Dei;\nmagisque pugnatur fere de Apolline, Petro, et Paulo, quam de Christo:\nretine divina: relinque humana. Bucholcer.\n\n[164] Poet\u00e6 nunquam perturbarunt respublicas: oratores non raro.\nBucholtz.\n\n[165] Acosta, l. vi. c. 23. p. 579. Nothing so much hurteth this\nchurch as a rabble of hirelings and self-seekers: for what can natural\nmen, that scarce have the Spirit, do in the cause of God? A few in\nnumber that are excellent in virtue, will more promote the work of\nGod.--But they that come hither being humble, and lovers of souls,\ntaking Christ for their pattern, and bearing in their bodies his cross\nand death, shall most certainly find heavenly treasures, and\ninestimable delights. But when will this be? When men cease to be men,\nand to savour the things of men; and to seek and gape after the things\nof men. With men this is utterly impossible; but with God all things\nare possible: Because this is hard in the eyes of this people, shall\nit therefore be hard in my eyes, saith the Lord? Zech. viii. 6. pag.\n580. I may say to some ministers that cry out of the schismatical\ndisobedience of the people, as Acosta doth to those that cried out of\nthe Indians' dulness and wickedness. It is long of the teachers. Deal\nwith them in all possible love and tenderness, away with covetousness,\nlordliness, and cruelty; give them the example of an upright life,\nopen to them the way of truth, and teach them according to their\ncapacity, and diligently hold on in this way, whoever thou art that\nart a minister of the gospel, and (saith he) as ever I hope to enjoy\nthee, O Lord Jesu Christ, I am persuaded the harvest will he plentiful\nand joyful. Lib. iv. p. 433, et passim. But (saith he) we quickly\ncease our labours, and must presently have hasty and plenteous fruit.\nBut the kingdom of God is not such: verily, it is not such, but, as\nChrist hath told us, like seed cast into the earth, which groweth up\nby degrees we know not how, p. 433, 434. Jerom's case is many\nanother's: Concivit odia perditorum: oderunt eum h\u00e6retici, quia eos\nimpugnare non desinit: oderunt clerici, quia vitam eorum insectatur et\ncrimina. Sed plane eum boni omnes admirantur et diligunt. Posthumianus\nin Sulp. Severi Dialog. 1. And Dial. 2. Martinus in medio c\u0153tu et\nconversatione populorum, inter clericos dissidentes, inter episcopos\ns\u00e6vientes, cum fere quotidianis scandalis hinc atque inde premeretur,\ninexpugnabili tamen adversus omnia virtute fundatus stetit.--Nec tamen\nhuic crimini miscebo populares, soli illum clerici, soli nesciunt\nsacerdotes, nec immerito: nosse illum invidi noluerunt: quia si\nvirtutes illius nossent, suorum vitia cognovissent.\n\n[166] How the Jesuits have hereby distracted the church, read Mariana,\net Archiepisc. Pragensis Censur. de Bull. Jesuit. et Dan. Hospital. ad\nReges, &c. Aug. Ardinghelli Paradoxa Jesuitica. Galindus, Giraldus,\n&c. Arcana Jesuit.\n\n[167] That God above that knoweth the heart, doth discern that frail\nmen in some of their contradictions intend the same thing, and\naccepteth both. L. Verul. Essay iii. p. 15.\n\n[168] Saith Cleanthes (in Laert.) The Peripateticks are like letters\nthat sound well, but hear not themselves.\n\n[169] Yet I excuse not impiety or insufficiency in ministers. It was\none of Solon's laws, Qui nequitia ac flagitiis insignis est,\ntribunali, publicisque suggestis arcendus est. And Gildas saith to the\nungodly pastors of Britain, Apparet ergo eum qui vos sacerdotes sciens\nex corde dicit, non esse eximium christianum.--Quomodo vos aliquid\nsolvetis, ut sit solutum in c\u0153lis, a c\u0153lo ob scelera adempti? et\nimmanium peccatorum funibus compediti? Qua ratione aliquid in terra\nligabitis, quod supra mundum etiam ligetur, propter vosmet ipsos qui\nita ligati iniquitatibus in hoc mundo tenemini, ut in c\u0153los nunquam\nascendatis, sed in infausta tartari ergastula, non conversi in hac\nvita ad dominum, decidatis, Fol. ult. O inimici Dei, et non\nsacerdotes! O licitatores malorum, et non pontifices! Traditores, et\nnon sanctorum apostolorum successores; impugnatores, et non Christi\nministri.--p. 571. Impres. Basil.\n\n[170] Pii hominis est facere quod potest, etiamsi non faciat hoc quod\nest eligibilius. Bucholtz.\n\n[171] Prince Frederick of Monpelgard being instructed into a distaste\nof the reformed protestants, when he had been at Geneva and Helvetia,\nwas wont to say, Genev\u00e6 et in Helvetia vidi multa de quibus nihil,\npauca eorum de quibus s\u00e6pe audivi: ut Tossanus ad Pezelium referente\nSculteto in Curric. p. 26.\n\n[172] Since the writing of this, I have published a book called \"The\ncure of Church Divisions,\" and a \"Defence of it:\" which handle these\nthings more fully.\n\n[173] Beda Hist. Eccles. lib. i. c. 26. Didicerat enim (Rex Edilburth)\net a doctoribus, auctoribusque su\u00e6 salutis, servitium, Christi\nvoluntarium, non coactitium debere esse.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nHOW TO BEHAVE OURSELVES IN THE PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES, AND THE WORSHIP\nTHERE PERFORMED, AND AFTER THEM.\n\n\nI have purposely given such particular directions in part ii. on this\nsubject, and written so many books about it,[174] and said so much\nalso in the Cases of Conscience, that I shall here only cast in a few\ncommon directions, lest the reader think I make a balk.\n\n_Direct._ I. Let your preparations in secret and in your family on the\nbeginning of the Lord's days, be such as conduce to fit you for the\npublic worship.[175] Run not to church as ungodly people do, with a\ncarnal heart, that never sought God before you went, nor considered\nwhat you go about; as if all your religion were to make up the number\nof the auditors; and you thought God must not be worshipped and obeyed\nat home, but only in the church. God may in mercy meet with an\nunprepared heart, and open his eyes and heart, and save him; but he\nhath made no promise of it to any such. He that goeth to worship that\nGod at church, whom he forgetteth and despiseth in his heart and\nhouse, may expect to be despised by him. O consider what it is for a\nsinner that must shortly die, to go with the servants of God to\nworship him; to pray for his salvation, and to hear what God hath to\nsay to him by his minister, for the life of his immortal soul!\n\n_Direct._ II. Enter not into the holy assembly either superstitiously\nor unreverently. Not as if the bending of the knee, and mumbling over\na few words with a careless, ignorant mind, and spending an hour there\nas carelessly, would save your souls: nor yet as if the relation which\nthe worship, the worshippers, and the dedicated place have unto God,\ndeserved not a special honour and regard. Though God be ever with us,\nevery where; yet every time, and place, and person, and business is\nnot equally related to God. And holiness is no unfit attribution, for\nthat company or that place, which is related to God, though but by the\nlawful separation and dedication of man. To be uncovered in those\ncountries where uncovering signifieth reverence, is very well becoming\na reverent soul; except when the danger of cold forbids it. It is an\nunhappy effect of our contentions, that many that seem most reverent\nand holy, in their high regard of holy things, do yet carry themselves\nwith more unreverent deportment, than those that themselves account\nprofane. God is the God of soul and body, and must be worshipped by\nboth; and while they are united, the actions of one are helpful to the\nother, as well as due and decent.\n\n_Direct._ III. If you can, come at the beginning, that you may show\nyour attendance upon God, and your esteem of all his worship.\nEspecially in our assemblies, where so great a part of the duty, (as\nconfession, praises, reading the Scriptures,) are all at the\nbeginning. And it is meet that you thereby show that you prefer public\nworship before private, and that needless businesses keep you not\naway.\n\n_Direct._ IV. If you are free, and can do it lawfully, choose the most\nable, holy teacher that you can have, and be not indifferent whom you\nhear. For oh how great is the difference; and how bad are our hearts;\nand how great our necessity of the clearest doctrine, and the\nliveliest helps! Nor be you indifferent what manner of people you join\nwith, nor what manner of worship is there performed; but in all choose\nthe best when you are free. But where you are not free, or can have no\nbetter, refuse not to make use of weaker teachers, or to communicate\nwith faulty congregations in a defective, faulty manner of worship,\nsobeit you are not compelled to sin. And think not that all the faults\nof the prayers, or communicants, are imputed to all that join with\nthem in that worship. For then we should join with none in all the\nworld.\n\n_Direct._ V. When the minister is weak, be the more watchful against\nprejudice and sluggishness of heart, lest you lose all. Mark that word\nof God which he readeth to you, and reverence, and love, and lay up\nthat. It was the law, read and meditated on, which David saith the\ngodly do delight in.[176] The sacred Scriptures are not so obscure and\nuseless as the papists do pretend, but convert the soul, and are able\nto make us wise unto salvation. Christ went ordinarily to the\nsynagogues, where even bad men did read Moses and the prophets every\nsabbath day. There are thousands that cannot read themselves, who must\ncome to the assembly to hear that word read, which they cannot read or\nhear at home. Every sentence of Scripture hath a divine excellency,\nand therefore had we nothing but the reading of it, and that by a bad\nman, a holy soul may profit by it.\n\n_Direct._ VI. Mind not so much the case of others present as\nyourselves; and think not so much how bad such and such a one is, and\nunworthy to be there, as how bad you are yourselves, and unworthy of\ncommunion with the people of the Lord, and what a mercy it is that you\nhave admittance, and are not cast out from those holy opportunities.\n\n_Direct._ VII. Take heed of a peevish, quarrelsome humour, that\ndisposeth you to carp at all that is said and done, and to find fault\nwith every mode and circumstance, and to affect a causeless\nsingularity, as thinking that your own ways, and words, and orders,\nare far more excellent than other men's: think ill of nothing out of a\nquarrelsome disposition, but only as evidence constraineth you to\ndissent. And then remember that we are all imperfect, and faulty men\nmust needs perform a faulty worship, if any, for it cannot be better\nthan the agent.\n\n_Direct._ VIII. When you meet with a word in a sermon or prayer, which\nyou do not like, let it not stop you, and hinder your fervent and\npeaceable proceeding in the rest; as if you must not join in that\nwhich is good, if there be any faulty mixture in it. But go on in that\nwhich you approve, and thank God that pardoneth the infirmities of\nothers as well as your own.\n\n_Direct._ IX. Conform yourselves to all the lawful gestures and\ncustoms of the church with which you join. You come not hither proudly\nto show the congregation, that you are wiser in the circumstances of\nworship than they, nor needlessly to differ from them, much less to\nharden men into a scorn of strictness, by seeing you place religion in\nsingularities in lawful and indifferent things. But you come to\nexercise love, peace, and concord, and with one mind and mouth to\nglorify God. Stand when the church standeth; sit when the church\nsitteth; kneel when the church kneeleth, in cases where God doth not\nforbid it.\n\n_Direct._ X. Take heed of a customary, formal, senseless heart, that\ntolerateth itself from day to day, to do holy things in a common\nmanner, and with a common, dull, and careless mind: for that is to\nprofane them. Call in your thoughts when they attempt to wander; stir\nup your hearts when you feel them dull. Remember what you are about,\nand with whom it is that you have to do, and that you tread on the\ndust of them who had such opportunities before you which are now all\ngone, and so will yours. You hear and pray for more than your lives;\ntherefore do it not as in jest or as asleep.\n\n_Direct._ XI. Do all in faith and hope. Believe what you may get of\nGod in prayer, and by an obedient hearing of his word. Would you not\ngo cheerfully to the king, if he had promised you to grant whatever\nyou ask? Hath not God promised you more than kings can give you? Oh it\nis an unbelieving and a despairing heart, that turneth all into dead\nformality! Did you but hope that God would do all that for you which\nhe hath told you he will do, and that you might get more by prayer\nthan by your trades, or projects, or all your friends, you would go to\nGod with more earnestness and more delight.\n\n_Direct._ XII. Apply all the word of God to yourselves according to\nits usefulness. Ask as you go, How doth this concern me? this\nreproof, this mark, this counsel, this comfort, this exhortation, this\ndirection? Remember as much as you can, but especially the most\npractical, useful parts. Get it home so deep upon your hearts, that it\nmay not easily slide away. Root it by close application as you go,\nthat affection may constrain you to remember it.\n\n_Direct._ XIII. Above all, resolve to obey what God shall make known\nto be his will; take heed lest any wilful sin should escape the power\nof the word; and should ordinarily go away with you as it came.\nCareless hearing and careless living tend most dangerously to a\nhardened heart and a forsaken state. If you regard iniquity in your\nheart, God will not hear your prayers. The sacrifice of the wicked is\nabominable to him. The foolish shall not stand in his sight, he hateth\nall the workers of iniquity.[177] He that turneth away his ear from\nhearing (that is, obeying) the law, even his prayer is abominable. To\nthe wicked saith God, What hast thou to do to take my covenant into\nthy mouth, seeing thou hatest instruction, and hast cast my words\nbehind thee? Obedience is better than sacrifice. He that nameth the\nname of Christ must depart from iniquity, or else God will not find\nhis mark upon him, nor take him to be one of his. Christ's sheep know\nhis voice and follow him, and to them he will give eternal life. But\nif you had preached or done miracles in his name, he will say to you,\n\"Depart from me, I know you not,\" if ye be workers of iniquity. Look\ntherefore to your foot (to your heart and life) when you go to the\nhouse of God, and be more ready to hear (his law that must govern you,\nthat you may know his will and do it) than to offer the sacrifice of\nfools, (that is, disobedient sinners,) that think by sacrifices and\noutside worship to get pardon for an unholy life, and to reconcile God\nto them in their sins, not knowing that thus they add sin to sin.[178]\nIf you seek God daily, and delight to know his ways, as a nation that\ndid righteousness and forsook not the ordinance of their God; if you\nask of him the ordinances of justice, (sound doctrine, regular\nworship, strict discipline,) and take delight in approaching to God;\nif you humble your souls with frequent fasts; and yet live in a course\nof wilful disobedience, you labour in vain, and aggravate your sins,\nand preachers had need to lift up their voices and be louder trumpets\nto tell you of your sins, than to other men.[179] But if ye will wash\nyou, and make you clean, and put away the evil of your doings, cease\nto do evil, learn to do well, seek judgment, relieve the oppressed,\n&c.; you may then come with boldness and confidence unto God.\nOtherwise to what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices? your\noblations will be vain, and your incense abominable. If ye be willing\nand obedient, you shall be blessed; but if ye refuse and rebel you\nshall be destroyed, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.[180] If\nyou do well shall you not be accepted? but if ye do evil, sin lieth at\nthe door. Let your profession be never so great, and your parts and\nexpressions never so seraphical, sin is a reproach to any people; and\nif you would hide yourselves from justice in the purest church, among\nthe holiest people, and the most numerous and longest prayers, be sure\nthat your sin will find you out.[181] Your secret lust, your covetous\nover-reaching, your secret gluttony or tippling, much more your\ncrimson sins, will surely find you out.[182]\n\nAlas! what then will those miscreants do, whose sins are scarlet,\nbloody persecutions, under pretence of promoting unity, and obedience,\nand the catholic church, while the cloak or cover of it is but the\nthin, transparent spider-web of human traditions, and numerous\nceremonies, and childish complimenting with God; and when they have\nnothing but the prayers of a long liturgy, to cover the effects of\ntheir earthly, sensual, and diabolical zeal and wisdom, (as St. James\ncalls it, chap. iii. 15, 16,) and to concoct the widows' houses which\nthey devour, and to put a reverence upon the office and work, which\nthey labour all the week to render reproachful, by a sensual,\nluxurious, idle life, and by perfidious making merchandise of\nsouls.[183]\n\nAs ever you care what becometh of your souls, take heed lest sin grow\nbold under prayers, and grow familiar and contemptuous of sermons and\nholy speeches, and lest you keep a custom of religious exercises and\nwilful sins. For oh, how doth this harden now, and wound hereafter! He\nis the best hearer, that is the holiest liver, and faithfullest\nobeyer.\n\n_Direct._ XIV. Be not a bare hearer of the prayers of the pastor,\nwhether it be by liturgy or without. For that is but hypocrisy, and a\nsin of omission; you come not thither only to hear prayers, but to\npray; and kneeling is not praying; but it is a profession that you\npray. And will you be prayerless even in the house of prayer, and when\nyou profess and seem to pray, and so add hypocrisy to impiety? I fear\nmany that seem religious, and would have those kept from the sacrament\nthat pray not in their families, do very ordinarily tolerate\nthemselves in this gross omission, and mocking of God, and are\nprayerless themselves even when they seem to pray.\n\n_Direct._ XV. Stir up your hearts in an especial manner to the\ngreatest alacrity and joy, in speaking and singing the praises of God.\nThe Lord's day is a day of joy and thanksgiving, and the praises of\nGod are the highest and holiest employment upon earth. And if ever you\nshould do any thing with all your might, and with a joyful and\ntriumphing frame of soul, it is this. Be glad that you may join with\nthe sacred assemblies, in heart and voice, in so heavenly a work. And\ndo not as some humoursome, peevish persons (that know not the danger\nof that proud disease) fall to quarrelling with David's Psalms, as\nunsuitable to some of the hearers, or to nauseate every failing in the\nmetre, so as to turn so holy a duty into neglect or scorn; (for alas!\nsuch there are near me where I dwell;) nor let prejudice against\nmelody, or church music (if you dwell where it is used) possess you\nwith a splenetic disgust of that which should be your most joyful\nwork. And if you know how much the incorporate soul must make use of\nthe body in harmony, and in the joyful praises of Jehovah, do not then\nquarrel with lawful helps, because they are sensible and corporeal.\n\n_Direct._ XVI. Be very considerate and serious in sacramental\nrenewings of your covenant with God.[184] O think what great things\nyou come thither to receive! And think what a holy work you have to\ndo! And think what a life it is that you must promise! So solemn a\ncovenanting with God, and of so great importance, requireth a most\nholy, reverent, and serious frame of soul. But yet let not the\nunwarrantable differencing this ordinance from God's praises and the\nrest, seduce you into the common errors of the times: I mean, 1. Of\nthose that hence are brought to think that the sacrament should never\nbe received without a preparatory day of humiliation, above the\npreparation for an ordinary Lord's day's work. 2. And therefore\nreceive it seldom; whereas the primitive churches never spent a Lord's\nday together without it. 3. Those that turn it into a perplexing,\nterrifying thing, for fear of being unprepared, when it should be\ntheir greatest comfort, and when they are not so perplexed about their\nunpreparedness to any other duty. 4. Those that make so great a\ndifference betwixt this and church prayers, praises, and other church\nworship, as that they take this sacrament only for the proper work and\nprivilege of church members; and thereupon turn it into an occasion of\nour great contentions and divisions, while they fly from sacramental\ncommunion with others, more than from communion in the other church\nworship. Oh what hath our subtle enemy done against the love, peace,\nand unity of christians, especially in England, under pretence of\nsacramental purity!\n\n_Direct._ XVII. Perform all your worship to God, as in heart-communion\nwith all Christ's churches upon earth; even those that are faulty,\nthough not with their faults. Though you can be present but with one,\nyet consent as present in spirit with all, and separate not in heart\nfrom any one, any further than they separate from Christ.\n\n_Direct._ XVIII. Accordingly let the interest of the church of Christ\nbe very much upon your heart, and pray as hard for it as for yourself.\n\n_Direct._ XIX. Yea, remember in all, what relation you have to the\nheavenly society and choir, and think how they worship God in heaven,\nthat you may strive to imitate them in your degree. Of which more\nanon.\n\n_Direct._ XX. Let your whole course of life after, savour of a church\nframe; live as the servants of that God whom you worship, and as ever\nbefore him. Live in the love of those christians with whom you have\ncommunion, and do not quarrel with them at home; nor despise, nor\npersecute them with whom you join in the worshipping of God. And do\nnot needlessly open the weaknesses of the minister to prejudice others\nagainst him and the worship. And be not religious at the church alone,\nfor then you are not truly religious at all.\n\n[174] See my \"Treatise of the Lord's Day,\" and my \"Cure of Church\nDivisions.\"\n\n[175] Eccl. v. 1-4; 1 Pet. ii. 1, 2; Prov. i. 20, to the end.\n\n[176] Psal. i. 2, 3; xii. 6, 7; xix. 7-9.\n\n[177] Acts x. 33; 1 Sam. iii. 9, 10; Prov. viii. 34; Ezek. xxxiii. 4;\nPsal. lxvi. 18; v. 5.\n\n[178] Dan. iv. 27; Prov. x. 29; xxviii. 9; Psal. l. 16-18; cxxv. 5; 1\nSam. xv. 22; 2 Tim. ii. 19; Matt. vii. 23; Luke xiii. 27; John x. 3,\n4, 27; Eccles. v. 1-4.\n\n[179] Isa. lviii. 1-3.\n\n[180] Isa. i. 10-20.\n\n[181] Gen. iv. 7; Prov. xiv. 34; Numb. xxxii. 23.\n\n[182] James i. 22; Rom. ii. 13.\n\n[183] Ezek. vii. 19; Jer. vii. 23; xi. 4, 7; xxvi. 13; Matt. xxiii.\n14; Mark xii. 40; Exod. vi. 30; Deut. vii. 12; xi. 13; xiii. 18; xv.\n5; xxvi. 17; xxviii. 1; Psal. lxxi. 8-12.\n\n[184] See Mr. Rawlet's Book of Sacramental Covenanting.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nDIRECTIONS ABOUT OUR COMMUNION WITH HOLY SOULS DEPARTED, AND NOW WITH\nCHRIST.\n\n\nThe oversight and neglect of our duty concerning the souls of the\nblessed, now with Christ, doth much harden the papists in their\nerroneous excesses here about.[185] And if we will ever reduce them,\nor rightly confute them, it must be by a judicious asserting of the\ntruth, and observing so much with them as is our duty, and commending\nthat in them which is to be commended, and not by running away from\ntruth and duty that we may get far enough from them and error: for\nerror is an ill way of confuting error. The practical truth lieth in\nthese following precepts.\n\n_Direct._ I. Remember that the departed souls in heaven are part, and\nthe noblest part, of the body of Christ and family of God, of which\nyou are inferior members; and therefore that you owe them greater\nlove and honour, than you owe to any saints on earth. \"The whole\nfamily in heaven and earth is named of Christ,\" Ephes. iii. 15. Those\nare the happiest and noblest parts, that are most pure and perfect,\nand dwell in the highest and most glorious habitations, nearest unto\nChrist, yea, with him. If holiness be lovely, the most holy are the\nmost lovely; we have many obligations therefore, to love them more\nthan the saints on earth: they are more excellent and amiable, and\nChrist loveth them more. And if any be honourable, it must especially\nbe those spirits that are of greatest excellencies and perfections,\nand advanced to the greatest glory and nearness to their Lord. Make\nconscience therefore of this as your duty, not only to love and honour\nblessed souls, but to love and honour them more than those that are\nyet on earth. And as every duty is attended with benefit, so we shall\nfind this exceeding benefit in the performance of this duty, that it\nwill incline our hearts to be the more heavenly, and draw up our\ndesires to the society which we so much love and honour.\n\n_Direct._ II. Remember that it is a part of the life of faith, to see\nby it the heavenly society of the blessed, and a part of your heavenly\nconversation, to have frequent, serious, and delightful thoughts of\nthose crowned souls that are with Christ.[186] Otherwise God would\nnever have given us such descriptions of the heavenly Jerusalem, and\ntold us so much of the hosts of God that must inhabit it for ever;\nthat must come from the \"east and from the west, and sit down with\nAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of God.\" When it is said that\nour conversation (\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1) is in heaven, Phil. iii. 20, the\nmeaning extendeth both to our relation, privileges, and converse: we\nare denizens or citizens of the heavenly society; and our title to\ntheir happiness is our highest privilege and honour; and therefore our\ndaily business is there, and our sweetest and most serious converse is\nwith Christ and all those blessed spirits. Whatever we are doing here,\nour eye and heart should still be there: for we look not at the\ntemporal things which are seen, but at the eternal things which are\nnot seen, 2 Cor. iv. 18. A wise christian that hath forsaken the\nkingdom of darkness, will be desirous to know what the kingdom of Christ\nis into which he is translated, and who are his fellow-subjects, and\nwhat are their several ranks and dignities, so far as tendeth to his\ncongruous converse with them all. And how should it affect us to find\nthat \"we are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living\nGod, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,\nto the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written\nin heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men\nmade perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant!\" Heb.\nxii. 22-24. Live then as the members of this society, and exclude not\nthe chief members from your thoughts and converse: though our local,\nvisible communion be only with these rural, inferior inhabitants, and\nnot with the courtiers of the King of heaven, yet our mental communion\nmay be much with them. If our home and treasure be there with them,\nour hearts will be there also, Matt. vi. 21.\n\n_Direct._ III. It is the will of God that the memory of the saints be\nhonoured on earth when they are dead. It is some part of his favour\nwhich he hath promised to them. Prov. x. 7, \"The memory of the just is\nblessed; but the name of the wicked shall rot.\" Matt. xxvi. 13,\n\"Verily I say unto you, wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in\nthe whole world, there shall also this that this woman hath done, be\ntold for a memorial of her.\" The history of the Scripture recordeth\nthe lives of the saints to their perpetual honour. And God will have\nit so also for the sake of his abused servants upon earth, that they\nmay see that the slanders of malicious tongues shall not be able to\nobscure the glory of his grace, and that the lies of the ungodly\nprevail but for a moment. And God will have it so for the sake of the\nungodly, that they may be ashamed of their malicious enmity and lies\nagainst the godly, while they perceive that the departed saints do\nleave behind them a surviving testimony of their sanctity and\ninnocency, sufficient to confound the venomous calumnies of the\nserpent's seed. Yea, God will have the names of his eminent servants\nto be honoured upon earth, for the honour of their Head, and of his\ngrace and gospel; so that while malice would cast dishonour upon\nChrist; from the meanness and failings of his servants that are alive,\nthe memory of the dead (who were once as much despised and slandered)\nshall rise up against them to his honour and their shame. And it is\nvery observable how God constraineth the bitter enemies of holiness to\nbear this testimony for the honour of holiness against themselves!\nthat many who are the cruelest persecutors and murderers of the living\nsaints, do honour the dead even to excess.[187] How zealous are the\npapists for the multitude of their holidays, and the honouring of\ntheir names and relics, and pretending many miracles to be wrought by\na very touch of their shrines or bones, whilst they revile and murder\nthose that imitate them, and deprive temporal lords of their dominions\nthat will not exterminate them. Yea, while they burn the living\nsaints, they make it part of their crime or heresy, that they honour\nnot the days and relics of the dead, so much as they; to show us that\nthe things that have been shall be, and that wickedness is the same in\nall generations. Matt. xxiii. 29-33, \"Woe unto you, scribes and\nPharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and\ngarnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, If we had been in\nthe days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in\nthe blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves\nthat ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up\nthen the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of\nvipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?\" I know that neither\ndid the Pharisees, nor do the papists, believe that those whom they\nmurdered were saints, but deceivers and heretics, and the troublers of\nthe world; but if charity be the grace most necessary to salvation,\nthen sure it will not keep any man from damnation, that he had malice\nand uncharitableness sufficient to persuade him, that the members of\nChrist were children of the devil. But thus God will force even the\npersecutors and haters of his saints to honour them. And if he\nconstrain his enemies to it, his servants should not be backward to do\nit according to his will.\n\n_Direct._ IV. Only such honour must be given to departed saints, as\nsubserveth the honour of God; and nothing must be ascribed to them\nthat is his prerogative. All that of God which was communicated to\nthem and appeared in them, must be acknowledged; but so that God must\nstill be acknowledged the spring of all; and no honour given\nultimately to them; but it is God in them that we must behold and\nlove, admire and honour.\n\n_Direct._ V. The honour of the saints departed must be only such as\ntendeth to the promoting of holiness among the living. It is a most\nhorrid aggravation of those men's sins, who make their honouring of\nthe saints departed a cover for their hating and persecuting their\nfollowers; or that make it an engine for the carrying on some base\ndesign. Some make it a device for the advancing of their parties and\npeculiar opinions. The papists make it a very great means for the\nmaintaining the usurped power of the pope, giving him the power of\ncanonizing saints, and assuring the world what souls are in heaven. A\npope that by the testimony of a general council (as Joh. 23. Eugenius,\n&c.) is a heretic, and a wicked wretch, and never like to come to\nheaven himself, can assure the world of a very large catalogue of\npersons that are there. And he that by the papists is confessed\nfallible in matters of fact, pretendeth to know so certainly who were\nsaints, as to appoint them holidays, and command the church to pray to\nthem. And he that teacheth men that they cannot be certain themselves\nof their salvation, pretendeth when they are dead that he is certain\nthat they are saved. To pretend the veneration of saints for such\ncarnal, ambitious designs, and cheats, and cruelties, is a sin unfit\nfor any that mentioneth a saint. So is it when men pretend that saints\nare some rare, extraordinary persons among the living members of the\nchurch;[188] to make men believe that honouring them will serve\ninstead of imitating them; and that all are not saints that go to\nheaven. God forbid, say they, that none but holy persons should be\nsaved; we confess it is good to be saints, and they are the chief in\nheaven; but we hope those that are no saints may be saved for all\nthat. But God saith, \"that without holiness none shall see him,\" Heb.\nxii. 14. Heaven is the inheritance of none but saints, Acts xxvi. 18;\nCol. i. 12. He that extolleth saints to make men believe that those\nthat are no saints may be saved, doth serve the devil by honouring the\nsaints. The same I may say of those that give them divine honour,\nascribing to each a power to hear and help all throughout the world\nthat put up prayers to them.\n\n_Direct._ VI. Look up to the blessedness of departed souls, as members\nof the same body, rejoicing with them, and praising God that hath so\nexalted them. This is the benefit of holy love and christian unity,\nthat it maketh our brethren's happiness to be unto us, in a manner, as\nif it were our own. 1 Cor. xii. 25, 26, \"That there should be no\nschism in the body, but that the members should have the same care one\nfor another--that if one member be honoured all the members rejoice\nwith it.\" So far as selfishness is overcome, and turned into the\nuniting love of saints, so far are all the joys of the blessed souls\nin heaven become the joys of all that truly love them upon earth. How\nhappy then is the state of all true believers, that have so many to\nrejoice with! Deny not God that thanks for the saving of so many\nsouls, which you would not deny him, if he saved but your friends,\nestates, or lives. Especially when afflictions or temptations would\ndeprive you of the joy which you should have in God's mercies to\nyourselves, then comfort yourselves with the remembrance of your\nbrethren's joy. What an incongruous, indecent thing is it for that man\nto pine away in sorrows upon earth, who hath so many thousand friends\nin heaven, in joy and blessedness, whose joys should all be to him as\nhis own.\n\n_Direct._ VII. When you feel a cooling of your love to God, or of your\nzeal, or reverence, or other graces, think then of the temper of those\nholy souls, that see his glory! O think, with what fervour do they\nlove their God! with what transporting sweetness do they delight in\nhim! with what reverence do they all behold him! And am not I his\nservant, and a member of his family, as well as they? Shall I be like\nthe strangers of this frozen world, when I should be like my\nfellow-citizens above? As it will dispose a man to weep to see the\ntears and grief of others; and as it will dispose a man to mirth and\njoy to see the mirth and joy of others; so is it a potent help to\nraise the soul to the love of God, and delight in his service, to\nthink believingly of the love and delight of such a world of blessed\nspirits.\n\n_Direct._ VIII. When you draw near to God in his holy worship,\nremember that you are part of the same society with those blessed\nspirits that are praising him in perfection. Remember that you are\nmembers of the same choir, and your part must go to make up the\nmelody; and therefore you should be as little discordant from them as\npossibly you can. The quality of those that we join with in God's\nservice, is apt either to dull or quicken us, to depress or elevate\nus; and we move heavenward most easily and swiftly in that company\nwhich is going thither on the swiftest pace. A believing thought that\nwe are worshipping God in concert with the heavenly choir, and of the\nhigh and holy raptures of those spirits, in the continual praise of\ntheir great Creator, is an excellent means to warm and quicken us, and\nraise us as near their holy frame, as here on earth may be expected.\n\n_Direct._ IX. When you would possess your hearts with a lively sense\nof the odiousness of sin, and would resist all temptations which would\ndraw you to it, think then how the blessed souls with God do judge of\nsin, and how they would entertain such a temptation, if the motion\nwere made to them! What think they of covetousness, pride, or lust?\nWhat think they of malice, cruelty, or lying? How would they entertain\nit, if lands and lordships, pleasure or preferment, were offered them\nto entice their hearts from God? Would they venture upon damnation for\na whore, or for their games, or to please their appetites? Do they set\nas light by God and their salvation as the ungodly world doth? O with\nwhat scorn and holy indignation would they refuse a world, if it were\noffered them instead of God! with what detestation would they reject\nthe motion to any sin!\n\n_Direct._ X. When you would revive in your minds a right apprehension\nand estimation of all earthly things, as riches, and honours, and\ngreatness, and command, and full provisions for the flesh, bethink you\nthen how the blessed souls with Christ esteem them. How little do they\nset by all those things that worldlings make so great a stir for, and\nfor which they sell their God and their salvation! How contemptible\nare crowns and kingdoms in their eyes! Their judgment is more like to\nGod's than ours is. Luke xvi. 15, \"That which is highly esteemed among\nmen is abomination in the sight of God.\" All the world would not hire\na saint in heaven to tell one lie, or take the name of God in vain, or\nto forget God, or be estranged from him for one hour.\n\n_Direct._ XI. When you see the godly under the contempt of sinners\nhere, accounted as the filth of the world, and the offscouring of all\nthings,[189] defamed, reviled, hated, and persecuted, look up then to\nthe saints with Christ, and think how they are esteemed and used. And\nwhen you would truly know what a believer is, think not how they are\nesteemed and used by men, but how they are esteemed and used by\nChrist. Judge not of them by their short afflictions, nor by their\nmeanness in the flesh, but by their endless happiness and their glory\nabove. Look up to the home and world of saints, if you would know what\nsaints are, and not to the few, scattered, imperfect passengers in\nthis world, that are not worthy of them, Heb. xi. 38.\n\n_Direct._ XII. When you are tempted to think meanly of the kingdom of\nChrist, as if his flock were so small, and poor, and sinful as to be\ninconsiderable, look up to the world of blessed souls which dwell\nabove. And there you shall see no such paucity, or imperfections, or\nblemishes, as here below. The subjects there are such as dishonour not\ntheir King. Christ's kingdom is not of this world, John xviii. 36. If\nyou would know it in its glory, look up to the world where it is\nglorious. If when you hear men contemn the kingdom of the saints of\nChrist, and at the same time did but see (as Stephen did) a glimpse\ninto that kingdom, and all the glory of the blessed there, what\nthoughts would you have of the words which did dishonour it?\n\n_Direct._ XIII. When you hear sinners boast of the wisdom or numbers\nof their party, and appealing to the learned or great ones of the\nworld, look up to the blessed souls with Christ, and ask whether they\nare not more wise and numerous than all the sinners upon earth. The\ngreatest doctors are ignorant and unlearned in comparison of the\nmeanest soul with Christ: the greatest monarchs are but worms in\ncomparison of the glorified spirits with God. If they say to you, Are\nyou wiser than so many and so wise and learned men? ask them, Are you,\nor all the ungodly, wiser than all the blessed souls with Christ? Let\nthe wiser party carry it.\n\n_Direct._ XIV. When you are tempted to be weary of a holy life, or to\nthink all your labour is vain, look up to the blessed souls with\nChrist, and there you will see the end of holiness. There you will see\nthat of all the labour of your lives, there is none that you are so\nsure to gain by; and that in \"due time you shall reap, if you faint\nnot: and if you sow to the Spirit, of the Spirit you shall reap\neverlasting life,\" Gal. vi. 8, 9; and that when you have \"done the\nwill of God,\" if you \"have but patience, you shall inherit the\npromise,\" Heb. x. 36. Ask yourselves, whether any of those blessed\nsouls repent now of the holiness of their lives on earth? or their\nmortifying the flesh, and denying themselves the delights of sin?\n\n_Direct._ XV. When you are tempted to turn back in the day of trial,\nand to forsake Christ or his cause when persecution ariseth, then look\nto the blessed souls above, and see what is the end of suffering for\nthe sake of Christ and righteousness. To foresee the great reward in\nheaven, will convince you that instead of being terrified by\nsufferings, you should \"rejoice and be exceeding glad,\" Matt. v. 11,\n12. Are you to lie in prison, or to burn in the flames? so did many\nthousands that are now in heaven. And do you think that they repent it\nnow? Ignatius, Polycarp, Cyprian, and many such holy men, were once\nused as hardly as you are now, and put to death by cruel men. Rogers,\nBradford, Hooper, Glover, and multitudes with them, were once in\nprison and burnt in the flames; but where are they now, and what is\nthe end of all their pains? Now whether do you think the case of\nBonner or Bradford to be best? Now had you rather be Gardiner or\nPhilpot? Now which think you doth most repent, the poor Waldenses that\nwere murdered by thousands, or the popes and persecutors that murdered\nthem?\n\n_Direct._ XVI. When you are dismayed under the burden of your sins,\nthe greatness of your corruptions, the weakness of your graces, the\nimperfection of your duties, look up to the blessed souls with Christ,\nand remember that all those glorified spirits were once in flesh as\nyou now are, and once they lay at the feet of God, in tears, and\ngroans, and cries, as you do: they were once fain to cry out of the\nburden of their sins, and mourn under the weakness of their graces, as\nyou now do. They were once as much clogged with flesh as you are; and\nonce as low in doubts and fears, and bruised under the sense of God's\ndispleasure. They once were as violently assaulted with temptations,\nand had the same corruptions to lament and strive against as you have.\nThey were once as much afflicted by God and man; but is there any of\nthe smart of this remaining?\n\n_Direct._ XVII. When you are deterred from the presence of the\ndreadful God, and think he will not accept such worms as you, look up\nto the blessed souls with Christ; and remember how many millions of\nyour brethren are there accepted to greater familiarity than that\nwhich you here desire. Remember that those souls were once as dark and\ndistant from God, and unworthy of his acceptance, as you now are. A\nfearful child receiveth boldness, to see his brethren in his father's\narms.\n\n_Direct._ XVIII. When you are afraid of Satan lest he should prevail\nagainst you and devour you, look up to the blessed souls with Christ;\nand see how many millions are there safely landed, that once were in\nas dangerous a station as you are. Through many tribulations and\ntemptations they are arrived at the heavenly rest: Satan once did his\nworst against them: they were tossed on the seas of this tempestuous\nworld; but they were kept by the power of God, through faith unto\nsalvation, and so may you.\n\n_Direct._ XIX. When you would duly value all your present means and\nmercies, and see whither they tend, look up then to the souls with\nChrist, and see whither the like mercy hath conducted them. The\npoorest cottage and the hardest fare are great mercies, as they tend\nto endless blessedness. This now and heaven after, is great, though\nthe thing in itself be never so small. Heaven puts the value and\nsignification upon all your mercies. The wicked make ciphers of their\ngreatest blessings, by separating them in their esteem and use, from\nGod and heaven, which is the measure of their estimate.\n\n_Direct._ XX. When you see divisions among believers, and hear one for\nthis party, and another for that, and hear them bitterly censuring\neach other, look up then to the saints with Christ, and think what\nperfect love, and peace, and concord is among them. Consider how\nunlike our factions and schisms are to their fervent love and unity;\nand how unlike our jarring strifes and quarrels are to their\nharmonious praise of God. Remember in what work it is that they are so\nhappily united, even love and praise incessant to Jehovah: and then\nthink, whether it would not unite the saints on earth, to lay by their\ncontendings for the pre-eminence in knowledge, (covered with the\ngilded name of zeal for the truth of God,) and to employ themselves in\nlove and praise, and to show their emulation here, in striving who\nshall love God and each other with the more pure heart and fervent\nlove, 1 Pet. i. 22, and who shall praise him with the most heavenly\nalacrity and delight. Consider whether this work of blessed souls be\nnot like to be more desirable and excellent, than the work of\nself-conceited, wrangling sophisters. And whether there be any danger\nof falling into sects and factions, or falling out by emulations or\ncontentions, while we make this work of love and praise the matter of\nour religious converse. And consider whether almost all the schisms\nthat ever vexed the church of God, did not arise, either by the\npastors striving \"who should be the greatest,\" Luke xxii. 24, 26, or\nby the rising up of some sciolist or gnostic, proudly pretending to\nknow more than others, and to vindicate or bring to light some\nexcellent truth which others know not, or oppose. And when you see the\nhot contendings of each party, about their pretended orthodoxness or\nwisdom, (which James iii. is purposely written against,) remember how\nthe concord of those blessed souls doth shame this work, and should\nmake it odious to the heirs of heaven.\n\n_Direct._ XXI. When you are afraid of death, or would find more\nwillingness to die, look up to the blessed souls with Christ, and\nthink that you are but to pass that way, which all those souls have\ngone before you; and to go from a world of enmity and vanity, to the\ncompany of all those blessed spirits. And is not their blessed state\nmore desirable than such a vain, vexatious life as this? There is no\nmalice, nor slandering, nor cruel persecuting; no uncharitable\ncensures, contentions, or divisions; no ignorance, nor unbelief, nor\nstrangeness unto God; nothing but holy, amiable, and delightful. Join\nyourselves daily to that celestial society: suppose yourselves\nspectators of their order, purity, and glory, and auditors of their\nharmonious praises of Jehovah. Live by faith in a daily familiarity\nwith them: say not that you want company or are alone, when you may\nwalk in the streets of the heavenly Jerusalem, and there converse with\nthe prophets and apostles, and all the glorious hosts of heaven.\nConverse thus with them in your life, and it will overcome the fear of\ndeath, and make you long to be there with them: like one that stands\nby the river side, and seeth his friends on the further side, in a\nplace of pleasure, while his enemies are pursuing him at his back, how\ngladly would he be over with them! And it will imbolden him to venture\non the passage, which all they have safely passed before him. Thus\ndeath will be to us as the Red sea, to pass us safe to the land of\npromise, while our pursuers are there overthrown and perish. We should\nnot be so strange to the world above, if we thus by faith conversed\nwith the blessed ones.\n\n_Direct._ XXII. When you are over-much troubled for the death of your\ngodly friends, look up to that world of blessed souls, to which they\nare translated, and think whether it be not better for them to be\nthere than here; and whether you are not bound by the law of love, to\nrejoice with them that are thus exalted. Had we but a sight of the\nworld that they are in, and the company that they are gone to, we\nshould be less displeased with the will of God, in disposing of his\nown into so glorious a state.\n\nAll these improvements may be made by a believer, of his daily\nconverse with the souls above. This is the communion with them which\nwe must hold on earth: not by praying to them, which God hath never\nencouraged us to do; nor by praying for them (for though it be lawful\nto pray for the resurrection of their bodies, and the perfecting of\ntheir blessedness thereby, yet it being a thing of absolute certainty\nas the day of judgment is, we must be very cautelous in the manner of\nour doing this lawful act; it being a thing that their happiness doth\nnot at all depend on, and a thing which will-worshippers have showed\nthemselves so forward to abuse, by stepping further into that which is\nunlawful; as the horrid abuses of the names, and days, and shrines,\nand relics, of real or supposed saints, in the papal kingdom, sadly\ntestifieth). But the necessary part of our communion with the saints\nin heaven, being of so great importance to the church on earth, I\ncommend it to the due consideration of the faithful, whether our\nforgetfulness of it is not to be much repented of, and whether it be\nnot a work to be more seriously minded for the time to come.\n\nAnd I must confess I know not why it should be thought unlawful to\ncelebrate the memorial of the life or martyrdom of any extraordinary\nservant of God, by an anniversary solemnity, on a set appropriate day:\nit is but to keep the thankful remembrance of God's mercy to the\nchurch; and sure the life and death of such is not the smallest of the\nchurch's mercies here on earth. If it be lawful on November the fifth\nto celebrate the memorial of our deliverance from the powder-plot, I\nknow not why it should be thought unlawful to do the like in this case\nalso: provided, 1. That it be not terminated in the honour of a saint,\nbut of the God of saints, for giving so great a mercy to his church.\n2. That it be not to honour a saint merely as a saint, but to some\nextraordinary eminent saints: otherwise all that go to heaven must\nhave festivals kept in remembrance of them; and so we might have a\nmillion for a day. 3. That it be not made equal with the Lord's day,\nbut kept in such a subordination to that day, as the life or death of\nsaints is of inferior and subordinate respect to the work of Christ in\nman's redemption. 4. And if it be kept in a spiritual manner, to\ninvite men to imitate the holiness of the saints, and the constancy of\nthe martyrs, and not to encourage sensuality and sloth.\n\n[185] I have said more of this since, in my \"Life of Faith.\"\n\n[186] Heb. xi. 1.\n\n[187] Concil. Later. sub Innoc. III. Can. 3.\n\n[188] Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 2; xiv. 33; Eph. i. 8; ii. 19; iv. 12; v.\n3; Rom. xv. 25, 26.\n\n[189] 1 Cor. iv. 12, 13: Lam. iii. 45.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nDIRECTIONS ABOUT OUR COMMUNION WITH THE HOLY ANGELS.\n\n\n_Direct._ I. Be satisfied in knowing so much of angels as God in\nnature and Scripture hath revealed; but presume not to inquire\nfurther, much less to determine of unrevealed things. That there are\nangels, and that they are holy spirits, is past dispute; but what\nnumber they are, and of how many worlds, and of what orders and\ndifferent dignities and degrees, and when they were created, and what\nlocality belongeth to them, and how far they excel or differ from the\nsouls of men, these and many other such unnecessary questions, neither\nnature nor Scripture will teach us how infallibly to resolve. Almost\nall the heretics in the first ages of the church, did make their\ndoctrines of angels the first and chief part of their heresies;\narrogantly intruding into unrevealed things, and boasting of their\nacquaintance with the orders and inhabitants of the higher world.\nThese being risen in the apostles' days, occasioned Paul to say, Col.\nii. 18, \"Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary\nhumility, and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which\nhe hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind.\"\n\n_Direct._ II. Understand so much of the ministry of angels as God hath\nrevealed, and so far take notice of your communion with them; but\naffect not any other sort of communion.[190]\n\nI shall here show how much of the ministry of angels is revealed to us\nin Scripture.\n\n1. It is part of the appointed work of angels, to be ministering\nspirits for the heirs of salvation, Heb. i. 14.[191] Not ministers or\nservants of the godly, but ministers of God for the godly: as the\nshepherd is not a servant of the sheep, but for the sheep. It is not\nan accidental or occasional work which they do extraordinarily; but it\nis their undertaken office to which they are sent forth. And this\ntheir ministry is about the ordinary concernments of our lives, and\nnot only about some great or unusual cases or exigents, Psal. xxxiv.\n6, 7; xci. 11, 12.\n\n2. It is not some, but all the angels that are appointed by God to\nthis ministration. \"Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth,\"\n&c. Heb. i. 1, 4. Mark here, that if you inquire whether God have any\nhigher spirits, that are not employed in so low an office, but govern\nthese angels, or if you inquire whether only this world be the angels'\ncharge, or whether they have many other worlds also (of viators) to\ntake care of; neither nature nor Scripture doth give you the\ndetermination of any of these questions; and therefore you must leave\nthem as unrevealed things (with abundance more with which the old\nheretics, and the popish schoolmen, have diverted men's minds from\nplain and necessary things). But that all the angels minister for us,\nare the express words of Scripture.\n\n3. The work of this office is not left promiscuously among them, but\nseveral angels have their several works and charge; therefore\nScripture telleth us of some sent on one message, and some on\nanother;[192] and tells us that the meanest of Christ's members on\nearth have their angels before God in heaven: \"I say unto you, that in\nheaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in\nheaven,\" Matt. xviii. 10. Whether each true believer hath one or more\nangels? and whether one angel look to more than one believer? are\nquestions which God hath not resolved us of, either in nature or\nScripture; but that each true christian hath his angel, is here\nasserted by our Lord.\n\n4. In this office of ministration they are servants of Christ as the\nHead of the church, and the Mediator between God and man, to promote\nthe ends of his superior office in man's redemption.[193] Matt.\nxxviii. 18, \"All power is given to me in heaven and earth;\" John xiii.\n3. Eph. i. 20-22, \"And set him at his right hand in the celestials,\nfar above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and\nevery name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that\nwhich is to come, and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him\nto be head over all things to the church.\" Rev. xxiii. 16, \"I Jesus\nhave sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the\nchurches.\"[194] Whether the angels were appointed about the service of\nAdam in innocency; or only began their office with Christ the Mediator\nas his ministers, is a thing that God hath not revealed; but that they\nserve under Christ for his church is plain.\n\n5. This care of the angels for us is exercised throughout our lives,\nfor the saving of us from all our dangers, and delivering us out of\nall our troubles.[195] Psal. xxxiv. 6, 7, \"This poor man cried, and\nthe Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles: the angel\nof the Lord encampeth about them that fear him, and delivereth them.\"\nPsal. xci. 11, 12, \"For he shall give his angels charge over thee to\nkeep thee in all thy ways: they shall bear thee up in their hand, lest\nthou dash thy foot against a stone.\" In all our ways, (that are\ngood,) and in every step we tread, we have the care and ministry of\ntutelar angels. They are our ordinary defence and guard.\n\n6. In all this ministry they perfectly obey the will of God,[196] and\ndo nothing but by his command, Psal. ciii. 10; Zech. i. 8, 10; Matt.\nxviii. 10, being his messengers to man.\n\n7. Much of their work is to oppose the malice of evil spirits that\nseek our heart, and to defend us from them;[197] against whom they are\nengaged under Christ in daily war or conflict, Rev. xii. 7, 9; Psal.\nlxi. 17; lxxviii. 49; Matt. iv. 11.\n\n8. In this their ministration they are ordered into different degrees\nof superiority and inferiority,[198] and are not equal among\nthemselves, 1 Thess. iv. 16; Jude 9; Dan. x. 13, 20, 21; Eph. i. 21;\nCol. ii. 10; Eph. iii. 10; vi. 12; Col. i. 16; Zech. iv. 10; Rev. iv.\n5; v. 6.\n\n9. Angels are employed not only about our bodies, but our souls, by\nfurthering the means of our salvation: they preached the gospel\nthemselves, (as they delivered the law,[199]) Luke ii. 9, 10; i. 11,\n&c.; Heb. ii. 2; Gal. iii. 19; Acts x. 4; Dan. vii. 16; viii. 15-17;\nix. 21, 22; Luke i. 29; ii. 19. Especially they deliver particular\nmessages, which suppose the sufficiency of the laws of Christ, and\nonly help to the obedience of it.\n\n10. They are sometimes God's instruments to confirm, and warn, and\ncomfort, and excite the soul, and to work upon the mind, and will, and\naffections:[200] that they do this persuasively, and have as much\naccess and power to do us good, as Satan hath to do us evil, is very\nclear. Good angels have as much power and access to the soul, to move\nto duty, as devils have to tempt to sin. As God hath sent them oft\nupon monitory and consolatory messages to his servants in visible\nshapes, so doth he send them on the like messages invisibly, Judg. v.\n23; Matt. i. 20; Psal. civ. 4; Luke xxii. 43, an angel from heaven is\nsent to strengthen Christ himself in his agony.\n\n11. They persecute and chase the enemies of the church, and sometimes\ndestroy them: as Psal. xxxv. 5, 6; 2 Kings xix. 35; Isa. xxxvii. 36;\nand hinder them from doing hurt, Numb. xxii. 24.\n\n12. They are a convoy for the departing souls of the godly, to bring\nthem to the place of their felicity, Luke xvi. 22, though how they do\nit we cannot understand.\n\n13. They are the attendants of Christ at his coming to judgment, and\nhis ministers to gather his elect, and sever the wicked from the just,\nin order to their endless punishment or joy. 1 Thess. iv. 16, \"The\nLord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of\nthe archangel, and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall\nrise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up,\"\n&c. Matt. xiii. 41, 42, 49, \"The Son of man shall send forth his\nangels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all offences or\nscandals, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a\nfurnace of fire. At the end of the world, the angels shall come forth,\nand sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the\nfurnace of fire,\" &c.[201]\n\n_Direct._ III. Understand our near affinity or relation to the angels,\nand how they and we are concerned in each others' condition and\naffairs. As to our nature our immortal souls are kin or like unto the\nangels, though our bodies are but like the brutes. Those souls that\nare created after the image of God, in their very natural essence, (as\nrational and free agents,) besides his moral image of sanctity, Gen.\nix. 6, may well be said to be like the angels: \"He made us a little\nlower than the angels,\" Psal. viii. 5. And God hath made us their\ncharge and care; and therefore no doubt hath given them a special love\nunto us, to fit them to the due performance of their trust. As\nministers have a special paternal love to their flocks, and as\nchristians are to have a special love to one another to enable and\nengage them to the duties appointed them by God towards each other; so\nthese excellent spirits have no doubt a far purer and greater love, to\nthe image of God upon the saints, and to the saints for the image and\nsake of God, than the dearest friends and holiest persons on earth can\nhave. For they are more holy, and they are more perfectly conformed to\nthe mind of God, and they love God himself more perfectly than we, and\ntherefore for his sake do love his people much more perfectly than we.\nAnd therefore they are more to be loved by us than any mortals are;\nboth because they are more excellent, pure, and amiable, and because\nthey have more love to us. Moreover the angels are servants of the\nsame God, and members of the same society which we belong to. They are\nthe inhabitants of the heavenly Jerusalem, of which we are heirs: they\nhave possession, and we have title, and shall in time possess it. We\nare called to much of the same employment with them; we must love the\nsame God, and glorify him by obedience, thanks, and praise, and so do\nthey. Therefore they are ministers for our good, and rejoice in the\nsuccess of their labours, as the ministers of Christ on earth do, Heb.\ni. 14. There is not a sinner converted, but it is the angels' joy,\nLuke xv. 10, which showeth us how much they attend that work. \"We are\ncome to mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly\nJerusalem, and to myriads of angels,\" &c. Heb. xii. 22-24. They are\nespecially present and attendant on us in our holy assemblies and\nservices of God; and therefore we are admonished to reverence their\npresence, and do nothing before them that is sinful or unseemly, 1\nCor. xi. 10; Eccles. v. 6. The presence of God, and the Lord Jesus\nChrist, and the elect angels, must continually awe us into exact\nobedience, 1 Tim. v. 21. With the church they pry into the mystery of\nthe dispensations of the Spirit to the church, 1 Pet. i. 12. And so\n\"by the church,\" that is, by God's dealings with the church, is \"made\nknown the manifold wisdom of God,\" even to these \"heavenly\nprincipalities and powers,\" Eph. iii. 10. In conclusion, Christ\ntelleth us that in our state of blessedness we shall \"be equal to the\nangels,\" Luke xx. 36, and so shall live with them for ever.\n\n_Direct._ IV. When your thoughts of heaven are staggering or strange,\nand when you are tempted to doubt whether indeed there is such a life\nof glory for the saints, it may be a great help to your faith, to\nthink of the world of angels that already do possess it. That there\nare such excellent and happy inhabitants of the superior orbs, besides\nwhat Scripture saith, even reason will strongly persuade any rational\nman: 1. When we consider that sea, and land, and air, and all places\nof this lower, baser part of the world, are replenished with\ninhabitants suitable to their natures; and therefore that the\nincomparably more great and excellent orbs and regions should all be\nuninhabited, is irrational to imagine. 2. And as we see the rational\ncreatures are made to govern the brutes in this inferior world, so\nreason telleth us it is improbable that the higher reason of the\ninhabitants of the higher regions should have no hand in the\ngovernment of man. And yet God hath further condescended to satisfy us\nherein, by some unquestionable apparitions of good angels, and many\nmore of evil spirits, which puts the matter past all doubt, that there\nare inhabitants of the unseen world. And when we know that such there\nare, it maketh it the more easy to us to believe that such we may be,\neither numbered with the happy or unhappy spirits, considering the\naffinity which there is between the nature of our souls and them: to\nconquer senseless Sadducism is a good step to the conquest of\nirreligiousness; he that is well persuaded that there are angels and\nspirits, is much better prepared than a Sadducee to believe the\nimmortality of the soul: and because the infinite distance between God\nand man, is apt to make the thoughts of our approaching his glory\neither dubious or very terrible, the remembrance of those myriads of\nblessed spirits that dwell now in the presence of that glory, doth\nmuch imbolden and confirm our thoughts; as he that would be afraid\nwhether he should have access to and acceptance with the king, would\nbe much encouraged if he saw a multitude as mean as himself, or not\nmuch unlike him, to be familiar attendants on him. I must confess such\nis my own weakness, that I find a frequent need of remembering the\nholy hosts of saints and angels, that are with God, to imbolden my\nsoul, and make the thoughts of heaven more familiar and sweet, by\nabating my strangeness, amazedness, and fears; and thus far to make\nthem the media (that I say not the mediators) of my thoughts, in their\napproaches to the most high and holy God (though the remembrance of\nChrist the true Mediator is my chief encouragement). Especially when\nwe consider how fervently those holy spirits do love every holy person\nupon earth, and so that all those that dwell with God, are dearer\nfriends to us, than our fathers or mothers here on earth are, (as is\nbriefly proved before,) this will imbolden us yet much more.\n\n_Direct._ V. Make use of the thoughts of the angelical hosts, when you\nwould see the glory and majesty of Christ. If you think it a small\nmatter that he is the Head of the church on earth, a handful of people\ncontemned by the satanical party of the world, yet think what it is to\nbe \"Head over all things, far above all principality, and power, and\nmight, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this\nworld, but also in that which is to come,\" (that is, gave him a power,\ndignity, and name, greater than any power, dignity, or name of men or\nangels,) \"and hath put all things under his feet,\" Eph. i. 21-23.\n\"Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance\nobtained a more excellent name than they;\" of him it is said, \"Let all\nthe angels of God worship him,\" Heb. i. 4, 6. Read the whole chapter.\nOur Head is the Lord of all these hosts.\n\n_Direct._ VI. Make use of the remembrance of the glorious angels, to\nacquaint you with the dignity of human nature, and the special dignity\nof the servants of God, and so to raise up your hearts in thankfulness\nto your Creator and Redeemer who hath thus advanced you.[202] 1. What\na dignity is it that these holy angels should be all ministering\nspirits sent for our good! that they should love us, and concern\nthemselves so much for us, as to rejoice in heaven at our conversion!\n\"Lord, what is man, that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man\nthat thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the\nangels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour,\" Psal. viii. 4, 5.\n2. But yet it is a higher declaration of our dignity, that we should\nin heaven be equal with them, and so be numbered into their society,\nand join with them everlastingly in the praise of our Creator. 3. And\nit is yet a greater honour to us, that our natures are assumed into\nunion of person with the Son of God, and so advanced above the angels.\n\"For he took not on him the nature of angels, but the seed of\nAbraham:\" nor hath he put the world to come in subjection to the\nangels, Heb. ii. 5, 16. This is the Lord's doing, and it is wondrous\nin our eyes.\n\n_Direct._ VII. When you would admire the works of God and his\ngovernment, look specially to the angels' part. If God would be\nglorified in his works, then especially in the most glorious parts: if\nhe take delight to work by instruments, and to communicate such\nexcellency and honour to them as may conduce to the honour of the\nprincipal cause, we must not overlook their excellency and honour,\nunless we will deny God the honour which is due to him. As he that\nwill see the excellent workmanship of a watch or any other engine,\nmust not overlook the chiefest parts, nor their operation on the rest;\nso he that will see the excellent order of the works and government of\nGod, must not overlook the angels, nor their offices in the\ngovernment, and preservation of the inferior creatures, so far as God\nhath revealed it unto us. We spoil the music if we leave out these\nstrings. It is a great part of the glory of the works of God, that all\nthe parts in heaven and earth are so admirably conjoined and jointed\nas they are; and each in their places contribute to the beauty and\nharmony of the whole.\n\n_Direct._ VIII. When you would be apprehensive of the excellency of\nlove and humility, and exact obedience to the will of God, look up to\nthe angels, and see the lustre of all these virtues as they shine in\nthem. How perfectly do they love God and all his saints! even the\nweakest and meanest of the members of Christ! With what humility do\nthey condescend to minister for the heirs of salvation! how readily\nand perfectly do they obey their Maker![203] Though our chiefest\npattern is Christ himself, who came nearer to us, and appeared in\nflesh, to give us the example of all such duties, yet under him the\nexample of angels is also to be observed, and with pleasure to be\nimitated. And ask the enemies of holiness, who urge you with the\nexamples of the great and learned, whether they are wiser than all the\nangels of God?\n\n_Direct._ IX. When you are tempted to desire any inordinate communion\nwith angels, as visibly appearing or affecting your senses, or to give\nthem any part of the office or honour of Jesus Christ, then think how\nsuitable that office is to your safety and benefit which God hath\nassigned them, and how much they themselves abhor aspiring to, or\nusurpation of, the office or honour of their Lord: and consider how\nmuch more suitable to your benefit this spiritual ministration of the\nangels is, than if they appeared to us in bodily shapes.[204] In this\nspiritual communion they act according to their spiritual nature,\nwithout deceit; and they serve us without any terrible appearances;\nand without any danger of drawing us to sensitive, gross\napprehensions of them, or enticing us to an unmeet adhesion to them,\nor honouring of them: whereas if they appeared to us in visible\nshapes, we might easily be affrighted, confounded, and left in doubt,\nwhether they were good angels indeed or not. It is our communion with\nGod himself that is our happiness; and communion with angels or\nsaints, is desirable but in order unto this: that kind of communion\nwith angels therefore is the best, which most advanceth us to\ncommunion with God; and that reception of his mercy by instruments is\nbest, which least endangereth our inordinate adhesion to the\ninstruments, and our neglect of God. We know not so well as God, what\nway is best and safest for us: as it is dangerous desiring to mend his\nword by any fancies of our own, which we suppose more fit; so it is\ndangerous to desire to amend his government, and providence, and\norder, and to think that another way than that which in nature he hath\nstated and appointed, is more to our benefit. It is dangerous wishing\nGod to go out of his way, and to deal with us, and conduct us in\nby-ways of our own; in which we are ourselves unskilled, and of which\nwe little know the issue.\n\n_Direct._ X. When you are apt to be terrified with the fear of devils,\nthink then of the guard of angels, and how much greater strength is\nfor you than against you. Though God be our only fundamental security,\nand our chiefest confidence must be in him, yet experience telleth us\nhow apt we are to look to instruments, and to be affected as second\ncauses do appear to make for us or against us; therefore when\nappearing dangers terrify us, appearing or secondary helps should be\nobserved to comfort and encourage us.\n\n_Direct._ XI. Labour to answer the great and holy love of angels with\nsuch great and holy love to them, as may help you against your\nunwillingness to die, and make you long for the company of them whom\nyou so much love. And when death seemeth terrible to you because the\nworld to come seems strange, remember that you are going to the\nsociety of those angels, that rejoiced in your conversion, and\nministered for you here on earth, and are ready to convoy your souls\nto Christ.[205] Though the thoughts of God and our blessed Mediator\nshould be the only final object to attract our love, and make us long\nto be in heaven, yet under Christ, the love and company of saints and\nangels must be thought on to further our desires and delight: for even\nin heaven God will not so be all to us, as to use no creature for our\ncomfort; otherwise the glorified humanity of Christ would be no means\nof our comfort there; and the heavenly Jerusalem would not then have\nbeen set out to us by its created excellencies, as it is Rev. xxi.\nxxii.; nor would it be any comfort to us in the kingdom of God that we\nshall be with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Luke xiii. 28; Matt. viii.\n11.\n\n_Direct._ XII. Pray for the protection and help of angels, as part of\nthe benefits procured for the saints by Christ; and be thankful for it\nas a privilege of believers, excelling all the dignities of the\nungodly. And walk with a reverence of their presence, especially in\nthe worshipping of God. It is not fit such a mercy should be\nundervalued or unthankfully received: nor that so ordinary a means of\nour preservation should be overlooked, and not be sought of God by\nprayer. But the way to keep the love of angels, is to keep up the love\nof God; and the way to please them, is to please him; for his will is\ntheirs.\n\n_Direct._ XIII. In all the worship you perform to God, remember that\nyou join with the angels of heaven, and bear your part to make up the\nconcert. Do it therefore with that holiness, and reverence, and\naffection, as remembering not only to whom you speak, but also what\ncompanions you have; and let there not be too great a discord either\nin your hearts or praises. O think with what lively, joyful minds they\npraise their glorious Creator; and how unwearied they are in their\nmost blessed work! And labour to be like them in love and praise, that\nyou may come to be equal with them in their glory, Luke xx. 36.\n\n[190] Angelorum vocabulum nomen est officii, non natur\u00e6: nam sancti\nilli c\u0153lestis patri\u00e6 spiritus, semper sunt spiritus, sed semper\nvocari angeli non possunt. Gregor.\n\n[191] Dan. iv. 13; Gen. xxxii. 1, 2; Exod. xxxii. 2; Dan. vi. 22; Acts\nxii. 7, 11; 1 Kings xix. 5, 6.\n\n[192] Luke i. 13, 18, 19, 26, 28; ii. 10, 13, 21; Acts x. 7, 22; xii.\n8, 9; Dan. iii. 28; vi. 22; Gen. xxiv. 40.\n\n[193] 1 Pet. iii. 22; Matt. xxvi. 53.\n\n[194] Rev. i. 1.\n\n[195] 2 Kings vi. 17.\n\n[196] Dan. iv. 35.\n\n[197] 1 Kings xxii. 19-22; 1 Thess. ii. 18.\n\n[198] Luke i. 19, 26.\n\n[199] Acts vii. 53.\n\n[200] Acts xxvii. 24; Luke i. 13, 30; ii. 10; Dan. x. 12; 2 Kings vi.\n16; Gen. xvi. 9, 10; Numb. xxii. 32.\n\n[201] 2 Thess. i. 7, 8; Mark viii. 38; Matt. xxv. 31.\n\n[202] Magna dignitas fidelium animarum ut unaqu\u00e6que habeat ab ortu\nnativitatis in custodiam sui angelum deputatum: imo plures. Hieron.\nLuke xx. 36.\n\n[203] Heb. i. 14; Psal. ciii. 20, 21.\n\n[204] Timet angelus adorari ab humana natura, quam videt in Deo\nsublimatam. Gregor.\n\n[205] Simus devoti, simus grati tantis custodibus: redamemus eos\nquantum possumus, quantum debemus effectuose, &c. Bernard. V\u00e6 nobis si\nquando provocati sancti angeli peccatis et negligentiis, indignos nos\njudicaverint pr\u00e6sentia et visitatione sua, &c. Cavenda est nobis eorum\noffensa, et in his maxime exercendum, quibus eos novimus oblectari:\nh\u00e6c autem placent eis qu\u00e6 in nobis invenire delectat, ut est\nsobrietas, castitas, &c. In quovis angulo reverentiam exhibe angelo,\nne audeas illo presente, quod me vidente non auderes. Bernard.\n\n\n\n\nCASES OF CONSCIENCE, ABOUT MATTERS ECCLESIASTICAL.\n\n\nREADER,\n\nI have something to say to thee of the number of these cases, somewhat\nof the order, and somewhat of the manner of handling and resolving\nthem. I. That they are so many is because there are really so many\ndifficulties which all men are not able to resolve. That they are no\nmore, is partly because I could not remember then any more that were\nnecessarily to be handled, and I was not willing to increase so great\na book with things unnecessary.\n\nII. As to the order, I have some reasons for the order of most of\nthem, which would be too tedious to open to you. But some of them are\nplaced out of order, because, 1. I could not remember them in due\nplace. 2. And great haste allowed me not time to transpose them. If\nyou say that in such a work I should take time, I answer, You are no\ncompetent judges, unless you knew me and the rest of my work, and the\nlikelihood that my time will be but short. They that had rather take\nmy writings with such defects which are the effects of haste, than\nhave none of them, may use them, and the rest are free to despise them\nand neglect them. Two or three questions about the Scripture, I would\nhave put nearer the beginning if I could have time; but seeing I\ncannot, it is easy for you to transpose them in the reading.\n\nIII. The resolution of these cases so much avoideth all the extremes,\nthat I look they should be displeasing to all that vast number of\nchristians, who involve themselves in the opinions and interests of\ntheir several sects as such, and that hold the faith of our Lord Jesus\nChrist with respect of persons. But there will be still a certain\nnumber of truly catholic, impartial readers, whose favourable\nacceptance I confidently prognosticate; and who, being out of the\ndust, and noise, and passions of contending sides and parties, and\ntheir interests, will see a self-evidencing light in those solutions,\nwhich are put off here briefly, without the pomp of formal\nargumentation, or persuading oratory. The Eternal Light revealeth\nhimself to us, by Christ who is the Light of the world, and by the\nillumination of the Spirit and word of light; that we may walk in the\nlight, as the children of light, till we come to the world of glorious\neverlasting light. And what other defect soever our knowledge have, if\nany man hath knowledge enough to kindle in him the love of God, the\nsame is known of him, and therefore is beloved by him, and shall be\nblessed with and in him for ever, 1 Cor. viii. 1-3.\n\n\nQuest. I. _How to know which is the true church, among all pretenders,\nthat a christian's conscience may be quiet in his relation and\ncommunion._\n\nI have written so much of this already in four books, (viz. one\ncalled, \"The Safe Religion,\" another called, \"A Key for Catholics,\"\nanother called, \"The Visibility of the Church,\" another called, \"A\ntrue Catholic, and the Catholic Church described,\") that I shall say\nnow but a little, and yet enough to an impartial, considerate reader.\n\nThe terms must first be opened. 1. By a church is meant a society of\nchristians as such. And it is sometimes taken narrowly, for the body\nor members as distinct from the head, as the word kingdom is taken for\nthe subjects only as distinct from the king; and sometimes more fully\nand properly for the whole political society, as constituted of its\nhead and body, or the _pars imperans et pars subdita_.\n\n2. The word church thus taken, signifieth sometimes the universal\nchurch called catholic, which consisteth of Christ and his body\npolitic, or mystical; and sometimes some part only of the universal\nchurch. And so it is taken either for a subordinate, political part,\nor for a community, or a part considered as consociate, but not\npolitical; or as many particular, political churches agreeing and\nholding concord and communion without any common head, save the\nuniversal Head.\n\n3. Such political churches are either of divine constitution and\npolicy, or only of human.\n\n2. By christians, I mean such as profess the essentials of the\nchristian religion. For we speak of the church as visible.\n\n3. By true, may be meant, either reality of essence, opposite to that\nwhich is not really a church in this univocal acception; or else sound\nand orthodox, in the integrals, as opposite to erroneous and defiled\nwith much enormity. And now I thus decide that question.\n\n_Prop._ I. The true catholic church consisteth of Christ the Head, and\nall christians as his body, or the members. As the kingdom consisteth\nof the king and his subjects.[206]\n\n_Prop._ II. As all the sincere heart-covenanters make up the church as\nregenerate, and mystical or invisible; so all that are christened,\nthat is, baptized, and profess consent to all the essentials of the\nbaptismal covenant, not having apostatized, nor being by lawful power\nexcommunicated, are christians, and make up the church as\nvisible.[207]\n\n_Prop._ III. Therefore there is but one universal church, because it\ncontaineth all christians; and so leaveth out none to be the matter of\nanother.[208]\n\n_Prop._ IV. It is not ignorance or error about the mere integrals of\nchristianity, which maketh them no christians who hold the essentials,\nthat is, the baptismal covenant.[209]\n\n_Prop._ V. That the baptismal covenant might be rightly understood and\nprofessed, the churches have still used the creed as the explication\nof the covenant, in point of faith; and taken it for the symbol of the\nchristian belief. And no further profession of faith was or is to be\nrequired, as necessary to the being of christianity.[210]\n\n_Prop._ VI. If proud usurpers or censurers take on them to\nexcommunicate, or unchristian, or unchurch others, without authority\nand cause, this maketh them not to be no christians, or no churches,\nthat are so used.[211]\n\n_Prop._ VII. Therefore to know which is the true catholic or universal\nchurch, is but to know who are baptized, professed christians.[212]\n\n_Prop._ VIII. The reformed churches, the Lutherans, the Abassines, the\nCoptics, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Jacobites, the Georgians, the\nMaronites, the Greeks, the Moscovites, and the Romanists, do all\nreceive baptism in all its visible essentials, and profess all the\nessentials of the christian religion, though not with the same\nintegrity.[213]\n\n_Prop._ IX. He that denieth any one essential part, in itself, is so a\nheretic as to be no christian, nor true member of the church, if it be\njustly proved or notorious: that is, none ought to take him for a\nvisible christian, who know the proof of his denying that essential\npart of christianity, or to whom it is notorious.[214]\n\n_Prop._ X. He that holdeth the essentials primarily, and with them\nholdeth some error which by unseen consequence subverteth some\nessential point, but holdeth the essentials so much faster, that he\nwould forsake his error if he saw the inconsistence, is a christian\nnotwithstanding; and if the name heretic be applicable to him, it is\nbut in such a sense, as is consistent with christianity.[215]\n\n_Prop._ XI. He that is judged a heretic and no christian justly by\nothers, must be lawfully cited, and heard plead his cause, and be\njudged upon sufficient proof, and not unheard, or upon rash\npresumption.[216]\n\n_Prop._ XII. Christianity and heresy being personal qualities, and no\nwhere found but in individuals, nor one man guilty of another's error,\nit followeth that it is single persons upon personal guilt that must\nbe judged.[217]\n\n_Prop._ XIII. Any man may judge another to be a christian or heretic,\nby a private judgment of discerning, or the reason which guideth all\nhuman actions; but only church rulers may judge him by that public\njudgment, which giveth or denieth him his public privileges and\ncommunion.[218]\n\n_Prop._ XIV. If by notorious injustice church rulers condemn\nchristians as no christians, though they may thereby deny them\ncommunion with those public assemblies which they govern, yet do they\nnot oblige the people to take such injured persons for no christians.\nElse they might oblige all to believe a lie, to consent to malicious\ninjuries, and might disoblige the people from truth, righteousness,\nand charity.[219]\n\n_Prop._ XV. There is no one natural or collective head and governor of\nall the churches in the world (the universal church) but Jesus Christ;\nand therefore there is none that by such governing power, can\nexcommunicate any man out of the universal church; and such usurpation\nwould be treason against Christ, whose prerogative it is.[220]\n\n_Prop._ XVI. Yet he that deserveth to be excommunicated from one\nchurch, deserveth to be excommunicated by and from all, if it be upon\na cause common to all; or that nullifieth his christianity.[221]\n\n_Prop._ XVII. And where neighbour churches are consociate and live in\norder and concord, he that is orderly excommunicate from one church,\nand it be notified to the rest, should not be taken into the communion\nof any of the rest, till he be cleared, or become fit for their\ncommunion.[222] But this obligation ariseth but from the concord of\nconsociate churches, and not from the power of one over the rest; and\nit cannot reach all the world, where the person cometh not, nor was\never known; but only to those who through neighbourhood are capable of\njust notice, and of giving or denying communion to that person.\n\n_Prop._ XVIII. From all this it is clear, that it is not either\npapists alone, or Greeks alone, or protestants alone, or any party of\nchristians, who are the universal church, seeing that church\ncontaineth all christians.[223] And that reviling others (yea, whole\nnations) as heretics, schismatics, and no christians or churches, will\nno more prove the revilers to be the only church or christians, than\nwant of love will prove a man to be one of Christ's disciples, who by\nlove are known to all men to be his.\n\n_Prop._ XIX. It is therefore the shameful language of distracted men,\nto cry out against other christian nations, It is not you, but we that\nare the catholic or universal church. And our shameful controversy,\nwhich of them is the catholic, is no wiser than to question, Whether\nit be this house or that which is the street? Or this street or that\nwhich is the city? Or whether it be the kitchen, or the hall, or the\nparlour which is the house? Or the hand, or foot, or eye which is the\nman? O when will God bring distracting teachers to repentance, and\ndistracted people to their wits?[224]\n\n_Prop._ XX. There is great difference in the purity or soundness of\nthe several parts of the universal church; some being more orthodox\nand holy, and some defiled with so many errors and sins, as to make it\ndifficult to discern whether they do not deny the very essentials.[225]\n\n_Prop._ XXI. The reformed churches are the soundest and purest that we\nknow in the world, and therefore their privilege exceeding great,\nthough they are not all the universal church.\n\n_Prop._ XXII. Particular churches consisting of lawful pastors and\nchristian people associated for personal communion in worship and holy\nliving, are societies or true churches of Christ's institution, and\nthe chief parts of the universal church; as cities and corporations\nare of the kingdom.[226]\n\n_Prop._ XXIII. There are thousands of these in the world, and a man\nmay be saved in one, as well as in another; only the purest give him\nthe best advantages for his salvation; and therefore should be\npreferred by all that are wise and love their souls, so far as they\nare free to choose their communion.\n\n_Prop._ XXIV. The case then being easily resolved, (which is the true\nchurch?) viz. All christians as christians are the catholic or\nuniversal church;[227] and all congregations afore described, of true\npastors and christians, being particular true churches, differing only\nin degrees of purity, he is to be suspected as a designing deceiver\nand troubler of the world, that pretending to be a learned man and a\nteacher, doth still perplex the consciences of the ignorant with this\nfrivolous question, and would muddy and obscure this clear state of\nthe case, lest the people should rest in the discerned truth.\n\n_Prop._ XXV. The papal church as such, being no true church of\nChrist's institution, (of which by itself anon,) it followeth that a\npapist as a papist is no member of the church of Christ, that is, no\nchristian.[228] But yet, whether the same person may not be a papist\nand a christian, and so a member of the catholic church, we shall anon\ninquire.\n\n_Prop._ XXVI. There are many things which make up the fitness and\ndesirableness of that particular church, which we should prefer or\nchoose for our ordinary personal communion:[229] as, 1. That it be the\nchurch of that place where we dwell; if the place be so happy as to\nhave no divided churches, that it be the sole church there; however,\nthat it be so near as to be fit for our communion. 2. That it be a\nchurch which holdeth communion with other neighbour churches, and is\nnot singular or divided from them; or at least not from the generality\nof the churches of Christ; nor differeth in any great matters from\nthose that are most pure. 3. That it be under the reputation of\nsoundness with the other churches aforesaid, and not under the scandal\nof heresy, schism, or gross corruption among those that live\nabout.[230] 4. That it be under the countenance and encouraging favour\nof the christian magistrate. 5. That it be the same church of which\nthe rest of the family which we are of be members; that husband and\nwife, parents and children, masters and servants, be not of several\nchurches. 6. That the pastors be able teachers, prudent guides, and\nof holy lives, and diligent in their office. 7. That the pastors be\nregularly called to their office. 8. That the members be intelligent,\npeaceable, and of holy, temperate, and righteous lives. But when all\nthese cannot be had together, we must choose that church which hath\nthose qualifications which are most needful, and bear with tolerable\nimperfections. The most needful are the first, second, and sixth of\nthese qualifications.\n\n_Prop._ XXVII. He that is free, should choose that church which is the\nfittest for his own edification; that is, the best pastors, people,\nand administrations.\n\n_Prop._ XXVIII. A man's freedom is many ways restrained herein. As, 1.\nWhen it will tend to a greater public hurt, by disorder, ill example,\ndivision, discouragement, &c. 2. When superiors forbid it; as\nhusbands, parents, masters, magistrates. 3. By some scandal. 4. By the\ndistance or inconvenience of our dwelling. 5. By differences of\njudgment, and other causes of contention in the said churches; and\nmany other ways.[231]\n\n_Prop._ XXIX. A free man who removeth from one church to another for\nhis edification, is not therefore a separatist or schismatic; but it\nmust not be done by one that is not free, but upon such necessity as\nfreeth him.\n\n_Prop._ XXX. It is schism or sinful separation to separate from, 1. A\ntrue church as no true church. 2. From lawful worship and communion,\nas lawful; but of this more in its proper place.\n\n[206] 1 Cor. xi. 3; xii. 12; Eph. i. 22, 23; 1 Cor. vi. 15; xii. 27.\n\n[207] Eph. iv. 4, 5; Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.\n\n[208] Eph. iv. 4, 5; 1 Cor. xii. 12; Mark xvi. 16.\n\n[209] Rom. xiv. 1, 6, 7; xv. 1, 3, 4.\n\n[210] 1 Cor. xv. 1, 2, &c.; Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.\n\n[211] Rom. xiv. 3, 4.\n\n[212] Rom. vi. 1, 2, &c.\n\n[213] Eph. iv. 4, 5.\n\n[214] Tit. iii. 10; 3 John.\n\n[215] James iii. 2; Phil. iii. 15, 16; Heb. v. 1, 2.\n\n[216] Tit. iii. 10; Matt. xviii. 15.\n\n[217] Ezek. xviii. 17; Gen. xviii. 23-25.\n\n[218] 1 Cor. x. 15; Acts i. 19; 1 Cor. v. 3-5; xi. 3.\n\n[219] Matt. v. 11, 12; John xvi. 2.\n\n[220] 1 Cor. xii. 27-29; Eph. iv. 5-7; 1 Cor. i. 12, 13; iii. 22, 23;\nEph. v. 23; iv. 15; Col. i. 18; ii. 19.\n\n[221] 3 John.\n\n[222] Eph. v. 11; 1 Cor. v. 11.\n\n[223] 1 Cor. xii. 12; John xiii. 35; 1 Cor. xiii. 1, 2, &c.\n\n[224] 1 Cor. xii. 12; vi. 17; x. 17; Eph. iv. 3, &c.\n\n[225] Gal. iv. 11, 12.\n\n[226] Rev. iii. 8-12; ii. 10, 11; Acts xiv. 22; Tit. i. 5; Rom. xvi.\n4, 16; 1 Cor. vii. 17; xi. 16; xiv. 33, 44; 2 Thess. i. 4; Rev. ii.\n23.\n\n[227] 1 Cor. i. 13; Rom. xvi. 17; Acts xx. 30.\n\n[228] Acts ii. 44; 1 Cor. i. 10; 1 Thess. v. 12, 13.\n\n[229] Heb. x. 25; 1 Tim. iii. 7; 3 John 12.\n\n[230] Acts xvi. 32, 34; x. 2, 22; xviii. 8; Col. iv. 15.\n\n[231] Of these things I have said so much in my \"Cure of Church\ndivisions,\" and in the \"Defence\" of it, and in the end of my \"Reas. of\nChrist. Relig.\" Consect. i. and ii. that I pass them over here with\nthe more brevity.\n\n\nQuest. II. _Whether we must esteem the church of Rome a true church?\nAnd in what sense some divines affirm it, and some deny it._\n\nWant of some easy distinguishing hath made that seem a controversy\nhere, which is so plain, that it can hardly be any at all to\nprotestants, if the question had been but truly stated.[232]\n\nRemember therefore that by a church is meant, not a mere company of\nchristians, any how related to each other; but a society consisting of\nan ecclesiastical head and body, such as we call a political society.\n2. And that we speak not of an accidental head (such as the king is,\nbecause he governeth them _suo modo_ by the sword); for that is not an\nessential constitutive part; but of a constitutive ecclesiastical head\nand body. 3. That the question is not, Whether the church of Rome be a\npart of the church, but whether it be a true church? And now I answer,\n\n1. To affirm the church of Rome to be the catholic or universal\nchurch, is more than to affirm it to be a true catholic church, that\nis, a true part of the catholic church: and is as much as to say that\nit is the whole and only church, and that there is no other; which is\nodious falsehood and usurpation, and slander against all other\nchurches.\n\n2. The church of Rome is so called in the question, as it is a policy\nor church in a general sense; and the meaning of the question is,\nWhether it be a divine, or a human or diabolical policy; a lawful\nchurch.\n\n3. The church of Rome is considered, 1. Formally, as a church or\npolicy. 2. Materially, as the singular persons are qualified. It is\nthe form that denominateth. Therefore the question must be taken of\nthe Roman policy, or of the church of Rome as such; that is, as it is\none ruler pretending to be the vicarious, constitutive, governing head\nof all Christ's visible church on earth, and the body which owneth him\nin this relation.\n\n4. Therefore I conclude (and so do all protestants) that this policy\nor church of Rome is no true church of Christ's instituting or\napprobation, but a human, sinful policy, formed by the temptation of\nSatan, the prince of pride, deceit, and darkness. The proof of which\nis the matter of whole loads of protestant writings. And indeed the\nproof of their policy being incumbent on themselves, they fail in it,\nand are still fain to fly to pretended, false tradition for proof, in\nwhich the sophisters know that either they must be judges themselves,\nand it must go for truth because they say it; or else that if they can\ncarry the controversy into a thicket or wood of fathers and church\nhistory, at least they can confound the ignorant, and evade\nthemselves. Of this see my \"Disput. with Johnson,\" and my \"Key for\nCatholics,\" &c.\n\n5. The bishop of the English papists, Smith called bishop of\nChalcedon, in his Survey, c. v. saith, \"To us it sufficeth that the\nbishop of Rome is St. Peter's successor; and this all the fathers\ntestify, and all the catholic church believeth; but whether it be\n_jure divino_ or _humano_, is no point of faith.\" The like hath\nDavenport,[233] called Fransc. a Sancta Clara more largely. By this\nlet the reader judge whether we need more words to prove their church\nto be such as Christ never instituted, when the belief of their divine\nright is no part of their own faith.\n\n6. If the church of Rome in its formal policy be but of human\ninstitution, it is, 1. Unnecessary to salvation. 2. Unlawful; because\nthey that first instituted it had no authority so to do, and were\nusurpers. For either the makers of it were themselves a church or no\nchurch. If no church, they could not lawfully make a church. Infidels\nor heathens are not to be our church makers. If a church, then there\nwas a church before the church of Rome, and that of another form. And\nif that former form were of Christ's institution, man might not change\nit; if not, who made that form? and so on.\n\n7. Our divines therefore that say that the church of Rome is a true\nchurch, though corrupt, do not speak of it formally as to the papal\npolicy or headship, but materially. 1. That all papists that are\nvisible christians are visible parts of the universal church. 2. That\ntheir particular congregations considered abstractedly from the Roman\nheadship may be true particular churches, though corrupt; which yet\nbeing the only difficulty shall be the matter of our next inquiry.\n\n[232] See Mr. Barton's and Bp. Hall's contest hereabouts.\n\n[233] System. Fidei.\n\n\nQuest. III. _Whether we must take the Romish clergy for true ministers\nof Christ? And whether their baptism and ordination be nullities?_\n\nI join these two distinct questions together for brevity.\n\nI. As true signifieth regularly called, so they are commonly irregular\nand not true ministers. But as true signifieth real opposed to a\nnullity, so it is now to be further considered.\n\nThe doubt lieth either of the sufficiency of his call, or of somewhat\nthat is supposed to destroy it by contradiction or redundancy. 1.\nWhether he want any thing of absolute necessity to the office, who is\ncalled in the church of Rome? or, 2. Whether there be any thing in his\noffice or entrance, which nullifieth or invalidateth that which else\nwould be sufficient?\n\nFor the first doubt, it is not agreed on among papists or protestants\nwhat is of necessity to the being of the office. Some think real\ngodliness in the person is necessary; but most think not. Some think\nthat visible, that is, seeming professed godliness, not disproved by\nmortal sin, is necessary; and some think not. Some think the people's\nelection is necessary, and that ordination is but _ad bene esse_; and\nsome think ordination necessary _ad esse_, and election _ad bene\nesse_, or not at all; and some think both necessary _ad esse_, and\nsome neither. Some think the election of the people is necessary, and\nsome think only their consent is necessary, though after election by\nothers; some think it must be the consent of all the flock, or near\nall; and some only of the major part; and some of the better part,\nthough the minor. Some think the ordination of a diocesan bishop\nnecessary _ad esse_, and some not. Some think the truth of the\nordainers' calling, or power, to be necessary to the validity of his\nordination, and some not. Some think the number of two, or three, or\nmore ordainers to be necessary, and some not. Some think it necessary\nto the validity of the ministry that it come down from the apostles by\nan uninterrupted succession of truly ordained bishops, and some think\nnot. Some few think that the magistrates' command or licence is\nnecessary, and only it, and most deny both. Johnson, alias Terret, the\npapist, in his Disputation against me, maintaineth that consecration\nis not necessary _ad esse_, nor any one way of election, by these or\nthose, but only the church's reception upon such an election as may\ngive them notice, and which may be different, according to different\ntimes, places, and other circumstances.\n\nIn the midst of these confusions, what is to be held? I have opened\nthe case as fully and plainly as I can, in my second \"Disput. of\nChurch Government,\" about ordination, to which I must refer the\nreader: only here briefly touching upon the sum.\n\n1. There are some personal qualifications necessary to the being of\nthe office, (of which anon,) and some only to the well-being.[234]\n\n2. The efficient conveying cause of power or office, is God's will\nsignified in his own established law; in which he determineth that\nsuch persons so called shall receive from him such power, and be\nobliged to such office administrations.[235]\n\n3. Any providence of God which infallibly or satisfactorily notifieth\nto the church, who these persons are, that receive such power from\nGod, doth oblige them to submit to them as so empowered.\n\n4. God's ordinary established way of regular designation of the\nperson, is by the church's consent, and the senior pastor's\nordination.\n\n5. By these actions they are not the proper donors or efficients of\nthe power, or office given, but the consent of the people and the\nordination do determine of the recipient, and so are regularly _causa\nsine qua non_ of his reception. And the ordination is moreover a\nsolemn investiture in the office, as when a servant is sent by\ndelivering a key to deliver possession of a house, by his master's\nconsent, to him that had before the owner's grant; and so it\nceremoniously entereth him into visible possession; like the\nsolemnizing of marriage, or the listing of a soldier, &c.\n\n6. The people's consent (before or after) is not only by institution,\nbut naturally necessary, that a man become a pastor to those persons\n(for no man can learn, obey, &c. without consent): but it is not of\nnecessity to the being of the ministry in general, or in the first\ninstant: a man without it may be authorized as a minister to go preach\nthe gospel for conversion, and baptize and gather churches, though not\nto be their stated pastor.\n\n7. When death, distance, corruption, heresy, or malignity of pastors\nwithin reach, maketh it impossible to have ordination, God's choice of\nthe person may be notified without it: as by, 1. Eminent\nqualifications. 2. The people's real necessities. 3. And the removal\nof impediments, and a concurrence of inviting opportunities and\nadvantages. 4. And sometimes the people's desire. 5. And sometimes the\nmagistrate's commission or consent; which though not absolutely\nnecessary in themselves, yet may serve to design the person and invest\nhim, when the ordinary way faileth; which is all that is left to man\nto do, to the conveyance of the power.\n\nThe case being thus stated, as to what is necessary to give the power\nor office, we may next inquire whether any papist priest have such\npower, by such means.\n\nAnd, 1. We have sufficient reason to judge that many of them have all\nthe personal qualifications which are essentially necessary. 2. Many\namong them have the consent of a sober christian people (of which more\nanon). And Mr. Jacob, who was against bishops and their ordination,\nproveth at large, that by election or consent of the people alone, a\nman may be a true pastor, either without such ordination, or\nnotwithstanding both the vanity and error of it. 3. Many of them have\nordination by able and sober bishops; if that also be necessary. 4. In\nthat ordination, they are invested in all that is essential to the\npastoral office.\n\nSo that I see not that their calling is a nullity through defect of\nany thing of absolute necessity to its being and validity; though it\nbe many ways irregular and sinful.\n\nII. We are next therefore to inquire whether any contradicting\nadditions make null that which else would be no nullity. And this is\nthe great difficulty. For as we accuse not their religion for having\ntoo little, but too much, so this is our chief doubt about their\nministry.\n\nAnd, 1. It is doubted, as to the office itself, whether a mass priest\nbe a true minister, as having another work to do, even to make his\nMaker, and to give Christ's real flesh with his hands to the people;\nand to preach the unsound doctrines of their church; and these seem to\nbe essential parts of his function.\n\nThe case is very bad and sad; but that which I said about the heresies\nor errors which may consist with christianity, when they overthrow it\nbut by an undiscerned consequence, must be here also considered. The\nprime part of their office is that (as to the essentials) which Christ\nordained: this they receive, and to this they sew a filthy rag of\nman's devising; but if they knew this to be inconsistent with\nchristianity or the essentials of the ministry, we may well presume\n(of many of them) they would not receive it. Therefore as an error\nwhich consequentially contradicteth some essential article of faith,\nnullifieth not his christianity who first and fastest holdeth the\nfaith, and would cast away the error if he saw the contradiction, (as\nDavenant, Morton, and Hall have showed, Epist. Conciliat.) so is it to\nbe said as to practical error in the present case. They are their\ngrievous errors and sins, but, for aught I see, do not nullify their\noffice to the church. As a mass priest, he is no minister of Christ\n(as an anabaptist is not as a re-baptizer, nor a separatist as a\nseparater, nor an antinomian, or any erroneous person, as a preacher\nof that error); but as a christian pastor ordained to preach the\ngospel, baptize, administer the Lord's supper, pray, praise God, guide\nthe church, he may be.\n\nThe same answer serveth to the objection as it extendeth to the\nerroneous doctrines which they preach, which are but by consequence\nagainst the essentials of religion.\n\n2. But it is a greater doubt, Whether any power of the ministry can be\nconveyed by antichrist, or from him? and whether God will own any of\nantichrist's administrations? Therefore seeing they profess themselves\nto have no office but what they receive from the pope, and Christ\ndisowning his usurpation, the same man cannot be the minister of\nChrist and antichrist; as the same man cannot be an officer in the\nking's army and his enemies'.\n\nBut this will have the same solution as the former. If this antichrist\nwere the open, professed enemy to Christ, then all this were true:\nbecause their corrupt additions would not by dark consequences, but so\ndirectly contain the denial of christianity or the true ministry, that\nit were not possible to hold both. But (as our divines commonly note)\nantichrist is to sit in the temple of God, and the pope's treason is\nunder pretence of the greatest service and friendship to Christ,\nmaking himself his vicar-general without his commission. So they that\nreceive power from him, do think him to be Christ's vicar indeed, and\nso renounce not Christ, but profess their first and chief relation to\nbe to him, and dependence on him, and that they would have nothing to\ndo with the pope, if they knew him to be against Christ. And some of\nthem write, that the power or office is immediately from Christ, and\nthat the pope, ordainers, and electors do but design the person that\nshall receive it (because else they know not what to say of the\nelection and consecration of the pope himself, who hath no superior).\nAnd the Spanish bishops in the council of Trent held so close to this,\nthat the rest were fain to leave it undetermined; so that it is no\npart of their religion, but a doubtful opinion, Whether the power of\nbishops be derived from the pope, though they be governed by him?\n\nBut as to the other, the case seemeth like this: if a subject in\nIreland usurp the lieutenancy, and tell all the people that he hath\nthe king's commission to be his lieutenant, and command all to submit\nto him, and receive their places from him, and obey him; and the king\ndeclareth him a traitor, (antecedently only by the description of his\nlaws,) and maketh it the duty of the subjects to renounce him; those\nnow that know the king's will, and yet adhere to the usurper, though\nthey know that the king is against it, are traitors with him: but\nthose from whom he keepeth the knowledge of the laws, and who for want\nof full information believe him to be really the king's lieutenant,\n(and specially living where all believe it,) but yet would renounce\nhim if they knew that he had not the king's commission; these are the\nking's subjects, though in ignorance they obey a usurper. And on this\naccount it is that Archbishop Usher concluded, that an ignorant papist\nmight be saved, but the learned hardly. But when the learned, through\nthe disadvantages of their education, are under the same ignorance,\nbeing learned but on one side but to their greater seduction, the case\nmay be the same.\n\nThe same man therefore may receive an office from Christ, who yet\nignorantly submitteth to the pope, and receiveth corrupt additions\nfrom him.\n\nBut suppose I be mistaken in all this, yet to come to the second\nquestion,\n\nIII. Whether baptism and ordination given by them be nullities? I\nanswer, no; on a further account, 1. Because that the ministry which\nis a nullity to the receiver, (that is, God will punish him as a\nusurper,) may yet perform those ministerial acts which are no\nnullities to the church.[236] Else how confused a case would all\nchurches be in! For it is hard ever to know whether ministers have all\nthings essential to their office. Suppose a man be ignorant, or a\nheretic against some essential article of faith; or suppose that he\nfeigned orders of ordination when he had none; or that he was ordained\nby such as really had no power to do it; or suppose he pretended the\nconsent of the majority of the people, when really the greater part\nwere for another: if all this be unknown, his baptizing and other\nadministrations are not thereby made nullities to the church, though\nthey be sins in him. The reason is, because that the church shall not\nsuffer, nor lose her right for another man's sin! When the fault is\nnot theirs, the loss and punishment shall not be theirs. He that is\nfound in possession of the place, performeth valid administration to\nthem that know not his usurpation, and are not guilty of it. Otherwise\nwe should never have done re-baptizing, nor know easily when we\nreceive any valid administrations, while we are so disagreed about the\nnecessaries of the office and call; and when it is so hard in all\nthings to judge of the call of all other men.\n\n2. And as the papists say, that a private man or woman may baptize in\nextremity, so many learned protestants think, that though a private\nman's baptism be a sin, yet it is no nullity, though he were known to\nbe no minister.\n\nAnd what is said of baptism, to avoid tediousness, you may suppose\nsaid of ordination, which will carry the first case far, as to the\nvalidity of the ministry received by papists' ordination, as well as\nof baptism and visible christianity received by them. For my part, God\nused Parson's \"Book of Resolution corrected,\" so much to my good, and\nI have known so many eminent christians, and some ministers, converted\nby it, that I am glad that I hear none make a controversy of it,\nwhether the conversion, faith, or love to God be valid, which we\nreceive by the books or means of any papist?\n\n[234] Eph. iv. 6-11.\n\n[235] Matt, xxviii. 11, 20; Tit. i. 5; Acts xx. 28; xiv. 23; 1 Pet. v.\n2.\n\n[236] Matt. vii. 23-25; Phil. i. 15-17; Mark ix. 40.\n\n\nQuest. IV. _Whether it be necessary to believe that the pope is the\nantichrist?_\n\nIt is one question, whether he be antichrist? and another, whether it\nbe necessary to believe it? To the first I say, 1. There are many\nantichrists: and we must remove the ambiguity of the name, before we\ncan resolve the question. If by antichrist be meant, one that usurps\nthe office of a universal vicar of Christ, and constituting and\ngoverning head of the whole visible church, and hereby layeth the\nground of schisms, and contentions, and bloodshed in the world, and\nwould rob Christ of all his members, who are not of the pope's\nkingdom, and that formeth a multifarious ministry for this service,\nand corrupteth much of the doctrine, worship, and discipline of the\nchurch, in this sense no doubt but the pope is antichrist.\n\nBut if by antichrist be meant him particularly described in the\nApocalypse and Thessalonians, then the controversy _de re_, is about\nthe exposition of those dark prophecies. Of which I can say no more\nbut this, 1. That if the pope be not he, he had ill luck to be so like\nhim. 2. That Dr. More's moral arguments, and Bishop Downham's and many\nothers' expository arguments, are such as I cannot answer. 3. But yet\nmy skill is not so great in interpreting those obscure prophecies, as\nthat I can say, I am sure that it is the pope that they speak of, and\nthat Lyra, learned Zanchy, and others that think it is Mahomet, or\nothers that otherwise interpret them, were mistaken.\n\nII. But to the second question, I more boldly say, 1. That every one\nthat indeed knoweth this to be the sense of those texts, is bound to\nbelieve it.\n\n2. But that God, who hath not made it of necessity to salvation to\nunderstand many hundred plainer texts, nor absolutely to understand\nmore than the articles and fundamentals of our religion, hath much\nless made it necessary to salvation to understand the darkest\nprophecies.\n\n3. And that as the suspicion should make all christians cautelous what\nthey receive from Rome, so the obscurity should make all christians\ntake heed, that they draw from it no consequences destructive to love,\nor order, or any truth, or christian duty. And this is the advice I\ngive to all.\n\n\nQuest. V. _Whether we must hold that a papist may be saved?_\n\nThis question may be resolved easily from what is said before.\n\n1. A papist as a papist, that is, by popery, will never be saved, no\nmore than a man's life by a leprosy.\n\n2. If a papist be saved, he must be saved against, and from popery,\neither by turning from the opinion, and then he is no papist, or by\npreserving his heart from the power of his own opinions.[237] And the\nsame we may say of every error and sin. He that is saved, must be\nsaved from it, at least from the power of it on the heart, and from\nthe guilt of it by forgiveness.\n\n3. Every one that is a true, sincere christian in faith, love, and\ntrue obedience, shall be saved, what error soever he hold that doth\nconsist with these.\n\n4. As many antinomians and other erroneous persons, do hold things\nwhich by consequence subvert christianity; and yet not seeing the\ninconsistence, do hold christianity first and faster, in heart and\nsincere practice, and would renounce their error if they saw the\ninconsistence, so is it with many papists. And that which they hold\nfirst, and fastest, and practically, doth save them from the power,\noperations, and poison of their own opinions: as an antidote or the\nstrength of nature may save a man from a small quantity of poison.\n\n5. Moreover we have cause to judge that there are millions among the\npapists, corrupted with many of their lesser errors, who yet hold not\ntheir greater; that believe not that none are christians but the\npope's subjects, and that Christ's kingdom and the pope's are of the\nsame extent, or that he can remit men's pains in another world, or\nthat the bread and wine are no bread and wine, or that men merit of\nGod in point of commutative justice, or that we must adore or worship\nthe bread, or yet the cross or image itself, &c. or that consent to\nabundance of the clergy's tyrannical usurpations and abuses: and so\nbeing not properly papists, may be saved, if a papist might not. And\nwe the less know how many or few among them are really of the clergy's\nreligion and mind, because by terror they restrain men from\nmanifesting their judgment, and compel them to comply in outward\nthings.\n\n6. But as fewer that have leprosies, or plagues, or that take poison,\nescape, than of other men, so we have great cause to believe, that\nmuch fewer papists are saved, than such as escape their errors. And\ntherefore all that love their souls should avoid them.\n\n7. And the trick of the papists who persuade people that theirs is the\nsafest religion, because we say that a papist may be saved, and they\nsay that a protestant cannot, is so palpable a cheat, that it should\nrather deter men from their way. For God is love; and he that dwelleth\nin love dwelleth in God; and all men must know us to be Christ's\ndisciples, by loving one another; and he that saith he loveth God, and\nloveth not his brother, is a liar; and charity believeth all things\ncredible. That religion is likest to be of God which is most\ncharitable, and not that which is most uncharitable, and malicious,\nand like to Satan.\n\nTo conclude, no man shall be saved for being no papist, much less for\nbeing a papist. And all that are truly holy, heavenly, humble lovers\nof God, and of those that are his servants, shall be saved. But how\nmany such are among the papists, God only knoweth who is their Judge.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe questions whether the Greeks, Abassines, Nestorians, Eutychians,\nantinomians, anabaptists, &c. may be saved, must be all resolved as\nthis of the papists, allowing for the different degrees of their\ncorruption. And therefore I must desire the reader to take up with\nthis answer for all, and excuse me from unnecessary repetition.\n\nAs for such disputers as my antagonist Mr. Johnson, who insisteth on\nthat of Tit. iii. 10, \"A man that is an heretic--is condemned of\nhimself;\" when he hath proved that the word heretic hath but one\nsignification, I will say as he doth. Till then, if he will try who\nshall be damned by bare equivocal words, without the definition, let\nhim take his course, for I will be none of his imitators.\n\n[237] Vid. Hun. Eccl. Rom. non est christiana: et Perkins. A papist\ncannot go beyond a reprobate.\n\n\nQuest. VI. _Whether those that are in the church of Rome, are bound to\nseparate from it? And whether it be lawful to go to their mass or\nother worship?_\n\nThese two also for brevity I join together.\n\nI. To the first, we must distinguish of separation: 1. It is one thing\nto judge that evil which is evil, and separate from it in judgment. 2.\nIt is another thing to express this by forbearing to subscribe, swear,\nor otherwise approve that evil. 3. And another thing to forbear\ncommunion with them in the mass and image worship, and gross or known\nsins. 4. And another thing to forbear all communion with them, even as\nto baptism and other lawful things. 5. And another thing to use some\nopen detestations or protestations against them.\n\n2. And we must distinguish much of persons, whether they be ministers\nor people, free or bound, as wives, children, &c. And now I answer,\n\n1. There is no question but it is a duty to judge all that evil which\nis evil among the papists or any other.\n\n2. It is the duty of all to forbear subscribing, swearing to, or\notherwise approving evil.\n\n3. It is the duty of all mass priests to renounce that part of their\ncalling, and not to administer their mass, or any other unlawful\nthing.\n\n4. It is the duty of all private christians to forbear communion in\nthe mass, because it is a kind of idolatry, while they worship apiece\nof bread as God; as also image worship, and all other parts of their\nreligion, in which they are put upon sin themselves, or that which is\nnotorious scandal and symbolizing with them in their bread worship, or\nrather corruptions of the substance of God's ordinances.\n\n5. It is their duty who have fit opportunity, (when it is like to do\nmore good than harm,) to protest against the papal corruptions where\nthey are, and to declare their detestation of them.\n\n6. It is the duty of those that have children to be baptized or\ncatechised, to make use of more lawful and sound ministers, when they\nmay be had, rather than of a papist priest.\n\n7. But in case they cannot remove, or enjoy better, I think it is\nlawful, 1. To let such baptize their children, rather than leave them\nunbaptized. 2. To let their children be taught by them to read, or in\narts and sciences, or the catechism, and common principles of\nreligion, so they will mix no dangerous errors. 3. And to hear those\nof them preach, who preach soundly and piously (such as were Gerrhard,\nZutphaniensis, Thaulerus, Ferus, and many more). 4. And to read such\ngood books as these now mentioned have written. 5. And to join with\nthem in such prayers as are sound and pious, so they go no further.\n\n8. And wives, children, and such other as are bound, and cannot\nlawfully remove, may stay among them, and take up with these helps,\ndealing faithfully in abstaining from the rest.\n\nII. The second question is answered in this. Only I add, that it is\none thing to be present as Elias was, in a way of opposition to them;\nor as disputants are, that open their errors; or as a wise man may go\nto hear or see what they do, without compliance, as we read their\nbooks; and it is another thing to join with them in their sinful\nworship, or scandalously to encourage them in it by seeming so to do.\nSee Calv. contr. Nicod. &c.\n\n\nQuest. VII. _Whether the true calling of the minister by ordination or\nelection, &c. be necessary to the essence of the church?_\n\nBy a church here we mean a political society of christians, and not\nany assembly or community. And no doubt pastor and flock are the\nconstitutive parts of such a church; and where either of them are\nnotoriously wanting, it is notorious that there is no true church.\nTherefore all the doubt is, whether such parts of his call be\nnecessary to the being of the ministry, or not? And here we must\nconclude, that the word ministry and church are ambiguous. By a\nminister or pastor is meant, either one that God so far owneth as to\naccept and justify his administrations as for himself, even his own\ngood and salvation; or one whose administrations God will own, accept,\nand bless to the people.\n\nI. In the former sense, 1. He is no true minister that wanteth the\nessential qualifications of a minister, viz. that hath not, (1.) The\nunderstanding and belief of all the essential articles of faith,\nwithout heresy. (2.) Tolerable ability to teach these to the people,\nand perform the other essentials of his office. (3.) Sincere\ngodliness, to do all this in love and obedience to God as his servant,\nin order to life eternal. 2. And he is thus no true pastor as to God's\nacceptance of himself, who hath not a lawful calling; that is, (1.)\nOrdination, when it may be had. (2.) The consent or reception of that\nchurch of which he pretendeth to be pastor, which is still necessary,\nand must be had, if ordination cannot.\n\nII. But in the second sense, he is a pastor so far as that God will\nown his administrations as to the people's good, who, 1. Hath\npossession. 2. And seemeth to them to have necessary qualifications,\nand a lawful call, though it prove otherwise, so be it, it be not\nthrough their wilful fault, that he is culpable, or they mistaken in\nhim. If he be not a true believer, but an infidel, or heretic, he is\nno minister as to himself, that is, God will use him as a usurper that\nhath no title:[238] but if he profess to be a believer when he is not,\nhe is a true pastor visibly to the people; otherwise they could never\nknow when they have a pastor: even as real faith makes a real\nchristian, and professed faith makes a visible christian, so is it as\nto the ministry. If he seem to understand the articles of faith, and\ndo not, or if he seem to have due ordination when he hath not, if he\nbe upon this mistake accepted by the people, he is a true visible\npastor as to them, that is, as to their duty and benefit, though not\nas to himself. Yea, the people's consent to his entrance is not\nnecessary _ad esse_, nor to his relation neither, so far as to justify\nhimself, but to his administrations and to his relation, so far as\ntheir own right and benefit are interested in it. So that two things\nare necessary to such a visible pastor as shall perform valid\nadministrations to the church: 1. Seeming necessary qualifications and\ncalling to it. 2. Possession, by the people's reception or consent to\nhis administrations and relation so far as to their benefit.\n\nAnd, III. Thus also we must distinguish of the word church. It is, 1.\nSuch an entire christian society as hath a minister or pastor whose\noffice is valid as to himself and them; or it is such a society only\nas hath a pastor whose office is valid to them but not to himself. Let\nus not confound the question _de re_ and _de nomine_. These societies\ndiffer as is said. Both may fitly be called true churches.\n\nAs it is with a kingdom which hath a rightful prince, and one that\nhath a usurper, so it is here. 1. If it have a rightful king accepted,\nit is a kingdom in the fullest sense. 2. If it have a usurper accepted\nas king, it is a kingdom, but faulty. 3. If the usurper be only so far\naccepted as that the people consent not to his entrance, no, nor his\nrelation so as to justify his title, but wish him cast out if they\ncould procure it; but yet consent to receive that protection and\njustice which is their own due from the possessor, and consent to his\nrelation only thus far, this is a kingdom truly, but more defective or\nmaimed than the first. 4. But if the people do not so much as receive\nhim, nor submit to his administrations, he is but a conqueror, and not\na king, and it is (in respect to him) no kingdom (though in respect to\nsome other that hath title and consent, without actual possession of\nthe administration, it may be a kingdom). And this is the true and\nplain solution of this question, which want of distinction doth\nobscure.\n\n[238] Acts i. 17; Matt. vii. 23.\n\n\nQuest. VIII. _Whether sincere faith and godliness be necessary to the\nbeing of the ministry? And whether it be lawful to hear a wicked man,\nor take the sacrament from him, or take him for a minister?_\n\nThis question receiveth the very same solution with the last\nforegoing, and therefore I need not say much more to it.\n\nI. The first part is too oft resolved mistakingly on both extremes.\nSome absolutely saying that godliness or faith is not necessary to the\nbeing of the ministry; and some that it is necessary. Whereas the true\nsolution is as aforesaid; sincere faith and godliness are necessary to\nmake a man a minister so far as that God will own and justify him as\nsent by himself, as to his own duty and benefit: for he cannot be\ninternally and heartily a christian pastor that is no christian, nor a\nminister of God who is not godly, that is, is not truly resigned to\nGod, obeyeth him not and loveth him not as God. But yet the reality\nof these are not necessary to make him a visible pastor, as to the\npeople's duty and benefit.\n\n2. But the profession of true faith and godliness is necessary so far,\nas that without it the people ought not to take him for a visible\nminister (as the profession of christianity is to a visible\nchristian).\n\n3. And in their choice they ought to prefer him _c\u00e6teris paribus_,\nwhose profession is most credible.\n\n_Object._ That which maketh a minister is gifts and a calling, which\nare distinct from grace and real christianity. _Answ._ Every minister\nis a christian, though every christian be not a minister or pastor:\ntherefore he that is a visible pastor must visibly or in profession\nhave both.\n\n_Object._ But a man may be a christian, without saving grace or\ngodliness. _Answ._ As much as he may be godly without godliness. That\nis, he may be visibly a christian and godly, without sincere faith or\ngodliness, but not without the profession of both. It is not possible\nthat the profession of christianity in the essentials, can be without\nthe profession of godliness; for it includeth it.\n\nII. To the other question I answer, 1. A man that professeth\ninfidelity or impiety, yea, that professeth not faith and godliness,\nis not to be taken for a minister, or heard as such.\n\n2. Every one that professeth to stand to his baptismal covenant\nprofesseth faith and godliness.\n\n3. He that by a vicious life or bad application of doctrine\ncontradicteth his profession, is to be lawfully accused of it, and\nheard speak for himself, and to be cast out by true church justice,\nand not by the private censure of a private person.\n\n4. Till this be done, though a particular private member of the church\nbe not bound to think that the minister is worthy, nor that the church\nwhich suffereth and receiveth him doth well, yet they are bound to\njudge him one who by the church's reception is in possession, and\ntherefore a visible pastor, and to submit to his public\nadministrations; because it is not in a private man's power, but the\nchurch's, to determine who shall be the pastor.\n\n5. But if the case be past controversy and notorious, that the man is\nnot only scandalous, and weak, and dull, and negligent, but also\neither, 1. Intolerably unable; 2. Or an infidel, or gross heretic; 3.\nOr certainly ungodly; a private man should admonish the church and\nhim, and in case that they proceed in impenitency, should remove\nhimself to a better church and ministry. And the church itself should\ndisown such a man, and commit their souls to one that is fitter for\nthe trust.\n\n6. And that church or person who needlessly owneth such a pastor, or\npreferreth him before a fitter, doth thereby harden him in his\nusurpation, and is guilty of the hurt of the people's souls, and of\nhis own, and of the dishonour done to God.\n\n\nQuest. IX. _Whether the people are bound to receive or consent to an\nungodly, intolerable, heretical pastor, yea, or one far less fit and\nworthy than a competitor, if the magistrate command it, or the bishop\nimpose him?_\n\nFor the deciding of this, take these propositions.\n\n1. The magistrate is authorized by God to govern ministers and\nchurches, according to the orders and laws of Christ (and not against\nthem); but not to ordain or degrade, nor to make ministers or unmake\nthem, nor to deprive the church of the liberty settled on it by the\nlaws of Christ.\n\n2. The bishops or ordainers are authorized by Christ to judge of the\nfitness of the person to the office in general, and solemnly to invest\nhim in it, but not to deprive the people of their freedom, and\nexercise of the natural care of their own salvation, or of any liberty\ngiven them by Christ.\n\n3. The people's liberty in choosing or consenting to their own\npastors, to whom they must commit the care of their souls, is partly\nfounded in nature, (it being they that must have the benefit or loss,\nand no man being authorized to damn or hazard men's souls, at least\nagainst their wills,) and partly settled by Scripture, and continued\nin the church above a thousand years after Christ, at least in very\nmany parts of it.[239] See Blondel's \"Full Proof de jure plebis in\nregim. Eccles.\" Hildebertus C\u00e6noman. (alias Turonensis) even in his\ntime showeth, that though the clergy were to lead, and the people to\nfollow, yet no man was to be made a bishop, or put upon the people,\nwithout their own consent: Epist. 12. Bibl. Pet. to. iii. p. 179.\nFilesacus will direct you to more such testimonies. But the thing is\npast controversy. I need not cite to the learned the commonly cited\ntestimony of Cyprian, _Plebs maximam habet potestatem indignos\nrecusandi, &c._ And indeed in the nature of the thing it cannot be:\nfor though you may drench a mad-man's body by force, when you give him\nphysic, you cannot so drench men's souls, nor cure them against their\nwills.\n\n4. Not that the people's consent is necessary to the general office of\na gospel minister, to preach and baptize; but only to the\nappropriation or relation of a minister to themselves; that is, to the\nbeing of a pastor of a particular church as such, but not of a\nminister of Christ as such.\n\n5. A man's soul is of so great value above all the favour of man, or\ntreasures of this world, that no man should be indifferent to what\nman's care he doth commit it; nor should he hazard it upon the danger\nof everlasting misery, for fear of displeasing man, or being accused\nof schism or disorder.\n\n6. There is as great difference between an able, learned, judicious,\northodox, godly, diligent, lively teacher, and an ignorant, heretical,\nungodly, dull, and slothful man, as there is between a skilful and an\nignorant pilot at sea; or between an able, experienced, faithful\nphysician, and an ignorant, rash, and treacherous one, as to the\nsaving men's lives. And he that would not take a sot or an empiric for\nhis physician, who were like to kill him, and refuse the counsel of an\nable physician, in obedience to a magistrate or bishop, hath as little\nreason to do the like by his soul; nor should he set less by that than\nby his life.[240] And if Paul said, We have this power for edification\nand not for destruction, we may say so of all magistrates and bishops.\nSober divines have lately showed their error who teach men that they\nmust be ready to submit to damnation if God require it, or to suppose\nthat his glory and our salvation are separable ends; because damnation\nis a thing which nature necessitateth man not to desire or intend! And\nshall we ascribe more to a magistrate than to God? and say that we\nmust cast our souls on a likelihood of damnation to keep order and in\nobedience to man? No man can be saved without knowledge and holiness:\nan ignorant, dead, ungodly minister is far less likely to help us to\nknowledge and holiness, than an able, holy man. To say God can work by\nthe unfittest instrument is nothing to the purpose; till you prove\nthat God would have us take him for his instrument, and that he useth\nequally to work by such, as well as by the fit and worthy, or that we\nexpect wonders from God, and that ordinarily without tempting him!\nyea, when such a usurper of the ministry is like to damn himself, as\nwell as the people.\n\nAnd here to lenify the minds of Ithacian prelates towards those that\nseek their own edification, in such a case as this, or that refuse\nunworthy pastors of their imposing, I will entreat them to censure\nthose near them no more sharply than they do the persons in these\nfollowing instances. Yea, if a separatist go too far, use him no more\nuncharitably, than you would do these men.\n\n(1.) Gildas Brit. is called Sapiens, and our eldest writer; and yet he\ncalleth the multitude of the lewd British clergy whom he reprehendeth\nin his \"Acris Correptio,\" traitors and no priests; and concludeth\nseriously, that he that calleth them priests, is not _eximius\nchristianus_, any excellent christian. Yet those few that were pious\nhe excepteth and commendeth. Shall he account them no priests, for\ntheir sinfulness, and will you force others, not only to call them\npriests, but to commit their souls to such men's conduct? when Christ\nhath said, \"If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the\nditch?\" and Paul, \"Take heed unto thyself and unto thy doctrine; for\nin so doing, thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear\nthee?\"[241]\n\nThe second is our second (and first English) historian, Beda, and in\nhim the famous Johannes Episc. Hagulstadensis Eccles. who, as he\nreporteth, wrought very great miracles, as Eccles. Hist. lib. v. cap.\n2-5, is to be read. This man had one Herebaldus in his clergy, after\nan abbot; who himself told Beda as followeth:--That this Johannes Ep.\ncured him miraculously of a perilous hurt, taken by disobedient\nhorsemanship; and when he recovered, he asked him, whether he were\nsure that he was baptized? who answered, That he knew it past doubt,\nand named the presbyter that baptized him. The bishop answered him, If\nthou wast baptized by that priest, thou wast not rightly baptized: for\nI know him, and that when he was ordained presbyter, he was so dull of\nwit, that he could not learn the ministry of catechising and\nbaptizing. Wherefore I commanded him altogether to give over the\npresumption of this ministry, which he could not altogether fulfil.\nAnd having thus said, he himself took care to catechise me the same\nhour; and--being cured--_vitali etiam unda perfusus sum_, I was\nbaptized.\n\nI commend not this example of re-baptizing, the rather because it\nseems the priest was not deposed till after he had baptized\nHerebaldus: but if he went so far as to re-baptize, and account the\nbaptism a nullity, which was done by an unable, insufficient\npresbyter, though rightly ordained, judge but as favourably of men\nthat avoid such presbyters in our age.\n\nThe third instance shall be that of Cyprian, and all the worthy\nbishops in the councils of Carthage in his time, who re-baptized those\nbaptized by heretics. And consider withal that in those times many\nwere called heretics whom we call but schismatics, that drew disciples\nafter them into separated bodies and parties, speaking perverse\nthings, though not contrary to the very essentials of religion, Acts\nxx. 30. I justify not their opinion: but if so many holy bishops\ncounted the very baptism of such a nullity, be not too severe and\ncensorious against those that go not at all so far from an\ninsufficient, or ungodly, or grossly scandalous man, for the mere\npreservation of their own souls.\n\nTo these I will add the saying of one of the honester sort of Jesuits,\nAcosta; and in him of an ancienter than he: lib. iv. c. 1. p. 354. de\nreb. Indic. He extolleth the words of Dionysius Epist. viii. ad\nDemoph. which are, _Si igitur qu\u00e6 illuminat sacerdotum est sancta\ndistinctio, proculdubio ille a sacerdotali ordine et virtute omnino\nprolapsus est, qui illuminans non est, multoque sane magis qui neque\nilluminatus est. Atque mihi quidem videtur audax nimium hujusmodi est,\nsi sacerdotalia munia sibi assumit; neque metuit, neque veretur ea qu\u00e6\nsunt divina pr\u00e6ter meritum persequi; putatque ea latere Deum, quorum\nsibi ipse conscius sit; et se Deum fallere existimat, quem falso\nnomine appellat patrem; audetque scelestas blasphemias suas (neque\nenim preces dixerim) sacris aris inferre; easque super signa illa\ndivina, ad Christi similitudinem dicere. Non est iste sacerdos; non\nest; sed infestus, atrox, dolosus, illusor sui, et lupus in dominicam\ngregem ovina pelle armatus. His plura aut majora de evangelici\nministerii et culmine et pr\u00e6cipitio qui expectat, cuique ad\nresipiscendum non ista sufficiunt, infatuatum se juxta Domini\nsententiam, et nullo unquam sale saliri posse demonstrat._ I will not\nEnglish it, lest those take encouragement by it who are bent to the\nother extreme.\n\n7. Yet it will be a great offence, if any censorious, self-conceited\nperson shall on this pretence set up his judgment of men's parts, to\nthe contempt of authority, or to the vilifying of worthy men; and\nespecially if he thereby make a stir and schism in the church, instead\nof seeking his own edification.\n\n8. Yea, if a minister be weaker, yea, and colder and worse than\nanother, yet if his ministry be competently fitted to edification, he\nthat cannot leave him and go to a better, without apparent hurt to the\nchurch, and the souls of others, by division, or exasperating rulers,\nor breaking family order, or violating relative duties, must take\nhimself to be at present denied the greater helps that others have,\nand may trust God in the use of those weaker means, to accept and\nbless him; because he is in the station where he hath set him. This\ncase therefore must be resolved by a prudent comparing of the good or\nhurt which is like to follow, and of the accidents or circumstances\nwhence that must be discerned.\n\n[239] In the time of the Arian emperors the churches refused the\nbishops whom the emperors imposed on them, and stuck to their own\northodox bishops; especially at Alexandria and C\u00e6sarea, after the\ngreatest urgency for their obedience.\n\n[240] Matt. xvi. 26; Prov. x. 32; xix. 8; Luke xii. 4.\n\n[241] Matt. xv. 14; 1 Tim. iv. 6, 16; Matt. xvi. 6; xxiv. 4. Mark iv.\n24; Luke viii. 18; Matt. xxiii. 16.\n\n\nQuest. X. _What if the magistrate command the people to receive one\npastor, and the bishops or ordainers another, which of them must be\nobeyed?_\n\n1. The magistrate, and not the bishop or people, (unless under him,)\nhath the power and disposal of the circumstantials or accidents of the\nchurch; I mean of the temple, the pulpit, the tithes, &c.[242] And he\nis to determine what ministers are fit either for his own countenance\nor toleration, and what not. In these therefore he is to be obeyed\nbefore the bishops or others.\n\n2. If a pope or prelate of a foreign church, or any that hath no\nlawful jurisdiction or government over the church that wanteth a\npastor, shall command them to receive one, their command is null, and\nto be contemned.\n\n3. Neither magistrate nor bishop, as is said, may deny the church or\npeople any liberty which God in nature, or Christ in the gospel, hath\nsettled on them, as to the reception of their proper pastors.\n\n4. No bishop, but only the magistrate, can compel by the sword the\nobedience of his commands.\n\n5. If one of them command the reception of a worthy person, and the\nother of an intolerable one, the former must prevail, because of\nobedience to Christ, and care of our souls.\n\n6. But if the persons be equal, or both fit, the magistrate is to be\nobeyed, if he be peremptory in his commands, and decide the case in\norder to the peace or protection of the church; both because it is a\nlawful thing, and because else he will permit no other.\n\n7. And the rather because the magistrate's power is more past\ncontroversy, than, whether any bishop, pastor, or synod, can any\nfurther than by counsel and persuasion, oblige the people to receive a\npastor.\n\n[242] See more of this after.\n\n\nQuest. XI. _Whether an uninterrupted succession either of right\nordination or of conveyance by jurisdiction, be necessary to the being\nof the ministry, or of a true church?_\n\nThe papists have hitherto insisted on the necessity of successive\nright ordination; but Voetius _de desperata Causa Papatus_ hath in\nthis so handled them, and confuted Jansenius, as hath indeed showed\nthe desperateness of that cause: and they perceive that the papacy\nitself cannot be upheld by that way; and therefore Johnson, alias\nTerret, in his rejoinder against me, now concludeth, that it is not\nfor want of a successive consecration that they condemn the church of\nEngland, but for want of true jurisdiction, because other bishops had\ntitle to the places whilst they were put in; and that successive\nconsecration (which we take to include ordination) is not necessary to\nthe being of ministry or church. And it is most certain to any man\nacquainted in church history, that their popes have had a succession\nof neither. Their way of election hath been frequently changed,\nsometimes being by the people, sometimes by the clergy, sometimes by\nthe emperors, and lastly by the cardinals alone. Ordination they have\nsometimes wanted, and a layman been chosen; and oft the ordination\nhath been by such as had no power according to their own laws. And\nfrequent intercisions have been made, sometimes by many years'\nvacancy, when they had no church (and so there was none on earth, if\nthe pope be the constitutive head) for want of a pope: sometimes by\nlong schisms, when of two or three popes, no one could be known to\nhave more right than another, nor did they otherwise carry it, than by\npower at last: sometimes by the utter incapacity of the possessors,\nsome being laymen, some heretics and infidels, so judged by councils\nat Rome, Constance, Basil; and Eugenius the fourth continued after he\nwas so censured, and condemned, and deposed by the general council. I\nhave proved all this at large elsewhere.\n\nAnd he that will not be cheated with a bare sound of words, but will\nask them, whether by a succession of jurisdiction, they mean\nefficient, conveying jurisdiction in the causers of his call, or\nreceived jurisdiction in the office received, will find that they do\nbut hide their desperate cause in confusion and an insignificant\nnoise. For they maintain that none on earth have an efficient\njurisdiction in making popes. For the former pope doth not make his\nsuccessor; and both electors, ordainers, and consecrators, yea, and\nthe people receiving, they hold to be subjects of the pope when made,\nand therefore make him not by jurisdiction giving him the power.\nTherefore Johnson tells me, that Christ only, and not man, doth give\nthe power, and they must needs hold that men have nothing to do but\ndesign the person recipient by election and reception, and to invest\nhim ceremonially in the possession. So that no efficient jurisdiction\nis here used at all by man. And for received jurisdiction, 1. No one\nquestioneth but when that office is received which is essentially\ngoverning, he that receiveth it receiveth a governing power, or else\nhe did not receive the office. If the question be only, whether the\noffice of a bishop be an office of jurisdiction, or contain\nessentially a governing power, they make no question of this\nthemselves. So that the noise of successive jurisdiction is vanished\ninto nothing. 2. And with them that deny any jurisdiction to belong to\npresbyters, this will be nothing as to their case, who have nothing\nbut orders to receive.\n\nThey have nothing of sense left them to say but this, That though the\nefficient jurisdiction which maketh popes be only in Christ, because\nno men are their superiors, yet bishops and presbyters who have\nsuperiors, cannot receive their power but by an efficient power of\nman, which must come down by uninterrupted succession.\n\n_Answ._ 1. And so if ever the papal office have an intercision, (as I\nhave proved it hath had as to lawful popes,) the whole catholic church\nis nullified; and it is impossible to give it a new being, but by a\nnew pope.\n\nBut the best is, that by their doctrine indeed they need not to plead\nfor an uninterrupted succession either of popes, bishops, or\npresbyters, but that they think it a useful cheat to perplex all that\nare not their subjects. For if the papacy were extinct a hundred\nyears, Christ is still alive; and seeing it is no matter _ad esse_ who\nbe the electors or consecraters, so it be but made known conveniently\nto the people, and men only elect and receive the person, and Christ\nonly giveth the power, (by his stated law,) what hindereth after the\nlongest extinction or intercision, but that somebody, or some sort of\nperson, may choose a pope again, and so Christ make him pope? And thus\nthe catholic church may die and live again by a new creation, many\ntimes over.\n\nAnd when the pope hath a resurrection after the longest intercision,\nso may all the bishops and priests in the world, because a new pope\ncan make new bishops, and new bishops can make new priests. And where\nthen is there any show of necessity of an uninterrupted succession of\nany of them? All that will follow is, that the particular churches die\ntill a resurrection; and so doth the whole church on earth every time\nthe pope dieth, till another be made, if he be the constitutive head.\n\n2. But as they say that Christ only efficiently giveth the power to\nthe pope, so say we to the bishops or pastors of the church. For there\nis no act of Christ's collation to be proved, but the Scripture law or\ngrant: and if that standing law give power to the pope, when men have\nbut designed the person, the same law will do the same to bishops or\npastors; for it establisheth their office in the same sort. Or rather\nin truth there is no word, that giveth power to any such officer as a\nuniversal head or pope, but the law for the pastoral office is\nuncontrovertible.\n\nAnd what the Spanish bishops at Trent thought of the Divine right of\nthe bishop's office, I need not mention.\n\nI shall therefore thus truly resolve the question.\n\n1. In all ordinations and elections, man doth but first choose the\nrecipient person. 2. And ceremoniously and ministerially invest him in\nthe possession when God hath given him the power; but the efficient\ncollation or grant of the power is done only by Christ, by the\ninstrumentality of his law or institution. As when the king by a\ncharter saith, Whoever the city shall choose, shall be their mayor,\nand have such and such power, and be invested in it by the recorder or\nsteward: here the person elected receiveth all his power from the king\nby his charter, (which is a standing efficient, conveying it to the\ncapable chosen person,) and not from the choosers or recorder; only\nthe last is as a servant to deliver possession. So is it in this case.\n\n2. The regular way of entrance appointed by Christ to make a person\ncapable, is the said election and ordination. And for order sake where\nthat may be had, the unordained are not to be received as pastors.\n\n3. If any get possession, by false, pretended ordination or mission,\nand be received by the church. I have before told you that he is a\npastor as to the church's use and benefit, though not to his own. And\nso the church is not extinct by every fraudulent usurpation or\nmistake, and so not by want of a true ordination or mission.\n\n4. If the way of regular ordination fail, God may otherwise (by the\nchurch's necessity, and the notorious aptitude of the person) notify\nhis will to the church, what person they shall receive; (as if a\nlayman were cast on the Indian shore and converted thousands, who\ncould have no ordination;) and upon the people's reception or consent,\nthat man will be a true pastor.\n\nAnd seeing the papists in the conclusion (as Johnson _ubi supra_) are\nfain to cast all their cause on the church's reception of the pope,\nthey cannot deny reasonably but _ad esse_ the church's reception may\nserve also for another officer; and indeed much better than for a\npope. For, 1. The universal church is so great, that no man can know\nwhen the greater part receiveth him, and when not, except in some\nnotorious declarations. 2. And it is now known, that the far greater\npart of the universal church (the Greeks, Armenians, Abassines,\nCoptics, protestants, &c.) do not receive the Roman head. 3. And when\none part of Europe received one pope, and another part another pope,\nfor above forty years together, who could tell which of the parties\nwas to be accounted the church? It was not then known, and is not\nknown yet to this day; and no papist can prove it, who affirmeth it.\n\nAs a church, e. g. Constantinople, may be gathered, or _oriri de novo_\nwhere there is none before, so may it be restored where it is extinct.\nAnd possibly a layman (as Frumentius and Edesius in the Indies) may be\nthe instrument of men's conversion. And if so, they may by consent\nbecome their pastors, when regular ordination cannot be had.\n\nI have said more of this in my \"Disputations of Church Government,\"\ndisp. ii. The truth is, the pretence of a necessity of uninterrupted,\nsuccessive ordination, mission, or jurisdictional collation _ad esse_,\nto the being of ministry or church, is but a cheat of men that have an\ninterest of their own which requireth such a plea, when they may\neasily know, that it would overthrow themselves.\n\n\nQuest. XII. _Whether there be, or ever was, such a thing in the world,\nas one catholic church, constituted by any head besides or under\nChrist?_\n\nThe greatest and first controversy between us and the papists, is not\nwhat man or politic person is the head of the whole visible church;\nbut, whether there be any such head at all, either personal, or\ncollective, monarchical, aristocratical, or democratical under Christ,\nof his appointment or allowance? or any such thing as a catholic\nchurch so headed or constituted? Which they affirm and we deny. That\nneither pope nor general council is such a head, I have proved so\nfully in my \"Key for Catholics\" and other books, that I will not here\nstay to make repetition of it. That the pope is no such head, we may\ntake for granted, 1. Because they bring no proof of it, whatever they\nvainly pretend. 2. Because our divines have copiously disproved it, to\nwhom I refer you. 3. Because the universal church never received such\na head, as I have proved against Johnson. 4. And whether it be the\npope, their bishop of Chalcedon, _ubi supra_, et Sancta Clara,\n\"System. Fid.\" say is not _de fide_.\n\nThat a council is no such head I have largely proved as aforesaid,\npart ii. \"Key for Catholics.\" And, 1. The use of it being but for\nconcord proveth it. 2. Most papists confess it. 3. Else there should\nbe seldom any church in the world for want of a head, yea, never any.\n\nFor I have proved there and to Johnson, that there never was a true\ngeneral council of the universal church; but only imperial councils of\nthe churches under one emperor's power, and those that having been\nunder it, had been used to such councils; and that it is not a thing\never to be attempted or expected, as being unlawful and morally\nimpossible.[243]\n\n[243] See also my \"Reasons of Christian Religion,\" Cons. ii. of the\ninterest of the church.\n\n\nQuest. XIII. _Whether there be such a thing as a visible catholic\nchurch? And what it is?_\n\nThe ancients differently used the terms, a catholic church, and, the\ncatholic church. By the first they meant any particular church which\nwas part of the universal; by the second they meant the universal\nchurch itself.[244] And this is it that we now mean. And I answer\naffirmatively, there is a visible universal church, not only as a\ncommunity, or as a kingdom distinct from the king, but as a political\nsociety.\n\n2. This church is the universality of baptized visible christians\nheaded by Jesus Christ himself.[245]\n\nThere is this, and there is no other upon earth. The papists say, that\nthis is no visible church because the Head is not visible.\n\nI answer, 1. It is not necessary that he be seen, but visible: and is\nnot Christ a visible person?\n\n2. This church consisteth of two parts, the triumphant part in glory,\nand the militant part; and Christ is not only visible but seen by the\ntriumphant part: as the king is not seen by the ten-thousandth part of\nhis kingdoms, but by his courtiers and those about him, and yet he is\nking of all.\n\n3. Christ was seen on earth for above thirty years; and the kingdom\nmay be called visible, in that the King was once visible on earth, and\nis now visible in heaven: as if the king would show himself to his\npeople but one year together in all his life.\n\n4. It ill becometh the papists of any men, to say that Christ is not\nvisible, who make him, see him, taste him, handle him, eat him, drink\nhim, digest him in every church, in every mass throughout the year,\nand throughout the world; and this not as divided, but as whole\nChrist.\n\n_Object._ But this is not _quatenus_ regent.\n\n_Answ._ If you see him that is regent, and see his laws and gospel\nwhich are his governing instruments, together with his ministers who\nare his officers, it is enough to denominate his kingdom visible.\n\n5. The church might be fitly denominated visible _secundum quid_, if\nChrist himself were invisible; because the politic body is visible,\nthe dispersed officers, assemblies, and laws are visible. But sure all\nthese together may well serve for the denomination.\n\n[244] 1 Cor. xii. 12, and throughout.\n\n[245] Eph. iv. 1, 5-7, 16.\n\n\nQuest. XIV. _What is it that maketh a visible member of the universal\nchurch? And who are to be accounted such?_\n\n1. Baptism maketh a visible member of the universal church; and the\nbaptized (as to entrance, unless they go out again) are to be\naccounted such.[246]\n\n2. By baptism we mean, open devotion or dedication to God by the\nbaptismal covenant, in which the adult for themselves, and parents for\ntheir infants, do profess consent to the covenant of grace; which\nincludeth a belief of all the essential articles of the faith, and a\nresolution for sincere obedience; and a consent to the relations\nbetween God and us, viz. that he be our reconciled Father, our\nSaviour, and our Sanctifier.\n\n3. The continuance of this consent is necessary to the continuance of\nour visible membership.\n\n4. He that through ignorance, or incapacity for want of water, or a\nminister, is not baptized, and yet is solemnly or notoriously\ndedicated and devoted to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the\nsame covenant, though without the outward sign, and professeth openly\nthe same religion, is a visible christian, though not by a complete\nand regular visibility; as a soldier not listed nor taking his\ncolours, or a marriage not regularly solemnized, &c.\n\n5. He that forsaketh his covenant by apostasy, or is totally and duly\nexcommunicated, ceaseth to be a visible member of the church.\n\n[246] Matt. xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 16.\n\n\nQuest. XV. _Whether besides the profession of christianity, either\ntestimony or evidence of conversion, or practical godliness, be\nnecessary to prove a man a member of the universal visible church?_\n\n1. As the Mediator is the way to the Father, sent to recover us to\nGod, so christianity includeth godliness; and he professeth not\nchristianity, who professeth not godliness.[247]\n\n2. He that professeth the baptismal covenant, professeth christianity,\nand godliness, and true conversion. And therefore cannot be rejected\nfor want of a profession of conversion or godliness.\n\n3. But he that is justly suspected not to understand his own\nprofession, but to speak general words, without the sense, may and\nought to be examined by him that is to baptize him; and therefore\nthough the apostles among the Jews who had been bred up among the\noracles of God, did justly presume of so much understanding, as that\nthey baptized men the same day that they professed to believe in\nChrist; yet when they baptized converted gentiles, we have reason to\nthink, that they first received a particular account of their\nconverts, that they understood the three essential articles of the\ncovenant.[248] 1. Because the creed is fitted to that use, and hath\nbeen ever used thereunto by the churches, as by tradition from the\napostles' practice. 2. Because the church in all ages, as far as\nchurch history leadeth us upward, hath used catechising before\nbaptizing; yea, and to keep men as catechumens some time for\npreparation. 3. Because common experience telleth us, that multitudes\ncan say the creed that understand it not.\n\nIf any yet urge the apostles' example, I will grant that it obligeth\nus when the case is the like (and I will not fly to any conceit of\ntheir heart-searching, or discerning men's sincerity). When you bring\nus to a people that before were the visible church of God, and were\nall their lifetime trained up in the knowledge of God, of sin, of\nduty, of the promised Messiah, according to all the law and prophets,\nand want nothing, but to know the Son and the Holy Ghost, that this\nJesus is the Christ, who will reconcile us to God, and give us the\nsanctifying Spirit, then we will also baptize men the same day that\nthey profess to believe in Jesus Christ, and in the Father as\nreconciled by him, and the Holy Ghost as given by him. But if we have\nthose to deal with who know not God, or sin, or misery, or Scripture\nprophecies, no nor natural verities, we know no proof that the\napostles so hastily baptized such.\n\nOf this I have largely spoken in my \"Treatise of Confirmation.\"\n\n4. It is not necessary to a man's baptism and first church membership,\nthat he give any testimony of an antecedent godly life; because it is\nrepentance and future obedience professed that is his title; and we\nmust not keep men from covenanting, till we first see whether they\nwill keep the covenant which they are to make. For covenanting goeth\nbefore covenant keeping: and it is any, the most impious sinner, who\nrepenteth, that is to be washed and justified as soon as he becometh a\nbeliever.\n\n5. Yet if any that professeth faith and repentance, should commit\nwhoredom, drunkenness, murder, blasphemy, or any mortal sin, before he\nis baptized, we have reason to make a stop of that man's baptism,\nbecause he contradicteth his own profession, and giveth us cause to\ntake it for hypocritical, till he give us better evidence that he is\npenitent indeed.[249]\n\n6. Heart covenanting maketh an invisible church member, and verbal\ncovenanting and baptism make a visible church member. And he that\nmaketh a profession of christianity, so far as to declare that he\nbelieveth all the articles of the creed particularly and\nunderstandingly, (with some tolerable understanding, though not\ndistinct enough and full,) and that he openly devoteth himself to God\nthe Father, Son, and Spirit, in the vow and covenant of baptism, doth\nproduce a sufficient title to the relation of a christian and church\nmember; and no minister may reject him, for want of telling when, and\nby what arguments, means, order, or degrees he was converted.\n\n7. They that forsake these terms of church entrance, left us by Christ\nand his apostles, and used by all the churches in the world, and\nreject those that show the title of such a profession, for want of\nsomething more, and set up other, stricter terms of their own, as\nnecessary to discover men's conversion and sincerity, are guilty of\nchurch tyranny against men, and usurpation against Christ; and of\nmaking engines to divide the churches, seeing there will never be\nagreement on any human devised terms, but some will be of one side,\nand some of another, when they forsake the terms of Christ.\n\n8. Yet if the pastor shall see cause upon suspicion of hypocrisy, _ad\nmelius esse_, to put divers questions to one man more than to another,\nand to desire further satisfaction, the catechumens ought in\nconscience to answer him, and endeavour his satisfaction. For a\nminister is not tied up to speak only such or such words to the\npenitent; and he that should say, I will answer you no further than to\nrepeat the creed, doth give a man reason to suppose him either\nignorant or proud, and to suspend the reception of him, though not to\ndeny it. But still _ad esse_ no terms must be imposed as necessary on\nthe church, but what the Holy Ghost by the apostles hath established.\n\n[247] John xiv. 6; 1 Tim. iii. 16; vi. 3, 11; 2 Pet. i. 3.\n\n[248] Acts ii. 38, 39.\n\n[249] Cor. vi. 9, 10; Tit. iii. 3-5; Eph. ii. 1-3; Acts ii. 37, 38.\n\n\nQuest. XVI. _What is necessary to a man's reception into membership in\na particular church, over and above this foresaid title? whether any\nother trials, or covenant, or what?_\n\n1. A particular church is a regular part of the universal, as a city\nof a kingdom, or a troop of an army.\n\n2. Every man that is a member of the particular church, is a member of\nthe universal; but every one that is a member of the universal church,\nis not a member of a particular.\n\n3. Every particular church hath its own particular pastor, (one or\nmore,) and its own particular place or bounds of habitation or\nresidence; therefore he that will be a member of a particular church,\n1. Must cohabit, or live in a proximity capable of communion. 2. And\nmust consent to be a member of that particular church, and to be under\nthe guidance of its particular pastor, in their office work. For he\ncannot be made a member without his own consent and will; nor can he\nbe a member, that subjecteth not himself to the governor or guide.\n\n4. He therefore that will intrude into their communion and privileges\nwithout expressing his consent beforehand to be a member, and to\nsubmit to the pastoral oversight, is to be taken for an invader.\n\n5. But no other personal qualification is to be exacted of him as\nnecessary, but that he be a member of the church universal. As he is\nnot to be baptized again, so neither to give again all that account of\nhis faith and repentance particularly which he gave at baptism; much\nless any higher proofs of his sincerity; but if he continue in the\ncovenant and church state which he was baptized into, he is capable\nthereby of reception into any particular church upon particular\nconsent. Nor is there any Scripture proof of any new examinations\nabout their conversion or sincerity, at their removals or entrance\ninto a particular church.\n\n6. But yet because he is not now looked on only as a covenant maker,\nas he was at baptism, but also as a covenant keeper or performer,\ntherefore if any can prove that he is false to his baptismal covenant,\nby apostasy, heresy, or a wicked life, he is to be refused till he be\nabsolved upon his renewed repentance.\n\n7. He that oft professeth to repent, and by oft revolting into mortal\nsin, (that is, sin which showeth a state of death,) doth show that he\nwas not sincere, must afterward show his repentance by actual\namendment, before he can say, it is his due to be believed.\n\n8. Whether you will call this consent to particular church relation\nand duty, by the name of a covenant or not, is but _lis de nomine_: it\nis more than mutual consent that is necessary to be expressed; and\nmutual consent expressed may be called a covenant.\n\n9. _Ad melius esse_, the more express the consent or covenant is, the\nbetter: for in so great matters men should know what they do, and deal\nabove-board: especially when experience telleth us, that ignorance and\nimagery is ready to eat out the heart of religion in almost all the\nchurches in the world. But yet _ad esse_ churches must see that they\nfeign or make no more covenants necessary than God hath made; because\nhuman, unnecessary inventions have so long distracted and laid waste\nthe churches of Christ.\n\n10. The pastor's consent must concur with the persons to be received:\nfor it must be mutual consent; and as none can be a member, so none\nmay be a pastor, against his will.[250] And though he be under\nChrist's laws what persons to receive, and is not arbitrary to do what\nhe list, yet he is the guide of the church, and the discerner of his\nown duty. And a pastor may have reasons to refuse to take a man into\nhis particular charge, without rejecting him as unworthy. Perhaps he\nmay already have more in number than he can well take care of. And\nother such reasons may fall out.\n\n11. In those countries where the magistrate's laws and common consent,\ndo take every qualified person for a member of that church where his\nhabitation is, (called a parish,) and to which he ordinarily\nresorteth, the pastor that undertaketh that charge, doth thereby seem\nto consent to be pastor to all such persons in that parish. And there\ncohabitation and ordinary conjunction with the church, may go for a\nsignification of consent, and instead of more particular contract or\ncovenant, by virtue of the exposition of the said laws and customs.\nYet so, that a man is not therefore to be taken for a member of the\nchurch merely because he liveth in the parish; for so atheists,\ninfidels, heretics, and papists may do; but because he is, 1. A\nparishioner, 2. Qualified, 3. Joining with the church, and actually\nsubmitting to the ministry.\n\n12. Where there is this much only, it is a sinful slander to say that\nsuch a parish is no true church of Christ; however there may be many\ndesirable orders wanting to its better being. Who hath the power of\ntrying and receiving we shall show anon.\n\n[250] Matt. xxviii. 19, 20; Heb. xiii. 7, 17; 1 Thess. v. 12, 13; 1\nTim. v. 17.\n\n\nQuest. XVII. _Wherein doth the ministerial office essentially\nconsist?_\n\nThe office of the sacred ministry is a mixed relation (not a\nsimple).[251] I. As the minister is related to Christ, he is his\nservant or minister by office; that is, one commissioned by him for\nthat sacred work: where there is, 1. The commission itself (which is\nnot particular, but general, in a general law, applicable to each\nsingular person when qualified). 2. The determination of the\nindividual person who is to receive it: which consisteth in the call,\nwhich I have opened before and therefore repeat not. Only note again,\n1. That by virtue of the general commission or institution of the\noffice in specie, the power is conveyed from Christ to the individual\nperson, and that the church (electors or ordainers) are not the\ndonors, authorizers, or obligers, but only instruments of designing an\napt recipient, and delivering him possession. 2. That by virtue of\nthis institution, charter, or law commission, it is that the acts of a\nman seemingly or visibly called, are valid to the church, though\nreally he were not ordained or truly called, but deceived them by\nhypocritical intrusion.[252]\n\n2. The causation or efficiency of Christ in the making any one a\nminister, is, 1. Dispositive, making him a qualified, fit recipient;\n2. Then applying the general commission to him, or giving him the\nfunction itself.[253]\n\n1. The dispositive acts of Christ are, 1. Giving him competent\nknowledge for a minister. 2. Giving him competent goodness; that is,\nlove to God, truth, and souls, and willingness for the work. 3. Giving\nhim competent power and abilities for execution, which is principally\nin utterance; and so qualifying his intellect, will, and executive\npower.[254]\n\n2. The immediate conveyance or act of collation, is, 1. An obligation\nlaid on the person to do the work. 2. Authority given him to warrant\nhim, and to oblige others; that is, a _jus docendi, gubernandi,\n&c._\n\n3. The form of the relation is denominated, 1. From the reception of\nthese efficiencies in general. 2. From the subordination which hereby\nthey are placed in to Christ, as their relation is denominated _a\ntermino_.\n\n1. Formally the office consisteth in, 1. An obligation to do the work\nof the office. 2. Authority to do it, and to oblige others to submit\nto it.\n\n2. These make up an office which being denominated also from the\n_terminus_, is considered, 1. As to the nearest term, which is the\nwork to be done. 2. The remote, which is the object of that work.\n\nThe work is, 1. Teaching: 2. Ruling: 3. Worshipping.[255] And so it is\nessentially An obligation and power of ministerial teaching, ruling,\nand worshipping God.\n\n2. As to the object it is, 1. The world to be converted. 2. The\nconverted to be baptized, and congregated or ordered into particular\nsocieties (so far as may be). 3. The baptized and congregate to be,\n(1.) Taught; (2.) Ruled; (3.) Guided in worship.[256]\n\nFrom all which resulteth an office which is ministerially subordinate\nto Christ, 1. The Prophet or Teacher; 2. The Ruler; 3. The High Priest\nand Lover of his church; and it may be aptly called both a teaching\nministry, a ruling ministry, (not by the sword, but by the word,) and\na priesthood or priestly ministry.[257]\n\nII. As the pastor is related to the church, he is, 1. A constitutive\npart of particular political churches. 2. He is Christ's minister for\nthe church and for Christ; that is, to teach, rule, and worship with\nthe church. He is above the church, and greater than it, as to order\nand power, and not the minister of the church as the efficient of the\nministry: but he is less and worse than the church finally and\nmaterially; and is finally the church's minister, as the physician is\nthe patient's physician; not made a physician by him, but chosen and\nused as his physician for his cure: so that to speak properly, he is\nnot from them, but for them. He is Christ's minister for their good;\nas the shepherd is his master's servant, for his flock, and so finally\nonly the servant of the sheep.[258]\n\nThe whole uncontrovertible work of the office is laid down in my small\nbook called \"Universal Concord,\" to which I must refer you.\n\n[251] John xx. 21; xiii. 20; Luke x. 3; Rom. x. 15; Acts xx. 28.\n\n[252] Phil. i. 15-17; Matt. vii. 22; Rom. xv. 14.\n\n[253] Eph. iv. 7, 8; 2 Tim. ii. 2; i. 5, 7; Eph. vi. 19; Col. iv. 3; 2\nCor. x. 4, 5.\n\n[254] Tit. i. 2; 2 Cor. viii. 6; 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2; Tit. i. 7.\n\n[255] 2 Tim. 2; iii. 2; iv. 11; vi. 2, 3; 1 Thess. v. 12, 13.\n\n[256] Heb. xiii. 7, 17; Acts vi. 4; ix. 40; xx. 36; Mal. ii. 7; Heb.\nx. 11.\n\n[257] Rev. i. 6; v. 10; xx. 6; 1 Pet. ii. 5, 6.\n\n[258] Rom. i. 1; Col. iv. 12; 2 Pet. i. 1; 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2; iii. 5; 2\nCor. iii. 6; xi. 4; xi. 23; Matt. xxix. 45, 46, 48; 1 Cor. ix. 19.\n\n\nQuest. XVIII. _Whether the people's choice or consent is necessary to\nthe office of a minister in his first work, as he is to convert\ninfidels, and baptize them? And whether this be a work of office? And\nwhat call is necessary to it?_\n\nI conjoin these three distinct questions for expedition.\n\n1. That it is part of the minister's office work to teach, convert,\nand baptize men, to bring them out of the world into the church, is\nundeniable; 1. In Christ's express commission, Matt. xxviii. 19, 20,\n\"Go, disciple me all nations, baptizing them--\" 2. In the execution of\nthis commission.\n\n2. That this was not peculiar to the apostles or their age is proved,\n1. Because not an extraordinary work, like miracles, &c. but the first\ngreat business of the gospel and ministry in the world. 2. Because\nothers as well as the apostles did it in that age, and ever since. 3.\nBecause the promise is annexed to the office thus described, \"I am\nwith you always to the end of the world.\" Or if you translate it\n\"age,\" it is the age of the church of the Messiah incarnate, which is\nall one. 4. Because it was a small part of the world comparatively\nthat heard the gospel in the apostles' days.[259] And the far greatest\npart of the world is without it at this day, when yet God our Saviour\nwould have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the\ntruth. 5. Even where the gospel hath long continued, for the most part\nthere are many still that are in infidelity. And so great a work is\nnot left without an appointed suitable means for its performance: and\nif an office was necessary for it in the first age, it is not credible\nthat it is left to private men's charity ever since. 6. Especially\nconsidering that private men are to be supposed insufficient; (1.)\nBecause they are not educated purposely for it, but usually for\nsomething else. (2.) Because that they have other callings to take\nthem up. (3.) Because they have no special obligation. And that which\nis no man's peculiar work, is usually left undone by all.\n\nII. The people's call or consent is not necessary to a minister's\nreception of his office in general, nor for this part of his work in\nspecial; but only to his pastoral relation to themselves.\n\n1. It is so in other functions that are exercised by skill. The\npatients or people make not a man a physician or lawyer, but only\nchoose what physician shall be their physician, and what lawyer shall\nbe their counsellor.\n\n2. If the people's call or consent be necessary, it is either the\ninfidels' or the church's. Not the infidels to whom he is to preach:\nfor, 1. He is authorized to preach to them (as the apostles were)\nbefore he goeth to them. 2. Their consent is but a natural consequent\nrequisite for the reception and success of their teaching, but not to\nthe authority which is prerequisite. 3. Infidels cannot do so much\ntowards the making of a minister of Christ. 4. Else Christ would have\nfew such ministers. 5. If it be infidels, either all or some? If some,\nwhy those rather than others? Or is a man made a minister by every\ninfidel auditory that heareth him?\n\n2. Nor is it christian people that must do this much to the making of\na general minister: for, 1. They have no such power given for it, in\nnature or the word of God. 2. They are generally unqualified and\nunable for such a work. 3. They are no where obliged to it, nor can\nfitly leave their callings for it; much less to get the abilities\nnecessary to judge. 4. Which of the people have this power? Is it any\nof them, or any church of private men? or some one more than the rest?\nNeither one nor all can lay any claim to it. There is some reason why\nthis congregation rather than another should choose their own pastors;\nbut there is no reason (nor Scripture) that this congregation choose a\nminister to convert the world.\n\nIII. I conclude therefore that the call of a minister in general doth\nconsist, 1. Dispositively in the due qualifications and enablement of\nthe person. 2. And the necessity of the people, with opportunity, is a\nprovidential part of the call. 3. And the ordainers are the orderly\nelectors and determiners of the person that shall receive the power\nfrom Christ.\n\n1. For this is part of the power of the keys or church government. 2.\nAnd Paul giveth this direction for exercising of this power to\nTimothy, which showeth the ordinary way of calling; 2 Tim. ii. 2, \"And\nthe things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same\ncommit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others\nalso.\"[260] Acts xiii. 1-3, \"There were in the church at Antioch\ncertain prophets--As they ministered to the Lord, the Holy Ghost said,\nSeparate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called\nthem; and when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on\nthem, they sent them away. And they being sent forth by the Holy\nGhost, departed.\" In this (whether it be called an ordination, or\nrather a mission) there is somewhat ordinary, (that it be by men in\noffice,) and somewhat extraordinary (that it be by a special\ninspiration of the Holy Ghost).\n\nAnd Timothy received his gifts and office by the imposition of the\nhands of Paul and of the presbytery. 1 Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6, 1\nTim. v. 22, \"Lay hands suddenly on no man.\"\n\nThese instances make the case the clearer, 1. Because it is certain\nthat all the governing power which is given by Christ to the church\nunder the name of the keys, is given to the pastors. 2. Because there\nare no other competitors to lay a reasonable claim to it.\n\n[259] Rom. x. 15, 16.\n\n[260] 1 Tim. iii. 6, 7; Tit. i. 5, 6.\n\n\nQuest. XIX. _Wherein consistent the power and nature of ordination?\nAnd to whom doth it belong? And is it an act of jurisdiction? And is\nimposition of hands necessary in it?_\n\nI. This is resolved on the by before. 1. Ordination performeth two\nthings: (1.) The designation, election, or determination of the person\nwho shall receive the office. (2.) The ministerial investiture of him\nin that office; which is a ceremonial delivery of possession; as a\nservant doth deliver possession of a house by delivering him the key,\nwho hath before received the power or right from the owner.\n\n2. The office delivered by this election and investiture, is the\nsacred ministerial office in general to be after exercised according\nto particular calls and opportunities; as Christ called the apostles,\nand the Spirit called the ordinary general teachers of those times;\nsuch as Barnabas, Silas, Silvanus, Timothy, Epaphroditus, Apollos, &c.\nAnd as is before cited, 2 Tim. ii. 2. As a man is made in general a\nlicensed physician, lawyer, &c.\n\n3. This ordination is _ordinis gratia_, necessary to order; and\ntherefore so far necessary as order is necessary; which is ordinarily,\nwhen the greater interest of the substantial duty, or of the thing\nordered, is not against it. As Christ determined the case of sabbath\nkeeping, and not eating the shewbread. As the sabbath was made for\nman, and not man for the sabbath, and the end is to be preferred\nbefore the separable means; so ordination was instituted for order,\nand order for the thing ordered, and for the work of the gospel, and\nthe good of souls, and not the gospel and men's souls for that order.\nTherefore when, 1. The death; 2. Distance; 3. Or malignity of the\nordainers depriveth a man of ordination, these three substitutes may\nnotify to him the will of God, that he is by him a person called to\nthat office: 1. Fitness for the works, in understanding, willingness,\nand ability; 2. The necessity of souls; 3. Opportunity.\n\nII. The power of ordaining belongeth not, 1. To magistrates; 2. Or to\nprivate men, either single or as the body of a church; but, 3. To the\nsenior pastors of the church (whether bishops or presbyters of a\ndistinct order, the reader must not expect that I here determine).\n\nFor, 1. The power is by Christ given to them, as is before proved; and\nin Tit. i. 5.\n\n2. None else are ordinarily able to discern aright the abilities of a\nman for the sacred ministry. The people may discern a profitable\nmoving preacher, but whether he understand the Scripture, or the\nsubstance of religion, or be sound in the faith and not heretical,\nand delude them not with a form of well-uttered words, they are not\nordinarily able to judge.\n\n3. None else are fit to attend this work, but pastors who are\nseparated to the sacred office.[261] It requireth more time to get\nfitness for it, and then to perform it faithfully, than either\nmagistrates or people can ordinarily bestow.\n\n4. The power is no where given by Christ to magistrates or people.\n\n5. It hath been exercised by pastors or church officers only, both in\nand ever since the apostles' days, in all the churches of the world.\nAnd we have no reason to think that the church hath been gathered from\nthe beginning till now, by so great an error, as a wrong conveyance of\nthe ministerial power.\n\nIII. The word jurisdiction as applied to the church officers, is no\nScripture word, and in the common sense soundeth too big, as\nsignifying more power than the servants of all must claim; for there\nis \"one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy.\"[262] But in a\nmore moderate sense it may be tolerated; as jurisdiction signifieth in\nparticular, 1. Legislation; 2. Or judicial process or sentence; 3. Or\nthe execution of such a sentence, strictly taken; so ordination is no\npart of jurisdiction. But as jurisdiction signifieth the same with the\npower of government, _jus regendi_ in general; so ordination is an act\nof jurisdiction. As the placing or choosing of inferior officers may\nbelong to the steward of a family, or as the calling or authorizing of\nphysicians belongeth to the college of physicians, and the authorizing\nof lawyers to the judges' society, or the authorizing of doctors in\nphilosophy to the society of philosophers or to particular rulers.\nWhere note, that in the three last instances, the learning or fitness\nof the said persons or societies, is but their _dispositio vel\naptitudo ad potestatem exercendam_; but the actual power of conveying\nauthority to others, or designing the recipient person, is received\nfrom the supreme power of the land, and so is properly an act of\nauthority, here called jurisdiction.\n\nSo that the common distinguishing of ordination from jurisdiction or\ngovernment, as if they were _tota specie_ different, is unsound.\n\nIV. Imposition of hands was a sign, (like the kiss of peace, and the\nanointing of persons, and like our kneeling in prayer, &c.) which\nhaving first somewhat in their nature to invite men to the use, was\nbecome a common significant sign, of a superior's benediction of an\ninferior, in those times and countries. And so was here applied\nordinarily for its antecedent significancy and aptitude to this use;\nand was not purposely instituted, nor had its significancy newly given\nit by institution; and so was not like a sacrament necessarily and\nperpetually affixed to ordination.\n\nTherefore we must conclude, 1. That imposition of hands in ordination\nis a decent, apt, significant sign, not to be scrupled by any, nor to\nbe omitted without necessity, as being of Scripture, ancient, and\ncommon use.\n\n2. But yet that it is not essential to ordination; which may be valid\nby any fit designation and separation of the person. And therefore if\nit be omitted, it nullifieth not the action. And if the ordainers did\nit by letters to a man a thousand miles off, it would be valid: and\nsome persons of old were ordained when they were absent.\n\nV. I add as to the need of ordination, 1. That without this key, the\noffice and church doors would be cast open, and every heretic or\nself-conceited person intrude.\n\n2. It is a sign of a proud, unworthy person, that will judge himself\nfit for so great a work, and intrude upon such a conceit, when he may\nhave the judgment of the pastors, and avoideth it.[263]\n\n3. Those that so do, should no more be taken for ministers by the\npeople, than any should go for christians that are not baptized, or\nfor married persons whose marriage is not solemnized.\n\n[261] Acts xiii. 2; Rom. i. 1; 1 Tim. iv. 15.\n\n[262] Isa. xxxiii. 22; Jam. iv. 12.\n\n[263] Acts xiii. 2; Heb. v. 4, 10.\n\n\nQuest. XX. _Is ordination necessary to make a man a pastor of a\nparticular church as such? And is he to be made a general minister and\na particular church elder or pastor at once, and by one ordination?_\n\nI have proved that a man may be made a minister in general, yea, and\nsent to exercise it in converting infidels, and baptizing them, before\never he is the pastor of any particular church. To which I add, that\nin this general ministry, he is a pastor in the universal church, as a\nlicensed physician that hath no hospital or charge, is a physician in\nthe kingdom.\n\nAnd, 1. As baptism is as such our entrance into the universal church,\nand not into a particular; so is ordination to a minister an entrance\nonly on the ministry as such.\n\n2. Yet a man may at once be made a minister in general, and the pastor\nof this or that church in particular: and in kingdoms wholly\ninchurched and christian, it is usually fittest so to do; lest many\nbeing ordained _sine titulo_, idleness and poverty of supernumeraries,\nshould corrupt and dishonour the ministry: which was the cause of the\nold canons in this case.\n\n3. But when a man is thus called to both at once, it is not all done\nby ordination as such; but his complicate relation proceedeth from a\ncomplication of causes. As he is a minister, it is by ordination. And\nas he is the pastor of this people, it is by the conjunct causes of\nappropriation: which are, 1. Necessarily the people's consent. 2.\nRegularly, the pastor's approbation and recommendation, and reception\nof the person into their communion. 3. And sometimes the magistrate\nmay do much to oblige the people to consent.\n\n4. But when a man is made a minister in general before, he needeth no\nproper ordination to fix him in a particular charge; but only an\napprobation, recommendation, particular investiture, and reception.\nFor else a man must be oft ordained, even as oft as he removeth. But\nyet imposition of hands may fitly be used in this particular\ninvestiture, though it be no proper ordination, that is, no collation\nof the office of a minister in general, but the fixing of one that was\na minister before.\n\n\nQuest. XXI. _May a man be oft or twice ordained?_\n\nIt is supposed, that we play not with an ambiguous word, that we\nremember what ordination is. And then you will see cause to\ndistinguish, 1. Between entire, true ordination, and the external act,\nor words, or ceremony only. 2. Between one that was truly ordained\nbefore, and one that was not. And so I answer,\n\n1. He that seemed ordained, and indeed was not, is not re-ordained\nwhen he is after-ordained.\n\n2. It is needful therefore to know the essentials of ordination, from\nthe integrals and accidentals.\n\n3. He that was truly ordained before, may in some cases receive again\nthe repetition of the bare words and outward ceremonies of ordination\n(as imposition of hands). Where I will, I. Tell you in what cases. II.\nWhy.\n\nI. 1. In case there wanted sufficient witnesses of his ordination; and\nso the church hath not sufficient means of notice or satisfaction,\nthat ever he was ordained indeed: or if the witnesses die before the\nnotification. Whether the church should take his word or not, in such\na case, is none of my question, but, Whether he should submit to the\nrepetition if they will not.\n\n2. Especially in a time and place (which I have known) when written\nand sealed orders are often counterfeited, and so the church called to\nextraordinary care.\n\n3. Or if the church or magistrate be guilty of some causeless,\nculpable incredulity, and will not believe it was done till they see\nit done again.\n\n4. Or in case that some real or supposed integral (though not\nessential) part was omitted, or is by the church or magistrate\nsupposed to be omitted; and they will not permit or receive the\nminister to exercise his office, unless he repeat the whole action\nagain, and make up that defect.\n\n5. Or if the person himself do think that his ordination was\ninsufficient, and cannot exercise his ministry to the satisfaction of\nhis own conscience, till the defect be repaired.\n\nIn these cases (and perhaps such others) the outward action may be\nrepeated.\n\nII. The reasons are, 1. Because this is not a being twice ordained.\nFor the word ordination, signifieth a moral action, and not a physical\nonly; as the word marriage doth, &c. And it essentially includeth the\nnew dedication and designation to the sacred office, by a kind of\ncovenant between the dedicated person and Christ to whom he is\nconsecrated and devoted. And the external words are but a part, and a\npart only as significant of the action of the mind. Now the oft\nexpressing of the same mental dedication doth not make it to be as\nmany distinct dedications. For, 1. If the liturgy or the person's\nwords were tautological, or at the ordination should say the same\nthing often over and over, or for confirmation should say often that\nwhich else might be said but once, this doth not make it an often or\nmultiplied ordination: it was but one love which Peter expressed, when\nChrist made him say thrice, that he loved him; nor was it a threefold\nordination which Christ used, when he said thrice to him, \"Feed my\nlambs and sheep.\"\n\n2. And if thrice saying it that hour make it not three ordinations,\nneither will thrice saying it at more hours, days, or months, or years\ndistance, in some cases; for the time maketh not the ordinations to be\nmany; it is but one moral action. But the common error ariseth from\nthe custom of calling the outward action alone by the name of the\nwhole moral action (which is ordinarily done to the like deceit in the\ncase of the baptismal covenant, and the Lord's supper).\n\n3. The common judgment and custom of the world confirmeth what I say.\nIf persons that are married should for want of witness or due\nsolemnity be forced to say and do the outward action all over again,\nit is by no wise man taken in the proper, moral, full sense, for a\nsecond marriage, but for one marriage twice uttered.\n\nAnd if you should in witness-bearing be put to your oath, and the\nmagistrate that was absent should say, Reach him the book again, I did\nnot hear him swear, the doing it twice is not morally two witnessings\nor oaths, but one only twice physically uttered.\n\nIf you bind your son apprentice, or if you make any indentures or\ncontract, and the writings being lost or faulty, you write, and sign,\nand seal them all again, this is not morally another contract, but\nthe same done better, or again recorded. And so it is plainly in this\ncase.\n\n4. But re-ordination morally and properly so called, is unlawful: for,\n(1.) It is (or implieth) a lie, viz. that we were not truly dedicated\nand separated to this office before.\n\n(2.) It is a sacrilegious renunciation of our former dedication to\nGod: whereas the ministerial dedication and covenant is for life, and\nnot for a trial; which is the meaning of the indelible character,\nwhich is a perpetual relation and obligation.\n\n(3.) It is a taking the name of God in vain; thus to do and undo, and\ndo again; and to promise and renounce, and promise again, and to\npretend to receive a power which we had before.\n\n(4.) It tendeth to great confusions in the church; as to make the\npeople doubt of their baptism, or all the ministerial administrations\nof such as are re-ordained, while they acted by the first ordination.\n\n(5.) It hath ever been condemned in the churches of Christ, as the\ncanons called the apostles', and the church's constant practice,\ntestify.\n\n5. Though the bare repetition of the outward action and words be not\nre-ordination, yet he that on any of the forementioned occasions is\nput to repeat the said words and actions, is obliged so to do it, as\nthat it may not seem to be a re-ordination, and so be a scandal to the\nchurch. Or if it outwardly seem so by the action, he is bound to\ndeclare that it is no such thing, for the counterpoising that\nappearance of evil.\n\n6. When the ordainers, or the common estimation of the church, do take\nthe repetition of the words and action for a re-ordination, though the\nreceiver so intend it not, yet it may become unlawful to him by this\naccident, because he scandalizeth and hardeneth the erroneous, by\ndoing or receiving that which is interpretative re-ordination.\n\n7. Especially when the ordainers shall require this repetition on\nnotoriously wicked grounds, and so put that sense on the action by\ntheir own doctrines and demands: as for instance,\n\n(1.) If heretics should (as the Arians) say that we are no ministers,\nbecause we are not of their heresy, or ordained by such as they.\n\n(2.) If the pope or any proud papal usurpers shall say, You are no\nministers of Christ, except we ordain you; and so do it to establish a\ntraitorous, usurped regiment in the church; it is not lawful to serve\nsuch a usurpation. As if cardinals or archbishops should say, None are\ntrue ministers but those that we ordain; or councils or synods of\nbishops or presbyters should say, None are true ministers but those\nthat we ordain; or if one presbyter or one bishop without authority\nwould thus make himself master of the rest, or of other churches, and\nsay, You are no ministers unless I ordain you; we may not promote such\ntyranny and usurpation.\n\n(3.) If magistrates would usurp the power of the keys, in\necclesiastical ordination, and say that none but they have power to\nordain, we may not encourage such pretences by repetition of the words\nand action.\n\n(4.) If they would make something necessary to ordination which is\nnot, as if it were a false oath, or false subscription or profession,\nor some unlawful ceremony, (as if it were anointing, wearing horns, or\nany the like,) and say, You are no ministers without these, and\ntherefore you must be re-ordained to receive them.\n\n(5.) Yea, if they declare our former ministry causelessly to be null,\nand say, You are no ministers till you are ordained again, and so\npublicly put this sense upon our action, that we take it as\nre-ordination; all these accidents make the repetition of the words\nand actions to be unlawful, unless when greater accidents notoriously\npreponderate.\n\n_Quest._ But if such church tyrants should have so great power, as\nthat without their repetition of ordination on those terms, the\nministry might not be exercised, is it lawful so to take it in a case\nof such necessity?\n\n_Answ._ 1. Every seeming necessity to you, is not a necessity to the\nchurch. 2. Either you may publicly declare a contrary sense in your\nreceiving their new orders or not.\n\n1. If you may not as publicly declare that you renounce not your\nformer ministry and dedication to God in that office, as the ordainers\ndeclare their sense of the nullity of it, so that your open\ndeclaration may free you from the guilt of seeming consent, I conceive\nit is a sinful compliance with their sin. 2. Yea, if you may so\ndeclare it, yet if there be no necessity of your ministerial liberty\nin that place, I think you may not take it on such terms. As, (1.) If\nthere be worthy men enough to supply the church's wants there without\nyou. (2.) And if you may serve God successfully in a persecuted state,\nthough to the suffering of your flesh. (3.) Or if your imprisonment\nfor preaching be like to be as serviceable to the church and gospel as\nyour continued preaching on those scandalous terms. (4.) Or if you may\nremove and preach in another country.\n\n8. When any such case doth fall out, in which the repetition of the\noutward action and words is lawful, it is not lawful to mix any false\nand scandalous expressions: as if we were required to say falsely, I\naccept this ordination as confessing myself no minister of Christ till\nnow: or any such like.\n\n9. In a word, a peaceable christian may do much as to the mere outward\naction and submission, for obedience, peace, order, or satisfaction to\nhis own or other men's consciences. But, (1.) He may do nothing for\ngood ends which is false and injurious to the church.[264] (2.) And he\nmay not do that which otherwise were lawful, when it is for evil ends,\nor tendeth to more hurt than good; as to promote heresy, or church\ntyranny and usurpation, whether in pope, prelates, presbyters, or\npeople.\n\n[264] 1 Thess. v. 22; Gal. ii. 4, 5, 14.\n\n\nQuest. XXII. _How many ordainers are necessary to the validity of\nordination by God's institution? whether one or more?_\n\nMy question is not of the ancient canons, or any human laws or\ncustoms, for those are easily known; but of divine right. Now either\nGod hath determined the case as to the number of ordainers necessary,\nor not. If not, either he hath given the church some general rule to\ndetermine it by, or not. If not, then the number is not any part of\nthe divine order or law; and then, if we suppose that he hath\ndetermined the case as to the ordaining office and not to the number,\nthen it will follow that one may serve. The truth I think may be thus\nexplained.\n\n1. There is _Ordo officialis primarius_, and _Ordo ordinis, vel\nexercitii, vel secundarius_; an order of office primary, and an\norder of exercise secondary, in the church. As to the first, the order\nof office, God hath determined that the ordaining officers, and no\nothers, shall ordain officers, or give orders. And having not\ndetermined whether one or more, it followeth that the ordination of\none sole lawful ordainer is no nullity on that account because it is\nbut one, unless somewhat else nullify it.\n\n2. God hath given general rules to the ordainers for the due exercise\nof their office, though he have not determined of any set number. Such\nas are these: that all things be done in judgment, truth, love,\nconcord, to the church's edification, unity, and peace, &c.\n\n3. According to these general laws, sometimes the ordination of one\nsole ordainer, may not only be valid but regular; as when there are no\nother to concur, or none whose concurrence is needful to any of the\naforesaid ends. And sometimes the concurrence of many is needful, (1.)\nTo the receiver's satisfaction. (2.) To the church's or people's\nsatisfaction. (3.) To the concord of pastors, and of neighbour\nchurches, &c. And in such cases such consent or concourse is the\nregular way.\n\n4. Where there are many neighbour pastors and churches so near, as\nthat he that is ordained in one of them, is like oft to pass and\npreach, and officiate _obiter_ in others, and so other churches must\nhave some communion with him, it is meetest that there be a\nconcurrence in the ordination.\n\n5. The ordainer is certainly a superior to the person that cometh to\nbe ordained while he is a private man; and therefore so far his\nordination is (as is said) an act of jurisdiction in the large sense,\nthat is, of government; but whether he be necessarily his superior\nafter he is ordained, hath too long been a controversy. It is certain\nthat the papists confess, that the pope is ordained such by no\nsuperior; and it is not necessary that a bishop be ordained by one or\nmore of any superior order (or jurisdiction either). And though the\nItalian papists hold that a superior papal jurisdiction must needs be\nthe secondary fountain of the ordaining power, though the ordainer\nhimself be but of the same order; yet protestants hold no such thing.\nAnd all acknowledge that as imposition of hands on a layman to make\nhim a minister of Christ or an officer, is a kind of official\ngeneration,[265] so the ordained as a junior in office, is as it were\na son to the ordainer, as the convert is said to be peculiarly to his\nconverter; and that a proportionable honour is still to be given him.\nBut whether he that ordaineth a presbyter, and not he that ordaineth\nor consecrateth a bishop, must needs be of a superior order or office,\nis a question which the reader must not expect me here to meddle with.\n\n[265] Ejusdem speciei vel inferioris: How then is the pope ordained or\nmade?\n\n\nQuest. XXIII. _What if one bishop ordain a minister, and three, or\nmany, or all the rest protest against it, and declare him no minister,\nor degrade him; is he to be received as a true minister or not?_\n\nSupposing that the person want no necessary personal qualification for\nthe office, there are two things more in question; 1. His office,\nwhether he be a minister. 2. His regularity, whether he came regularly\nto it; and also his comparative relation, whether this man or another\nis to be preferred. I answer therefore,\n\n1. If the person be utterly incapable, the one bishop, or the many\nwhosoever taketh him for incapable, is for the truth sake to be\nbelieved and obeyed.\n\n2. If the man be excellently qualified, and his ministry greatly\nnecessary to the church, whoever would deprive the church of him, be\nit the one or the many, is to be disobeyed, and the ordainers\npreferred.\n\n_Object._ But who shall judge? _Answ._ The _esse_ is before the\n_scire_; the thing is first true or false before I judge it to be so;\nand therefore whoever judgeth falsely in a case so notorious and\nweighty, as that the welfare of the church and souls is\n(_consideratis considerandis_) injured and hazarded by his error, is\nnot to be believed nor obeyed on pretence of order; because all\nchristians have _judicium discretionis_, a discerning judgment.\n\n3. But if the case be not thus to be determined by the person's\nnotorious qualifications, then either it is, 1. The man ordained. 2.\nOr the people that the case is debated by, whether they should take\nhim for a minister. 3. Or the neighbour ministers.\n\n1. The person himself is, _c\u00e6teris paribus_, more to regard the\njudgment of many concordant bishops, than of one singular bishop; and\ntherefore is not to take orders from a singular bishop, when the\ngenerality of the wise and faithful are against it; unless he be sure\nthat it is some notorious faction or error that perverteth them, and\nthat there be notorious necessity of his labour.\n\n2. The auditors are either infidels to be converted, (and these will\ntake no man upon any of their authorities,) or else christians\nconverted. These are either of the particular charge of the singular\nbishop who ordaineth, or not; if they be, then _pro tempore_ for\norder's sake, they owe him a peculiar obedience, till some further\nprocess or discovery disoblige them, (though the most be on the other\nside). But yet they may be still bound in reason most to suspect the\njudgment of their singular bishop, while for order's sake they submit\nto it. But if they are not of his flock, then, I suppose the judgment\nand act of many is to prevail so much against the act of a single and\nsingular person, as that both neighbour ministers and people are to\ndisown such an ordained person as unfit for their communion under the\nnotion of a minister (because communion of churches is maintained by\nthe concord of pastors). But whether the ordained man's ministry be,\nby their contradictory declaration or degradation, made an absolute\nnullity, to himself and those that submit to him, neither I will\ndetermine, nor should any other strangers to the particular case; for\nif he be rejected or degraded without such cause and proof as may\nsatisfy other sober persons, he hath wrong; but if he be so degraded,\non proved sufficient cause, to them that it is known to, he giveth the\ndegraders the advantage.[266]\n\nAnd as, 1. All particular members are to be obedient to their proper\npastor.\n\n2. And all particular churches are to hold correspondency and\ncommunion according to their capacity. So must men act in this and\nsuch like cases respectively according to the laws of obedience to\ntheir pastor, and of concord of the churches.\n\n[266] Eph. iv. 3; 1 Cor. xii; Rom. xiv. 17, 19; 1 Cor. xiv. 33; 1\nThess. v. 12, 13; Phil. ii. 1-3; Eph. iv. 15, 16; 1 Cor. i. 10.\n\n\nQuest. XXIV. _Hath one bishop power by divine right to ordain,\ndegrade, or govern, or excommunicate, or absolve, in another's diocess\nor church, either by his consent, or against it? And doth a minister\nthat officiateth in another's church, act as a pastor, and their\npastor, or as a private man? And doth the ministerial office cease\nwhen a man removeth from his flock?_\n\nI thrust these questions all together for their affinity, and for\nbrevity.\n\n1. Every true minister of Christ, bishop or pastor, is related to the\nuniversal church by stronger obligations than to his particular\ncharge; as the whole is better than the parts, and its welfare to be\npreferred.\n\n2. He that is no pastor of a particular church, may be a pastor in the\nuniversal, obliged as a consecrated person to endeavour its good, by\nthe works of his office, as he hath a particular opportunity and call.\n\n3. Yet he that hath a particular charge is especially and nearlier\nrelated and obliged to that charge or church, than to any other part\nof the universal (though not than to the whole); and consequently hath\na peculiar authority, where he hath a peculiar obligation and work.\n\n4. He that is (without degrading) removed from a particular church,\ndoth not cease to be a general minister and pastor related to the\nuniversal church; as a physician put out of an hospital charge, is a\nphysician still. And therefore he needeth no new ordination, but only\na special designation to his next particular charge.\n\n5. No man is the bishop of a diocess as to the measure of ground, or\nthe place, by divine right, that is, by any particular law or\ndetermination of God; but only a bishop of the church or people: for\nyour office essentially containeth a relation to the people, but\naccidentally only to the place.\n\n6. Yet natural convenience, and God's general laws of order and\nedification, do make it usually (but not always) best, and therefore a\nduty, to distinguish churches by the people's habitation: not taking a\nman for a member _eo nomine_, because he liveth on that ground; but\nfor order's sake taking none for members that live not on that ground,\nand not intruding causelessly into each other's bounds.\n\n7. He that by the call or consent of a neighbour pastor and people\ndoth officiate (by preaching, sacraments, excommunication, or\nabsolution) in another's special charge for a day, or week, or month,\nor more, without a fixed relation to that flock, doth neither\nofficiate as a layman, nor yet unlawfully or irregularly; but, 1. As a\nminister of Christ in the church universal. 2. And as the pastor of\nthat church for the present time only, though not statedly; even as a\nphysician called to help another in his hospital, or to supply his\nplace for the time, doth perform his work, 1. As a licensed physician.\n2. And as the physician of that patient or hospital for that time,\nthough not statedly.\n\n8. No man is to intrude into another's charge without a call; much\nless to claim a particular stated oversight and authority. For though\nhe be not a usurper as to the office in general, he is a usurper as to\nthat particular flock. It is no error in ordination to say, Take thou\nauthority to preach the word of God, and administer the holy\nsacraments, when thou shalt be thereto lawfully called; that is, when\nthou hast a particular call to the exercise, and to a fixed charge, as\nthou hast now a call to the office in general.\n\n9. Yet every bishop or pastor by his relation to the church universal,\nand to mankind, and the interest of Christ, is bound not only as a\nchristian, but as a pastor, to do his best for the common good; and\nnot to cast wholly out of his care a particular church, because\nanother hath the oversight of it. Therefore if a heretic get in, or\nthe church fall to heresy, or any pernicious error or sin, the\nneighbour pastors are bound both by the law of nature and their\noffice, to interpose their counsel as ministers of Christ, and to\nprefer the substance before pretended order, and to seek to recover\nthe people's souls, though it be against their proper pastor's will.\nAnd in such a case of necessity, they may ordain, degrade,\nexcommunicate, and absolve in another's charge, as if it were a\nvacuity.\n\n10. Moreover it is one thing to excommunicate a man out of a\nparticular church, and another thing for many associated churches or\nneighbours to renounce communion with him. The special pastors of\nparticular churches, having the government of those churches, are the\nspecial governing judges, who shall or shall not have communion as a\nmember in their churches; but the neighbour pastors of other churches\nhave the power of judging with whom they and their own flocks will or\nwill not hold communion. As e. g. Athanasius may as governor of his\nflock declare any Arian member excommunicate, and require his flock to\nhave no communion with him. And all the neighbour pastors (though they\nexcommunicate not the same man as his special governors, yet) may\ndeclare to all their flocks, that if that man come among them, they\nwill have no communion with him, and that at distance they renounce\nthat distant communion which is proper to christians one with another,\nand take him for none of the church of Christ.[267]\n\n[267] 1 Cor. v.; Tit. iii. 10; 2 Thess. iii. 6, 14; 2 John 10; Rev.\nii. 14, 15, 20.\n\n\nQuest. XXV. _Whether canons be laws? and pastors have a legislative\npower?_\n\nAll men are not agreed what a law is, that is, what is to be taken for\nthe proper sense of that word. Some will have the name confined to\nsuch common laws as are stated, durable rules for the subject's\nactions: and some will extend it also to personal, temporary, verbal\nprecepts and mandates, such as parents and masters use daily to the\nchildren and servants of their families. And of the first sort, some\nwill confine the name laws to those acts of sovereignty which are\nabout the common matters of the kingdom, or which no inferior officer\nmay make: and others will extend it to those orders which by the\nsovereign's charter, a corporation, or college, or school may make for\nthe subregulation of their particular societies and affairs.\n\nI have declared my own opinion _de nomine_ fully elsewhere, 1. That\nthe definition of a law in the proper, general sense, is to be a sign\nor signification of the reason and will of the rector as such, to his\nsubjects as such, instituting or antecedently determining what shall\nbe due from them, and to them; _Jus efficiendo_, regularly making\nright.\n\n2. That these laws are many more ways diversified and distinguished,\n(from the efficient, sign, subjects, matter, end, &c.) than is meet\nfor us here to enumerate. It is sufficient now to say, 1. That stated\nregular laws, as distinct from temporary mandates and proclamations.\n2. And laws for kingdoms and other commonwealths, in regard of laws\nfor persons, schools, families, &c. 3. And laws made by the supreme\npower, as distinct from those made by the derived authority of\ncolleges, corporations, &c. called by-laws or orders (for I will here\nsay nothing of parents and pastors, whose authority is directly or\nimmediately from the efficiency of nature in one, and divine\ninstitution in the other, and not derived efficiently from the\nmagistrate or any man). 4. That laws about great, substantial matters,\ndistinct from those about little and mutable circumstances, &c. I say\nthe first sort, as distinct from the second, are laws so called by\nexcellency above other laws. But that the rest are univocally to be\ncalled laws, according to the best definition of the law _in genere_.\nBut if any man will speak otherwise, let him remember that it is yet\nbut _lis de nomine_, and that he may use his liberty, and I will use\nmine. Now to the question.\n\n1. Canons made by virtue of the pastoral office and God's general laws\n(in nature or Scripture) for regulating it, are a sort of laws to the\nsubjects or flocks of those pastors.\n\n2. Canons made by the votes of the laity of the church, or private\npart of that society as private, are no laws at all, but agreements;\nbecause they are not acts of any governing power.\n\n3. Canons made by civil rulers about the circumstantials of the\nchurch, belonging to their office, as orderers of such things, are\nlaws, and may be urged by moderate and meet civil or corporal\npenalties, and no otherwise.\n\n4. Canons made by princes or inferior magistrates, are no laws purely\nand formally ecclesiastical, which are essentially acts of pastoral\npower; but only materially ecclesiastical, and formally magistratical.\n\n5. No church officers as such, (much less the people,) can make laws\nwith a co-active or coercive sanction; that is, to be enforced by\ntheir authority with the sword or any corporal penalty, mulct, or\nforce; this being the sole privilege of secular powers, civil, or\neconomical, or scholastic.\n\n6. There is no obligation ariseth to the subject for particular\nobedience of any law, which is evidently against the laws of God (in\nnature or holy Scripture).\n\n7. They are no laws which pastors make to people out of their power:\nas the popes, &c.\n\n8. There is no power on earth under Christ, that hath authority to\nmake universal laws; to bind the whole church on all the earth; or all\nmankind. Because there is no universal sovereign, civil or spiritual,\npersonal or collective.\n\n9. Therefore it is no schism, but loyalty to Christ, to renounce or\nseparate from such a society of usurpation; nor any disobedience or\nrebellion, to deny them obedience.\n\n10. Pastors may and must be obeyed in things lawful as magistrates, if\nthe king make them magistrates: though I think it unmeet for them to\naccept a magistracy with the sword, except in case of some rare\nnecessity.\n\n11. If pope, patriarchs, or pastors shall usurp any of the king's\nauthority, loyalty to Christ and him, and the love of the church and\nstate, oblige us to take part with Christ and the king against such\nusurpation, but only by lawful means, in the compass of our proper\nplace and calling.\n\n12. The canons made by the councils of many churches, have a double\nnature: as they are made for the people and the subjects of the\npastors, they are a sort of laws; that is, they oblige by the derived\nauthority of the pastors; because the pastors of several churches do\nnot lose any of their power by their assembling, but exercise it with\nthe greater advantage of concord. But as they are made only to oblige\nthe present or absent pastors who separatedly are of equal office\npower, so they are no laws, except in an equivocal sense, but only\nagreements or contracts.[268] So Bishop Usher professed his judgment\nto be; and before him the council of Carthage in Cyprian's time; but\nit needs no proof, any more than that a convention of kings may make\nno laws to bind the kings of England, but contracts only.\n\n13. But yet we are _aliunde_ obliged even by God, to keep these\nagreements in things lawful, for the church's peace and concord, when\ngreater contrary reasons, _a fine_, do not disoblige us. For when God\nsaith, You shall keep peace and concord, and keep lawful covenants,\nthe canons afford us the minor, But these are lawful contracts or\nagreements, and means of the church's peace and concord; therefore\n(saith God's law) you shall observe them. So though the contracts (as\nof husband and wife, buyer and seller, &c.) be not laws, yet that is a\nlaw of God which bindeth us to keep them.\n\n14. Seeing that even the obliging commands of pastors may not by them\nbe enforced by the sword, but work by the power of divine authority or\ncommission manifested, and by holy reason and love, therefore it is\nmost modest and fit for pastors (who must not lord it over God's\nheritage, but be examples to all[269]) to take the lower name of\nauthoritative directions and persuasions, rather than of laws;\nespecially in a time when papal usurpation maketh such ruinating use\nof that name, and civil magistrates use to take it in the nobler and\nnarrower sense.\n\nThe questions, 1. If one pastor make orders for his church, and the\nmultitudes or synods be against them; which must be obeyed, you may\ngather from what is said before of ordination. And, 2. What are the\nparticulars proper, materially, to the magistrate's decision, and what\nto the pastor's? I here pass by.\n\n[268] Grotius de imperio sum. pot. circ. sacr. most solidly resolveth\nthis question.\n\n[269] 1 Pet. v. 2, 3; 2 Cor. i. 24.\n\n\nQuest. XXVI. _Whether church canons, or pastors' directive\ndeterminations of matters pertinent to their office, do bind the\nconscience? and what accidents will disoblige the people? you may\ngather before in the same case about magistrates' laws, in the\npolitical directions: as also by an impartial transferring the case to\nthe precepts of parents and schoolmasters to children; without respect\nto their power of the rod (or supposing that they had none such)._\n\nQuest. XXVII. _What are Christ's appointed means of the unity and\nconcord of the universal church, and consequently of its preservation,\nif there be no human universal head and governor of it upon earth? And\nif Christ have instituted none such, whether prudence and the law of\nnature oblige not the church to set up and maintain a universal\necclesiastical monarchy or aristocracy; seeing that which is every\nman's work, is as no man's, and omitted by all?_\n\nI. To the first question I must refer you in part to two small,\npopular, yet satisfactory Tractates,[270] written long ago, that I do\nnot one thing too oft. Briefly now,\n\n1. The unity of the universal church, is founded in and maintained by\ntheir common relation to Christ the head (as the kingdom in its\nrelation to the king).\n\n2. A concord in degrees of goodness, and in integrals and accidentals\nof christianity, will never be obtained on earth, where the church is\nstill imperfect; and perfect holiness and wisdom are necessary to\nperfect harmony and concord, Phil. iii. 12-14.\n\n3. Experience hath long taught the church, if it will learn, that the\nclaim of a papal headship and government over the church universal,\nhath been the famous incendiary and hinderer of concord in the\nchristian world.\n\n4. The means to attain such a measure of concord and harmony which is\nto be hoped for, or endeavoured upon earth, I have so distinctly,\nfully, and yet briefly described (with the contrary impediments) in my\ntreatise of the \"Reasons of Christian Religion,\" part vii. chap. 14.\np. 470, 471, in about two leaves, that I will not recite them. If you\nsay, you are not bound to read the books which I refer you to; I\nanswer, Nor this.\n\nII. To the latter question I answer, To set up such an universal head\non the supposition of natural reasons and human policy is, 1. To cross\nChrist's institution, and the laws of the Holy Ghost, as hath been\nlong proved by protestants from the Scripture.\n\n2. It is treason against Christ's sovereign office to usurp such a\nvicegerency without his commission.\n\n3. It is against the notorious light of nature, which telleth us of\nthe natural incapacity of mortal man, to be such a universal governor\nthrough the world.\n\n4. It is to sin against long and dreadful common experience, and to\nkeep in that fire that hath destroyed emperors, kings, and kingdoms,\nand set the churches, pastors, and christian world in those divisions,\nwhich are the great and serviceable work of Satan, and the impediment\nof the church's increase, purity, and peace, and the notorious shame\nof the christian profession in the eyes of the infidel world.\n\nAnd if so many hundred years' sad experience will not answer them that\nsay, If the pope were a good man, he might unite us all, I conclude\nthat such deserve to be deceived, 2 Thess. ii. 10-12.\n\n[270] \"Catholic unity,\" and \"the True Catholic and Church described.\"\n\n\nQuest. XXVIII. _Who is the judge of controversies in the church? 1.\nAbout the exposition of the Scripture, and doctrinal points in\nthemselves: 2. About either heresies or wicked practices, as they are\ncharged on the persons who are accused of them; that is, 1.\nAntecedently to our practice, by way of regulation; 2. Or\nconsequently, by judicial sentence (and execution) on offenders._\n\nI have answered this question so oft, that I can persuade myself to no\nmore than this short, yet clear solution.\n\nThe papists used to cheat poor, unlearned persons that cannot justly\ndiscern things that differ, by puzzling them with this confused,\nambiguous question. Some things they cunningly and falsely take for\ngranted, as that there is such a thing on earth as a political,\nuniversal church, headed by any mortal governor. Some things they\nshuffle together in equivocal words. They confound, 1. Public judgment\nof decision, and private judgment of discerning. 2. The magistrate's\njudgment of church-controversies, and the pastor's, and the several\ncases, and ends, and effects of their several judgments. 3.\nChurch-judgment as directive to a particular church, and as a means of\nthe concord of several churches. Which being but distinguished, a few\nwords will serve to clear the difficulty.\n\n1. As there is no universal human church, (constituted or governed by\na mortal head,) so there is no power set up by Christ to be a\nuniversal judge of either sort of controversies, by decisive judicial\nsentence, nor any universal civil monarch of the world.\n\n2. The public, governing, decisive judgment, obliging others,\nbelongeth to public persons, or officers of God, and not to any\nprivate man.[271]\n\n3. The public decision of doubts or controversies about faith itself,\nor the true sense of God's word and laws, as obliging the whole church\non earth to believe that decision, or not gainsay it, because of the\ninfallibility or governing authority of the deciders, belongeth to\nnone but Jesus Christ; because, as is said, he hath made no universal\ngovernor, nor infallible expositor.[272] It belongeth to the lawgiver\nonly to make such a universally obliging exposition of his own laws.\n\n4. True bishops or pastors in their own particular churches are\nauthorized teachers and guides, in expounding the laws and word of\nChrist; and the people are bound as learners to reverence their\nteaching, and not contradict it without true cause; yea, and to\nbelieve them _fide humana_, in things pertinent to their office: for\n_oportet discentem credere_.\n\n5. No such pastors are to be absolutely believed, nor in any case of\nnotorious error or heresy, where the word of God is discerned to be\nagainst them.\n\n6. For all the people as reasonable creatures, have a judgment of\nprivate discerning to judge what they must receive as truth, and to\ndiscern their own duty, by the help of the word of God, and of their\nteachers.\n\n7. The same power of governing judgment lawful synods have over their\nseveral flocks, as a pastor over his own, but with greater advantage.\n\n8. The power of judging in many consociate churches, who is to be\ntaken into communion as orthodox, and who to be refused by those\nchurches as heretics, _in specie_, that is, what doctrine they will\njudge sound or unsound, as it is _judicium discernendi_, belongeth to\nevery one of the council singly: as it is a judgment obliging\nthemselves by contract, (and not of governing each other,) it is in\nthe contracters and consenters; and for peace and order usually in the\nmajor vote; but with the limitations before expressed.\n\n9. Every true christian believeth all the essentials of christianity,\nwith a divine faith, and not by a mere human belief of his teachers,\nthough by their help and teaching his faith is generated, and\nconfirmed, and preserved. Therefore no essential article of\nchristianity is left to any obliging decision of any church, but only\nto a subservient obliging teaching: as whether there be a God, a\nChrist, a heaven, a hell, an immortality of souls? Whether God be to\nbe believed, loved, feared, obeyed before man? Whether the Scripture\nbe God's word, and true? Whether those that contradict it are to be\nbelieved therein? Whether pastors, assemblies, public worship,\nbaptism, sacrament of the Lord's supper, be divine institutions? And\nthe same I may say of any known word of God: no mortals may judge in\n_partem utramlibet_, but the pastors are only authorized teachers and\nhelpers of the people's faith. (And so they be partly to one another.)\n\n10. If the pope, or his council, were the infallible or the governing\nexpositors of all God's laws and Scriptures, 1. God would have enabled\nthem to do it by a universal commentary which all men should be\nobliged to believe, or at least not to contradict. For there is no\nauthority and obligation given to men (yea, to so many successively)\nto do that (for the needful decision of controversies) which they\nnever have ability given them to do. For that were to oblige them to\nthings impossible. 2. And the pope and his council would be the most\ntreacherous miscreants on earth, that in so many hundred years, would\nnever write such an infallible nor governing commentary, to end the\ndifferences of the christian world. Indeed they have judged (with\nothers) against Arius, that Christ is true God, and one with the\nFather in substance, &c. But if they had said the contrary, must we\nhave taken it for God's truth, or have believed them?\n\n11. To judge who, for heresy or scandal, shall be punished by the\nsword, belongeth to none but the magistrate in his own dominions: as\nto judge who shall have communion or be excommunicated from the\nchurch, belongeth, as aforesaid, to the pastors. And the said\nmagistrate hath first as a man his own judgment of discerning what is\nheresy, and who of his subjects are guilty of it, in order to his\npublic governing judgment.\n\n12. The civil, supreme ruler may antecedently exercise this judgment\nof discerning (by the teaching of their proper teachers) in order to\nhis consequent sentences on offenders; and so in his laws may tell the\nsubjects, what doctrines and practices he will either tolerate or\npunish. And thus may the church pastors do in their canons to their\nseveral flocks, in relation to communion or non-communion.\n\n13. He that will condemn particular persons as heretics or offenders,\nmust allow them to speak for themselves, and hear the proofs, and give\nthem that which justice requireth, &c. And if the pope can do so at\nthe antipodes, and in all the world, either _per se_, or _per alium_,\nwithout giving that other his essential claimed power, let him prove\nit by better experience than we have had.\n\n14. As the prime and sole universal legislation belongeth to Jesus\nChrist, so the final judgment, universal and particular, belongeth to\nhim, which only will end all controversies, and from which there is no\nappeal.\n\n[271] Eph. iv. 7, 13-16; 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29; Acts xv. 17.\n\n[272] See my \"Key for Catholics.\"\n\n\nQuest. XXIX. _Whether a parent's power over his children, or a pastor\nor many pastors or bishops over the same children, as parts of their\nflock, be greater, or more obliging in matters of religion and public\nworship?_\n\nThis being touched on somewhere else, I only now say, That if the case\nwere my own, I would, 1. Labour to know their different powers, as to\nthe matter commanded, and obey each in that which is proper to its\nplace.\n\n2. If I were young and ignorant, natural necessity, and natural\nobligation together, would give my parents with whom I lived such an\nadvantage above the minister (whom I seldom see or understand) as\nwould determine the case _de eventu_, and much _de jure_.\n\n3. If my parents command me to hear a teacher who is against\nceremonies or certain forms, and to hear none that are for them,\nnatural necessity here also (ordinarily) would make it my duty first\nto hear and obey my parents; and in many other cases, till I came to\nunderstand the greater power of the pastors, in their own place and\nwork.\n\n4. But when I come to church, or know that the judgment of all\nconcordant godly pastors condemneth such a thing as damnable heresy or\nsin, which my father commandeth me to receive and profess, I would\nmore believe and follow the judgment of the pastors and churches.\n\n\nQuest. XXX. _May an office teacher or pastor be at once in a stated\nrelation of a pastor and a disciple to some other pastor?_\n\n1. That Timothy was still Paul's son in point of learning, and his\ndisciple, and so that under apostles the same persons might be stated\nin both relations at once, seemeth evident in Scripture.\n\n2. But the same that is a pastor is not at once a mere layman.\n\n3. That men in the same office may so differ in age, experience, and\ndegrees of knowledge, as that young pastors may, and often ought, many\nyears to continue, not only in occasional reception of their help, but\nalso in an ordinary stated way of receiving it, and so be related to\nthem as their ordinary teachers, by such gradual advantages, is past\nall doubt. And that all juniors and novices owe a certain reverence\nand audience, and some obedience, to the elder and wiser.\n\n4. But this is not to be a disciple to him as in lower order or\noffice, but as of lower gifts and grace.\n\n5. It is lawful and very good for the church, that some ordained\npersons continue long as pupils to their tutors in schools or\nacademies (e. g. to learn the holy languages, if they have them not,\n&c.) But this is a relation left to voluntary contractors.\n\n6. In the ancient churches the particular churches had one bishop,\nand some presbyters and deacons, usually of much lower parts, who\nlived all together (single or chaste) in the bishop's or church house,\nwhich was as a college, where he daily edified them by doctrine and\nexample.\n\n7. The controversy about different orders by divine institution,\nbelongeth not to me here to meddle with: but as to the natural and\nacquired imparity of age and gifts, and the unspeakable benefit to the\njuniors and the churches, that it is desirable that there were such a\nway of their education and edification, I take to be discernible to\nany that are impartial and judicious.\n\nAmbrose was at once a teacher and a learner, Beda, Eccl. Hist.\nmentioneth one in England, that was at once a pastor and disciple. And\nin Scotland some that became bishops were still to be under the\ngovernment of the abbot of their monasteries according to their first\ndevotion, though the abbot was but a presbyter.\n\n8. Whether a settled, private church member may not at once continue\nhis very formal relation to the pastor of that church, and yet be of\nthe same order with him in another church, as their pastor, at the\nsame time, (as he may in case of necessity continue his apprenticeship\nor civil service,) is a case that I will not determine. But he that\ndenieth it, must prove his opinion (or affirmation of its\nunlawfulness) by sufficient evidence from Scripture or nature; which\nis hard.\n\n\nQuest. XXXI. _Who hath the power of making church canons?_\n\nThis is sufficiently resolved before. 1. The magistrate only hath the\npower of making such canons or laws for church matters as shall be\nenforced by the sword.\n\n2. Every pastor hath power to make canons for his own congregation;\nthat is, to determine what hour or at what place they shall meet; what\ntranslation of Scripture, or version of Psalms, shall be used in his\nchurch; what chapter shall be read; what psalm shall be sung, &c.:\nexcept the magistrate contradict him, and determine it otherwise, in\nsuch points as are not proper to the ministerial office.\n\n3. Councils or assemblies of pastors have the power of making such\ncanons for many churches, as shall be laws to the people, and\nagreements to themselves.\n\n4. None have power to make church laws or canons about any thing,\nsave, (1.) To put God's own laws in execution. (2.) To determine to\nthat end, of such circumstances as God hath left undetermined in his\nword.\n\n5. Canon-making under pretence of order and concord, hath done a great\ndeal of mischief to the churches; whilst clergymen have grown up from\nagreements, to tyrannical usurpations and impositions, and from\nconcord about needful accidents of worship, to frame new worship\nordinances, and to force them on all others: but especially, (1.) By\nencroaching on the power of kings, and telling them that they are\nbound in conscience to put all their canons into execution by force.\n(2.) And by laying the union of the churches and the communion of\nchristians upon things needless and doubtful, yea, and at last on many\nsinful things; whereby the churches have been most effectually\ndivided, and the christian world set together by the ears; and\nschisms, yea, and wars have been raised: and these maladies cannot\npossibly be healed, till the tormenting, tearing engines be broken and\ncast away, and the voluminous canons of numerous councils (which\nthemselves also are matter of undeterminable controversy) be turned\ninto the primitive simplicity; and a few necessary things made the\nterms of concord. Doubtless if every pastor were left wholly to\nhimself for the ordering of worship circumstances and accidents in his\nown church, without any common canons, save the Scriptures, and the\nlaws of the land, there would have been much less division, than that\nis, which these numerous canons of all the councils, obtruded on the\nchurch, have made.\n\n\nQuest. XXXII. _Doth baptism as such enter the baptized into the\nuniversal church, or into a particular church, or both? And is baptism\nthe particular church covenant as such?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. Baptism as such doth enter us into the universal church,\nand into it alone; and is no particular church covenant, but the\nsolemnizing of the great christian covenant of grace, between God, and\na believer and his seed.\n\nFor, (1.) There is not essentially any mention of a particular church\nin it.\n\n(2.) A man may be baptized by a general unfixed minister, who is not\nthe pastor of any particular church:[273] and he may be baptized in\nsolitude, where there is no particular church. The eunuch, Acts viii.\nwas not baptized into any particular church.\n\n(3.) Baptism doth but make us christians, but a man may be a christian\nwho is no member of any particular church.\n\n(4.) Otherwise baptism should oblige us necessarily to a man, and be a\ncovenant between the baptized and the pastor and church into which he\nis baptized: but it is only our covenant with Christ.\n\n(5.) We may frequently change our particular church relation, without\nbeing baptized again. But we never change our relation to the church\nwhich we are baptized into, unless by apostasy.\n\n2. Yet the same person at the same time that he is baptized may be\nentered into the universal church, and into a particular; and\nordinarily it ought to be so where it can be had.\n\n3. And the covenant which we make in baptism with Christ, doth oblige\nus to obey him, and consequently to use his instituted means, and so\nto hear his ministers, and hold due communion with his churches.\n\n4. But this doth no more enter us into a particular church, than into\na particular family. For we as well oblige ourselves to obey him in\nfamily relations as in church relations.\n\n5. When the baptized therefore is at once entered into the universal\nand particular church, it is done by a double consent to the double\nrelation. By baptism he professeth his consent to be a member of\nChrist and his universal church; and additionally he consenteth to be\nguided by that particular pastor in that particular church; which is\nanother covenant or consent.\n\n[273] Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.\n\n\nQuest. XXXIII. _Whether infants should be baptized, I have answered\nlong ago in a treatise on that subject. Also what infants should be\nbaptized? and who have right to sacraments? and whether hypocrites are\nunivocally or equivocally christians and church members? I have\nresolved in my \"Disput. of Right to Sacraments.\"_\n\nQuest. XXXIV. _Whether an unbaptized person who yet maketh a public\nprofession of christianity, be a member of the visible church? And so\nof the infants of believers unbaptized._\n\n_Answ._ 1. Such persons have a certain imperfect, irregular kind of\nprofession, and so of membership; their visibility or visible\nchristianity is not such as Christ hath appointed. As those that are\nmarried, but not by legal celebration, and as those that in cases of\nnecessity are ministers without ordination; so are such christians as\nConstantine and many of old without baptism.\n\n2. Such persons ordinarily are not to be admitted to the rights and\ncommunion of the visible church, because we must know Christ's sheep\nby his own mark; but yet they are so far visible christians, as that\nwe may be persuaded nevertheless of their salvation. As to visible\ncommunion, they have but a remote and incomplete _jus ad rem_, and no\n_jus ad re_, or legal investiture and possession.\n\n3. The same is the case of unbaptized infants of believers, because\nthey are not of the church merely as they are their natural seed; but\nbecause it is supposed that a person himself devoted to God, doth also\ndevote his children to God: therefore not nature only, but this\nsupposition arising from the true nature of his own dedication to God,\nis the reason why believers' children have their right to baptism:\ntherefore till he hath actually devoted them to God in baptism, they\nare not legally members of the visible church, but only in _fieri_ and\nimperfectly, as is said. Of which more anon.\n\n\nQuest. XXXV. _Is it certain by the word of God that all infants\nbaptized, and dying before actual sin, are undoubtedly saved; or what\ninfants may we say so of?_\n\n_Answ._ I. 1. We must distinguish between certainty objective and\nsubjective; or plainlier, the reality or truth of the thing, and the\ncertain apprehension of it.[274]\n\n2. And this certainty of apprehension, sometimes signifieth only the\ntruth of that apprehension, when a man indeed is not deceived, or more\nusually that clearness of apprehension joined with truth, which fully\nquieteth the mind and excludeth doubting.\n\n3. We must distinguish of infants as baptized lawfully upon just\ntitle, or unlawfully without title.\n\n4. And also of title before God, which maketh a lawful claim and\nreception at his bar; and title before the church, which maketh only\nthe administration lawful before God, and the reception lawful only\n_in foro ecclesia_, or _externo_.\n\n5. The word baptism signifieth either the external part only,\nconsisting in the words and outward action, or the internal\ncovenanting of the heart also.\n\n6. And that internal covenant is either sincere, which giveth right to\nthe benefits of God's covenant, or only partial, reserved, and\nunsound, such as is common to hypocrites.\n\n_Conclus._ 1. God hath been pleased to speak so little in Scripture of\nthe case of infants, that modest men will use the words certainly and\nundoubtedly, about their case, with very great caution. And many great\ndivines have maintained that their very baptism itself, cannot be\ncertainly and undoubtedly proved by the word of God, but by tradition;\nthough I have endeavoured to prove the contrary in a special Treatise\non that point.\n\n2. No man can tell what is objectively certain or revealed in God's\nword, who hath not subjective certainty or knowledge of it.\n\n3. A man's apprehension may be true, when it is but a wavering\nopinion, with the greatest doubtfulness. Therefore we do not usually\nby a certain apprehension, mean only a true apprehension, but a clear\nand quieting one.\n\n4. It is possible to baptize infants unlawfully, or without any right,\nso that their reception and baptizing shall be a great sin, as is the\nmisapplying of other ordinances. For instance: one in America, where\nthere is neither church to receive them, nor christian parents, nor\nsponsors, may take up the Indians' children and baptize them against\nthe parents' wills: or if the parents consent to have their children\noutwardly baptized, and not themselves, as not knowing what baptizing\nmeaneth, or desire it only for outward advantages to their children;\nor if they offer them to be baptized only in open derision and scorn\nof Christ; such children have no right to be received. And many other\ninstances nearer may be given.\n\n5. It is possible the person may have no authority at all from Christ\nwho doth baptize them. And Christ's part in reception of the person,\nand collation and investiture in his benefits, must be done by his\ncommission, or else how can we say that Christ doth it? But open\ninfidels, women, children, mad-men, scorners, may do it that have none\nof his commission.\n\n6. That all infants baptized without title or right by misapplication,\nand so dying, are not undoubtedly saved, nor any word of God doth\ncertainly say so, we have reason to believe on these following\ngrounds.\n\n1. Because we can find no such text, nor could ever prevail with them\nthat say so, to show us such an ascertaining word of God.\n\n2. Because else gross sin would certainly be the way to salvation. For\nsuch misapplication of baptism, by the demanders at least, would\ncertainly be gross sin, as well as misapplying the Lord's supper.\n\n3. Because it is clean contrary to the tenor of the new covenant,\nwhich promiseth salvation to none but penitent believers and their\nseed: what God may do for others unknown to us, we have nothing to do\nwith; but his covenant hath made no other promise that I can find; and\nwe are certain of no man's salvation by baptism, to whom God never\nmade a promise of it. If by the children of the faithful, be meant not\nonly their natural seed, but the adopted or bought also, of which they\nare true proprietors, yet that is nothing to all others.\n\n4. To add to God's words, especially to his very promise or covenant,\nis so terrible a presumption, as we dare not be guilty of.\n\n5. Because this tieth grace or salvation so to the outward washing of\nthe body, or _opus operatum_, as is contrary to the nature of God's\nordinances, and to the tenor of Scripture, and the judgment of the\nprotestant divines.\n\n6. Because this would make a strange disparity between the two\nsacraments of the same covenant of grace: when a man receiveth the\nLord's supper unworthily, (in scorn, in drunkenness, or impenitency,)\nmuch more without any right, (as infidels,) he doth eat and drink\ndamnation or judgment to himself, and maketh his sin greater;\ntherefore he that gets a child baptized unworthily and without right,\ndoth not therefore infallibly procure his salvation.\n\n7. Because the apostle saith, 1 Cor. vii. 14, \"Else were your children\nunclean, but now are they holy;\" and the Scripture giveth this\nprivilege to the children of the faithful above others: whereas the\ncontrary opinion levelleth them with the seed of infidels and\nheathens, as if these had right to salvation by mere baptism, as well\nas the others.\n\n8. Because else it would be the greatest act of charity in the world,\nto send soldiers to catch up all heathens' and infidels' children, and\nbaptize them; which no christians ever yet thought their duty. Yea,\nit would be too strong a temptation to them to kill them when they had\ndone, that they might be all undoubtedly saved.\n\n_Object._ But that were to do evil that good might come by it. _Answ._\nBut God is not to be dishonoured as to be supposed to make such laws,\nas shall forbid men the greatest good in the world, and then to tempt\nthem by the greatness of the benefit to take it to be no evil: as if\nhe said, If soldiers would go take up a million of heathens' children\nand baptize them, it will put them into an undoubted state of\nsalvation; but yet I forbid them doing it: and if they presently kill\nthem, lest they sin after, they shall undoubtedly be saved; but yet I\nforbid them doing it. I need not aggravate this temptation to them\nthat know the power of the law of nature, which is the law of love and\ngood works, and how God that is most good is pleased in our doing\ngood. Though he tried Abraham's obedience once, as if he should have\nkilled his son, yet he stopped him before the execution. And doth he\nordinarily exercise men's obedience, by forbidding them to save the\nsouls of others, when it is easily in their power? especially when\nwith the adult the greatest labour and powerfullest preaching, is\nfrequently so frustrate, that not one of many is converted by it?\n\n9. Because else God should deal with unaccountable disparity with\ninfants and the adult in the same ordinance of baptism. It is certain\nthat all adult persons baptized, if they died immediately, should not\nbe saved; even none that had no right to the covenant and to baptism;\nsuch as infidels, heathens, impenitent persons, hypocrites, that have\nnot true repentance and faith. And why should baptism save an infant\nwithout title, any more than the adult without title? I still suppose\nthat some infants have no title, and that now I speak of them alone.\n\n_Object._ But the church giveth them all right by receiving them.\n\n_Answ._ This is to be further examined anon. If you mean a particular\nchurch, perhaps they are baptized into none such. Baptism as such is a\nreception only into the universal church, as in the eunuch's case,\nActs viii. appeareth. If you mean the universal church, it may be but\none single ignorant man in an infidel country that baptizeth, and he\nis not the universal church! yea, perhaps is not a lawfully called\nminister of that church! However, this is but to say, that baptism\ngiveth right to baptism; for this receiving is nothing but baptizing.\nBut there must be a right to this reception, if baptism be a\ndistinguishing ordinance, and all the world have not right to it.\nChrist saith, Matt. xxviii. 19, \"Disciple me all nations, baptizing\nthem--:\" they must be initially made disciples first, by consent, and\nthen be invested in the visible state of christianity by baptism.\n\n10. If the children of heathens have right to baptism, and salvation\nthereby, it is either, 1. As they are men, and all have right; or, 2.\nBecause the parents give them right; 3. Or because remote ancestors\ngive them right; 4. Or because the universal church gives them right;\n5. Or because a particular church gives them right; 6. Or because the\nsponsors give them right; 7. Or the magistrate; 8. Or the baptizer.\nBut it is none of all these, as shall anon be proved.\n\n11. But as to the second question, I answer, 1. It will help us to\nunderstand the case the better, if we prepare the way by opening the\ncase of the adult, because in Scripture times, they were the most\nfamous subjects of baptism. And it is certain of such, 1. That every\none outwardly baptized is not in a state of salvation. That no\nhypocrite that is not a true penitent believer is in such a state. 2.\nThat every true penitent believer is before God in a state of\nsalvation, as soon as he is such; and before the church as soon as he\nis baptized. 3. That we are not to use the word baptism as a physical\nterm only, but as a moral, theological term. Because words (as in law,\nphysic, &c.) are to be understood according to the art or science in\nwhich they are treated of. And baptism taken theologically doth as\nessentially include the will's consent or heart covenanting with God,\nas matrimony includeth marriage consent, and as a man containeth the\nsoul as well as the body. And thus it is certain that all truly\nbaptized persons are in a state of salvation; that is, all that\nsincerely consent to the baptismal covenant when they profess consent\nby baptism (but not hypocrites). 4. And in this sense all the ancient\npastors of the churches did concur that baptism did wash away all sin,\nand put the baptized into a present right to life eternal: as he that\nexamineth their writings will perceive: not the outward washing and\nwords alone, but when the inward and outward parts concur, or when by\ntrue faith and repentance the receiver hath right to the covenant of\nGod. 5. In this sense it is no unfit language to imitate the fathers,\nand to say that the truly baptized are in a state of justification,\nadoption, and salvation, unless when men's misunderstanding maketh it\nunsafe. 6. The sober papists themselves say the same thing, and when\nthey have said that even _ex opere operato_ baptism saveth, they add,\nthat it is only the meet receiver; that is, the penitent believer, and\nno other of the adult. So that hitherto there is no difference.\n\n2. Now let us by this try the case of infants; concerning which there\nare all these several opinions among divines.\n\n(1.) Some think that all infants (baptized or not) are saved from\nhell, and positive punishment, but are not brought to heaven, as being\nnot capable of such joys.\n\n(2.) Some think that all infants (dying such) are saved as others are,\nby actual felicity in heaven, though in a lower degree. Both these\nsorts suppose that Christ's death saveth all that reject it not, and\nthat infants reject it not.\n\n(3.) Some think that all unbaptized infants do suffer the _p\u0153nam\ndamni_, and are shut out of heaven and happiness, but not sensibly\npunished or cast into hell. For this Jansenius hath wrote a treatise;\nand many other papists think so.\n\n(4.) Some think that all the children of sincere believers dying in\ninfancy are saved, (that is, glorified,) whether baptized or not; and\nno others.\n\n(5.) Some think that God hath not at all revealed what he will do with\nany infants.\n\n(6.) Some think that he hath promised salvation as aforesaid to\nbelievers and their seed, but hath not at all revealed to us what he\nwill do with all the rest.\n\n(7.) Some think that only the baptized children of true believers are\ncertainly (by promise) saved.\n\n(8.) Some think that all the adopted and bought children of true\nchristians, as well as the natural, are saved (if baptized, say some;\nor if not, say others).\n\n(9.) Some think that elect infants are saved, and no other, but no man\ncan know who those are. And of these, 1. Some deny infant baptism. 2.\nMost say that they are to be baptized, and that thereby the non-elect\nare only received into the visible church and its privileges, but not\nto any promise or certainty of justification, or a state of salvation.\n\n(10.) Some think that all that are baptized by the dedication of\nchristian sponsors are saved.\n\n(11.) Some think that all that the pastor dedicateth to God are saved\n(because so dedicated by him, say some; or because baptized _ex opere\noperato_, say others). And so all baptized infants are in a state of\nsalvation.\n\n(12.) Some think that this is to be limited to all that have right to\nbaptism _coram Deo_; which some think the church's reception giveth\nthem, of which anon.\n\n(13.) And some think it is to be limited to those that have right\n_coram ecclesia_, or are rightfully baptized _ex parte ministrantis_,\nwhere some make the magistrate's command sufficient, and some the\nbishop's, and some the baptizer's will.\n\nOf the title to baptism I shall speak anon. Of the salvation of\ninfants, it is too tedious to confute all that I dissent from: not\npresuming in such darkness and diversity of opinions to be peremptory,\nnor to say, I am certain by the word of God who are undoubtedly saved,\nnor yet to deny the undoubted certainty of wiser men, who may know\nthat which such as I do doubt of, but submitting what I say to the\njudgment of the church of God and my superiors, I humbly lay down my\nown thoughts as followeth.\n\n1. I think that there can no promise or proof be produced that all\nunbaptized infants are saved, either from the _p\u0153na damni_ or\n_sensus_, or both.\n\n2. I think that no man can prove that all unbaptized infants are\ndamned, or denied heaven. Nay, I think I can prove a promise of the\ncontrary.\n\n3. All that are rightfully baptized _in foro externo_ are visible\nchurch members, and have ecclesiastical right to the privileges of the\nvisible church.\n\n4. I think Christ never instituted baptism for collation of these\noutward privileges alone, unless as on supposition that persons\nculpably fail of the better ends.\n\n5. I think baptism is a solemn mutual contract or covenant between\nChrist and the baptized person. And that it is but one covenant, even\nthe covenant of grace which is the sum of the gospel, which is sealed\nand received in baptism; and that this covenant essentially containeth\nour saving relation to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and our\npardon, justification, and adoption or right to life everlasting; and\nthat God never made any distinct covenant of outward privileges alone,\nto be sealed by baptism. But that outward mercies are the second and\nlesser gift of the same covenant which giveth first the great and\nsaving blessings.\n\n6. And therefore that whoever hath right before God, to claim and\nreceive baptism, hath right also to the benefits of the covenant of\nGod, and that is, to salvation; though I say not so of every one that\nhath such right before the church, as that God doth require the\nminister to baptize him. For by right before God, or _in foro\nc\u0153li_, I mean such a right as will justify the claim before God\nimmediately, the person being one whom he commandeth in that present\nstate to claim and receive baptism. For many a one hath no such right\nbefore God to claim or receive it, when yet the minister hath right to\ngive it them if they do claim it.\n\nThe case stands thus. God saith in his covenant, He that believeth\nshall be saved, and ought to be baptized, to profess that belief, and\nbe invested in the benefits of the covenant; and he that professeth to\nbelieve, (whether he do or not,) is by the church to be taken for a\nvisible believer, and by baptism to be received into the visible\nchurch. Here God calleth none but true believers (and their seed) to\nbe baptized, nor maketh an actual promise or covenant with any other;\nand so I say that none other have right _in foro c\u0153li_. But yet the\nchurch knoweth not men's hearts, and must take a serious profession\nfor a credible sign of the faith professed, and for that outward title\nupon which it is a duty of the pastor to baptize the claimer.[275] So\nthat the most malignant, scornful hypocrite, that maketh a seemingly\nserious profession, hath right _coram ecclesia_, but not _coram Deo_,\nsave in this sense, that God would have the minister baptize him. But\nthis I have largelier opened in my \"Disputations of Right to\nSacraments.\"\n\n7. I think therefore that all the children of true christians, do by\nbaptism receive a public investiture by God's appointment into a state\nof remission, adoption, and right to salvation at the present; though\nI dare not say that I am undoubtedly certain of it, as knowing how\nmuch is said against it. But I say as the synod of Dort, art. 1. That\nbelieving parents have no cause to doubt of the salvation of their\nchildren that die in infancy, before they commit actual sin; that is,\nnot to trouble themselves with fears about it.\n\nThe reasons that move me to be of this judgment (though not without\ndoubting and hesitancy) are these; 1. Because whoever hath right to\nthe present investiture, delivery, and possession of the first and\ngreat benefits of God's covenant made with man in baptism, hath right\nto pardon, and adoption, and everlasting life: but the infants of true\nchristians have right to the present investiture, delivery and\npossession of the first and great benefits of God's covenant made with\nman in baptism; therefore they have right to pardon and everlasting\nlife.\n\nEither infants are in the same covenant (that is, are subjects of the\nsame promise of God) with their believing parents, or in some other\ncovenant, or in no covenant. If they be under no covenant, (or\npromise,) or under some other promise or covenant only, and not the\nsame, they are not to be baptized. For baptism is a mutual\ncovenanting; where the minister by Christ's commission in his name\nacteth his part, and the believer his own and his infant's part: and\nGod hath but one covenant, which is to be made, sealed, and delivered\nin baptism. Baptism is not an equivocal word, so as to signify divers\ncovenants of God.\n\n_Object._ But the same covenant of God hath divers sorts of benefits;\nthe special God giveth to the sincere, and the common to the common\nand hypocritical receiver.\n\n_Answ._ 1. God indeed requireth the minister to take profession for\nthe visible church title; and so it being the minister's duty so far\nto believe a liar, and to receive dissemblers who had no right to lay\nthat claim, you may say that God indirectly and improperly giveth them\nchurch privileges: but properly, that is, by his promise or covenant\ndeed or gift, he giveth them nothing at all; for his covenant is one\nand undivided in its action, though it give several benefits, and\nthough providence may give one and not another, yet the covenant\ngiveth all or none. God saith that godliness hath the promise of this\nlife and of that to come; but he never said (that I know of) to the\nhypocrite or unsound believer, I promise or give right to common\nmercies.[276]\n\n2. But suppose it were otherwise, yet either the children of true\nbelievers have the true condition of right to the special blessings of\nthe covenant, or they have not the condition of any at all. For there\ncan no more be required of an infant, as to any special blessings of\nthe covenant, than that he be the child of believing parents, and by\nthem dedicated to God. Either this condition entitleth them to all the\ncovenant promises which the adult believer is entitled to, (as far as\ntheir natures are capable,) or it entitleth them to none at all; nor\nare they to be baptized; for God hath in Scripture instituted but one\nbaptism, (to profess one faith,) and that one is ever for the\nremission of sins:[277] \"He that believeth and is baptized shall be\nsaved,\" Mark xvi. 16.\n\n3. Or if all the rest were granted you, yet it would follow that all\ninfants in the world, even of true believers, are left out of God's\ncovenant of grace, that is, the covenant or promise of pardon and\nlife; and are only taken into the covenant of church privileges. And\nso, 1. You will make two covenants, (which you denied,) and not only\ntwo sorts of benefits of one covenant. 2. And two species of baptism;\nwhile all infants in the world are only under a covenant of outward\nprivileges, and have no baptism, but the seal of that covenant, while\nbelievers have the covenant, promise, and seal of pardon and life.\n\n2. And this is my second reason; because then we have no promise or\ncertainty, or ground of faith, for the pardon and salvation of any\nindividual infants in the world. And so parents are left to little\ncomfort for their children. And if there be no promise there is no\nfaith of it, nor any baptism to seal it; and so we still make\nantip\u00e6dobaptism unavoidable. For who dare set God's seal to such as\nhave no promise? or pretend to invest any in a near and saving\nrelation to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, (which is the very\nnature of baptism,) when God hath given no such commission?\n\n_Object._ Yes: baptism and the covenant of special promises are for\nall the elect, though we know not who they are.\n\n_Answ._ 1. I deny not God's eternal, antecedent election; but I deny\nthat the Scripture ever mentioneth his pardoning or glorifying any,\nupon the account of election only, without certain spiritual\nconditions, which may be given as the reason of the difference in\njudgment. God may freely give the gospel to whom he will, and also\nfaith or the first grace by the gospel, without any previous condition\nin man, but according to his free election only: but he giveth pardon\nand heaven as a rector by his equal laws and judgment; and always\nrendereth a reason of the difference, from the qualifications of man.\n\n2. And if this were as you say, it would still overthrow infant\nbaptism. For either we must baptize all indifferently, or none, or\nelse know how to make a difference. All must not be baptized\nindifferently: and election is a secret thing to us, and by it no\nminister in the world can tell whom to baptize: therefore he must\nbaptize none, if there be no other differencing note to know them by.\n\n_Object._ God hath more elect ones among the infants of true believers\nthan among others: and therefore they are all to be baptized.\n\n_Answ._ 1. It will be hard to prove that much (that he hath more) if\nthere be no promise to them all as such. 2. If he have more, yet no\nman knoweth how many, and whether the elect be one of ten, twenty,\nforty, or a hundred, in comparison of the non-elect; for Scripture\ntells it not. So that no minister of a church is sure that any one\ninfant that he ever baptized is elect. 3. And God hath given no such\nrule for sealing and delivering his covenant with the benefits as to\ncast it hap hazard among all, because it is possible or probable it\nmay belong to some.\n\n_Object._ You have no certainty what adult professor is sincere, nor\nto which of them the special benefits belong; no, not of any one in a\nchurch. And yet because there is a probability that among many there\nare some sincere, you baptize them all. Take then the birth privilege\nbut as equal to the profession of the adult.\n\n_Answ._ This partly satisfied me sometimes: but I cannot forget that a\nvisible, false, or hypocritical profession is not the condition of\nGod's own covenant of grace, nor that which he requireth in us, to\nmake us partakers of his covenant benefits; nay, he never at all\ncommandeth it; but only commandeth that profession of consent, which\nfolloweth the real consent of the heart:[278] he that condemneth\nlying, maketh it neither the condition of our church membership, as\nhis gift by promise, nor yet our duty.\n\nAnd mark well, that it is a professed consent to the whole covenant\nthat God requireth, as the condition of our true right to any part or\nbenefit of it. He that shall only say, I consent to be a visible\nchurch member, doth thereby acquire no right to that membership; no,\nnot _in foro ecclesi\u00e6_, but he must also profess that he consenteth to\nhave God for his God, and Christ for his Lord and Saviour, and the\nHoly Spirit for his Sanctifier. So that he must be a liar, or a sound\nbeliever, that maketh this profession.\n\nBut for an infant to be born of true believers, and sincerely by them\ndedicated in covenant to God, is all the condition that ever God\nrequired to an infant-title to his covenant; and it is not the failure\nof the true condition as a false profession is.\n\nIndeed if the proposition were thus laid, it would hold good: As we\nknow not who sincerely covenanteth for himself, and yet we must\nbaptize all that soberly profess it; so we know not who doth sincerely\ncovenant for his infant, and yet must baptize all whom the parents\nbring with such a profession, for themselves and them.\n\nBut if the sincere dedication of a sound believer, shall be accounted\nbut equal to the lying profession of the adult, which is neither\ncommanded, nor hath any promise, then infants are not in the covenant\nof grace, nor is the sincerest dedication to God either commanded or\nhath any promise.\n\nIf I were but sure that the profession of the adult for himself were\nsincere, I were sure that he were in a state of grace. And if I am not\nsure of the same concerning the parent's dedication of his infant, I\nmust conclude that this is not a condition of the same covenant, and\ntherefore that he is not in the same covenant (or conditional promise\nof God) unless there be some other condition required in him or for\nhim; but there is no other that can be devised.\n\n_Object._ Election is the condition.\n\n_Answ._ Election is God's act and not man's; and therefore may be an\nantecedent, but no condition required of us. And man is not called to\nmake profession that he is elected, as he is to make profession of his\nfaith and consent to the covenant. And God only knoweth who are his by\nelection, and therefore God only can baptize on this account.\n\nAnd what is the probability which the objecters mean, that many of the\ninfants of the faithful are elected? Either it is a promise, or but a\nprediction; if no promise, it is not to be sealed by baptism; if a\npromise, it is absolute or conditional. If any absolute promise, as, I\nwill save many children of believers, 1. This terminateth not on any\nsingular person, as baptism doth, and, 2. It is not the absolute\npromise that baptism is appointed by Christ to seal. This is apparent\nin Mark xvi. 16, and in the case of the adult. And it is not one\ncovenant which is sealed to the adult by baptism, and another to\ninfants. Else baptism also should not be the same. But if it be any\nconditional covenant, what is it, and what is the condition?\n\nAnd what is it that baptism giveth to the seed of believers, if they\nbe not justified by it from original sin? You will not say, that it\nconveyeth inherent sanctifying grace, no not into all the elect\nthemselves, which many are many years after without. And you cannot\nsay, that it sealeth to them any promise, so much as of visible church\nprivileges; for God may suffer them presently to be made janizaries,\nand violently taken from their parents, and become strangers and\ndespisers of church privileges, as is ordinary with the Greek's\nchildren among the Turks. Now God either promised such church\nprivileges absolutely, or conditionally, or not at all. Not\nabsolutely, for then they would possess them. If conditionally, what\nis the condition? If not at all, what promise then doth baptism seal\nto such, and what benefit doth it secure? God hath instituted no\nbaptism, which is a mere present delivery of possession of a church\nstate, without sealing any promise at all. True baptism first sealeth\nthe promise, and then delivereth possession of some benefits.\n\nYea, indeed outward church privileges are such uncertain blessings of\nthe promise, that as they are but secondary, so they are but\nsecondarily given and sealed, so that no man should ever be baptized,\nif these were all that were in the promise.[279] The holiest person\nmay be cast into a wilderness, and deprived of all visible church\ncommunion; and doth God then break his promise with him? Certainly no.\nIt is therefore our saving relations to God the Father, Son, and Holy\nGhost, which the promise giveth, and baptism sealeth; and other things\nbut subordinately and uncertainly as they are means to these. So then\nit is plain, that believers' infants have a promise of salvation, or\nno promise at all, which baptism was instituted to seal.\n\nI have said so much more of this in my Appendix to the \"Treatise of\nInfant Baptism,\" to Mr. Bedford, in defence of Dr. Davenant's\njudgment, as that I must refer the reader thither.\n\n8. I think it very probable that this ascertaining promise belongeth\nnot only to the natural seed of believers, but to all whom they have a\ntrue power and right to dedicate in covenant to God; which seemeth to\nbe all that are properly their own, whether adopted or bought; but\nthere is more darkness and doubt about this than the former, because\nthe Scripture hath said less of it.\n\n9. I am not able to prove, nor see any probable reason for it, that\nany but sound believers have such a promise for their children, nor\nthat any hypocrite shall certainly save his child, if he do but\ndedicate him to God in baptism. For, 1. I find no promise in Scripture\nmade to such. 2. He that doth not sincerely believe himself, nor\nconsent to God's covenant, cannot sincerely believe for his child, nor\nconsent for him. 3. And that faith which will not save the owner, as\nbeing not the condition of the promise, cannot save another. Much more\nmight be said of this. I confess that the church is to receive the\nchildren of hypocrites as well as themselves; and their baptism is\nvalid _in foro externo ecclesi\u00e6_, and is not to be reiterated. But it\ngoeth no further for his child, than for himself.\n\n10. Therefore I think that all that are rightfully baptized by the\nminister, that is, baptized so as that it is well done of him, are not\ncertainly saved by baptism, unless they be also rightfully baptized,\nin regard of their right to claim and receive it. Let them that are\nable to prove more do it, for I am not able.\n\n11. Whereas some misinterpret the words of the old rubric of\nconfirmation in the English liturgy, as if it spake of all that are\nbaptized, whether they had right or not, the words themselves may\nserve to rectify that mistake, \"And that no man shall think any\ndetriment shall come to children by deferring of their confirmation,\nhe shall know for truth, that it is certain by God's word, that\nchildren being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation,\nand be undoubtedly saved.\" Where it is plain that they mean, they have\nall things necessary _ex parte ecclesi\u00e6_, or all God's applying\nordinances necessary, though they should die unconfirmed, supposing\nthat they have all things necessary to just baptism on their own part.\nWhich is but what the ancients were wont to say of the baptized adult;\nbut they never meant that the infidel, and hypocrite, and impenitent\nperson was in a state of life, because he was baptized; but that all\nthat truly consent to the covenant, and signify this by being\nbaptized, are saved. So the church of England saith, that they receive\nno detriment by delaying confirmation; but it never said, that they\nreceive no detriment by their parents' or sponsors' infidelity and\nhypocrisy, or by their want of true right _coram Deo_ to be baptized.\n\n12. But yet before these questions (either of them) be taken as\nresolved by me, I must first take in some other questions which are\nconcerned in the same cause; as,\n\n[274] Since the writing of this, there is come forth an excellent book\nfor Infant Baptism by Mr. Joseph Whiston, in which the grounds of my\npresent solutions are notably cleared.\n\n[275] Mark xvi. 16; Acts ii. 37, 38; xxii. 16; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Tit.\niii. 3, 5, 6; Heb. x. 22; Eph. v. 26; Rom. vi. 1, 4; Col. ii. 12; 1\nPet. iii. 21, 22; Eph. iv. 5; Acts viii. 12, 13, 16, 36, 38; ix. 18;\nxvi. 15, 33; xix. 5; Gal. iii. 27.\n\n[276] Acts ii. 39; Gal. iii. 22, 29; 1 Tim. iv. 8; Eph. ii. 12; 2 Tim.\ni. 1; Heb. iv. 1; vi. 17; ix. 15; x. 36; viii. 6; 2 Pet i. 4, 5.\n\n[277] Acts ii. 38; xxvi. 18; Luke xxiv. 47.\n\n[278] Rom. x. 9; Acts viii. 37.\n\n[279] Matt. vi. 33; Rom. viii. 28, 32, &c.\n\n\nQuest. XXXVI. _What is meant by this speech, that believers and their\nseed are in the covenant of God; which giveth them right to baptism?_\n\n_Answ._ Though this was opened on thee by before I add, 1. The meaning\nis not that they are in that absolute promise of the first and all\nfollowing grace, supposed ordinarily to be made of the elect, (as such\nunknown,) viz. I will give them faith, repentance, conversion,\njustification, and salvation, and all the conditions of the\nconditional promise, without any condition on their part, which many\ntake to be the meaning of, I will take the hard heart out of them, &c.\nFor, 1. This promise is not now to be first performed to the adult who\nrepent and believe already; and no other are to be baptized at age. If\nthat absolute promise be sealed by baptism, either it must be so\nsealed as a promise before it be performed, or after; if before,\neither to all, because some are elect, or only to some that are elect.\nNot to all; for it is not common to infidels. Not to some as elect;\nfor, 1. They are unknown. 2. If they were known, they are yet supposed\nto be infidels. Not after performance, for then it is too late.\n\n2. The meaning is not only that the conditional covenant of grace is\nmade and offered to them; for so it may be said of heathens and\ninfidels, and all the world that hear the gospel.\n\nBut, 1. The covenant meant is indeed this conditional covenant only,\nMark xvi. 16, \"He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.\"\n\n2. To be in this covenant is, to be a consenting believer, and so to\nbe one that hath by inward heart consent the true conditions of right\nto the benefits of the covenant, and is thereby prepared solemnly by\nbaptism to profess this consent, and to receive an investiture and\nseal of God's part, by his minister given in his name.\n\n3. Infants are thus in covenant with their parents, because\nreputatively their parents' wills are theirs, to dispose of them for\ntheir good. And therefore they consent by their parents, who consent\nfor them.\n\n\nQuest. XXXVII. _Are believers' children certainly in covenant before\ntheir baptism, and thereby in a state of salvation? or not till they\nare baptized?_\n\n_Answ._ Distinguish between, 1. Heart-covenanting and mouth\ncovenanting. 2. Between being in covenant before God, and visibly\nbefore the church.\n\n1. No person is to be baptized at age, whose inward heart consent\nbefore professed, giveth him not right to baptism. Therefore all the\nadult must be in covenant, that is, consent on their part to the\ncovenant, before they are baptized.\n\n2. Therefore it is so with the seed of the faithful, who must consent\nby their parents, before they have right; otherwise all should have\nright, and their baptism be essentially another baptism, as sealing\nsome other covenant, or none.\n\n3. If there be no promise made to the seed of the faithful more than\nto others, they have no right more than others to baptism or\nsalvation. But if there be a promise made to them as the seed of\nbelievers, then are they as such within that promise, that is,\nperformers of its conditions by their parents, and have right to the\nbenefit.\n\n4. If the heart consent or faith of the adult, do put themselves into\na state of salvation, before their baptism, then it doth so by their\nchildren; but, &c.--\n\n5. But this right to salvation in parents and children upon heart\nconsent before baptism, is only before God. For the church taketh no\ncognizance of secret heart transactions; but a man then only\nconsenteth in the judgment of the church, when he openly professeth\nit, and desireth to signify it by being baptized.\n\n6. And even before God, there is a _necessitas pr\u00e6cepti_ obliging us\nto open baptism after heart consent; and he that heartily consenteth,\ncannot refuse God's way of uttering it, unless either through\nignorance he know it not to be his duty, (for himself and his child,)\nor through want of ability or opportunity cannot have it. So that\nwhile a man is unbaptized, somewhat is wanting to the completeness of\nhis right to the benefits of the covenant, viz. A reception of\ninvestiture and possession in God's appointed way; though it be not\nsuch a want, as shall frustrate the salvation of those that did truly\nconsent in heart.\n\n7. I take it therefore for certain, that the children of true\nbelievers consent to the covenant by their parents, and are as\ncertainly saved if they die before baptism, as after; though those\nthat despise baptism, when they know it to be a duty, cannot be\nthought indeed to believe or consent for their children or themselves.\n\n\nQuest. XXXVIII. _Is infants' title to baptism and the covenant\nbenefits given them by God in his promise, upon any proper moral\ncondition, or only upon the condition of their natural relation, that\nthey be the seed of the faithful?_\n\n_Answ._ That which is called a mere natural condition is properly in\nlaw sense no condition at all; nor doth make a contract or promise to\nbe called conditional in a moral sense. But it is matters of morality,\nand not of physics only, that we are treating of; and therefore we\nmust take the terms in a moral sense. For a physical condition is\neither past, or present, or future, or not future; if it be past or\npresent, the proposition may indeed be hypothetical, but it is no such\nconditional promise as we are speaking of; for instance, if you say,\nIf thou wast born in such a city, or if thy name be John, I will give\nthee so much. These are the words of an uncertain promiser; but the\npromise is already either equivalent to an absolute gift, or null. So\nif the physical condition be _de futuro_, e. g. If thou be alive\nto-morrow, I will give thee this or that; or if the sun shine\nto-morrow, &c. This indeed suspendeth the gift or event; but not upon\nany moral being which is in the power of the receiver, but upon a\nnatural contingency or uncertainty. And God hath no such conditional\ncovenants or promises to be sealed by baptism. He saith not, If thou\nbe the child of such or such a man, thou shalt be saved, as his\nnatural offspring only. If the papists that accuse us for holding that\nthe mere natural progeny of believers are saved as such, did well\nunderstand our doctrine, they would perceive that in this we differ\nnot from the understanding sort among them, or at least, that their\naccusations run upon a mistake.\n\nI told you before that there are three things distinctly to be\nconsidered in the title of infants to baptism and salvation. 1. By\nwhat right the parent covenanteth for his child. 2. What right the\nchild hath to baptism. 3. What right he hath to the benefits of the\ncovenant sealed and delivered in baptism?\n\nTo the first, two things concur to the title of the parent to covenant\nin the name of his child. One is his natural interest in him; the\nchild being his own is at his disposal. The other is God's gracious\nwill and consent that it shall be so; that the parent's will shall be\nas the child's for his good, till he come at age to have a will of his\nown.\n\nTo the second, the child's right to baptism is not merely his natural\nor his birth relation from such parents, but it is in two degrees, as\nfolloweth: 1. He hath a virtual right, on condition of his parent's\nfaith: the reason is, because that a believer's consent and\nself-dedication to God doth virtually contain in it a dedication with\nhimself of all that is his: and it is a contradiction to say that a\nman truly dedicateth himself to God, and not all that he hath, and\nthat he truly consenteth to the covenant for himself and not for his\nchild, if he understand that God will accept it. 2. His actual title\ncondition is his parent's (or owner's) actual consent to enter him\ninto God's covenant, and his actual mental dedication of his child to\nGod, which is his title before God, and the profession of it is his\ntitle before the church. So that it is not a mere physical but a moral\ntitle condition, which an infant hath to baptism, that is, his\nparent's consent to dedicate him to God.\n\n3. And to the third, his title condition to the benefits of baptism\nhath two degrees: 1. That he be really dedicated to God by the heart\nconsent of his parent as aforesaid. And, 2. That his parent express\nthis by the solemn engaging him to God in baptism; the first being\nnecessary as a means _sine qua non_, and the second being necessary as\na duty without which he sinneth, (when it is possible,) and as a means\n_coram ecclesia_ to the privileges of the visible church.\n\nThe sum of all is, that our mere natural interest in our children is\nnot their title condition to baptism or to salvation, but only that\npresupposed state which enableth us by God's consent to covenant for\nthem; but their title condition to baptism and salvation, is our\ncovenanting for them, or voluntary dedicating them to God; which we\ndo, 1. Virtually, when we dedicate ourselves, and all that we have or\nshall have. 2. Actually, when our hearts consent particularly for\nthem, and actually devote them to God, before baptism. 3.\nSacramentally, when we express this in our solemn baptismal\ncovenanting and dedication.\n\nConsider exactly of this again; and if you loathe distinguishing,\nconfess ingenuously that you loathe the truth, or the necessary means\nof knowing it.\n\n\nQuest. XXXIX. _What is the true meaning of sponsors,_ patrimi, _or\ngodfathers as we call them? And is it lawful to make use of them?_\n\n_Answ._ I. To the first question; all men have not the same thoughts\neither of their original, or of their present use.\n\n1. Some think that they were sponsors or sureties for the parents\nrather than the child at first; and that when many in times of\npersecution, heresy, and apostasy, did baptize their children this\nmonth or year, and the next month or year apostatize and deny Christ\nthemselves, that the sponsors were only credible christians witnessing\nthat they believed that the parents were credible, firm believers, and\nnot like to apostatize. 2. Others think that they were undertakers,\nthat if the parents did apostatize or die, they would see to the\nchristian education of the child themselves. 3. Others think that they\ndid both these together; (which is my opinion;) viz. that they\nwitnessed the probability of the parents' fidelity; but promised that\nif they should either apostatize or die, they would see that the\nchildren were piously educated. 4. Others think that they were\nabsolute undertakers that the children should be piously educated,\nwhether the parents died or apostatized or not; so that they went\njoint undertakers with the parents in their lifetime. 5. And I have\nlately met with some that maintain that the godfathers and godmothers\nbecome proprietors, and adopt the child, and take him for their own,\nand that this is the sense of the church of England. But I believe\nthem not for these reasons.\n\n1. There is no such word in the liturgy, doctrine, or canons of the\nchurch of England: and that is not to be feigned and fathered on them,\nwhich they never said.\n\n2. It would be against the law of nature to force all parents to give\nthe sole propriety, or joint propriety, in their children to others.\nNature hath given the propriety to themselves, and we cannot rob them\nof it.\n\n3. It would be heinously injurious to the children of noble and\nlearned persons, if they must be forced to give them up to the\npropriety and education of others, even of such as perhaps are lower\nand more unfit for it than themselves.\n\n4. It would be more heinously injurious to all godfathers and\ngodmothers, who must all make other men's children their own, and\ntherefore must use them as their own.\n\n5. It would keep most children unbaptized; because if it were once\nunderstood that they must take them as their own, few would be\nsponsors to the children of the poor, for fear of keeping them; and\nfew but the ignorant that know not what they do, would be sponsors for\nany, because of the greatness of the charge, and their averseness to\nadopt the children of others.\n\n6. It would make great confusion in the state, while all men were\nbound to exchange children with another.\n\n7. I never knew one man or woman that was a godfather or godmother on\nsuch terms, nor that took the child to be their own: and if such a\none should be found among ten thousand, that is no rule to discern the\njudgment of the church by.\n\n8. And in confirmation the godfather and godmother is expressly said\nto be for this use, to be witnesses that the party is confirmed.\n\n9. And in the priest's speech to the adult that come for baptism, in\nthe office of baptism of those of riper years, it is the persons\nthemselves that are to promise and covenant for themselves, and the\ngodfathers and godmothers are only called \"these your witnesses.\" And\nif they be but witnesses to the adult, it is like they are not\nadopters of infants.\n\nII. Those that doubt of the lawfulness of using sponsors for their\nchildren, do it on these two accounts: 1. As supposing it unlawful to\nmake so promiscuous an adoption of children, or of choosing another to\nbe a covenanter for the child instead of the parent, to whom it\nbelongeth; or to commit their children to another's either propriety,\nor education, or formal promise of that which belongeth to education,\nwhen they never mean to perform it, nor can do. 2. Because they take\nit for an adding to the ordinance of God, a thing which Scripture\nnever mentioneth. To which I answer,\n\n1. I grant it unlawful to suppose another to be the parent or\nproprietor that is not; or to suppose him to have that power and\ninterest in your child which he hath not; or to desire him to\nundertake what he cannot perform, and which neither he nor you intend\nhe shall perform; I grant that you are not bound to alienate the\npropriety of your children, nor to take in another to be joint\nproprietors; nor to put out your children to the godfather's\neducation. So that if you will misunderstand the use of sponsors, then\nindeed you will make them unlawful to be so used.\n\nBut if you take them but as the ancient churches did, for such as do\nattest the parents' fidelity, (in their persuasion,) and do promise\nfirst to mind you of your duty, and next to take care of the\nchildren's pious education if you die, I know no reason you have to\nscruple this much.\n\nYea more, it is in your own power to agree with the godfathers, that\nthey shall represent your own persons, and speak and promise what they\ndo, as your deputies only, in your names. And what have you against\nthis? Suppose you were sick, lame, imprisoned, or banished, would you\nnot have your child baptized? And how should that be done, but by your\ndeputing another to represent you in entering him into covenant with\nGod?\n\n_Object._ But when the churchmen mean another thing, this is but to\njuggle with the world.\n\n_Answ._ How can you prove that the authority that made or imposed the\nliturgy, meant any other thing? And other individuals are not the\nmasters of your sense. Yea, and if the imposers had meant ill, in a\nthing that may be done well, you may discharge your conscience by\ndoing it well, and making a sufficient profession of your better\nsense.\n\n2. And then it will be no sinful addition to God's ordinance, to\ndetermine of a lawful circumstance, which he hath left to human\nprudence: as to choose a meet deputy, witness, or sponsor, who\npromiseth nothing but what is meet.\n\n\nQuest. XL. _On whose account or right is it that the infant hath title\nto baptism and its benefits? Is it on the parents', ancestors',\nsponsors', the church's, the minister's, the magistrate's, or his\nown?_\n\n_Answ._ The titles are very various that are pretended; let us examine\nthem all.\n\nI. I cannot think that a magistrate's command to baptize an infant,\ngiveth him right, 1. Because there is no proof of the validity of such\na title. 2. Because the magistrate can command no such thing if it be\nagainst God's word, as this is, which would level the case of the seed\nof heathens and believers. And I know but few of that opinion.\n\nII. I do not think that the minister as such giveth title to the\ninfant: for, 1. He is no proprietor. 2. He can show no such power or\ngrant from God. 3. He must baptize none but those that antecedently\nhave right. 4. Else he also might level all, and take in heathen's\nchildren with believers'. 5. Nor is this pretended to by many, that I\nknow of.\n\nIII. I cannot think that it is a particular church that must give this\nright, or perform the condition of it. For, 1. Baptism (as is\naforesaid) as such, doth only make a christian, and a member of the\nuniversal church, and not of any particular church. And, 2. The church\nis not the proprietor of the child. 3. No Scripture commission can be\nshowed for such a power. Where hath God said, All that any particular\nchurch will receive, shall have right to baptism? 4. By what act must\nthe church give this right? If by baptizing him; the question is of\nhis antecedent right. If by willing that he be baptized; (1.) If they\nwill that one be baptized that hath no right to it, their will is\nsinful, and therefore unfit to give him right. (2.) And the baptizing\nminister hath more power than a thousand or ten thousand private men,\nto judge who is to be baptized. 5. Else a church might save all\nheathen children that they can but baptize, and so level infidels' and\nchristians' seed. 6. It is not the church in general, but some one\nperson, that must educate the child: therefore the church cannot so\nmuch as promise for its education: the church hath nothing to do with\nthose that are without, but only with her own; and heathen's children\nare not her own, nor exposed to her occupation.\n\nIV. I believe not that it is the universal church that giveth the\ninfant title to baptism: for, 1. He that giveth title to the covenant\nand baptism, doth it as a performer of the moral condition of that\ntitle. But God hath no where made the church's faith to be the\ncondition of baptism or salvation, either to infidels or their seed.\n2. Because the universal church is a body that cannot be consulted\nwith to give their vote and consent: nor have they any deputies to do\nit by. For there is no universal, visible governor: and if you will\npretend every priest to be commissioned to act and judge in the name\nof the universal church, you will want proof, and that is before\nconfuted. 3. If all have right that the universal church offereth up\nto God, or any minister or bishop be counted its deputy or agent to\nthat end, it is in the power of that minister (as is said) to level\nall, and to baptize and save all; which is contrary to the word of\nGod.\n\nV. I believe that godfathers as such, being no adopters or\nproprietors, are not the performers of the condition of salvation for\nthe infant, nor give him right to be baptized. 1. Because he is not\ntheir own, and therefore their will or act cannot go for his; because\nthere is no word of God for it that all shall be baptized or saved\nthat any christians will be sponsors for. God's church blessings are\nnot tied to such inventions, that were not in being when God's laws\nwere made. Where there is no promise or word, there is no faith. 3. No\nsponsors are so much as lawful (as is showed before) who are not\nowners or their deputies, or mere secondary subservient parties, who\nsuppose the principal covenanting party. 4. And as to the infant's\nsalvation, the sponsors may (too oft) be ignorant infidels and\nhypocrites themselves, that have no true faith for themselves; and\ntherefore not enough to save another. 5. And it were strange if God\nshould make no promise to a wicked parent for his own child, and yet\nshould promise to save by baptism all that some wicked and hypocrite\ngodfathers will offer him. And that thus the seed of heathens and\nchristians should be levelled, and yet an ignorant, bold undertaker to\ncarry away the privilege of saving persons from them both. All this is\nbut men's unproved imaginations. He that never commandeth godfathers,\nbut forbiddeth the usurping sort, and only alloweth human prudence to\nuse the lawful sort, did never put the souls of all children,\nchristians and heathens, into their hands (any more than into the\nhands of the priest that baptizeth them).\n\nVI. I do not find that remote ancestors that are dead, or that are not\nproprietors of the children, are the performers of the condition by\nwhich they have right to baptism or salvation. 1. Because God hath put\nthat power and work in the hands of others, even the parents, which\nthey cannot nullify. 2. Because the promise of mercy to thousands is\non supposition that the successors make no intercision. 3. Else the\nthreatenings to the seed of the wicked would signify nothing, nor\nwould any in the world be excluded from right, but all be levelled;\nbecause Noah was the common father of mankind: and if you lay it on\ndead ancestors, you have no rule where to stop till you come to Noah.\n\nVII. I conclude therefore that it is, clearly, the immediate parents,\n(both or one,) and probably any true domestic owner of the child, who\nhath the power to choose or refuse for him, and so to enter him into\ncovenant with God, and so by consent to perform the conditions of his\nright. For, 1. Abundance of promises are made to the faithful and\ntheir seed, of which I have spoken at large in my book \"Of Infant\nBaptism.\" And besides the punishment of Adam's sin, there is scarce a\nparent infamous for sin in Scripture, but his posterity falleth under\nthe punishment, as for a secondary, original sin or guilt. As the case\nof Cain, Ham, the Sodomites, the Amalekites, the Jews, Achan, Gehazi,\n&c. show. And 1 Cor. vii. 14, it is expressly said, \"Else were your\nchildren unclean, but now are they holy\" (of the sense of which I have\nspoke as aforecited).\n\n_Object._ But if owners may serve, one may buy multitudes, and a king\nor lord of slaves, whose own the people are, may cause them all to be\nbaptized and saved.\n\n_Answ._ 1. Remember that I say, that the christian parent's right is\nclear, but I take the other as more dark; for it is principally\ngrounded on Abraham and the Israelites circumcising their children\nborn to them in the house or bought with money: and how far the parity\nof reason here will reach is hard to know. All that I say is, that I\nwill not deny it, because _favores sunt ampliandi_. 2. If such a\nprince be a hypocrite, and not a sincere christian himself, his faith\nor consent cannot save others, that cannot save himself. 3. It is such\na propriety as is conjunct with a divine concession only that giveth\nthis power of consenting for an infant: now we find clear proof of\nGod's concession to natural parents, and probable proof of his\nconcession of it to domestic owners, but no further that I know\nof.[280] For, (1.) It is an act of God's love to the child for the\nparent's sake; and therefore to such children as we are supposed to\nhave a special nearness to, and love for. (2.) And it is a consent and\ncovenanting which he calls for, which obligeth the promiser to\nconsequent pious education, which is a domestic act. (3.) They are\ncomprised in the name of parents, which those that adopt them and\neducate them may be called. (4.) And the infants are their children,\nnot their slaves. But now, if the emperor of Muscovy, Indostan, &c.\nhad the propriety in all his people as slaves, this would not imitate\npaternal interest and love, but tyranny, nor could he be their\ndomestic educater. Therefore I must limit it to a pro-parent, or\ndomestic, educating proprietor.\n\n[280] Deut. xxix. 10-13.\n\n\nQuest. XLI. _Are they really baptized who are baptized according to\nthe English liturgy and canons, where the parent seemeth excluded, and\nthose to consent for the infant who have no power to do it?_\n\n_Answ._ I find some puzzled with this doubt, Whether all our infants'\nbaptism be not a mere nullity: for, say they, the outward washing\nwithout covenanting with God, is no more baptism, than the body or\ncorpse is a man. The covenant is the chief essential part of baptism.\nAnd he that was never entered into covenant with God was never\nbaptized. But infants according to the liturgy, are not entered into\ncovenant with God, which they would prove thus: they that neither ever\ncovenanted by themselves, or by any authorized person for them, were\nnever entered into covenant with God (for that is no act of theirs\nwhich is done by a stranger that hath no power to do it); but,\n&c.--That they did it not themselves is undeniable: that they did it\nnot by any person empowered by God to do it for them they prove, 1.\nBecause godfathers are the persons by whom the infant is said to\npromise; but godfathers have no power from God, (1.) Not by nature.\n(2.) Not by Scripture. 2. Because the parents are not only not\nincluded as covenanters, but positively excluded, (1.) In that the\nwhole office of covenanting for the child from first to last is laid\non others. (2.) In that the twenty-ninth canon saith, \"No parent shall\nbe urged to be present; nor admitted to answer as godfather for his\nown child:\" by which the parent that hath the power is excluded:\ntherefore our children are all unbaptized.\n\nTo all this I answer, 1. That the parent's consent is supposed, though\nhe be absent. 2. That the parent is not required to be absent, but\nonly not to be urged to be present; but he may if he will. 3. That the\nreason of that canon seems to be their jealousy, lest any would\nexclude godfathers. 4. While the church hath no where declared what\nperson the sponsors bear, nor any further what they are to do, than to\nspeak the covenanting words, and promise to see to the pious education\nof the child, the parents may agree that the godfathers shall do all\nthis as their deputies, primarily, and in their steads, and\nsecondarily as friends that promise their assistance. 5. While parents\nreally consent, it is not their silence that nullifieth the covenant.\n6. All parents are supposed and required to be themselves the choosers\nof the sponsors or sureties, and also to give notice to the minister\nbeforehand: by which it appeareth that their consent is presupposed.\nAnd though my own judgment be, that they should be the principal\ncovenanters for the child expressly, yet the want of that expressness,\nwill not make us unbaptized persons.\n\n\nQuest. XLII. _But the great question is, How the Holy Ghost is given\nto infants in baptism? And whether all the children of true christians\nhave inward sanctifying grace? or whether they can be said to be\njustified, and to be in a state of salvation, that are not inherently\nsanctified? And whether any fall from this infant state of salvation?_\n\n_Answ._ Of all these great difficulties I have said what I know, in my\n\"Appendix to Infant Baptism,\" to Mr. Bradford and Dr. Ward, and of\nBishop Davenant's judgment. And I confess that my judgment agreeth\nmore in this with Davenant's than any others, saving that he doth not\nso much appropriate the benefits of baptism to the children of sincere\nbelievers as I do. And though by a letter in pleading Davenant's\ncause, I was the occasion of good Mr. Gataker's printing of his answer\nto him, yet I am still most inclined to his judgment; not that all the\nbaptized, but that all the baptized seed of true christians, are\npardoned, justified, adopted, and have a title to the Spirit and\nsalvation.\n\nBut the difficulties in this case are so great, as drive away most who\ndo not equally perceive the greater inconveniences which we must\nchoose, if this opinion be forsaken: that is, that all infants must be\ntaken to be out of the covenant of God, and to have no promise of\nsalvation. Whereas surely the law of grace as well as the covenant of\nworks included all the seed in their capacity.\n\n1. To the first of these questions, I answer, 1. As all true\nbelievers, so all their infants do receive initially by the promise,\nand by way of obsignation and sacramental investiture in baptism, a\n_jus relationis_, a right of peculiar relation to all the three\npersons in the blessed Trinity: as to God, as their reconciled,\nadopting Father; and to Jesus Christ, as their Redeemer and actual\nHead and Justifier; so also to the Holy Ghost, as their Regenerator\nand Sanctifier.[281] This right and relation adhereth to them, and is\ngiven them in order to future actual operation and communion: as a\nmarriage covenant giveth the relation and right to one another, in\norder to the subsequent communion and duties of a married life; and as\nhe that sweareth allegiance to a king, or is listed into an army, or\nis entered into a school, receiveth the right and relation, and is so\ncorrelated, as obligeth to the mutual subsequent offices of each, and\ngiveth right to many particular benefits. By this right and relation,\nGod is his own God and Father; Christ is his own Head and Saviour; and\nthe Holy Spirit is his own Sanctifier, without asserting what\noperations are already wrought on his soul, but only to what future\nends and uses these relations are. Now as these rights and relations\nare given immediately, so those benefits which are relative, and the\ninfant immediately capable of them, are presently given by way of\ncommunion: he hath presently the pardon of original sin, by virtue of\nthe sacrifice, merit, and intercession of Christ. He hath a state of\nadoption, and right to divine protection, provision, and church\ncommunion according to his natural capacity, and right to everlasting\nlife.\n\n2. It must be carefully noted, that the relative union between Christ\nthe Mediator and the baptized persons, is that which in baptism is\nfirst given in order of nature, and that the rest do flow from this.\nThe covenant and baptism deliver the covenanter, 1. From divine\ndisplicency by reconciliation with the Father: 2. From legal penalties\nby justification by the Son: 3. From sin itself by the operations of\nthe Holy Ghost. But it is Christ as our Mediator-Head, that is first\ngiven us in relative union; and then, 1. The Father loveth us with\ncomplacency as in the Son, and for the sake of his first Beloved. 2.\nAnd the Spirit which is given us in relation is first the Spirit of\nChrist our Head, and not first inherent in us; so that by union with\nour Head, that Spirit is next united to us, both relatively, and as\nradically inherent in the human nature of our Lord, to whom\nwe are united.[282] As the nerves and animal spirits which are to\noperate in all the body, are radically only in the head, from whence\nthey flow into and operate on the members as there is need (though\nthere may be obstructions); so the Spirit dwelleth in the human nature\nof our Head, and there it can never be lost; and it is not necessary\nthat it dwell in us by way of radication, but by way of influence and\noperation.\n\nThese things are distinctly and clearly understood but by very few;\nand we are all much in the dark about them. But I think, (however\ndoctrinally we may speak better,) that most christians are habituated\nto this perilous misapprehension, (which is partly against\nChristianity itself,) that the Spirit floweth immediately from the\ndivine nature of the Father and the Son (as to the authoritative or\npotestative conveyance) unto our souls. And we forget that it is first\ngiven to Christ in his glorified humanity as our Head, and radicated\nin Him; and that it is the office of this glorified Head, to send or\ncommunicate to all his members from himself, that Spirit which must\noperate in them as they have need.\n\nThis is plain in many texts of Scripture. Rom. viii. 32, \"He that\nspared not his own Son, but gave him up for us all, how shall he not\nalso with him freely give us all things?\" (when he giveth him\nparticularly to us).\n\n1 John v. 11, 12, \"And this is the record that God hath given us\neternal life, and this life is in his Son; he that hath the Son hath\nthe life, and he that hath not the Son hath not the life.\"\n\nRom. viii. 9, \"If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, the same is\nnone of his.\"\n\nEph. i. 22, 23, \"And gave him to be the Head over all things to the\nchurch, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in\nall.\"\n\nJohn xv. 26, \"The Advocate or Comforter whom I will send unto you from\nthe Father,\" &c.\n\nJohn xvi. 7, \"If I depart, I will send him unto you.\"\n\nJohn xiv. 26, \"The Comforter, whom the Father will send in my name.\"\n\nGal. iv. 6, \"And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit\nof his Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father.\"\n\nGal. ii. 20, \"I live: yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.\" (I know\nthat is true of his living in us objectively and finally, but that\nseemeth not to be all.)\n\nCol. iii. 3, 4, \"For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in\nGod; when Christ who is our life shall appear, then shall ye also\nappear with him in glory.\" I know that in verse 3, by life is meant\nfelicity or glory; but not only; as appeareth by verse 4, where Christ\nis called our life.\n\nMatt. xxviii. 18, \"All power is given unto me in heaven and earth.\"\nver. 20, \"I am with you always.\" John xiii. 3, \"The Father hath given\nall things into his hands.\"\n\nJohn xvii. 2, 3, \"Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he\nshould give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him; and this\nis life eternal, to know thee,\" &c.\n\nJohn v. 21, \"The Son quickeneth whom he will:\" ver. 26, \"For as the\nFather hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life\nin himself.\"\n\nJohn vi. 27, \"Labour for that meat which endureth to everlasting life,\nwhich the Son of man shall give unto you, for him hath God the Father\nsealed.\" Ver. 33, \"He giveth life unto the world.\" Ver. 54-57, \"Whoso\neateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life----dwelleth\nin me and I in him----my flesh is meat indeed----As the living Father\nhath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he\nshall live by me.\" Ver. 63, \"It is the Spirit that quickeneth: the\nflesh profiteth nothing.\"\n\nJohn vii. 39, \"This spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe in\nhim should receive.\" John iii. 34, \"God giveth not the Spirit to him\nby measure.\"\n\n1 Cor. vi. 17, \"He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit.\"\n\n2 Cor. iii. 17, \"The Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the\nLord is, there is liberty.\"\n\nPhil. i. 19, \"Through the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.\"\n\nJohn xv. 4, 5, \"Abide in me and I in you: as the branch cannot bear\nfruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no more can ye except ye\nabide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me\nand I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me (or,\nout of me, or, severed from me) ye can do nothing.\"\n\nI will add no more: all this is proof enough that the Spirit is not\ngiven radically or immediately from God to any believer, but to\nChrist, and so derivatively from him to us. Not that the divine nature\nin the third person is subject to the human nature in Christ; but that\nGod hath made it the office of our Mediator's glorified humanity, to\nbe the cistern that shall first receive the waters of life, and convey\nthem by the pipes of his appointed means to all the offices of his\nhouse: or to be the head of the animal spirits, and by nerves to\nconvey them to all the members.\n\n3. We are much in the dark concerning the degree of infants' glory;\nand therefore we can as little know, what degree of grace is necessary\nto prepare them for their glory.\n\n4. It is certain that infants before they are glorified, shall have\nall that grace that is prerequisite to their preparation and fruition.\n\n5. No sanctified person on earth is in an immediate capacity for\nglory; because their sin and imperfection must be done away, which is\ndone at the dissolution of soul and body. The very accession of the\nsoul to God doth perfect it.\n\n6. Infants have no actual faith, or hope, or love to God to exercise;\nand therefore need not the influence of the Spirit of Christ to\nexercise them.\n\n7. We are all so very much in the dark, as to the clear and distinct\napprehension of the true nature of original inherent pravity or sin,\nthat we must needs be as much ignorant of the true nature of that\ninherent sanctity or righteousness, which is its contrary or cure.\nLearned Illiricus thought it was a substance, which he hath in his\n\"Clavis\" pleaded for at large. Others call it a habit; others a nature\nor natural inclination, and a privation of a natural inclination to\nGod. Others call it an indisposition of the mind and will to holy\ntruth and goodness, and an ill disposition of them to error and evil.\nOthers call it only the inordinate lust of the sensitive faculties,\nwith a debility of reason and will to resist it. And whilst the nature\nof the soul itself and its faculties, are so much unknown to itself,\nthe nature of original pravity and righteousness must needs be very\nmuch unknown.\n\n8. Though an infant be a distinct natural person from his parents, yet\nis he not actually a distinct person morally, as being not a moral\nagent, and so not capable of moral actions good or evil. Therefore his\nparents' will goeth for his.\n\n9. His first acceptance into the complacential love of God, (as\ndistinct from his love of benevolence,) is not for any inherent\nholiness in himself; but, (1.) As the child of a believing parent who\nhath dedicated him to Christ; and, (2.) As a member of Christ, in whom\nhe is well pleased.\n\n10. Therefore God can complacentially as well as benevolently love an\ninfant in Christ, who only believeth and repenteth by the parents, and\nnot by himself, and is not yet supposed to have the Spirit of\nsanctification.\n\n11. For the Spirit of sanctification is not the presupposed condition\nof his acceptance into covenant with God, but a gift of the covenant\nof God itself, following both the condition on our part, and our right\nto be covenanters, or to God's promise upon that condition.\n\n12. So the adult themselves have the operation of the Spirit by which\nthey believe and repent, by which they come to have their right to\nGod's part in the covenant of baptism (for this is antecedent to their\nbaptism); but they have not the gift of the Spirit, which is called in\nScripture the \"Spirit of sanctification, and of power, love, and a\nsound mind,\" and is the benefit given by the covenant of baptism, till\nafterward; because they must be in that covenant before it can be made\ngood to them.[283] And their faith or consent is their infant's right\nalso, antecedent to the covenant gift.\n\n13. There is therefore some notable difference between that work of\nthe Spirit by which we first repent and believe, and so have our title\nto the promise of the Spirit, and that gift of the Spirit which is\npromised to believers; which is not only the Spirit of miracles, given\nin the first times, but some notable degree of love to our reconciled\nFather, suitable to the grace and gospel of redemption and\nreconciliation, and is called the \"Spirit of Christ,\" and the \"Spirit\nof adoption,\"[284] which the apostles themselves seem not to have\nreceived till Christ's ascension. And this seemeth to be not only\ndifferent from the gifts of the Spirit common to hypocrites and the\nunbelievers, but also from the special gift of the Spirit which maketh\nmen believers. So that Mr. Tho. Hooker saith trulier than once I\nunderstood, that vocation is a special grace of the Spirit, distinct\nfrom common grace on the one side, and from sanctification on the\nother side. Whether it be the same degree of the Spirit which the\nfaithful had before Christ's incarnation, which causeth men first to\nbelieve distinct from the higher following degree, I leave to inquiry;\nbut the certainest distinction is from the different effects.\n\n14. Though an infant cannot be either disposed to a holy life, or fit\nfor glory immediately, without an inward holiness of his own, yet by\nwhat is said it seemeth plain, that merely on the account of the\ncondition performed by the parent, and of his union relatively with\nChrist thereupon, and his title to God's promise on these grounds, he\nmay be said to be in a state of salvation; that is, to have the pardon\nof his original sin, deliverance from hell, (in right,) adoption, and\na right to the needful operations of the Holy Ghost, as given to him\nin Christ, who is the first receiver of the Spirit.\n\n15. But when and in what sort and degree Christ giveth the actual\noperations of the Spirit to all covenanted infants, it is wonderfully\nhard for us to know. But this much seemeth clear, 1. That Christ may\nwhen he please work on the soul of an infant to change its\ndisposition, before it come to the use of reason. 2. That Christ and\nhis Spirit as in covenant with infants, are ready to give all\nnecessary assistance to infants for their inherent sanctification, in\nthe use of those means, and on those further conditions, on which we\nmust wait for it and expect it.[285] For the Holy Ghost is not so\nengaged to us in our covenant or baptism, as to be obliged presently\nto give us all the grace that we want; but only to give it us on\ncertain further conditions, and in the use of certain means. But\nbecause this leads me up to another question, I will suspend the rest\nof the answer to this till that be handled. Only I must answer this\nobjection.\n\n_Object._ It is contrary to the holy nature of God, complacentially to\nlove an unsanctified infant, that is yet in his original corruption\nunchanged, and he justifieth none relatively from the guilt of sin,\nwhom he doth not at once inherently sanctify.\n\n_Answ._ 1. God's complacential love respecteth every one as he is; for\nit is goodness only that he so loveth. Therefore he so loveth not\nthose that either actually or habitually love not him, under any false\nsupposition that they do love him when they do not. His love therefore\nto the adult and infants differeth as the objects differ. But there is\nthis lovely in such infants; 1. That they are the children of\nbelieving, sanctified parents; 2. That they are by his covenant\nrelatively united to Christ, and so are lovely as his members; 3. That\nthey are pardoned all their original sin; 4. That they are set in the\nway to actual love and holiness; being thus dedicated to God.\n\n2. All imperfect saints are sinners; and all sinners are as such\nabhorred of God, whose pure eyes cannot behold iniquity. As then it\nwill stand with his purity to accept and love the adult upon their\nfirst believing, before their further sanctification, and\nnotwithstanding the remnant of their sins, so may it do also to accept\ntheir infants through Christ upon their dedication.\n\n3. As the actual sin imputed to infants was Adam's, and their parents'\nonly by act, and not their own, it is no wonder if upon their parents'\nfaith and repentance, Christ wash and justify them from that guilt\nwhich arose only from another's act.\n\n4. And then the inherent pravity was the effect of that act of their\nancestors, which is forgiven them. And this pravity or inherent,\noriginal sin may two ways be said to be mortified radically, or\nvirtually, or inceptively before any inherent change in them: 1. In\nthat it is mortified in their parents from whom they derived it, who\nhave the power of choosing for them; and, 2. In that they are by\ncovenant ingrafted into Christ, and so related to the cause of their\nfuture sanctification; yea, 3. In that also they are by covenant and\ntheir parents' promise, engaged to use those means which Christ hath\nappointed for sanctification.[286]\n\n5. And it must be remembered that as this is but an inceptive,\npreparatory change, so the very pardon of the inherent vitiosity is\nnot perfect, (as I have elsewhere largely proved,) however some\npapists and protestants deny it. While sin remaineth, sin and\ncorruption is still indwelling, besides all the unremoved penalties of\nit, the very being of it proveth it to be so far unpardoned, in that\nit is not yet abolished, and the continuance of it being not its\nsmallest punishment, as permitted, and the Spirit not given so far as\nto cure it. Imperfect pardon may consist with a present right both to\nfurther sanctification by the Spirit, and so to heaven.\n\n_Object._ Christ's body hath no unholy members.\n\n_Answ._ 1. 1 Cor. vii. 14, \"Now are your children holy.\" They are not\nwholly unholy who have all the fore-described holiness. 2. As infants\nin nature want memory and actual reason, and yet initially are men;\nso, as Christ's members, they may want actual and habitual faith and\nlove, and yet initially be sanctified, by their union with him and his\nSpirit, and their parents' dedication, and be in the way for more, as\nthey grow fit; and be christians and saints _in fieri_, or initially\nonly, as they are men.\n\n[281] Matt. xxviii. 19, 20; 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13; Eph. iv. 4, 5.\n\n[282] The Spirit is not given radically or immediately to any\nchristian, but to Christ our Head alone, and from him to us.\n\n[283] Acts xxvi. 8; 2 Tim. iv. 7; Rom. viii. 30; Gal. iv. 6.\n\n[284] Rom. viii. 9, 16, 26.\n\n[285] Mr. Whiston, p. 60, showeth, That even the promises of a new\nheart, &c. Ezek. xxxvi. xxxvii. &c. though they may run in the\nexternal tenor of them absolutely, yet are not absolutely absolute,\nbut have a subordinate condition, and that is, that the parties\nconcerned in them do faithfully use the means appointed of God in a\nsubserviency to his working in or bestowing on them the good promised.\n\n[286] God's being a God to any individual person doth require and\npresuppose that they do for the present, supposing them capable, or\nfor the future as soon as capable, take God in Christ as their God.\nIbid. p. 61.\n\n\nQuest. XLIII. _Is the right of the baptized (infants or adult) to the\nsanctifying operations of the Holy Ghost, now absolute, or suspended\non further conditions? And are the parents' further duties for their\nchildren such conditions of their children's reception of the actual\nassistances of the Spirit? Or are children's own actions such\nconditions? And may apostate parents forfeit the covenant benefits to\ntheir baptized infants or not?_\n\n_Answ._ The question is great and difficult, and few dare meddle with\nit. And almost all infant cases are to us obscure.\n\nI. 1. It is certain that it is the parents' great duty to bring up\ntheir children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.\n\n2. It is certain that God hath appointed this to be the means of their\nactual knowledge, faith, and holiness.[287]\n\n3. And God doth not appoint such means unnecessarily or in vain: nor\nmay we ordinarily expect his grace but in the use of the means of\ngrace, which he hath appointed us to use.\n\n4. It is certain that God's receiving the children of the faithful, is\nan act of God's love to the parents as well as the children, and\npromised as a part of his blessing on themselves.\n\n5. It is certain that these parents hold their own mercies upon the\ncondition of their own continued fidelity: and (let their apostasy be\non other reasons never so impossible, or not future, yet) the promise\nof continuance and consummation of the personal felicity of the\ngreatest saint on earth, is still conditional, upon the condition of\nhis persevering fidelity.\n\n6. Even before children are capable of instruction, there are certain\nduties imposed by God on the parents for their sanctification; viz. 1.\nThat the parents pray earnestly and believingly for them. 2. That they\nthemselves so live towards God as may invite him still to bless their\nchildren for their sakes, as he did Abraham's, and usually did to the\nfaithful's seed.[288]\n\n7. It is certain that the church ever required parents, not only to\nenter their children into the covenant, and so to leave them, but to\ndo their after duty for their good, and to pray for them, and educate\nthem according to their covenant.\n\n8. It is plain that if there were none to promise so to educate them,\nthe church would not baptize them. And God himself, who allowed the\nIsraelites, and still alloweth us to bring our children into his\ncovenant, doth it on this supposition, that we promise also to go on\nto do our duty for them, and that we actually do it.\n\n9. All this set together maketh it plain, 1. That God never promiseth\nthe adult in baptism, though true believers, that he will work in them\nall graces further by his sanctifying Spirit, let them never so much\nneglect or resist him; or that he will absolutely see that they never\nshall resist him: nor that the Spirit shall still help them, though\nthey neglect all his means; or that he will keep them from neglecting\nthe means (election may secure this to the elect as such; but the\nbaptismal covenant as such, secureth it not to the baptized, nor to\nbelievers as such). 2. And consequently that infants are in covenant\nwith the Holy Ghost still conditionally as their parents are; and that\nthe meaning of it is that the Holy Ghost as your Sanctifier will\nafford you all necessary help, in the use of those means which he hath\nappointed you to receive his help in.[289]\n\n_Object._ Infants have no means to use.\n\n_Answ._ While infants stand on their parents' account, or wills, the\nparents have means to use for the continuance of their grace, as well\nas for the beginning of it.\n\n10. Therefore I cannot see but that if a believer should apostatize,\n(whether any do so is not the question) and his infant not to be made\nanother's child, he forfeiteth the benefits of the covenant to his\ninfant. But if the propriety in the infant be transferred to another,\nit may alter the case.\n\n11. And how dangerously parents may make partial forfeitures of the\nSpirit's assistance to their children, and operations on them, by\ntheir own sinful lives, and neglect of prayer, and of prudent and holy\neducation, even in particular acts, I fear many believing parents\nnever well considered.\n\n12. Yet is not this forfeiture such as obligeth God to deny his\nSpirit; for he may do with his own, as a free benefactor, as he list;\nand may have mercy freely, beyond his promise, (though not against his\nword,) on whom he will have mercy. But I say that he that considereth\nthe woeful unfaithfulness and neglect of most parents, even the\nreligious, in the great work of holy educating their children, may\ntake the blame of their ungodliness on themselves, and not lay it on\nChrist or the Spirit who was in covenant with them as their\nSanctifier, seeing he promised but conditionally to give them the\nsanctifying heavenly influences of his life, light, and love, in their\njust use of his appointed means, according to their abilities.[290]\n\n13. Also as soon as children come to a little use of reason, they\nstand conjunctly on their parents' wills and on their own. As their\nparents are bound to teach and rule them, so they are bound to learn\nof them and be ruled by them for their good. And though every sin of a\nparent or a child be not a total forfeiture of grace, yet both their\nnotable actual sins may justly be punished, with a denial of some\nfurther help of the Spirit which they grieve and quench.\n\nII. And now I may seasonably answer the former question, whether\ninfants' baptismal saving grace may be lost, of which I must for the\nmost that is to be said refer the reader to Davenant (in Mr. Bedford's\nbook) on this subject, and to Dr. Samuel Ward joined with it, (though\nMr. Gataker's answers are very learned and considerable,) and to my\nsmall book called \"My Judgment of Perseverance.\"\n\nAugustine, who first rose up for the doctrine of perseverance, against\nits adversaries, carried it no higher than to all the elect as such,\nand not at all to all the sanctified; but oft affirmeth that some that\nwere justified, sanctified, and love God, and are in a state of\nsalvation, are not elect, and fall away; but since the reformation,\ngreat reasons have been brought to carry it further to all the truly\nsanctified; of which cause Zanchius was one of the first learned and\nzealous patrons, that with great diligence in long disputations\nmaintained it. All that I have now to say is, that I had rather with\nDavenant believe that the fore-described infant state of salvation,\nwhich came by the parents, may be lost by the parents and the\nchildren, (though such a sanctified, renewed nature in holy habits of\nlove as the adult have be never lost,) than believe that no infants\nare in the covenant of grace and to be baptized.\n\n_Object._ But the child once in possession shall not be punished for\nthe parents' sin.\n\n_Answ._ 1. This point is not commonly well understood. I have by me a\nlarge disputation proving from the current of Scripture, a secondary\noriginal sin, besides that from Adam, and a secondary punishment\nordinarily inflicted on children for their parents' sins, besides the\ncommon punishment of the world for the first sin. 2. But the thing in\nquestion is but a loss of that benefit which they received and hold\nonly by another. It is not so properly called a punishment for\nanother's sin, as a non-deliverance, or a non-continuance of their\ndeliverance, which they were to receive on the condition of another's\nduty.\n\n_Object._ But the church retaineth them as her members, and so their\nright is not lost by the fault or apostasy of the parents.\n\n_Answ._ 1. Lost it is one way or other, with multitudes of true\nchristians' children, who never show any signs of grace, and prove\nsometimes the worst of men. And God breaketh not his covenant.\n\n2. How doth the church keep the Greeks' children that are made\njanizaries?\n\n3. No man stayeth in the church without title. If the church or any\nchristians take them as their own, that is another matter. I will not\nnow stay to discuss the question, whether apostates' baptized infants\nbe still church members? But what I have said of their right before\nGod, seemeth plain.\n\n4. And mark, that on whomsoever you build an infant's right, you may\nas well say, that he may suffer for other men's default; for if you\nbuild it on the magistrate, the minister, the church, the godfathers,\nany of them may fail; they may deny him baptism itself; they may fail\nin his education; shall he suffer then for want of baptism or good\neducation when it is their faults? Whoever a child or a man is to\nreceive a benefit by, the failing of that person may deprive him of\nthat benefit. More objections I must pretermit, to avoid prolixity.\n\n[287] Eph. vi. 4, 5; Col. iii. 21; Gen. xviii. 19; Deut. vi. 6-8; xi.\n18-20.\n\n[288] Second commandment. Prov. xx. 7.\n\n[289] The Holy Ghost is promised in baptism to give the child grace in\nhis parents' and his own faithful use of the appointed means.\n\n[290] Mr. Whiston, p. 53. As Abraham as a single person in the\ncovenant was to accept of and perform the conditions of the\ncovenant--so as a parent he had something of duty incumbent on him\nwith reference to his (immediate) seed; and as his faithful\nperformance of that duty incumbent on him in his single capacity, so\nhis performing that duty incumbent on him as a parent in reference to\nhis seed, was absolutely necessary in order to his enjoying the good\npromised, with reference to himself and his seed: proved Gen. xvii. 1;\nxviii. 19. He proveth that the promise is conditional, and that as to\nthe continuance of the covenant state the conditions are, 1. The\nparent's upright life. 2. His duty to his children well done. 3. The\nchildren's own duty as they are capable.\n\n\nQuest. XLIV. _Doth baptism always oblige us at the present, and give\ngrace at the present? And is the grace which is not given till long\nafter, given by baptism: or an effect of baptism?_\n\n_Answ._ I add this case for two reasons: 1. To open their pernicious\nerror who think that a covenant or promise made by us to God, only for\na future, distant duty, (as to repent and believe before we die,) is\nall that is essential to our baptismal covenanting. 2. To open the\nordinary saying of many divines, who say, that baptism worketh not\nalways at the present, but sometimes only long afterward. The truth I\nthink may be thus expressed.\n\n1. It is not baptism, if there be not the profession of a present\nbelief, a present consent, and a present dedition, or resignation, or\ndedication of the person to God, by the adult for themselves, and by\nparents for their infants. He that only saith, I promise to believe,\nrepent, and obey only at twenty or thirty years of age, is not morally\nbaptized; for it is another covenant of his own which he would make,\nwhich God accepteth not.\n\n2. It is not only a future, but a present relation to God, as his own,\nhis subjects, his children by redemption, to which the baptized person\ndoth consent.\n\n3. It is a present correlation, and not a future only, to which God\nconsenteth on his part, to be their Father, Saviour, and Sanctifier,\ntheir Owner peculiarly, their Ruler graciously, and their chief\nBenefactor, and Felicity, and End.\n\n4. It is not only a future but a present remission of sin, and\nadoption and right to temporal and eternal mercies, which God giveth\nto true consenters by his covenant and baptism.\n\n5. But those mercies which we are not at that present capable of, are\nnot to be given at the present, but afterward when we are capable; as\nthe particular assistances of the Spirit, necessary upon all future\nparticular occasions, &c.; the pardon of future sins; actual\nglorification, &c.[291]\n\n6. And the duties which are to be performed only for the future, we\nmust promise at present to perform only for the future, in their\nseason, to our lives' end. Therefore we cannot promise that infants\nshall believe, obey, or love God, till they are naturally capable of\ndoing it.\n\n7. If any hypocrite do not indeed repent, believe, or consent when he\nis baptized, or baptizeth his child, he so far faileth in the covenant\nprofessed; and so much of baptism is undone; and God doth not enter\ninto the present covenant relations to him, as being incapable\nthereof.[292]\n\n8. If this person afterwards repent and believe, it is a doing of the\nsame thing which was omitted in baptism, and a making of the same\ncovenant; but not as a part of his baptism itself, which is long past.\n\n9. Nor is he hereupon to be re-baptized; because the external part was\ndone before, and is not to be twice done; but the internal part which\nwas omitted, is now to be done, not as a part of baptism, (old or\nnew,) but as a part of penitence, for his omission.\n\n_Object._ If covenanting be a part of baptism, then this person, whose\ncovenant is never a part of his baptism, doth live and die unbaptized.\n\n_Answ._ As baptism signifieth only the external ordinance, heart\ncovenanting is no part of it, but the profession of it is; and if\nthere was no profession of faith made, by word or sign, the person is\nunbaptized. But as baptism signifieth the internal part with the\nexternal, so he will be no baptized person while he liveth; that is,\none that in baptism did truly consent, and receive the spiritual\nrelations to God; but he will have the same thing in another way of\nGod's appointment.\n\n10. When this person is after sanctified, it is by God's performance\nof the same covenant in specie, which baptism is made to seal, that\nGod doth pardon, justify, and adopt him; but this is not by his past\nbaptism as a cause, but by after grace and absolution. The same\ncovenant doth it, but not baptism; because indeed the covenant or\npromise saith, Whenever thou believest and repentest, I will forgive\nthee; but baptism saith, Because thou now believest, I do forgive\nthee, and wash away thy sin; and maketh present application.\n\n11. So if an infant or adult person live without grace, and at age be\nungodly, his baptismal covenant is violated; and his after conversion\n(or faith and repentance) is neither the fulfilling of God's covenant,\nnor of his baptism neither. The reason is, because though pardon and\nadoption be given by that conditional covenant of grace which baptism\nsealeth, yet so is not that first grace of faith and repentance which\nis the condition of pardon and adoption, and the title to baptism\nitself. Else infidels should have right to baptism, and thereby to\nfaith and repentance. But these are only the free gifts of God to the\nelect, and the fulfilling of some absolute predictions concerning the\ncalling of the elect, and the fulfilling of God's will or covenant to\nChrist the Mediator, that \"He shall see the travail of his soul and be\nsatisfied,\" and possess those that are given him by the Father.\n\n12. But when the condition of the covenant is at first performed by\nthe parent for the infant, and this covenant never broken on this\nchild's behalf, (notwithstanding sins of infirmity,) in this case the\nfirst actual faith and repentance of children as they grow up, is from\nGod's fulfilling of his baptismal covenant with them. The reason is,\nbecause that God in that covenant did give them a right of relation to\nthe Holy Spirit in Christ their Head, as their Sanctifier, to operate\non them as they are capable. But if they first prove apostates and be\nafter converted, God is disobliged (yea, to hypocrites never was\nobliged) as to the engagement made by him in baptism; and doth now, 1.\nFreely give them faith and repentance as a benefactor to his elect,\nand then, 2. As a covenanter give them pardon and adoption, &c.\n\n13. So to the adult, that truly made the baptismal covenant and never\napostatized from it, all the grace that God giveth them through their\nlives, is his fulfilling of his promises made to them, and sealed by\nbaptism, and a fruit of their baptism. But to hypocrites and apostates\nit is otherwise, as is before explained.\n\n[291] Rom. vi. 1, 4, 6, 7, &c.\n\n[292] Acts viii. 37, 38; xiii. 20-23.\n\n\nQuest. XLV. _What is a proper violation of our baptismal covenant?_\n\n_Answ._ Note well, that there is a wide difference between these\nquestions, 1. When doth a man miss of, or lose, his present part in\nthe covenant or promise of God in the gospel?[293] (This is as long as\nhe is impenitent, an unbeliever and refuser.) 2. When doth a man\ntotally lose his part and hope in that promise or covenant of God, so\nas to be liable to all the penalty of it? (That is only by final\nimpenitence, unbelief and refusal, when life is ended.) 3. And when\ndoth a man violate his own covenant or promise made to God in baptism?\nWhich is our present question. To which I answer,\n\n1. This promise hath parts essential and parts integral: we promise\nnot both these parts alike, nor on the same terms; though both be\npromised. The essential parts, are our essential duties of\nchristianity, (faith, love, repentance in the essential parts,) &c.\nThe integrals are the integral duties of Christianity.[294]\n\n2. He that performeth not the essential duties is an apostate, or\nhypocrite.\n\n3. He that performeth not the integral duties is a sinner, not only\nagainst the law of nature, and Christ's precepts, but his own promise;\n(and in this sense we all confess our breach of covenant with Christ;)\nbut he is no apostate, hypocrite, or out of covenant.\n\n[293] John iii. 16-18, 36; i. 11-13.\n\n[294] 2 Pet. ii. 20-23; Heb. vi. 2, 4-8; x. 26-28; 1 John i. 9, 10;\nJames iii. 2, 3.\n\n\nQuest. XLVI. _May not baptism in some cases be repeated? And when?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. You must distinguish between baptism, taken morally, or\nonly physically. 2. Between baptism morally, as it is a church or\nvisible covenant, and as a heart covenant. 3. Between real baptism,\nand seeming baptism, which is a nullity. 4. Between certain reception\nof baptism, and that which is uncertain or justly doubted of. And so I\nanswer,\n\n1. Real and certain baptism as a visible church ordinance may not be\nrepeated; though the heart covenant was wanting; and though it wanted\nnot only decent modes, but integral parts.\n\n2. But in these cases baptism may be used where it seemed to have been\nreceived before.\n\n1. When the person made no profession of the christian faith (nor his\nparents for him, if an infant). 2. If that profession notoriously\nwanted an essential part; as if he only professed to believe in God\nthe Father, and not in the Son, or the Holy Ghost. 3. If the minister\nonly baptized him into the name of the Father, or Son, or left out any\nessential part. 4. If the person or ministry only contracted for a\ndistant futurity, (as, I will be a christian when I am old, &c.) and\nnot for the present; which is not to be christened, but only to\npromise to be christened hereafter. 5. If all application of water (or\nany watery element) was omitted, which is the external sign. 6. Of the\nbaptizer's power I shall speak anon. 7. If the church or the person\nhimself have just cause of doubting, whether he was truly baptized or\nnot, to do it again, with hypothetical expressions, If thou art not\nbaptized, I baptize thee; yea, or simply while that is understood, is\nlawful, and fit. And it is not to be twice baptized morally, but only\nphysically, as I have fully opened in the question of re-ordination,\nto which I must refer the reader.\n\n3. And I confess I make little doubt but that those in Acts xix. were\nre-baptized, notwithstanding the witty evasion invented by Phil.\nMarnixius Aldegondus, and Beza's improvement of it, and the now common\nreception of that interpretation.[295]\n\nFor, 1. A new and forced exposition which no reader dreameth of till\nit be put into his head, is usually to be suspected, lest art deceive\nus.\n\n[Sidenote: Whether it were re-baptizing.]\n\n2. The omission of the Holy Ghost is an essential defect, and maketh\nbaptism specifically another thing; and he were now to be re-baptized\nwho should be so baptized.\n\n3. Whatever some say in heat against the papists, John's baptism and\nour christian baptism are so specifically distinct also, that he that\nhad now but John's were to be yet baptized: the person of the Messiah\nhimself being not determinately put into John's baptism as such. Nor\ncan it be supposed that all the Jews that John baptized, were baptized\ninto the profession of faith in this numerical person Jesus, but only\nto an unknown Saviour undetermined: however he pointed to Christ in\nthe hearing of some of his disciples. We must not run from plain\ntruth in peevishness or opposition to papists or any other men.\n\n4. The fifth verse would not be true of John's baptism, as the history\nshoweth, that \"when John's hearers heard this, they were baptized into\nthe name of the Lord Jesus.\" This is contrary to the text that\nrecordeth it.\n\n5. In the fourth verse, the words \"that is, on Christ Jesus\" are\nplainly Paul's expository words of John's, and not John's words. John\nbaptized them \"into the name of the Messiah that should come after\nhim,\" which indeed, saith Paul, was Christ Jesus, though not then\npersonally determined by John.\n\n6. The connexion of the fourth, fifth, and sixth verses puts all out\nof doubt. 1. In the fourth verse the last words are Paul's, \"that is,\non Christ Jesus.\" 2. In the next words, verse 4, \"When they heard\nthis, they were baptized,\" &c. must refer to the last words, or to his\nthat was speaking to them. 3. Verse 6, the pronoun \"them,\" \"when Paul\nhad laid his hands on them,\" plainly referreth to them last spoken of,\nverse 5, which therefore were not John's hearers as such. 4. And the\nwords, \"they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus,\" are\nplainly distinctive from John's baptism. Saith Grotius, _Sic accepere\nLatinus, Syrus, Arabs, et Veteres omnes ante Marnixium (ut verba\nLuc\u00e6)_. Yet I say not so hardly of John's baptism, as Tertullian on\nthis text, (de Baptis.) _Adeo postea in Actis apostolorum invenimus,\nquoniam qui Johannis baptismum habebant, non accepissent Spiritum\nSanctum, quem ne auditu quidam noverant: ergo non erat c\u0153leste,\nquod c\u0153lestia non exhibebat._ See Dr. Hammond in loc.\n\n[295] Of Acts xix. 1-5.\n\n\nQuest. XLVII. _Is baptism by laymen or women lawful in cases of\nnecessity? Or are they nullities, and the person to be re-baptized._\n\n_Answ._ I. I know some of the ancients allowed it in necessity. But I\nknow no such necessity that can be: for, 1. God hath expressly made it\na part of the ministerial office by commission, Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.\n2. He hath no where given to any other either command to oblige them\nto do it or commission to authorize them, or promise to bless and\naccept them in it, or threatening if they omit it. 3. He oft severely\npunisheth such as invade the sacred function, or usurp any part of it.\n4. Therefore it is a sin in the doer, and then there can be no\nnecessity of it in such a case in the receiver. 5. He that is in\ncovenant by open, professed consent, wants nothing necessary to his\nsalvation, either _necessitate medii vel pr\u00e6cepti_, when it cannot be\nhad in a lawful way.\n\nII. As to the nullity, I will not determine so controverted a point\nany further than to say, 1. That if the layman had the counterfeit\norders of a minister, and had possession of the place, and were taken\nfor one, his deceit deprived not the receiver of his right, nor made\nit his sin, and I should not re-baptize him, if after discovered.\n\n2. But if he were in no possession, or pretence of the office, I would\nbe baptized again, if it were my case; because I should fear that what\nis done in Christ's name by one that notoriously had no authority from\nhim to do it, is not owned by Christ as his deed, and so is a nullity.\nAs if a deceiver go in my name to make bargains for me.\n\n3. And if any that had after discovered a minister to be indeed no\nminister that baptized him, should doubt of the validity, and for\ncertainty have it done again by an authorized minister, I would not\ndiscommend him: nor would I account it morally twice baptizing, but a\nphysical repeating of that act which morally is but one (as I\nexplained before of re-ordination).\n\nTherefore if one that was a gross heretic in the very essentials, or\nan infidel, or one that had not knowledge and parts essentially\nnecessary to the ministry, baptize one, (in right words,) I would not\nblame him that for certainty would have an authorized person to do it;\nespecially if he was notoriously such a one when he did it. Let those\nthat are angry with this resolution be as fair to me as they will be\nto Venerable Bede, and that great miracle-working bishop John, whom in\nhis ecclesiastical history he reporteth to baptize a man again in\nEngland, merely because the priest that did it was so dull, ignorant,\nand insufficient as in John's judgment to be uncapable of the office,\nand therefore had been by him forbidden to use it, though the person\nbaptized (at age) knew not this:[296] viz. Herebaldus, ut Bed. l. v.\nc. 6.\n\n[296] Of which before.\n\n\nQuest. XLVIII. _May anabaptists, that have no other error, be\npermitted in church communion?_\n\n_Answ._ Yes: and tolerated in their own practice also: for, 1. They\nagree with us in all points absolutely necessary to communion.\n\n2. The ancient christians had liberty either to baptize, or to let\nthem stay till age, as they thought best; and therefore Tertullian and\nNazianzen speak against haste; and Augustine and many children of\nchristian parents were baptized at age.\n\n3. The controversy is of so great difficulty, that if in all such\ncases none that differ be tolerated, we may not live together in the\nworld or church, but endlessly excommunicate or persecute one another.\n\n4. Such sober antip\u00e6dobaptists will consent, to profess openly, that\nthey do devote their children to God according to all the power or\nduty which they can find communicated or laid upon them in the word of\nGod; and that if they believed that God would accept them into his\ncovenant upon their dedication, they would willingly do it. And that\nactually they do offer them to God according to their power, and\npromise to bring them up in his way. And who can force men's wills to\nchoose aright for themselves or others?\n\n\nQuest. XLIX. _May one offer his child to be baptized, with the sign of\nthe cross, or the use of chrism, the white garment, milk and honey, or\nexorcism, as among the Lutherans, who taketh these to be unlawful\nthings?_\n\n_Answ._ I am not now to meddle with the question, whether they be\nlawful? but to this question I answer,\n\n1. He that judgeth them unlawful, must first do his best to be certain\nwhether they be so or not.\n\n2. If so, he must never approve of them, or consent to them.\n\n3. He must not offer his child to be so baptized, when, _c\u00e6tesris\nparibus_, he may have it done in a better manner on lawful terms.\n\n4. But when he cannot lawfully have better, he may and must offer his\nchild to them that will so baptize him, rather than to worse, or none\nat all: because baptism is God's ordinance and his privilege, and the\nsin is the minister's, and not his. Another man's sinful mode will not\njustify the neglect of our duty; else we might not join in any prayer\nor sacrament in which the minister modally sinneth; that is, with\nnone.\n\n5. The milk and honey, white garment and chrism, are so ancient\n(called by Epiphanius and others the traditions and customs of the\nuniversal church) that the original of them is not known. And he that\nthen would not be so baptized, must not have been baptized at all.\n\n6. But in this case he that bringeth his child to baptism, should make\nknown, that it is baptism only that he desireth; and that he disowneth\nand disalloweth the manner which he accounteth sinful: and then he is\nno consenter to it.\n\n7. But where law, scandal, or great inconveniences forbid him, he is\nnot to make this profession openly in the congregation, but in that\nprudent manner which beseemeth a sober, peaceable person; whether to\nthe minister in private, or to his neighbours in converse; it being\neasy among neighbours to make known a man's dissent, without a\ndisorderly troubling of the church, or violating the laws of\nobedience, civility, and peace.\n\n8. But he must not, 1. Either offer his child to baptism, where the\nordinance is essentially corrupted, or worse than none. 2. Or where he\ncannot be admitted without an actual sin of his own; as by false\nprofessions, subscriptions, &c. For we must not do evil for good ends.\n\n\nQuest. L. _Whence came the ancient universal custom of anointing at\nbaptism, and putting on a white garment, and tasting milk and honey?\nAnd whether they are lawful to us?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. We must remember that the signification of these was not by\na new institution of theirs, but by former custom of the countries\nwhere they lived.[297] As, (1.) Anointing in Judea was like bathing at\nRome: it was taken in those scorching countries for a wholesome, and\neasing, and comforting thing; and therefore used to refresh the weary\nlimbs of travellers, and to comfort the sick.\n\n(2.) And it was the long accustomed ceremony also used on officers\naccounted sacred, kings and priests, who were anointed at their\nentrance and investiture.\n\n(3.) White clothing and purple were then and there taken for the\nnoblest attire;[298] not appropriated to sacred things and persons;\nbut as scarlet lately in England, the garb only of great men. On which\naccount, not as a sacred vestment, but as an honourable clothing, when\nthe bishops began to be advanced, they were allowed to wear white\nclothing, not only when they officiated, but at other times.\n\n(4.) The milk and honey were there highly esteemed for food, and\naccounted the character of the land of promise.[299]\n\n2. Hereupon by application the churches used these signs in the sacred\nordinance of baptism: not by new institution of the signification, I\nsay, but by application of the old well-known signification.\n\n3. As natural signs are commonly allowed to be applied to holy things,\nso signs whose signification is of old and commonly stated and well\nknown by agreement or custom, do seem in this not to be different from\nnatural signs. Such are all words, as signs of our minds; no word\nsignifying any thing naturally, but by agreement or custom only. And\nsuch is kneeling in prayer, and being uncovered, and many the like:\nabout some of which Paul appealeth to the custom of the churches of\nGod.[300]\n\n4. It is most probable that these two things together brought in\nanointing: (1.) The common use of anointing then, in both the foresaid\ncases (common refreshment and sacred investiture). (2.) And the\nmistake of all those Scripture texts, which command or mention\nanointing metaphorical: as 1 John ii. 27, \"The anointing which you\nhave received--teacheth you all things.\" Ezek. xvi. 9, \"I washed thee,\nI anointed thee with oil,\" &c. Psal. cv. 15; 1 Chron. xvi. 22, \"Touch\nnot mine anointed.\" Rev. iii. 18.[301]\n\nAnd withal reading that we are made kings and priests to God, and a\nroyal priesthood, they thought this might be signified by the usual\nhonorary signs of such, as well as by words to be called such. So that\nthey took it as if, in our age, the baptized should be set in a chair\nof state, and sumptuously apparelled, and a feast made to solemnize\nit, as they do at weddings, and the baptized person set at the upper\nend, &c. which are significant actions and ceremonies; but they\nintended them not as new sacraments, or any part of the sacrament, but\nas a pompous celebration of the sacrament by such additional\nceremonial accidents.\n\n5. And you must remember that they lived among infidels, where their\nprofession was made the common scorn, which tempted them by such\nostentation and pomp to seek to make it honourable, and to show that\nthey so accounted it, and to encourage those who were discourageable\nby the scorn. On which account also they used the cross, and the\nmemorials of the martyrs.\n\n6. Yet some, yea, many afterwards did seem to take the anointing for a\nsacramental action. When they read that the laying on of hands was the\nsign of giving the Holy Ghost, as distinct from baptism, and that the\nSpirit is called in Scripture the anointing, they joined both\ntogether, and made that which they now called the sacrament of\nconfirmation.\n\n7. Whether the anointing, milk and honey, and the white garment, were\nthen sinful in themselves to the users, I determine not. But certainly\nthey proved very ill by accident, whilst at this door those numerous\nand unlawful ceremonies have entered, which have so troubled the\nchurches, and corrupted religion; and among the papists, Greeks,\nArmenians, Abassines, and many others, have made the sauce to become\nthe meat, and the lace to go for clothing, and turned too much of\nGod's worship into imagery, shadows, and pompous shows.\n\n[297] Psal. xxiii. 5; xcii. 10; Luke vii. 46; Matt. vi. 17; Amos vi.\n6; Psal. lxxxix. 20; Lev. xvi. 32; Luke xvi.\n\n[298] Rev. iii. 4, 5, \"They shall walk with me in white.\"\n\n[299] Jam. v. 14; Mark vi. 13.\n\n[300] 1 Cor. xi. 16.\n\n[301] Rev. i. 6; v. 10; xx. 6; 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9.\n\n\nQuest. LI. _Whether it be necessary that they that are baptized in\ninfancy, do solemnly at age renew and own their baptismal covenant,\nbefore they have right to the state and privileges of adult members?\nAnd if they do not, whether they are to be numbered with christians or\napostates?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. Church membership is the same thing in infants and in the\nadult.\n\n2. Infants are naturally uncapable of doing all that in baptism which\nthe adult must do; as to understand, profess, &c. themselves.\n\n3. The baptism of the adult, being the most complete, because of the\nmaturity of the receivers, is made the standing pattern in Scripture;\nfor God formeth his ordinances to the most perfect ordinary receivers.\n\n4. Though an infant be devoted acceptably to God by his parent's will,\nyet when he is at age it must be done by his own will.\n\n5. Therefore a bare infant title ceaseth when we come to age, and the\nperson's title ceaseth, unless it be renewed by himself, or his own\nconsent. The reason is, because the conditions of his infant title\nthen cease: for his parent's will shall go for his no longer.\n\n6. Regularly and _ad bene esse_ the transition out of the state of\ninfant membership into the state of adult membership should be very\nsolemn; and by an understanding, personal owning of the baptismal\ncovenant.[302]\n\n7. There needeth no other proof of this, than, 1. That God in\nScripture never gave adult persons title to this covenant, but by\ntheir own personal consent; and at the first institution of baptism,\nboth went together, (personal profession and baptism,) because the\nreceivers were adult. 2. And that infants are capable of baptism, but\nnot of personal profession. 3. Therefore though they are not to repeat\nbaptism, which was done before, yet they are bound to make that\nprofession at age which they never made before.\n\n8. Where this solemn owning of their covenant cannot be had, (by\nreason of church corruptions, and magistrates' prohibition,) there the\nperson's ordinary joining with the church, in the public profession\nand worship, is to be taken for an owning it.\n\n9. He that being baptized in infancy, doth no way at full age own his\nbaptismal covenant, is to be taken for an apostate: 1. Because his\ninfant title ceaseth. 2. And he notoriously violateth his covenant. 3.\nBecause he can be no adult christian that no way owneth Christ.\n\n10. But this is to be understood of those that have opportunity; for\none in a wilderness among heathens only, cannot join in public\nworship, nor give testimony of his christianity to the church.\n\n11. Though the sacrament of the Lord's supper be appointed for the\nrenewing of our covenant at age, yet is it not the first owning of the\ncovenant, by the aged: for that sacrament belongeth neither to infants\nnor infidels; and he that claimeth it, must be an adult church member\nor christian; which those are not, who at full age no way ever owned\ntheir baptismal covenant, nor made any personal profession of\nchristianity.\n\nBut of this I have written purposely in a \"Treatise of Confirmation\"\nlong ago.\n\n[302] See the proofs of all in my \"Treatise of Confirmation.\"\n\n\nQuest. LII. _Whether the universal church consist only of particular\nchurches and their members?_\n\n_Answ._ No: particular churches are the most regular parts of the\nuniversal church, but not the whole; no more than cities and\ncorporations be all the kingdom. 1. Some may be, as the eunuch,\nbaptized before they can come to any particular church; or as Paul,\nbefore they can be received.[303]\n\n2. Some may live where church tyranny hindereth them, by sinful\nimpositions; as all that live among the papists.\n\n3. Some may live in times of doubting, distraction, and confusion, and\nnot know what church ordinarily to join with, and may providently go\npromiscuously to many, and keep in an unfixed state for a time.\n\n4. Some may be wives, children, or servants, who may be violently\nhindered.\n\n5. Some may live where no particular churches are; as merchants and\nambassadors among Mahometans and heathens.\n\n[303] Acts viii. 37, &c.; ix. 17-20, 26-28.\n\n\nQuest. LIII. _Must the pastor first call the church, and aggregate\nthem to himself, or the church first congregate themselves, and then\nchoose the pastor?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. The pastors are in order of nature, if not in time, first\nministers of Christ in general, before they are related to a\nparticular charge.\n\n2. As such ministers, they first make men fit to be congregate, and\ntell them their duty therein.\n\n3. But it is a matter variable and indifferent, whether the minister\nfirst say, All that will join with me, and submit to me as their\npastor, shall be my particular charge; or the people before\ncongregated do call a man to be their pastor.\n\n\nQuest. LIV. _Wherein doth a particular church of Christ's institution\ndiffer from a consociation of many churches?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. In that such particular church is a company of christians\nassociated for personal immediate communion in God's worship and in\nholy living; whereas consociations of churches are combined for\nmediate distinct communion, or by delegates, or representatives (as in\nsynods).[304]\n\n2. Such a particular church is constituted of one or more pastors with\nthe people, officiating in the sacred ministry among them, in\ndoctrine, worship, and discipline, in order to the said personal\ncommunion. But a consociation of churches hath no particular head as\nsuch, of divine institution, to constitute and govern them as one. In\nIgnatius's time every particular church was characterized or known by\ntwo marks of unity: 1. One altar (that is, one place of assembling for\nholy communion). 2. One bishop with the presbyters and deacons: and\ntwo altars and two bishops proved two churches.\n\n3. A particular church under one bishop or the same pastors, is a\npolitical, holy society; but a combination of many churches\nconsociate, is not so, but only, 1. Either a community agreeing to\nlive in concord, as neighbour kingdoms may. 2. Or else a human policy\nor society, and not of divine immediate institution. So that if this\nconsociation of churches be called a church, it must be either\nequivocally or in a human sense.\n\n[304] Acts ii. 1, 24, 44, 46; iv. 32; v. 12; 1 Thess. v. 12, 13; 1\nCor. xiv. 19, 23, 24, 28, 35; Acts xiv. 23; Titus i. 5; Acts xi. 26;\nJames ii. 2.\n\n\nQuest. LV. _Whether a particular church may consist of more assemblies\nthan one? or must needs meet all in one place?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. The true distinguishing note of a particular church is,\nthat they be associated for holy communion in worship and holy living,\nnot by delegates, nor distantly only, by owning the same faith, and\nloving one another, as we may do with those at the antipodes; but\npersonally in presence.\n\n2. Therefore they must necessarily be so near, as to be capable of\npersonal, present communion.[305]\n\n3. And it is most convenient that they be no more than can ordinarily\nmeet in the same assembly, at least for sacramental communion.\n\n4. But yet they may meet in many places or assemblies, as chapels, or\noratories, or other subordinate meetings, which are appointed to\nsupply the necessity of the weak and aged, and them that cannot travel\nfar. And in times of persecution, when the church dare not at all meet\nin one place, they may make up several smaller meetings, under several\npastors of the same church. But they should come all together as oft\nas they can.\n\n5. And it is to be considered that all the persons of a family can\nseldom go to the assembly at one time, especially when they live far\noff. Therefore if a church place would receive but ten thousand, yet\ntwenty thousand might be members, while half meet one day and half\nanother (or another part of the day).\n\n6. Two congregations distinctly associated for personal worship, under\ndistinct pastors, or having statedly (as Ignatius speaketh) two\nbishops and two altars, are two particular churches, and can no\notherwise be one church, than as that may be called one which is a\nconsociation of divers.\n\n[305] 1 Cor. xiv. 19, 23; Acts xi. 26, &c. as before cited.\n\n\nQuest. LVI. _Is any form of church government of divine institution?_\n\n_Answ._ Yea: there are two essentially different policies or forms of\nchurch government of Christ's own institution, never to be altered by\nman. 1. The form of the universal church, as headed by Christ himself;\nwhich all christians own as they are christians in their baptism.\n\n2. Particular churches, which are headed by their particular bishops\nor pastors, and are parts of the universal, as a troop is of an army,\nor a city of a kingdom.\n\nHere it is of divine institution, 1. That there be holy assemblies for\nthe public worship of God.\n\n2. That these assemblies be societies, constituted of the people with\ntheir pastors, who are to them as captains to their troops under the\ngeneral, or as mayors to cities under the king.[306]\n\n3. That these pastors have the power of the keys, or the special\nguidance and governance (by the word, not by the sword) of their own\nparticular charge, in the matters of faith, worship, and holy living;\nand that the flocks obey them. And when all this is _jure divino_, why\nshould any say, that no form of government is _jure divino_?\n\n3. Moreover it is of divine appointment, that these churches hold the\nnearest concord, and help each other as much as they can; whether by\nsynods, or other meet ways of correspondency. And though this be not a\ndistinct government, it is a distinct mode of governing.\n\n_Object._ But that there be pastors with fixed churches or assemblies\nis not of the law of nature.\n\n_Answ._ 1. Hath Christ no law but the law of nature? Wherein then\ndiffer the christian religion and the heathenish? 2. Suppose but\nChrist to be Christ, and man to be what he is, and nature itself will\ntell us that this is the fittest way for ordering the worship of God.\nFor nature saith, God must be solemnly and ordinarily worshipped, and\nthat qualified persons should be the official guides in the\nperformance, and that people who need such conduct and private\noversight besides, should where they live have their own stated\noverseers.\n\n_Object._ But particular congregations are not _de primaria intentione\ndivina_: for if the whole world could join together in the public\nworship of God, no doubt that would be properly a church. But\nparticular congregations are only accidental, in reference to God's\nintention of having a church, because of the impossibility of all\nmen's joining together for ordinances, &c.\n\n_Answ._ 1. The question with me is not whether they be of primary\nintention, but whether stated churches headed with their proper\nbishops or pastors be not of God's institution in the Scripture?\n\n2. This objection confirmeth it, and not denieth it. For, 1. It\nconfesseth that there is a necessity of joining for God's worship: 2.\nAnd an impossibility that all the world should so join: 3. But if the\nwhole world could so join, it would be properly a church. So that it\nconfesseth that to be a society joined for God's public worship, is to\nbe properly a church. And we confess all this: if all the world could\nbe one family, they might have one master; or one kingdom, they might\nhave one king. But when it is confessed, that, 1. A natural\nimpossibility of a universal assembly necessitateth more particular\nassemblies; 2. And that Christ hath instituted such actually in his\nword, what more can a considerate man require?\n\n3. I do not understand this distinction, _de primaria intentione\ndivina_, and accidental, &c. The primary intention is properly of the\nultimate end only: and no man thinketh that a law _de mediis_, of the\nmeans, is no law, or that God hath made no laws _de mediis_: for\nChrist as a mediator is a means. But suppose it be limited to the\nmatter of church laws; if this be the meaning of it, that it is not\nthe principal means, but a subordinate means, or that it is not\ninstituted only _propter finem ultimum_, no more than _propter se_,\nbut also in order to a higher thing as its immediate end, we make no\nquestion of that. Assemblies are not only that there may be\nassemblies; but for the worship and offices there performed: and those\nfor man; and all for God. But what of all this? Hath God made no laws\nfor subordinate means? No christian denieth it.\n\nTherefore the learned and judicious disputer of this point declareth\nhimself for what I say, when he saith, I engage not in the\ncontroversy, Whether a particular congregation be the first political\nchurch or no? it sufficeth for my purpose, that there are other\nchurches besides.--The thing in question is, Whether there be no other\nchurch but such particular congregations? Where it seemeth granted\nthat such particular churches are of divine institution; and for other\nchurches I shall say more anon. In the mean time note, that the\nquestion is but _de nomine_ here, whether the name church be fit for\nother societies, and not _de re_.[307]\n\nBut lest any should grow to the boldness to deny that Christ hath\ninstituted christian stated societies, consisting of pastors and\nflocks, associate for personal communion in public worship and holy\nliving; (which is my definition of a particular church, as not so\nconfined to one assembly, but that it may be in divers, and yet not\nconsisting of divers such distinct stated assemblies with their\ndistinct pastors, nor of such as can have no personal communion, but\nonly by delegates;) I prove it thus from the word of God.\n\n(1.) The apostles were commissioned by Christ to deliver his commands\nto all the churches, and settle them according to his will, John xx.\n21; Matt. xxviii. 19, 20, &c.\n\n(2.) These commissioned persons had the promise of an infallible\nSpirit for the due performance of their work, John xvi. 13-15; xv. 26;\nxiv. 26; Matt, xxviii. 20.\n\n(3.) These apostles, wherever the success of the gospel prepared them\nmaterials, did settle christian stated societies, consisting of\npastors or elders with their flocks, associated for personal communion\nin public worship and holy living. These settled churches they gave\norders to for their direction, and preservation, and reformation:\nthese they took the chief care of themselves, and exhorted their\nelders to fidelity in their work. They gave command that none should\nforsake such assemblies; and they so fully describe them, as that they\ncannot easily be misunderstood. All this is proved, Acts xiv. 23;\nTitus i. 5; Rom. xvi. 1; 1 Cor. xi. 18, 20, 22, 26; xiv. 4, 5, 12, 19,\n23, 28, 33, 34; Col. iv. 16; Acts xi. 26; xiii. 1; 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2;\nActs xiv. 27; xv. 3, to omit many more. Here are proofs enow that such\nparticular churches were _de facto_ settled by the apostles. Heb. x.\n25, \"Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together.\" So James ii.\n2, they are called synagogues.\n\n2. It is confessed that there is a natural necessity of such stated\nchurches or assemblies, supposing but the institution of the worship\nitself which is there performed; and if so, then we may that the law\nof nature itself doth partly require them.\n\n(1.) It is of the law of nature, that God be publicly worshipped, as\nmost expositors of the fourth commandment do confess.\n\n(2.) It is of the law of nature that the people be taught to know God\nand their duty, by such as are able and fit to teach them.\n\n(3.) The law of nature requireth, that man being a sociable creature,\nand conjunction working strongest affections, we should use our\nsociableness in the greatest matters, and by conjunction help the zeal\nof our prayers and praises of God.\n\n(4.) God's institution of public preaching, prayer and praise, are\nscarce denied by any christians.\n\n(5) None of these can be publicly done but by assembling.\n\n(6.) No assembly can suffice for these without a minister of Christ;\nbecause it is only his office to be the ordinary teacher, and to go\nbefore the people in prayer and praise, and to administer the Lord's\nsupper, which without a minister may not be celebrated, because\nChrist's part cannot be otherwise performed, than by some one in his\nname, and by his warrant to deliver his sealed covenant to the\nreceivers, and to invest them visibly in the benefits of it, and\nreceive them that offer themselves in covenant to him.\n\n(7.) It is also a ministerial duty to instruct the people personally,\nand to watch over them at other times, Acts xx. 20, 28. And to be\nexamples of the flock, 1 Pet. v. 1-3. To have the rule over the\npeople, and labour among them, and admonish them, 1 Thess. v. 12; Heb.\nxiii. 7, 17; 1 Tim. v. 17. To exercise holy discipline among them,\nTitus iii. 10; Matt. xviii. 17, 18; 1 Cor. v. To visit the sick and\npray over them, James v. 14. Yea, to take care of the poor. See Dr.\nHammond on 1 Cor. xii. 28. And all this cannot possibly be well done\nby uncertain, transient ministers, but only by a resident, stated\npastor, no more than transient strangers can rule all our families, or\nall the christian kingdoms of the world.\n\n(8.) And as this cannot be done but by stated pastors, so neither on\ntransient persons ordinarily; for who can teach them that are here\nto-day and gone to-morrow? When the pastor should proceed from day to\nday in adding one instruction to another, the hearers will be gone,\nand new ones in their place. And how can vigilancy and discipline be\nexercised on such transient persons, whose faults and cases will be\nunknown? Or how can they mutually help each other? And seeing most in\nthe world have fixed habitations, if they have not also fixed church\nrelations, they must leave their habitations and wander, or else have\nno church communion at all.\n\n(9.) And as this necessity of fixed pastors and flocks is confessed,\nso that such _de facto_ were ordinarily settled by the apostles, is\nbefore proved, if any Scriptures may pass for proof.\n\nThe institution and settlement then of particular worshipping churches\nis out of doubt. And so that two forms of church government are _jure\ndivino_, the universal church form, and the particular.\n\n[Sidenote: Reasons for a larger episcopacy.]\n\n4. Besides this, in the apostles' days there were under Christ in the\nchurch universal, many general officers that had the care of gathering\nand overseeing churches up and down, and were fixed by stated relation\nunto none. Such were the apostles, evangelists, and many of their\nhelpers in their days. And most christian churches think that though\nthe apostolical extraordinary gifts, privileges, and offices cease,\nyet government being an ordinary part of their work, the same form of\ngovernment which Christ and the Holy Ghost did settle in the first\nage, were settled for all following ages, though not with the same\nextraordinary gifts and adjuncts. Because, 1. We read of the settling\nof that form, (viz. general officers as well as particular,) but we\nnever read of any abolition, discharge, or cessation of the\ninstitution. 2. Because if we affirm a cessation without proof, we\nseem to accuse God of mutability, as settling one form of government\nfor one age only, and no longer. 3. And we leave room for audacious\nwits accordingly to question other gospel institutions, as pastors,\nsacraments, &c. and to say that they were but for one age. 4. It was\ngeneral officers that Christ promised to be with to the end of the\nworld, Matt. xxviii. 20.\n\nNow either this will hold true or not. If not, then this general\nministry is to be numbered with the human additions to be next treated\nof. If it do, then here is another part of the form of government\nproved to be of divine institution. I say not, another church, (for I\nfind nothing called a church in the New Testament, but the universal\nchurch and the particular,) but another part of the government of both\nchurches, universal and particular; because such general officers are\nso in the universal, as to have a general oversight of the particular;\nas an army is headed only by the general himself, and a regiment by\nthe colonel, and a troop by the captain: but the general officers of\nthe army (the lieutenants-general, the majors-general, &c.) are under\nthe lord-general in and over the army, and have a general oversight of\nthe particular bodies (regiments and troops). Now if this be the\ninstituted form of Christ's church government, that he himself rule\nabsolutely as general, and that he hath some general officers under\nhim, (not any one having a charge of the whole, but in the whole\nunfixedly, or as they voluntarily part their provinces,) and that each\nparticular church have its own proper pastor, (one or more,) then who\ncan say, that no form of church government is of divine appointment or\ncommand?\n\n_Object._ But the question is only whether any sole form be of God's\ncommanding? And whether another may not have as much said for it as\nthis?\n\n_Answ._ Either you mean another instead of this, as a competitor, or,\nanother part conjunct with these parts.\n\n1. If the first be your sense, then you have two works to do. 1. To\nprove that these before mentioned were mutable institutions, or that\nthey were settled but disjunctively with some other, and that the\nchoice was left indifferent to men. 2. To prove the institution of\nyour other form (which you suppose left with this to men's free\nchoice).\n\nBut I have already proved, that both the general and particular church\nform are settled for continuance as unchangeable ordinances of God. I\nsuppose you doubt not of the continuance of Christ's supremacy, and\nso of the universal form: and if you will prove that church assemblies\nwith their pastors may cease, and some other way supply the room, you\nmust be strange and singular undertakers. The other two parts of the\ngovernment (by general officers, and by consociation of churches) are\nmore disputed; but it is the circumstances of the last only that is\ncontroverted, and not the thing; and for the other I shall now add\nnothing to what I have said elsewhere.[308]\n\n2. But if you only mean that another part of the form may be _jure\ndivino_ as well as this, that will but prove still that some form is\n_jure divino_.\n\nBut, 3. If you mean that God having instituted the forms now proved,\nhath left man at liberty to add more of his own, I shall now come to\nexamine that case also.\n\n[306] Eph. i. 22, 23; v. 25, 26, &c.; iv. 4-6, 16; Heb. x. 25; 1 Cor.\nxiv.; Acts xiv. 23; Titus i. 5; 1 Tim. v. 17; 1 Thess. v. 12, 13; 1\nTim. iii. 3-6; 1 Pet. v. 1-3; Acts xx. 28; Phil. i. 1, 2.\n\n[307] Dr. Stillingfleet's Iren. p. 154. so p. 173. By church here I\nmean not a particular congregation, &c. So he granteth that, 1. The\nuniversal church, 2. Particular congregations, are of divine\ninstitution; one _ex intentione primaria_, and the other, as he calls\nit, accidentally, but yet of natural necessity.\n\n[308] Disput. of Church Gov. disp. 3.\n\n\nQuest. LVII. _Whether any forms of churches, and church government, or\nany new church officers, may lawfully be invented and made by man?_\n\n_Answ._ To remove ambiguities, 1. By the word forms may be meant\neither that relative form of such aggregate bodies which is their\nessence, and denominateth them essentially; or only some accidental\nmode which denominateth them but accidentally.\n\n2. By churches is meant either holy societies related by the\nfoundation of a divine institution; or else societies related by\naccident, or by human contract only.\n\n3. By church government is meant, either that government formally\necclesiastical, which constituteth a church, of Christ's making; or\nelse some government about the matters of the church, which is\nformally either magistratical or human, (by contract,) &c.\n\n4. So by church officers are meant, either such as are accounted\nessential to a church in the pure christian sense; or integral at\nleast (as deacons); or else such as are accounted but accidental to\nit, and essential only to the human form. And so I answer,\n\n1. As there are some things _circa sacra_, or accidents of God's\nspecial church worship, which are left to human prudence to determine\nof, so the same human prudence may determine who shall do them. As, e.\ng. Who shall repair the buildings of the church; the windows, the\nbells, the pulpits, the tables, &c.; who shall keep the clock; who\nshall keep the cups, cloths, and other utensils; who shall be the\nporter, the keeper of the books, &c.; who shall call the people to\nchurch, or ring the bells, or give them notice of church assemblies;\nwho shall make the bread for the sacrament, or provide wine, or bring\nwater for baptism; who shall make the graves, and bury the dead, or\nattend marriages, or baptizings, &c.; who shall set the tune of the\npsalm, or use the church music (if there be any); who shall summon any\nof the people on any just occasion to come to their pastors; or who\nshall summon the pastors to any synod, or lawful assembly, and give\nthem notice of the time and place; when they are to meet, who shall be\ncalled first, and who second; who shall sit highest, and who lowest;\nwho shall take the votes, or moderate or guide the disputations of the\nassembly; who shall be the scribe, and record what is done; who shall\nsend abroad their agreements, and who shall be the church messenger to\ncarry them. The agents of such circumstantials maybe chosen by the\nmagistrate, or by the churches, or pastors, as is most convenient.\nThough I doubt not but in the beginning the deacons were mere servants\nto the pastors, to do as much of such circumstantial work as they\nwere able; of which serving at tables, and looking to the poor, and\ncarrying bread and wine to the absent, &c. were but parts; and all\nwent under the name of ministering to the pastors or churches. And\ntherefore they seem to be such an accidental office, appointed by the\napostles, on such common reasons, as magistrates or churches might\nhave appointed them, if they had not.\n\n2. If one will call all or many of these, church officers, and another\nwill not, it is but a strife about names, which one will use more\nlargely and the other more narrowly or strictly.\n\n3. If magistrates by authority, or the churches by agreement, shall\ndistribute the country for conveniency into parishes, (not making all\nto be church members that dwell in those precincts, but determining\nthat all persons that are fit in those proximities, and they only,\nshall be members of that particular church,) and then shall denominate\nthe church from this accident of place, it is but what is left to\ntheir discretion.\n\n4. And if the said magistrates or churches shall divide a kingdom into\nprovinces, and say, that whereas God commandeth us the use of\ncorrespondencies, mutual advice, and synods, for the due help,\nconcord, and communion of churches, and all things must be done in\norder and to edification; therefore we determine that so many churches\nshall make up such a synod, and the churches of such a district shall\nmake up another synod, and so shall be specially related to each other\nfor concord as advisers, all this is but the prudent determining of\nchurch circumstances or accidents left to man.\n\n5. And if they shall appoint that either a magistrate or one pastor\nshall be for order's sake the appointer of the times and places of\nmeeting, or the president of the synod, to regulate and order\nproceedings, and keep peace, as is aforesaid, it is but an accident of\nthe sacred work which man may determine of. Therefore a layman may be\nsuch a president or regulator.\n\n6. And if they will call this man by the name of a church governor,\nwho doth but a common part therein, and from thence will call this\nassociation or province by the name of a church, which is but a\ncompany of churches associated for concord and counsel, the name\nmaketh it not another thing than it is without that name; and the name\nmay be lawful or unlawful as times and probable consequents make it\nfit or unfit as to use.\n\n7. So much of church matters as is left to the magistrate's\ngovernment, may be under monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy, and\nunder such subordinate officers as the supreme ruler shall appoint.\n\n8. And if the magistrate will make assemblies or councils of pastors,\nto be his councils, and require them frequently to meet to advise him\nin the performance of his own trust and work about religion and the\nchurch, he may accordingly distribute them into provinces for that\nuse, or order such circumstances as he please.\n\n9. And if a province of churches be called one church, because it is\nunder one magistrate, or a nation of churches called a national\nchurch, because it is under one king, or many kingdoms or an empire\ncalled one catholic church, because they are all under one emperor; it\nmust be confessed that this question is but _de nomine_, and not _de\nre_.\n\nAnd further, 1. That in sacred things that which is of divine and\nprimary institution is the _famosius analogatum_, and not that which\nis but formed by man. 2. That when such an ambiguous word is used\nwithout explication or explicating circumstances, it is to be taken\nfor the _famosius analogatum_. 3. That in this case the word church or\nchurch form is certainly ambiguous and not univocal. 4. That a\nnational, imperial, or provincial church as headed by a king, emperor,\nmagistrate, or any head of man's appointment, is another thing from a\nchurch of Christ's institution; and is but an accident or adjunct of\nit: and the head of the human form, if called the head of the church\nof Christ, is but an accidental head, and not constitutive. And if\nChrist's churches be denominated from such a head, they are\ndenominated but from an accident, as a man may be denominated clothed\nor unclothed, clothed gorgeously or sordidly, a neighbour to this man\nor that, &c. It is no formal denomination of a church in the first\nacception, as it signifieth the _famosius analogatum_; though\notherwise many kind of societies may be called _ecclesi\u00e6_ or\n_c\u0153tus_: but divines should not love confusion.\n\n10. It seemeth to me that the first distribution of churches in the\nRoman empire, into patriarchal, primates, metropolitical, provincial,\ndiocesan, were only the determination of such adjuncts or extrinsic\nthings, partly by the emperors, and partly by the church's consent\nupon the emperor's permission; and so that these new church\ngovernments were partly magistratical, or by power derived from the\nemperors, and partly mere agreements or contracts by degrees\ndegenerating into governments; and so the new forms and names are all\nbut accidental, of adjuncts of the true christian churches. And though\nI cannot prove it unlawful to make such adjunctive or extrinsic\nconstitutions, forms, and names, considering the matter simply itself,\nyet by accident these accidents have proved such to the true churches,\nas the accident of sickness is to the body, and have been the causes\nof the divisions, wars, rebellions, ruins, and confusions of the\nchristian world. 1. As they have served the covetousness and ambition\nof carnal men. 2. And have enabled them to oppress simplicity and\nsincerity. 3. And because princes have not exercised their own power\nthemselves, nor committed it to lay officers, but to churchmen. 4.\nWhereby the extrinsic government hath so degenerated, and obscured the\nintrinsic, and been confounded with it, that both going under the\nequivocal name of ecclesiastical government, few churches have had the\nhappiness to see them practically distinct.[309] Nay, few divines do\nclearly in their controversy distinguish them. (Though Marsilius\nPatavinus and some few more have formerly given them very fair light,\nyet hath it been but slenderly improved.)\n\n11. There seemeth to me no readier and directer way, to reduce the\nchurches to holy concord, and true reformation, than for the princes\nand magistrates who are the extrinsic rulers, to re-assume their own,\nand to distinguish openly and practically between the properly\npriestly or pastoral intrinsic office, and their extrinsic part, and\nto strip the pastors of all that is not intrinsically their own (it\nbeing enough for them, and things so heterogeneous not well consisting\nin one person): and then when the people know what is claimed as from\nthe magistrate only, it will take off most of their scruples as to\nsubjection and consent.\n\n12. No mortal man may abrogate or take down the pastoral office, and\nthe intrinsic, real power thereof, and the church form which is\nconstituted thereby; seeing God hath instituted them for perpetuity on\nearth.\n\n13. But whether one church shall have one pastor or many is not at all\nof the form of a particular church; but it is of the integrity or\ngradual perfection of such churches as need many, to have many, and to\nothers not so: not that it is left merely to the will of man, but it\nis to be varied as natural necessity and cause requireth.\n\n14. The nature of the intrinsic office or power (anon to be described)\nis most necessary to be understood as distinct from the power of\nmagistrates, by them that would truly understand this. The number of\ngovernors in a civil state make that which is called a variety of\nforms of commonwealths, monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy: because\ncommanding power is the thing which is there most notably exercised,\nand primarily magnified. And a wiser and better man, yea, a thousand,\nmust stand by as subjects, for want of authority or true power; which\ncan be but in one supreme, either natural or political person; because\nit cannot consist in the exercise with self-contradiction. If one be\nfor war, and another for peace, &c. there is no rule. Therefore the\nmany must be one collective or political person, and must consent or\ngo by the major vote, or they cannot govern. But that which is called\ngovernment in priests or ministers, is of another nature; it is but a\nsecondary subservient branch of their office: the first parts are\nteaching and guiding the people, as their priests, to God in public\nworship: and they govern them by teaching, and in order to further\nteaching and worshipping God; and that not by might, but by reason and\nlove. Of which more anon. Therefore if a sacred congregation be taught\nand conducted in public worship, and so governed as conduceth\nhereunto, whether by one, two, or many, it no more altereth the form\nof the church, than it doth the form of a school, when a small one\nhath one schoolmaster, and a great one four: or of an hospital, when a\nsmall one hath one physician, and a great one many; seeing that\nteaching in the one, and healing in the other, is the main\ndenominating work, to which government is but subservient in the most\nnotable acts of it.\n\n15. No mortal man may take on him to make another church, or another\noffice for the church, as a divine thing, on the same grounds, and of\nthe same nature pretendedly as Christ hath made those already made.\nThe case of adding new church officers or forms of churches, is the\nsame with that of making new worship ordinances for God, and\naccordingly to be determined (which I have largely opened in its\nplace). Accidents may be added. Substantials of like pretended nature\nmay not be added; because it is a usurping of Christ's power, without\nderivation by any proved commission; and an accusing of him, as having\ndone his own work imperfectly.\n\n16. Indeed no man can here make a new church officer of this intrinsic\nsort, without making him new work, which is to make new doctrine, or\nnew worship (which are forbidden): for to do God's work already made\nbelongs to the office already instituted. If every king will make his\nown officers, or authorize the greater to make the less, none must\npresume to make Christ officers and churches without his commission.\n\n17. No man must make any office, church, or ordinance, which is\ncorruptive or destructive, or contrary or injurious to the offices,\nchurches, and ordinances which Christ himself hath made. This\nBellarmin confesseth, and therefore I suppose protestants will not\ndeny it. Those human officers which usurp the work of Christ's own\nofficers, and take it out of their hands, do malignantly fight against\nChrist's institutions: and while they pretend that it is but\npreserving and not corrupting or opposing additions which they make,\nand yet with these words in their mouths, do either give Christ's\nofficers' work to others, or hinder and oppress his officers\nthemselves, and by their new church forms undermine or openly destroy\nthe old, by this expression of their enmity they confute themselves.\n\n18. This hath been the unhappy case of the Roman frame of church\ninnovations, as you may observe in the particulars of its degeneracy.\n\n(1.) Councils were called general or \u0153cumenical in respect to one\nempire only; and they thence grew to extend the name to the whole\nworld; when they may as well say, that Constantine, Martian, &c. were\nemperors of the whole world, seeing by their authority they were\ncalled.\n\n(2.) These councils at first were the emperor's councils called to\ndirect him what to settle in church orders by his own power; but they\nwere turned to claim an imposing authority of their own to command the\nchurches as by commission from God.\n\n(3.) These councils at first were only for counsel, or for agreement\nby way of contract or mutual consent to the particular bishops; but\nthey degenerated into a form of government, and claimed a ruling and\ncommanding power.\n\n(4.) The patriarchs, primates and metropolitans, at first claimed but\na power about circumstantials extrinsical to the pastoral office, such\nas is the timing and placing of councils, the sitting above others,\n&c. And the exercise of some part of the magistrate's power committed\nto them, that is, the deposing of other bishops or pastors from their\nstation of such liberty and countenance as the magistrate may grant or\ndeny as there is cause. But in time they degenerated to claim the\nspiritual power of the keys, over the other bishops, in point of\nordination, excommunication, absolution.\n\n(5.) These patriarchs, primates, and metropolitans, at first claimed\ntheir extrinsic power but from man, that is, either the consent and\nagreement of the churches, or the grant of the emperors: but in time\nthey grew to claim it as of divine or apostolical appointment, and as\nunalterable.\n\n(6.) At first they were taken only for adjuncts, ornaments, supports,\nor conveniences to the churches: but afterwards they pretended to be\nintegral parts of the church universal, and at last the pope would\nneeds be an essential part; and his cardinals must claim the power of\nthe church universal in being the choosers of a universal head, or a\nking priest and teacher for all the christians of the world.\n\n(7.) At first laymen (now called chancellors, &c.) were only the\nbishops' counsellors, or officers to the magistrate or them, in\nperforming the extrinsical work about church adjuncts, which a layman\nmight do: but at last they came to exercise the intrinsic power of the\nkeys in excommunications and absolutions, &c.\n\n(8.) At first a number of particular churches consociated with their\nseveral bishops, were taken to be a community or company of true\nchurches prudentially cantonized or distributed and consociated for\nconcord; but after they grew to be esteemed proper political\nsocieties, or churches of divine appointment, if not the _ecclesia\nminim\u00e6_, having turned the particular churches into oratories or\nchapels, destroying Ignatius's character of one church, To every\nchurch there is one altar, and one bishop with his presbyters and\ndeacons. Abundance more such instances may be given.\n\n_Object._ Wherever we find the notion of a church particular, there\nmust be government in that church; and why a national society\nincorporated into one civil government, joining into the profession\nof christianity, and having a right thereby to participate of gospel\nordinances, in the convenient distributions of them in the particular\ncongregations, should not be called a church, I confess I can see no\nreason.\n\n_Answ._ 1. Here observe, that the question is only of the name,\n(whether it may be called a church,) and not of the thing (whether all\nthe churches in a kingdom may be under one king, which no sober man\ndenieth).\n\n2. Names are at men's disposal much; but I confess I had rather the\nname had been used no otherwise, or for no other societies, than\nScripture useth it. My reasons are, (1.) Because when Christ hath\nappropriated or specially applied one name to the sacred societies of\nhis institution, it seemeth somewhat bold to make that name common to\nother societies. (2.) Because it tendeth to confusion, misunderstanding,\nand to cherish errors and controversies in the churches, when all\nnames shall be made common or ambiguous, and holy things shall not be\nallowed any name proper to themselves, nor any thing can be known by a\nbare name without a description. If the name of Christ himself should\nbe used of every anointed king, it would seem not a little thus\ninjurious to him. If the name, Bible, Scripture, preachers, &c. be\nmade common to all that the notation of the names may extend to, it\nwill introduce the aforesaid inconveniences; so how shall we in common\ntalk distinguish between sacred societies of divine institution and of\nhuman if you will allow us no peculiar name, but make that common\nwhich Christ hath chosen?\n\n3. And that the name is here used equivocally is manifest. For the\nbody political is informed and denominated from the _pars imperans_,\nthe governing part or head: therefore as a head of divine institution,\nauthorized for the spiritual or pastoral work, denominateth the\nsociety accordingly; so a civil head can make but a civil society, and\na head of man's making, but a human society. It is certain that Christ\nhath appointed the episcopal or pastoral office, and their work, and\nconsequently episcopal or pastoral churches; and it is certain that a\nking is no constitutive part of one of these churches, but accidental;\nand therefore that he is an accidental head to a pastoral church as\nsuch, to which the pastor is essential.\n\nTherefore if you will needs call both these societies churches, you\nmust distinguish them into pastoral churches, and regal churches, or\nmagistratical churches; for the word national, notifieth not the\ngovernment which is the constitutive part; and may be used of\nconsociated churches, though under many civil governors (as in the\nSaxon Heptarchy).\n\nSo that our question is much like this, Whether all the grammar\nschools in England as under one king may be called one national\nschool? _Answ._ Not without unfitness, and inconveniences; but rather\nthan breed any quarrel, they may call them so that please: but, 1.\nThey must confess that a particular school is the _famosius\nsignificatum_. 2. That the king is king of schools, but not a\nschoolmaster, nor a constitutive part of a school. 3. That if you will\nneeds denominate them from the regent part, as one, you must call them\nall one royal school, if you will leave the well-known sense of words\nfor such uncouth phrases. But give us leave to call the body which is\nessentiated by a king, by the name of a kingdom only, though it have\nin it many schools, academies, colleges, cities, churches, which they\nthat please may call all one royal school, academy, college, city, and\nchurch, if they love confusion.\n\n4. Christianity giveth men right to communion in particular churches,\nwhen they also make known their christianity to the bishops of those\nchurches, and are received (as stated or transient) members by mutual\nconsent; but not otherwise; nor doth mere regal government give any\nsubject right to church communion, except by a church you mean a\nkingdom.\n\n_Object._ A particular church then I would describe thus, It is a\nsociety of men joined together in the visible profession of the true\nfaith, having a right to, and enjoying among them, the ordinances of\nthe gospel.\n\n_Answ._ 1. When you tell us by your description what you will mean by\na particular church, we may understand your denomination; but yet\nwhile it is unusual, you must not expect that other men so use the\nword. Had you called your description a definition, I would have asked\nyou, 1. Whether by a society, you mean not strictly a political\nsociety constituted by a _pars gubernans, et gubernata_? If not, it is\nno church save equivocally. If so, should not the _pars regens_ which\nis constitutive have been put in? If private men join together, &c. it\nmakes but a community. 2. A right to gospel ordinances is supposed,\nbut need not be in the definition. 3. The enjoying of them, is not\nessential to a church. The relation may continue, when the enjoyment\nis a long time hindered. 4. Among them is a very ambiguous word; is it\namong them in the same place; or in the same country or kingdom; or in\nthe same world? If you difference and define them not, by relation to\nthe same bishops or pastors, and by intended personal holy communion,\nyour description confoundeth the universal church, as well as the\nnational, with a particular church; for the whole christian world, is\na society of men joining together in the visible profession of the\ntrue faith, having a right to, and enjoying among them, the ordinances\nof the gospel.\n\n_Object._ A nation joining in the profession of christianity is a true\nchurch of God; whence it evidently followeth, that there must be a\nform of ecclesiastical government over a nation as a church, as well\nas of civil government over it, as a society governed by the same\nlaws.--For every society must have its government belonging to it as\nsuch a society; and the same reason that makes government necessary in\nany particular congregation, will make it necessary for all the\nparticular congregations, joining together in one visible society, as\na particular national church, for the unity and peace of that church\nought much more to be looked after than any one particular\ncongregation, &c.\n\n_Answ._ 1. From one absurdity many follow: our controversy before was\nbut of the name: if an accidental royal or civil head may equivocally\ndenominate an ecclesiastical society, and we grant you the use of an\nequivocal name, (or rather the abuse,) you will grow too hard upon us,\nif thence you will gather a necessity of a real ecclesiastical policy,\nbesides the civil. Names abused infer not the things signified by an\nunivocal term.\n\n2. You must first prove the form of government, and thence infer the\ndenomination, and not, contrarily, first beg the name, and then infer\nthe government.\n\n3. If yet by a form of ecclesiastical government, you meant nothing\nbut the king's extrinsic government, which you may as well call also a\nform of school government, of college government, &c. we would grant\nyou all. But if I can understand you, you now speak of ecclesiastical\ngovernment as distinct from that. And then,\n\n4. You are now grown up from a may be, to a must be, and necessity;\nand a greater necessity of one national ecclesiastical government,\nthan of a particular church government; which being undeniably of\nChrist's institution, (by the Holy Ghost in the apostles,) you do not\nmake all forms to be indifferent, or deny this to be _jure divino_.\nWhat! necessary and more necessary than that which is _jure divino_,\nand yet indifferent and not _jure divino_? If you say, It is necessary\nonly on supposition that there be a national church: I answer, But\nyour reasons evidently infer that it is also necessary that there be\nsuch a national church where it may be had; though you deny the\nnecessity of monarchical government by one high priest in it. But I\nknow you call not this a form of government, unless as determinately\nmanaged by one, many or most. But why a national spiritual policy as\ndistinct from congregational, may not be called a form of government,\nas well as one man is distinct from two, over the same people, I see\nnot: but this is at your liberty. But your necessity of such a\nnational regimen is a matter of greater moment.\n\nIn these three senses I confess a national church. 1. As all the\nchristians in a nation are under one civil church governor. 2. As they\nare consociated for concord, and meet in synods or hold\ncorrespondences. 3. As they are all a part of the universal church,\ncohabiting in one nation. But all these are equivocal uses of the word\nchurch; the denomination being taken in the first from an accident; in\nthe second the name of a policy being given to a community agreeing\nfor concord; in the third the name of the whole is given to a small\nintegral part.\n\nBut the necessity of any other church, headed by your ecclesiastical,\nnational governor, personal or collective, monarchical,\naristocratical, or democratical, I utterly deny, and find not a word\nof proof which I think I have any need to furnish the reader with an\nanswer to.\n\n5. And your judgment in this is downright against the constitution,\ncanons, and judgment of the national church of England; for that they\nuse the word in the senses allowed by me, and not in yours, is proved,\n(1.) From the visible constitution, in which there is (besides the\nking) no distinct ecclesiastical head. For the archbishop of\nCanterbury is not the proper governor of the archbishop of York and\nhis province.\n\n(2.) From the canons. Can. cxxxix. \"A national synod is the church\nrepresentative; whosoever shall affirm that the sacred synod of this\nnation, in the name of Christ and by the king's authority assembled,\nis not the true church of England by representation, let him be\nexcommunicated,\" &c. So that the synod is but the representative\nchurch; and therefore not the political head of the church: whether it\nbe the laity, or the whole clergy, or both, which they represent,\nrepresentation of those that are no national head, maketh them not a\nnational head.\n\n(3.) From the ordinary judgment of episcopal divines, (maintained by\nBishop Bilson and many others at large, against the papists,) that all\nbishops _jure divino_ are equal and independent, further than human\nlaws, or agreements, or difference of gifts may difference them, or as\nthey are bound to consociation for concord.\n\n6. How shall I deny not only the lawfulness, but the necessity of such\na papacy as really was in the Roman empire, on your grounds? I have\nproved against W. Johnson that the pope was then actually but the head\nof the imperial churches, and not of all the world. And if there must\nbe one national ecclesiastical head under one king, why not one also\nin one empire? Or whether it be one monarch, or a collective person,\nit is still one political person which is now in question. (Either a\nruling pope, or a ruling aristocracy or democracy, which is not the\ngreat matter in controversy.)\n\n7. And why will not the same argument carry it also, for one universal\nvisible head of all the churches in the world? at least as lawful? at\nleast as far as human capacity and converse will allow? And who shall\nchoose this universal head? And who can lay so fair a claim to it as\nthe pope? And if the form be indifferent, why may not the churches, by\nconsent at least, set up one man as well as many? Whether you carry it\nto an imperial church, or a papal, to a patriarchal, or provincial, or\nnational, till you have proved it to be of divine institution, (and\nparticular churches to be unnecessary, alterable, and of human\ninstitution,) I shall never grant you that it is to be preferred\nbefore that which is unquestionably of God. For though I easily grant\nthat all the churches of a nation, empire, or the world, are to be\nmore esteemed and carefully preserved, than one bishop's or pastor's\nparticular church; yet I will not grant you that your human policy is\nmore necessary to the safety of all these churches than the divine.\nFor the safety of these churches may be better preserved by God's\nthree great means, (1. The polity of particular churches with the\nconduct of their present faithful bishops or pastors. 2. The loving\nconsociation of neighbour churches for concord. 3. The protection and\ncountenance of magistrates,) without any new church form, (or\nnational, or imperial, or universal pastor,) than with it.\n\nNay, when that sort of usurpation hath been the very engine of\ndividing, corrupting, and undoing the christian churches above a\nthousand years, we are not easily persuaded now, that it is yet either\nnecessary or desirable.\n\n8. But the best and easiest way to discern how far the making new\nchurches or church offices is lawful or unlawful, is by trying it by\nthe quality of their office work. For it is the work which giveth us\nthe description of the office; and the office of the ruling part,\nwhich giveth us the definition of the church, which that office\nconstituteth.\n\nThe work which the new human officer is to do, is either, 1. The same\nwhich God hath already appointed bishops or pastors to do, or at least\nthe unfixed ministers in the universal church. 2. Or it is such as he\nhath appointed magistrates to do. 3. Or it is such as belongeth to\nprivate and laymen. 4. Or it is somewhat different from all these.\n\n1. If it be of the first sort, it is a contradiction. For men that are\nby office appointed to do the same work which ministers are already\nappointed to do, are not a new office, but ministers indeed, such as\nChrist hath instituted: for the office is nothing but an obligation\nand authority to do the work.\n\n2. If it be the same work which belongeth to the magistrate, then it\nis no new office, for they are magistrates.\n\n3. If it be that which belongeth to private men, by God's appointment,\nthey cannot disoblige themselves by transferring it to a new officer.\n\n4. If it be none of all these, what is it? I doubt it may prove some\nneedless or rather sinful work, which God committed to none of these\nthree sorts, and therefore unfit to make a church office of. Unless it\nbe such as I before described and granted. (1.) I confess that the\nmagistrate may make new inferior officers, to do his own part (as\nchurch justices, churchwardens, &c.) (2.) I grant that the people may\nmake an office for the better doing of some parts of their own work:\nthey may make collectors, door-keepers, artists by office, to keep the\nclock, and bells, and church buildings, &c. if the magistrates leave\nit to them.\n\n(3.) I grant that the bishops or pastors may do some circumstances of\ntheir work by human officers; as to facilitate their concord in\nsynods, by choosing one to preside, to choose time and place, to send\nmessengers to take votes, to moderate disputes, to record agreements,\n&c. as aforesaid; and these circumstantials are the things that\nofficers may be made for.\n\nBut the very modes and circumstances which are part of the work to\nwhich every bishop or pastor is obliged, he cannot commit to another;\nas to choose his text, subject, method, words, &c. These are parts of\nhis own work; though concord in these is the work of many.\n\nNow what is the work besides all these that we must have new churches\nand offices made for? Is it to govern all these bishops and churches?\nHow? By the word or by the sword? If by the sword, the magistrate is\nto do it; if by the word, (or spiritual authority,) either God hath\nmade such an office as archbishops or general bishops over many, or he\nhath not: if he have, we need no new human office for it, God having\nprovided for it already; if not, but God hath left all bishops\nindependent, and to learn of one another, as equal in office, and\nunequal only in gifts, then either such an office is fit and\nnecessary, or not. If it be, you accuse God of omission in not\nappointing a bishop over bishops as well as a bishop of the lowest\norder. If not, then by what reason or power will you make new needless\nofficers in the church? when Cyprian and his Carthage council so\nvehemently disclaimed being _Episcopi Episcoporum_?\n\n19. I would fain know whether those new-made churches of human and not\nof divine fabrication, (whether universal, (or papal,) patriarchal,\nprovincial, &c.) were made by former churches, or by no churches. If\nby no churches, then either by other societies or by single persons:\nif by other societies, by what power do they make new churches to\nChrist, who are themselves no churches? If by single persons, either\nthey are before church members, or not; if not, how can those make new\nchurches that be not so much as members of churches, without a\ncommission from Christ? But if either former churches or their members\nmade these new churches, then, (1.) It followeth that there were\nanother sort of churches before these new or human churches. And if\nso, either those other that made these were themselves made of God or\nnot. And so the question will run up till you bring it either to some\nchurch of God's making which made these other, or some person\ncommissioned to do it. If you say the first, then he that will confess\nthat there is a species of churches of Christ's institution, and a\nspecies not of his institution, must prefer the former, and must well\nprove the power of making the latter. And so they must do, if they say\nthat it was done by particular persons that were no particular church\nmembers. For if Christ commissioned them to settle any one species of\nchurches, those are to be esteemed settled by Christ. (2.) But if you\nsay that Christ left them to vary the species of churches as they saw\ncause, and so on to the end of the world, 1. You must well prove it.\n2. It is before disproved (unless you take the word church\nequivocally).\n\n20. Lastly, all christians are satisfied of Christ's authority; and\ntherefore in that they can agree: but so they are not of any human\nchurch maker's authority; and therefore in that there will never be an\nagreement: therefore such new churches, and ecclesiastical\ngovernments, will be but (as they ever have been) the engines of\ndivision and ruin in the churches; and the species of God's making,\nwith the mutability of mutable adjuncts and circumstances, will best\npreserve the church's peace.\n\nBut if the true nature of pastoral or ecclesiastical government were\nwell understood, it would put an end to all these controversies. Which\nmay be mostly gathered from what is said before. To which I will add\nthis little following.\n\nQuest. _Wherein consisteth the true nature of pastoral church\ngovernment?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. Not in any use of the sword, or corporal force.\n\n2. Not in a power to contradict God's word.\n\n3. Not in a power co-ordinate with Christ's, to do his proper work, or\nthat which hath the same grounds, reasons, and nature.\n\n4. Not in an unquestionable empire, to command things which none must\npresume to examine, or judge of by a discerning judgment, whether they\nbe forbidden by God or not.\n\n5. Not now in making a new word of God, or new articles of faith, or\nnew universal laws, for the whole church.\n\n6. Not in any thing which derogates from the true power of\nmagistrates, or parents, or masters.\n\nBut, 1. It is a ministerial power, of a messenger or servant, who hath\na commission to deliver his master's commands and exhortations.[310]\n\n2. As it is over the laity or flocks, it is a power in the sacred\nassemblies to teach the people by office, and to be their priests or\nguides in holy worship;[311] and to rule the worship actions for the\ntime, length, method, and orderly performance of them.[312]\n\n3. As to particular persons, it is the power of the church keys, which\nis, 1. To judge who is meet to be by baptism taken into the church. 2.\nTo reprove, exhort, and instruct those that by vice or ignorance, in\norder to repentance, or knowledge, or confirmation, do need the\npastoral help.[313] 3. To judge who is to be forbidden church\ncommunion as impenitent; or at least, with whom that church must be\nforbidden to communicate. 4. To judge who is meet for absolution as a\npenitent. 5. To deliver men personally a sealed pardon from Christ in\nhis two sacraments. 6. To visit the sick, and comfort the sad, and\nresolve the doubting, and help the poor. This is the true church\ngovernment, which is like a philosopher's or schoolmaster's in his\nschool among volunteers, supposing them to have no power of the rod or\nviolence, but only to take in or put out of their schools: and what\nneed is there of a universal, patriarchal, or national head, to do any\nof this work, which is but the government of a personal teacher and\nconductor; and which worketh only on the conscience?\n\n4. But besides this there is a necessity of agreeing in the right\nmanagement of this work; which needeth no new head, but only the\nconsultations of the several bishops or pastors, and the magistrate's\ncivil rule, or extrinsic episcopacy (as Constantine called it).\n\n5. And besides this there is need to ordain pastors and bishops in the\nchurch. And this is not done by any force neither; but, 1. By judging\nwhat men are fit; 2. By persuading the people to consent and receive\nthem; and, 3. By investing them by a delivery of possession by the\nimposition of hands. Now for all this, there needs no human species of\nbishops or churches to be made.\n\n6. Besides this there is need of some oversight of these pastors and\nministers and fixed bishops when they are made; and of some general\ncare of pastors and people, if they decline to heresies, errors,\nvices, or lukewarmness: but for this, 1. When magistrates have done\ntheir part; 2. And neighbour ministers to one another; 3. And the\nconsociated bishops to the particular ones; 4. And unfixed ministers\nhave done their parts in the places where occasionally they come; if\nmoreover any general pastors or archbishops are necessary, to rebuke,\ndirect, and persuade the bishops or their flocks, by messengers,\nepistles, or in presence, no doubt but God hath appointed such as the\nsuccessors of the apostles, evangelists, and other general ministers\nof those first times. But if no such thing be appointed by Christ, we\nmay be sure it is not necessary nor best.\n\nIf it were but considered that the ruling power in the church is so\ninseparable from the teaching power, that it is exercised by teaching\nand only by God's word, (either generally or personally applied,) and\nthat upon none but those that willingly and by consent receive it, it\nwould quiet the world about these matters. And oh that once\nmagistrates would take the sword wholly to themselves, and leave\nchurch power to work only by its proper strength and virtue, and then\nall things would fall into joint again; though the Ithacians would be\ndispleased.\n\n[309] Which tempteth the Erastians to deny and pull down both\ntogether, because they find one in the pastor's hands which belongeth\nto the magistrate, and we do not teach them to untwist and separate\nthem.\n\n[310] 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2.\n\n[311] 1 Pet. v. 1-3; Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.\n\n[312] 1 Thess. v. 12, 13.\n\n[313] 2 Tim. iv. 1-3, 5.\n\n\nQuest. LVIII. _Whether any part of the proper pastoral or episcopal\npower may be given or deputed to a layman, or to one of any other\noffice, or the proper work may be performed by such?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. Such extrinsical, or circumstantial, or accidental actions\nas are afore-mentioned may be done by deputies or others (as calling\nthe church together, summoning offenders, recording actions, &c.)\n\n2. The proper episcopal or pastoral work or office cannot be deputed,\nin whole or part, any other way than by communication, which is, by\nordination, or making another to be of the same office. For if it may\nbe done by a layman, or one that is not of the same order and office,\nthen it is not to be called any proper part of the pastoral or\nepiscopal office: if a layman may baptize, or administer the sacrament\nof Christ's body and blood, or may ordain, or excommunicate,\n(ecclesiastically,) or absolve, merely because a bishop authorizeth or\nbiddeth him, then, 1. What need Christ have made an office work of it,\nand persons be devoted and consecrated to it?\n\n2. And why may not the people's election and the king's commission\nserve to enable a layman to do it? For if commanding only be proper to\nthe bishop or pastor, and executing be common to laymen, it is certain\nthat the king may command all bishops and pastors to do their office\nwork; and therefore he may command a layman to do that which a bishop\nmay command him to do.\n\n3. And is it not a contradiction to say that a man is a layman or of\nanother order, who is authorized by a bishop to do a bishop's work or\noffice? when as the office itself is nothing (as is oft said) but an\nobligation and authority to do the work. If therefore a bishop\nauthorize and oblige any other man to do the proper work of a bishop\nor pastor, (to ordain, to baptize, to give the sacrament of the\neucharist, to excommunicate, to absolve, &c.) he thereby maketh that\nman a bishop or a pastor, whatever he call him.\n\n_Object._ But doth not a bishop preach _per alios_, to all his\ndiocess? and give them the sacraments _per alios_, &c.?\n\n_Answ._ Let not the phrase be made the controversy instead of the\nmatter. Those other persons are either ministers of Christ, or laymen.\nIf laymen, their actions are unlawful. If ministers, they are\ncommissioned officers of Christ themselves, and it is the work of\ntheir own office which they do, and it is they that shall have the\nreward or punishment. But if preaching to all these churches, or\ngiving to all these persons in a thousand parishes the sacraments, &c.\nwere the bishops' or archbishops' work, that is, which they are\nobliged to do, then they would sin in not doing it. But if they are\nthe governors only of those that are obliged to do it, and are not\nobliged to do it themselves, then governing the doers of it is only\ntheir work; and therefore it is but equivocally said that the work is\ntheirs, which others and not they are obliged to do; and that they do\ntheir work _per alios_, when they do but govern those others in doing\ntheir own work.\n\nOf this read the Lord Bacon's \"Considerations,\" and Grotius \"de Imper.\nsumm. Potest. circa Sacra,\" who soundly resolve the case, against\ndoing the pastoral work _per alium_.\n\n\nQuest. LIX. _May a layman preach or expound the Scriptures? Or what of\nthis is proper to the pastor's office?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. No doubt but there is some preaching or teaching and\nexpounding which a layman may use. So did Origen; so did Constantine;\nso may a king, or judge on the bench; so may a parent to his children,\nand a master to his family, and a schoolmaster or tutor to his\nscholars.\n\n2. It is not any one method or sermon fashion which is proper to a\nminister and forbidden to a layman; that method which is most meet to\nthe matter and hearers, may be used by one as well as by the other.\n\n3. It is not the mere publicness of the teaching, which must tell us\nwhat is unlawful for a layman. For writing and printing are the most\npublic ways of teaching; and these no man taketh to be forbidden the\nlaity. Scaliger, Casaubon, Grotius, Erasmus, Constantine, King James,\nthe Lord Bacon, and abundance more laymen, have done the church great\nservice by their writings. And judges on the bench speak oft\ntheologically to many.\n\nBut that which is proper to the ministers or pastors of the church is,\n1. To make a stated office of it, and to be separated, set apart,\ndevoted, or consecrated and appropriated to this sacred work; and not\nto do it occasionally only, or sometimes, or on the by; but as their\ncalling and the employment of their lives.\n\n2. To do it as called and commissioned ministers of Christ, who have a\nspecial nunciative and teaching authority committed to them; and\ntherefore are in a special manner to be heard, according to their\nspecial authority.\n\n3. To be the stated teachers of particular churches, as their pastors\nand guides (though they may sometimes permit a layman when there is\ncause to teach them _pro tempore_). These three are proper to the\nministerial and pastoral office.\n\nBut for the regulating of laymen's teaching, 1. They must statedly\nkeep in their families, or within their proper bounds.\n\n2. They must not presume to go beyond their abilities, especially in\nmatters dark and difficult.\n\n3. They must not thrust themselves without a just call and need into\npublic or numerous meetings as teachers, nor do that which savoureth\nof pride or ostentation, or which tendeth to cherish those vices in\nothers.\n\n4. They must not live or preach, as from under the government of the\nchurch pastors; but being members of their flocks, must do all as\nunder their lawful oversight and guidance: much less must they proudly\nand schismatically set up themselves against their lawful pastors, and\nbring them into contempt to get themselves reputation, and to draw\naway disciples after them.[314]\n\n5. Times and places must be greatly distinguished. In infidel or\ngrossly ignorant countries, where through the want of preachers there\nis a true necessity, men may go much further than in countries where\nteachers and knowledge do abound.\n\n[314] Acts xx. 30; Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 24; 1 Thess. v. 12, 13; 1 Tim. v.\n17.\n\n\nQuest. LX. _What is the true sense of the distinction of pastoral\npower, in foro interiore et exteriore, rightly used?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. Not as if the pastors had any power of the sword or outward\nforce, or of men's bodies or estates immediately: for all the pastoral\npower is immediately on the soul, and but secondarily on the body, so\nfar as the persuaded soul will move it. Reason and love, and the\nauthority of a messenger of Christ, are all the power by which bishops\nor pastors as such can work, _in foro interiore vel exteriore_; they\nrule the body but by ruling the soul.\n\n2. But the true use of the distinction is only to serve instead of the\nusual distinction of public and personal obligation. It is one thing\nto satisfy a man's private conscience about his own personal case or\nmatters; and another thing to oblige the whole church, or a particular\nperson, of his duty as a member of the society to the rest. When the\npastor absolveth a penitent person, _in foro interiore_, that is, in\nhis own conscience, he delivereth him a discharge in the name of\nChrist on condition he be truly penitent; else not. But _in foro\nexteriore_ he actually and absolutely restoreth him to his visible\nstate of church communion. The rest of the members perhaps may justly\nthink this man unlike to prove a true penitent; and then _in foro\ninteriore_ they are not bound to believe him certainly penitent or\npardoned by God; but _in foro exteriore_ that he is restored to church\ncommunion, and that for order's sake they are bound to hold communion\nwith him, they are bound (internally) to believe. So that it comes\nnear the sense of the distinction of the secret judgment (of God and\nconscience) and church judgment.\n\n\nQuest. LXI. _In what sense is it true that some say, that the\nmagistrate only hath the external government of the church, and the\npastors the internal?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. Not as external and internal are opposed in the nature of\nthe action. For the voice of the pastor in preaching is external, as\nwell as the king's.\n\n2. Not as they are opposed in the manner of reception. For the ears of\nthe auditors are external recipients from the preacher as well as from\nthe king.\n\n3. Not as distinguishing the parts that are to obey, the duties\ncommanded, and the sins forbidden, as if the king ruled the body only\nand the pastor the soul. For the soul is bound to obey the king, or\nelse the body could not be bound to obey him; unless by cords. And the\nbody must obey the preacher as well as the soul. Murder, drunkenness,\nswearing, lying, and such other external vices, are under the pastor's\npower to forbid in Christ's name, as well as the king's.\n\n4. Not as if all the external parts or actions of religion were\nexempted from the pastor's power. For preaching, praying, reading,\nsacraments, church assemblies, are external parts of religion, and\nunder the pastor's care.\n\nBut in two respects the external power is only the king's or civil\nmagistrate's. 1. As it is denominated from the sword, or mulcts, or\ncorporal penalties, which is the external means of execution; though\nin this respect the distinction were far more intelligibly expressed\nby, The government by the sword, and by the sacred word.[315]\n\n2. But the principal sense of their distinction is the same with\nConstantine's, who distinguished of a bishop without and within; or of\nour common distinction of intrinsic and extrinsic government. And\nthough internal and external have the same signification, use maketh\nintrinsic and extrinsic more intelligible. And by internal is meant\nthat power which intrinsically belongeth to the pastor's office as\ninstituted by Christ; and so is intrinsical to the pastorship and the\nchurch (as preaching, praying, sacraments, the keys of admission and\nexclusion, ordination, &c.). And by external is meant, that which is\nextrinsical to the pastorship and the church; which princes have\nsometimes granted them, but Christ hath made no part of their office.\nIn this sense the assertion is good, and clear, and necessary; that\nthe disposal of all things _circa sacra_, all accidents and\ncircumstances whatsoever, which by Christ's institution are not\nintrinsical to the pastorship and church, but extrinsical, do belong\nto the power of kings and magistrates.\n\n[315] As Bishop Bilson of Obed. useth still to distinguish them; with\nmany others. See B. Carlton of Jurisdiction.\n\n\nQuest. LXII. _Is the trial, judgment, or consent of the laity\nnecessary to the admittance of a member into the universal or\nparticular church?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. It is the pastor's office to bear and exercise the keys of\nChrist's church; therefore by office he is to receive those that come\nin; and consequently to be the trier and judge of their fitness.\n\n2. It belongeth to the same office which is to baptize, to judge who\nis to be baptized; otherwise ministers should not be rational judges\nof their own actions, but the executioners of other men's judgment. It\nis more the judging who is to be baptized, which the minister's office\nconsisteth in, than in the bare doing of the outward act of baptizing.\n\n3. He that must be the ordinary judge in church admissions, is\nsupposed to have both ability and leisure to make him fit; and\nauthority and obligation to do the work.\n\n4. The ordinary body of the laity have none of all these four\nqualifications, much less all. 1. They are not ordinarily able, so to\nexamine a man's faith and resolution with judgment and skill, as may\nneither tend to the wrong of himself nor of the church; for it is\ngreat skill that is required thereunto. 2. They have not ordinarily\nleisure from their proper callings and labours, to wait on such a work\nas it must be waited on, especially in populous places. 3. They are\nnot therefore obliged to do that which they cannot be supposed to have\nability or leisure for. 4. And where they have not the other three,\nthey can have no authority to do it.\n\n5. It is therefore as great a crime for the laity to usurp the\npastor's office in this matter, as in preaching, baptizing, or other\nparts of it.\n\n6. And though pride often blind men (both people and pastors) so as to\nmake them overlook the burden and look only at the authority and\nhonour; yet is it indeed an intolerable injury to the laity, if any\nwould lay such a burden on them which they cannot bear, and\nconsequently, would make them responsible for the omissions or\nmisdoing of it, to Christ their Judge.\n\n7. There is not so much as any fair pretence for the laity having\npower to judge who shall be received into the universal church; for\nwho of the laity should have this power? Not all, nor the major vote\nof the church; for who ever sought the votes of all the christians in\nthe world, before he baptized a man? Not any one particular church or\npersons above the rest; for they have no right to show for it, more\nthan the rest.\n\n8. It is not in the power of the laity to keep a man out of their own\nparticular church communion, whom the pastor receiveth; because, as is\nsaid, it is his office to judge and bear the keys.\n\n9. Therefore, if it be ill done, and an unworthy person be admitted,\nthe consciences of the people need not accuse themselves of it, or be\ndisturbed, because it is none of their employment.\n\n10. Yet the liberty of the church or people, must be distinguished\nfrom their governing power, and their executing duty, from the power\nof judging. And so, 1. The people are to be guided by the pastors as\nvolunteers, and not by violence: and therefore it is the pastor's\nduty, in all doubtful cases, to give the people all necessary\nsatisfaction, by giving them the reasons of his doings, that they may\nunderstandingly and quietly obey and submit. 2. And in case the people\ndiscern any notable appearance of danger, by introducing heretics and\ngrossly impious men to corrupt the church, and by subverting the order\nof Christ, they may go to their pastors to desire satisfaction in the\ncase. 3. And if by open proof or notoriety it be certain, that by\nignorance, fraud, or negligence, the pastors thus corrupt the church,\nthe people may seek their due remedy from other pastors and\nmagistrates. 4. And they may protest their own dissent from such\nproceedings. 5. And in case of extremity, may cast off heretical, and\nimpious, and intolerable pastors, and commit their souls to the\nconduct of fitter men; as the churches did against the Arian bishops,\nand as Cyprian declareth it his people's duty to do; as is\naforesaid.[316]\n\n[316] John xx. 21-23; xxi. 15-17; Matt. xxviii. 19, 20; 1 Cor. iv. 1,\n21; Tim. v. 17; Heb. xiii. 7, 17; 1 Cor. v. 3-6, 11; 2 Thess. iii. 6,\n10, 14; Tit. iii. 10; 2 John; Mark xiii. 9, 23, 33; Mark iv. 24; Matt,\nvii. 15, 16; xvi. 6, 11, 12; Mark xii. 38; viii. 15; Phil. ii. 2, 3;\nCol. ii. 8; 1 Pet. iii. 17; Matt. xxiv. 4.\n\n\nQuest. LXIII. _What power have the people in church censures and\nexcommunication?_\n\n_Answ._ This is here adjoined, because it requireth but little more\nthan the foregoing answer. 1. As it is the pastor's office to judge\nwho is to be received, so also to judge who is to be excluded.\n\n2. But the execution of his sentence belongeth to the people as well\nas to himself. It is they that either hold communion with the person,\nor avoid him.[317]\n\n3. Therefore though ordinarily they must acquiesce in the pastor's\njudgment, yet if he grossly offend against the law of God, and would\nbring them, e. g. to communion with heretics and openly impious, and\nexcommunicate the orthodox and godly, they may seek their remedy as\nbefore.\n\n[317] 1 Cor. v. 3, 6, 11; 2 John; Tit. iii. 10.\n\n\nQuest. LXIV. _What is the people's remedy in case of the pastor's\nmal-administration?_\n\n_Answ._ This also is here annexed for despatch, as being almost\nsufficiently answered already.\n\nIt must be supposed that all church disorders and mal-administrations\ncannot be expected to be remedied; but many while we are sinners and\nimperfect must be borne.\n\n1. The first remedy is to speak submissively to the pastor of his\nfaults, and to say to Archippus, \"Take heed to the ministry which thou\nhast received.\"[318] And if he hear not more privately, for the people\nmore openly to warn and entreat him; not as his governors, but as\nchristians that have reason to regard Christ's interest and their own,\nand have charity to desire his reformation.\n\n2. The next remedy is, to consult with the neighbour pastors of other\nchurches, that they may admonish him; not as his governors, but as\nneighbour pastors.[319]\n\n3. The next remedy is to seek redress from those governors that have\nthe power to correct or cast out the intolerable.\n\n4. The last remedy is that of Cyprian, to desert such intolerable\npastors.\n\nBut in all this, the people must be sure that they proceed not\nproudly, ignorantly, erroneously, passionately, factiously,\ndisorderly, or rashly.\n\n[318] Col. iv. 17.\n\n[319] Acts xv.\n\n\nQuest. LXV. _May one be a pastor or a member of a particular church,\nwho liveth so far from it, as to be uncapable of personal communion\nwith them?_\n\n_Answ._ The name is taken from the relation; and the relation is\nfounded in capacity, right, and obligation to actual communion,\nduties, and privileges: 1. He that is so statedly distant is uncapable\nstatedly of communion, and therefore uncapable of the relation and\nname.\n\n2. He that is but for a time accidentally so distant, is but for that\ntime uncapable of communion with them; and therefore retaineth\ncapacity, right, and obligation statedly for the future, but not for\nthe present exercise. Therefore he retaineth the relation and name, in\nrespect to his future intended exercise; but not in so plenary a\nsense, as he that is capable of present communion.\n\n3. It is not the length or shortness of the time of absence that\nwholly cutteth off or continueth the relation and name, but the\nprobability or improbability of a seasonable accession. For if a man\nbe removed but a day, with a purpose to return no more, his relation\nceaseth. And if a man be long purposing and probably like to return,\nand by sickness or otherwise be hindered, it doth not wholly end his\nrelation.\n\n4. If the delay be so long as either maketh the return improbable, or\nas necessitated the church to have another statedly in the pastor's\nplace, where they can have but one, and so the people by taking\nanother, consent (though with grief) to quit their relation and title\nto the former, there the relation is at an end.\n\n5. It is a delusory formality of some, that call themselves members of\na separated (or other) church, from which they most ordinarily and\nstatedly live at an utter distance, and yet take themselves to be no\nmembers of the church where they live, and usually join with: and all\nbecause they covenanted with one and not with the other.\n\n\nQuest. LXVI. _If a man be injuriously suspended or excommunicated by\nthe pastor or people, which way shall he have remedy?_\n\n_Ans._ As is aforesaid in case of mal-administration; 1. By\nadmonishing the pastor or those that wrong him. 2. By consulting\nneighbour pastors, that they may admonish him. 3. By the help of\nrulers, where such are, and the church's good forbids it not. 4. In\ncase of extremity, by removing to a church that will not so injure\nyou. And what needs there any more, save patience?\n\n\nQuest. LXVII. _Doth presence always make us guilty of the errors or\nfaults of the pastor in God's worship, or of the church? Or in what\ncases are we guilty?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. If it always made us guilty, no man could join with any\npastor or church in the world, without being a wilful sinner. Because\nno man worshippeth God without sin, in matter or manner, omission or\ncommission.\n\n2. If it never made us guilty, it would be lawful to join with\nMahometans and bread-worshippers, &c.\n\n3. Therefore the following decision of the question, In what cases it\nis a duty or a sin to separate, doth decide this case also. For when\nseparation is no duty, but a sin, there our presence in the worship is\nno sin; but when separation is a duty, there our presence is a sin.\n\n4. Especially in these two cases our presence is a sin: 1. When the\nvery assembly and worship is so bad as God will not accept, but\njudgeth the substance of it for a sin. 2. In case we ourselves be put\nupon any sin in communion, or as a previous condition of our communion\n(as to make some false profession, or to declare our consent to other\nmen's sin, or to commit corporal, visible, reputative idolatry, or the\nlike). But the pastor and church shall answer for their own faults,\nand not we, when we have cause to be present, and make them not ours\nby any sinful action of our own.\n\n\nQuest. LXVIII. _Is it lawful to communicate in the sacrament with\nwicked men?_\n\n_Answ._ The answer may be gathered from what is said before.\n\n1. If they be so wicked for number, and flagitiousness, and notoriety,\nas that it is our duty to forsake the church, then to communicate with\nthem is a sin. Therefore the after-resolution of the just causes of\nseparation must be perused. As if a church were so far defiled with\nheresy, or open impiety, that it were justified by the major vote, and\nbore down faith and godliness, and the society were become uncapable\nof the ends of church association and communion: in this and other\ncases it must be deserted.\n\n2. If we do not perform our own duty to remove unlawful communions,\n(whether it be by admonition of the offender or pastor, or whatever is\nproved really our duty,) the omission of that duty is our sin.\n\n3. But if we sin not by omitting our own duty, it will be no sin of\nours to communicate with the church, where scandalous sinners or\nheretics are permitted. The pastor's and delinquent's sins are not\nours.\n\n4. Yea, if we do not omit our own duty in order to the remedy, that\nwill justify us in denying communion with the church while wicked men\nare there. But it will rather aggravate our sin, to omit one duty\nfirst, and thence fetch occasion to omit another.\n\n\nQuest. LXIX. _Have all the members of the church right to the Lord's\ntable? And is suspension lawful?_\n\nOf this see the defence of the synod's propositions in New England. I\nanswer,\n\n1. You must distinguish between a fundamental right of state, and an\nimmediate right of present possession; or if you will, between a right\nduly to receive the sacrament, and a right to immediate reception\nsimply considered.\n\n2. You must distinguish between a questioned, controverted right, and\nan unquestioned right; and so you must conclude as followeth.\n\n(1.) Every church member (at least adult) as such, hath the\nfundamental right of stated relation, or a right duly to receive the\nsacrament; that is, to receive it understandingly and seriously at\nthose seasons when by the pastors it is administered.\n\n(2.) But if upon faults or accusations, this right be duly questioned\nin the church, it is become a controverted right; and the possession\nor admission may, by the bishops or pastors of the church, be\nsuspended, if they see cause, while it is under trial, till a just\ndecision.\n\n3. Though infants are true members, yet the want of natural capacity\nduly to receive maketh it unlawful to give them the sacrament, because\nit is to be given only to receivers, and receiving is more than eating\nand drinking; it is consenting to the covenant, which is the real\nreceiving in a moral sense, or at least consent professed. So that\nthey want not a state of right, as to their relation, but a natural\ncapacity to receive.\n\n4. Persons at age who want not the right of a stated relation, may\nhave such actual natural and moral indispositions, as may also make\nthem for that time unmeet to receive. As sickness, infection, a\njourney, persecution, scattering the church, a prison. And (morally)\n1. Want of necessary knowledge of the nature of the sacrament (which\nby the negligence of pastors or parents may be the case of some that\nare but newly past their childhood). 2. Some heinous sin, of which the\nsinner hath not so far repented, as to be yet ready to receive a\nsealed pardon, or which is so scandalous in the church, as that in\npublic respects the person is yet unfit for its privileges. 3. Such\nsins or accusations of sin, as make the person's church title justly\ncontroverted, and his communion suspended, till the case be decided.\n4. Such fears of unworthy receiving, as were like to hurt and distract\nthe person, if he should receive till he were better satisfied. These\nmake a man uncapable of present reception, and so are a bar to his\nplenary right: they have still right to receive in a due manner; but\nbeing yet uncapable of that due receiving, they have not a plenary\nright to the thing.\n\n5. The same may be said of other parts of our duty and privileges. A\nman may have a relative, habitual, or stated right to praise God, and\ngive him thanks for his justification, sanctification, and adoption,\nand to godly conference, to exercises of humiliation, &c. who yet for\nwant of present actual preparation, may be uncapable, and so want a\nplenary right.\n\n6. The understanding of the double preparation necessary, doth most\nclearly help us to understand this case. A man that is in an\nunregenerate state, must be visibly cured of that state, (of utter\nignorance, unbelief, ungodliness,) before he can be a member of the\nchurch, and lay a claim to its privileges. But when that is done,\nbesides this general preparation, a particular preparation also to\neach duty is necessary to the right doing of it. A man must understand\nwhat he goeth about, and must consider of it, and come with some\nsuitable affections. A man may have right to go a journey, that wants\na horse; or may have a horse that is not saddled: he that hath clothes\nmust put them on, before he is fit to come into company: he that hath\nright to write, may want a pen, or have a bad one: having of gracious\nhabits, may need the addition of bringing them into such acts as are\nsuitable to the work in hand.\n\n\nQuest. LXX. _Is there any such thing in the church, as a rank or\nclassis, or species of church members at age, who are not to be\nadmitted to the Lord's table, but only to hearing the word and prayer,\nbetween infant members, and adult confirmed ones?_\n\n_Answ._ Some have excogitated such a classis, or species, or order,\nfor convenience, as a prudent, necessary thing; because to admit all\nto the Lord's table they think dangerous on one side; and to cast all\nthat are unfit for it out of the church, they think dangerous on the\nother side, and that which the people would not bear. Therefore to\npreserve the reverence of the sacrament, and to preserve their own and\nthe church's peace, they have contrived this middle way or rank. And\nindeed the controversy seemeth to be more about the title (whether it\nmay be called a middle order of mere learners and worshippers) than\nabout the matter. I have occasionally written more of it than I can\nhere stay to recite; and the accurate handling of it requireth more\nwords than I will here use. This breviate therefore shall be all.\n\n1. It is certain that such catechumens as are in mere preparation to\nfaith, repentance, and baptism, are no church members or christians at\nall; and so in none of these ranks.\n\n2. Baptism is the only ordinary regular door of entrance into the\nvisible church; and no man (unless in extraordinary cases) is to be\ntaken for a church member or visible christian till baptized.\n\nTwo objections are brought against this. 1. The infants of christians\nare church members as such, before baptism, and so are believers. They\nare baptized because members, and not members by baptism.\n\n[Sidenote: What makes a visible member?]\n\n_Answ._ This case hath no difficulty. 1. A believer as such, is a\nmember of Christ and the church invisible, but not of the visible\nchurch, till he be an orderly professor of that belief. And this\nprofession is not left to every man's will how it shall be made, but\nChrist hath prescribed and instituted a certain way and manner of\nprofession, which shall be the only ordinary symbol or badge, by which\nthe church shall know visible members; and that is baptism. Indeed\nwhen baptism cannot be had, an open profession without it may serve;\nfor sacraments are made for man, and not man for sacraments. But when\nit may be had, it is Christ's appointed symbol, _tessera_, and church\ndoor. And till a person be baptized, he is but irregularly and\ninitially a professor; as an embryo in the womb is a man; or as a\ncovenant before the writing, sealing, and delivering is initially a\ncovenant; or as persons privately contracted without solemn matrimony\nare married; or as a man is a minister upon election and trial before\nordination: he hath only, in all these cases, the beginning of a\ntitle, which is not complete; nor at all sufficient _in foro\necclesi\u00e6_, to make a man visibly and legally a married man, a\nminister, and so here a christian. For Christ hath chosen his own\nvisible badge, by which his church members must be known.\n\n2. And the same is to be said of the infant title of the children of\nbelievers; they have but an initial right before baptism, and not the\nbadge of visible christians. For there are three distinct gradations\nto make up their visible Christianity. 1. Because they are their own,\n(and as it were parts of themselves,) therefore believers have power\nand obligation to dedicate their children in covenant with God. 2.\nBecause every believer is himself dedicated to God, with all that is\nhis own, (according to his capacity,) therefore a believer's child is\nsupposed to be virtually (not actually) dedicated to God in his own\ndedication or covenant, as soon as his child hath a being. 3. Being\nthus virtually and implicitly first dedicated, he is after actually\nand regularly dedicated in baptism, and sacramentally receiveth the\nbadge of the church; and this maketh him a visible member or\nchristian, to which the two first were but introductory, as conception\nis to human nativity.\n\n_Object._ But the seed of believers as such are in the covenant; and\ntherefore church members.\n\n_Answ._ The word covenant here is ambiguous; either it signifieth\nGod's law of grace, or prescribed terms for salvation, with his\nimmediate offer of the benefits to accepters, called the single\ncovenant of God; or it signifieth this with man's consent, called the\nmutual covenant, where both parties covenant. In the former sense, the\ncovenant only offereth church membership, but maketh no man a church\nmember, till consent. It is but God's conditional promise, \"If thou\nbelieve thou shalt be saved,\" &c. If thou give up thyself and children\nto me, I will be your God, and you shall be my people. But it is only\nthe mutual covenant that maketh a christian or church member.\n\n_Object._ The promise is to us and our children as ours.\n\n_Answ._ That is, that you and your children dedicated to God, shall be\nreceived into covenant; but not otherwise. Believing is not only bare\nassenting, but consenting to the covenant, and delivering up\nyourselves to Christ; and if you do not consent that your child shall\nbe in the covenant, and deliver him to God also, you cannot expect\nacceptance of him, against your wills; nor indeed are you to be taken\nfor true believers yourselves, if you dedicate not yourselves to him,\nand all that are in your power.\n\n_Object._ This offer or conditional covenant belongeth also to\ninfidels.\n\n_Answ._ The offer is to them, but they accept it not. But every\nbeliever accepteth it for himself, and his, or devoteth to God himself\nand his children when he shall have them; and by that virtual\ndedication or consent, his children are virtually in the mutual\ncovenant; and actually upon actual consent and dedication.\n\n_Object._ But it is profession, and not baptism, that makes a visible\nmember.\n\n_Answ._ That is answered before: it is profession by baptism; for\nbaptism is that peculiar act of profession, which God hath chosen to\nthis use, when a person is absolutely devoted, resigned, and engaged\nto God in a solemn sacrament, this is our regular initiating\nprofession; and it is but an irregular embryo of a profession, which\ngoeth before baptism ordinarily.\n\n_Prop. 3._ The time of infant membership, in which we stand in\ncovenant by our parents' consent, cannot be determined by duration,\nbut by the insufficiency of reason, through immaturity of age, (or\ncontinuing idiots,) to choose for oneself.\n\n_Prop. 4._ It is not necessary that the doctrine of the Lord's supper\nbe taught catechumens before baptism; nor was it usual with the\nancients so to do (though it may very well be done.)\n\n_Prop. 5._ It is needful that the nature of the Lord's supper be\ntaught all the baptized before they receive it, (as was opened\nbefore,) else they must do they know not what.\n\n_Prop. 6._ Though the sacrament of the Lord's supper seal not another,\nbut the same covenant that baptism sealeth; yet are there some\nfurther truths therein expressed, and some more particular exercises\nof faith in Christ's sacrifice, and coming, &c. and of hope, and love,\nand gratitude, &c. requisite. Therefore the same qualifications which\nwill serve for baptism, justification, and adoption, and salvation,\nare not enough for the right use of church communion in the Lord's\nsupper, the one being the sacrament of initiation and our new birth;\nthe other of our confirmation, exercise, and growth in grace.\n\n7. Whether persons be baptized in infancy or at age, if they do not\nbefore understand these higher mysteries, they must stay from the\nexercise of them till they understand them; and so with most there\nmust be a space of time between their baptism and fuller communion.\n\n8. But the same that we say of the Lord's supper must be said of other\nparts of worship; singing psalms, praise, thanksgivings, &c. men must\nlearn them, before they can practise them; and usually these as\neucharistical acts concur with the Lord's supper.\n\n9. Whether you will call men in this state, church members of a middle\nrank and order, between the baptized and the communicants, is but a\n_lis de nomine_, a verbal controversy. It is granted that such a\nmiddle sort of men there are in the church.\n\n10. It is to be maintained that these are in a state of salvation,\neven before they thus communicate. And that they are not kept away for\nwant of a stated relation title, but of an immediate capacity, as is\naforesaid.\n\n11. There is no necessity, but upon such unfitness, that there should\nbe one day's time between baptism and the sacrament of the Lord's\nsupper: nor is it desirable; for if the baptized understand those\nmysteries the first day they may communicate in them.\n\n12. Therefore as men are prepared, some may suddenly communicate, and\nsome stay longer.\n\n13. When persons are at age, if pastors, parents, and themselves be\nnot grossly negligent, they may and ought to learn these things in a\nvery little time; so that they need not be settled in a lower learning\nstate for any considerable time, unless their own negligence be the\ncause.\n\n14. And in order to their learning, they have right to be spectators\nand auditors at the eucharist, and not to be driven away with the\ncatechumens, as if they had no right to be there. For it is a thing\nbest taught by the practice to beholders.\n\n15. But if any shall by scandal or gross neglect of piety, and not\nonly by ignorance, give cause of questioning their title, and\nsuspending their possession of those sacred privileges, these are to\nbe reckoned in another rank, even among those whose title to church\nmembership itself becometh controverted, and must undergo a trial in\nthe church.\n\nAnd this much I think may serve to resolve this considerable question.\n\n\nQuest. LXXI. _Whether a form of prayer be lawful?_\n\n_Answ._ I have said so much of this and some following questions in\nmany books already, that to avoid repetition, I shall say very little\nhere.\n\nThe question must be out of question with all christians:\n\n1. Because the Scripture itself hath many forms of prayer; which\ntherefore cannot be unlawful.\n\n_Object._ They were lawful then, but not now.\n\n_Answ._ He that saith so, must prove where God hath since forbidden\nthem. Which can never be.\n\n_Object._ They may lawfully be read in Scripture for instruction, but\nnot used as prayers.\n\n_Answ._ They were used as prayers then, and are never since forbidden:\nyea, John and Christ did teach their disciples to pray, and Christ\nthus prefaceth his form, \"When ye pray, say\"----\n\n2. All things must be done to edification: but to use a form of prayer\nis for the edification of many persons, at least those that cannot\notherwise do so well; therefore those persons must use a form. Full\nexperience doth prove the minor, and nothing but strangeness to men\ncan contradict it.\n\n\nQuest. LXXII. _Are forms of prayer or preaching in the church lawful?_\n\n_Answ._ Yes: most ministers study the methodical form of their sermons\nbefore they preach them; and many write the very words, or study them:\nand so most sermons are a form. And sure it is as lawful to think\nbeforehand what to say in praying as in preaching.[320]\n\n1. That which God hath not forbidden is lawful; but God hath not\nforbidden ministers to study their sermons or prayers, either for\nmatter, method, or words, and so to make them many ways a form.\n\n2. That which God prescribed is lawful (if he reverse it not): but God\nprescribed public forms of prayer; as the titles and matter of many of\nthe Psalms prove, which were daily used in the Jewish synagogues.\n\n_Object._ Psalms being to be sung, are more than prayers.\n\n_Answ._ They were prayers, though more. They are called prayers, and\nfor the matter many of them were no more than prayers, but only for\nthe measures of words: nor was their singing like ours now, but liker\nto our saying. And there are many other prayers recorded in the\nScripture.\n\n3. And all the churches of Christ at least these thirteen or fourteen\nhundred years have taken public forms for lawful; which is not to be\ngainsayed without proof.\n\n[320] God gave forms of preaching to Moses and the prophets: see a\nlarge form of prayer for all true people, Deut. xxvi. 13-15. And so\nelsewhere there are many.\n\n\nQuest. LXXIII. _Are public forms of man's devising or composing\nlawful?_\n\n_Answ._ Yes: 1. The ministers afore-mentioned throughout the christian\nworld, do devise and compose the form of their own sermons and\nprayers: and that maketh them not unlawful. 2. And whoever speaketh\n_ex tempore_, his words are a form when he speaketh them, though not a\npremeditated form. 3. And when Scripture so vehemently commandeth us\nto search, meditate, study the Scriptures, and take heed unto\nourselves and unto doctrine, &c. what a person is that who will\ncondemn prayer or preaching, only because we beforehand studied or\nconsidered what to say! as if God abhorred diligence and the use of\nreason. Men are not tied (now) from thinking beforehand what to say to\nthe judge at the bar for estate or life, or what to say on an\nembassage, or to a king, or any man that we converse with. And where\nare we forbidden to forethink what to say to God? Must the people take\nheed how they hear, and look to their foot when they go into the house\nof God? and must not we take heed what we speak, and look to our words\nthat they be fit and decent?\n\n_Object._ Forms are images of prayer and preaching, forbidden in the\nsecond commandment?\n\n_Answ._ Prove it, and add not to the word of God. 1. The Scripture and\nGod's servants, even Christ himself, had broken the second\ncommandment, when they used or prescribed forms. 2. Forms are no more\nimages than extemporate words are, as they signify our minds. Are all\nthe catechisms, printed and written sermons and prayers, images or\nidols? all forms that parents teach their children? O charge not such\nuntruths on God; and invent not falsehoods of his word, while you cry\ndown man's inventions.\n\n\nQuest. LXXIV. _Is it lawful to impose forms on the congregation or the\npeople in public worship?_\n\nYes, and more than lawful; it is the pastor's duty so to do. For\nwhether he forethink what to pray or not, his prayer is to them a form\nof words; and they are bound in all the lawful parts, to concur with\nhim in spirit or desire, and to say Amen. So that every minister by\noffice is daily to impose a form of prayer on all the people in the\ncongregation. Only some men impose the same form many times over, or\nevery day, and others impose every day a new one.\n\n\nQuest. LXXV. _Is it lawful to use forms composed by man, and imposed\nnot only on the people, but on the pastors of the churches?_\n\n_Answ._ The question concerneth not the lawfulness of imposing, but of\nusing forms imposed. And, 1. It is not lawful to use them merely on\nthat account because they are imposed or commanded, without some\ngreater reason of the unlawfulness. For else it would be unlawful for\nany other to use imposed forms; as for a scholar or child, if the\nmaster or parent impose them, or for the congregation when the pastor\nimposeth them, which is not true.\n\n2. The using of imposed forms may by other accidents be sometimes good\nand sometimes evil, as the accidents are that make it so.\n\n1. These accidents may make it evil: (1.) When the form is bad for\nmatter or manner, and we voluntarily prefer it before that which is\nbetter, being willing of the imposition. (2.) When we do it to gratify\nour slothfulness, or to cover our wilful ignorance and disability.\n(3.) When we voluntarily obey and strengthen any unlawful, usurping\npastors or powers that impose it without authority, and so encourage\nchurch tyranny. (4.) When we choose a singular form, imposed by some\nsingular pastor, and avoid that which the rest of the churches agree\nin, at a time when it may tend to division and offence. (5.) When the\nweakness and offence of the congregation is such, that they will not\njoin with us in the imposed form, and so by using it, we drive them\nfrom all public worship or divide them.\n\n2. And in the following circumstances the using of an imposed form is\nlawful and a duty: (1.) When the minister is so weak that he cannot\npray well without one, nor compose so good a one himself. (2.) Or when\nthe errors or great weakness of the generality of ministers is such,\nas that they usually corrupt or spoil God's worship by their own\nmanner of praying, and no better are to be had; and thereupon the wise\nand faithful pastors and magistrates shall impose one sound and apt\nliturgy to avoid error and division in such a distempered time; and\nthe ablest cannot be left at liberty without the relaxing of the rest.\n(3.) When it is a means of the concord of the churches, and no\nhinderance to our other prayers. (4.) When our hearers will not join\nwith us if we use them not (for error and weakness must be borne with\non one side, as well as on the other). (5.) When obedience to just\nauthority requireth it, and no command of Christ is crossed by it.\n(6.) When the imposition is so severe that we must so worship God\npublicly, or not at all; and so all God's public worship will be shut\nout of that congregation, country, or nation, unless we will use\nimposed prayers. (7.) In a word, when the good consequences of\nobedience, union, avoiding offence, liberty for God's public worship\nand preaching the gospel, &c. are greater than the bad consequences\nwhich are like to follow the using of such forms: the preponderating\naccidents must prevail. (8.) And if a man's own judgment and\nconscience cannot be satisfied, to do God's work comfortably and\nquietly any other way, it may go far in the determination. And the\ncommon good of many churches must still be preferred before a less.\n\n\nQuest. LXXVI. _Doth not the calling of a minister so consist in the\nexercise of his own ministerial gifts, that he may not officiate\nwithout them, nor make use of other men's gifts instead of them?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. The office of the ministry is an obligation and authority\nto do the ministerial work, by those personal, competent abilities\nwhich God hath given us.\n\n2. This obligation to use our own abilities, forbiddeth us not to make\nuse of the helps, gifts, and abilities of others; either to promote\nour own abilities and habits, or to further us in the act or the\nexercise of them. For, 1. There is no such prohibition in Scripture.\n2. All men are insufficient for themselves; and nature and Scripture\nrequire them to use the best help they can get from others. 3. God's\nservice must be done in the best manner we can. But many ministers\ncannot do it so well (_consideratis considerandis_) without other\nmen's help as with it.\n\n3. We may use other men's gifts to help us, 1. For matter; 2. Method;\n3. Words; and so for a threefold form, of preaching or prayer.\n\n4. He that useth a Scripture form of matter, method, or words, useth\nhis own abilities no more, than if he used a form out of another book.\nBut it is lawful to use a Scripture form; therefore it is lawful so\nfar to take in assistance in the use of our own abilities.\n\n5. He that useth a form useth his own abilities also (not only perhaps\nat other times, but) in the use of it. He useth his understanding to\ndiscern the true sense and aptitude of the words which he useth: he\nuseth his holy desires in putting up those prayers to God; and his\nother graces, as he doth in other prayers. He useth his utterance in\nthe apt and decent speaking of them.\n\n6. A minister is not always bound to use his own gifts to the utmost\nthat he can, and other men's as little as he can. For, 1. There is no\nsuch command from God. 2. All things must be done to the church's\nedification: but sometimes the greater use of another man's gifts, and\nthe less use of his own, may be to the church's greater edification.\n\nInstances of the lawful use of other men's gifts are such as these.\n\n1. For matter, an abler minister may tell a young man what subjects\nare fittest for him in preaching and prayer; and what is the sense of\nthe Scriptures which he is to open; and what is the true solution of\nseveral doubts and cases. A minister that is young, raw, or ignorant,\n(yea, the best,) may be a learner while he is a teacher: but he that\nis a learner maketh use so far of the gifts of others. And indeed all\nteachers in the world make use of the gifts of others; for all teach\nwhat they learn from others.\n\n2. For method; it is lawful to learn that as well as matter from\nanother. Christ taught his disciples a method of prayer; and other men\nmay open that method to us. All tutors teach their pupils method as\nwell as matter; for method is needful to the due understanding and\nusing of the matter. A method of divinity, a method of preaching, and\na method of praying may be taught a preacher by word, and may be\nwritten or printed for his use.\n\n3. For words, 1. There is no more prohibition in God's word, against\nlearning or using another man's words, than his method or matter.\nTherefore it is not unlawful. 2. A tutor or senior minister may teach\nthe Scripture words to a pupil or junior minister; yea, and may set\nthem together and compose him a sermon or prayer out of Scripture in\nits words. (For he that may use an ill-composed Scripture form of his\nown gathering, may use a well-composed form of another's). 3. All the\nbooks in our libraries are forms of words; and it is lawful sure to\nuse some of all those words which we read; or else our books would be\na snare and limitation to our language. 4. All preachers ordinarily\nuse citations, testimonies, &c. in other men's words. 5. All ministers\nuse psalms in the metre of other men's composing (and usually imposing\ntoo). And there is no more prohibition against using other men's words\nin a prayer, than in a psalm. 6. Almost all ministers use other men's\ngifts and form of words, in reading the Scriptures, in their vulgar\ntongues: for God did not write them by his apostles and prophets in\nEnglish, French, Dutch, &c. but in Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek;\ntherefore the wording them in English, &c. is a human form of words:\nand few ministers think they are bound to translate all the Bible\nthemselves, lest they use other men's words or abilities. 7. If a\nyoung minister that can pray but weakly, hear more apt expressions and\nsentences in another minister's prayers, than his own are, he may\nafterward make use of those sentences and expressions. And if of one\nsentence, why not of two or ten, when God hath not forbidden it? So\nalso in preaching. 8. It is lawful to read another man's epistles or\nsermons in the church, as the primitive churches did by Clement's and\nsome others. 9. An imposition may be so severe, that we shall not use\nour own words, unless we will use some of other men's. 10. All\nchurches almost in the world, have consented in the use of creeds,\nconfessions, and prayers, and psalms, in the words of others.\n\nBut yet, 1. No minister must on these pretences stifle his own gifts,\nand grow negligent; 2. Nor consent to church tyranny or papal\nusurpations; 3. Nor do that which tendeth to eat out seriousness in\nthe worship of God, and turn all into dead imagery or formality.\n\nQuest. _Is it lawful to read a prayer in the church?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. That which is not forbidden is lawful: but to read a prayer\nis not forbidden (as such, though by accident it may).\n\n2. The prayers in the Scripture psalms, were usually read in the\nJewish synagogues lawfully; for they were written to that end, and\nwere indeed the Jewish liturgy. Therefore to read a prayer is not\nunlawful.\n\n3. He that hath a weak memory may read his own sermon notes; therefore\nhe may read his prayers.\n\n4. I add as to this case and the former together; that, 1. Christ did\nusually frequent the Jewish synagogues.\n\n2. That in those synagogues there were forms of prayer, and that\nordinarily read, at least Scripture forms: and if either the Jewish\nrabbins (cited by Scaliger, Selden in Eutych. Alexandr. &c.,) or the\nstrongest probability may be credited, there were also human forms.\nFor who can imagine that those Pharisees should have no human forms,\n(1.) Who are so much accused of formality, and following traditions:\n(2.) And used long and frequent prayers: but if indeed they had no\nsuch forms, then long and frequent extemporate prayers are not so\ngreat a sign of the Spirit's gifts as is imagined, when such Pharisees\nabounded in them. But there is little probability but that they used\nboth ways.\n\n3. That Christ did not separate from the synagogues for such prayers'\nsake.\n\n4. Yea, that we never read that Christ meddled in the controversy, it\nbeing then no controversy; nor that he once reproved such forms, or\nreading them, or ever called the Jews to repent of them.\n\nIf you say, his general reproof of traditions was enough: I answer, 1.\nEven traditions he reproved not as such, but as set before, or against\nthe commands of God. 2. He named many of their particular traditions\nand corruptions, Matt. xv. xxiii. &c. and yet never named this. 3. His\nbeing usually present at their assemblies, and so joining with them in\ntheir worship, would be such an appearance of his approbation, as\nwould make it needful to express his disallowance of it, if indeed he\nthought it sinful. So that whoever impartially considereth all this,\nthat he joined with them, that he particularly reproved other\ncorruptions, and that he never said any thing at all against forms or\nreading prayers, that is recorded, will sure be moderate in his\njudgment of such indifferent things, if he know what moderation is.\n\n\nQuest. LXXVII. _Is it lawful to pray in the church without a\nprescribed or premeditated form of words?_\n\n_Answ._ There are so few sober and serious christians that ever made a\ndoubt of this, that I will not bestow many words to prove it.\n\n1. That which is not forbidden is lawful. But church prayer without a\npremeditated or prescribed form of words is not forbidden (by God);\ntherefore (as to God's laws) it is not unlawful.\n\n2. To express holy desires understandingly, orderly, seriously, and in\napt expressions, is lawful praying. But all this may be done without a\nset form of words; therefore to pray without a set form of words may\nbe lawful.\n\n3. The consent of the universal church, and the experience of godly\nmen, are arguments so strong, as are not to be made light of.\n\n4. To which Scripture instances may be added.\n\n\nQuest. LXXVIII. _Whether are set forms of words, or free praying\nwithout them, the better way? And what are the commodities and\nincommodities of each way?_\n\n_Answ._ I will first answer the latter question, because the former\ndependeth on it.\n\n1. The commodities of a set form of words, and the discommodities of\nfree praying, are these following.\n\n1. In a time of dangerous heresy which hath infected the pastors, a\nset form of prescribed words tendeth to keep the church, and the\nconsciences of the joiners, from such infection, offence, and guilt.\n\n2. When ministers are so weak as to dishonour God's worship by their\nunapt, and slovenly, and unsound expressions, prescribed or set forms\nwhich are well composed, are some preservative and cure. When free\npraying leaveth the church under this inconvenience.\n\n3. When ministers by faction, passion, or corrupt interests, are apt\nto put these vices into their prayers, to the injury of others, and of\nthe cause and church of God, free praying cherisheth this, or giveth\nit opportunity, which set forms do restrain.\n\n4. Concordant set forms do serve for the exactest concord in the\nchurches, that all at once may speak the same things.\n\n5. They are needful to some weak ministers that cannot do so well\nwithout them.\n\n6. They somewhat prevent the laying of the reputation of religious\nworship upon the minister's abilities: when in free praying, the\nhonour and comfort varieth with the various degrees of pastoral\nabilities; in one place it is excellently well done, in another but\ndryly, and coldly, and meanly, in another erroneously, unedifyingly,\nif not dishonourably, tending to the contempt of holy things: whereas\nin the way of set liturgies, though the ablest (at that time) doth no\nbetter, yet the weakest doth (for words) as well, and all alike.\n\n7. And, if proud, weak men have not the composing and imposing of it,\nall know that words drawn up by study, upon sober premeditation and\nconsultation, have a greater advantage, to be exact and apt, than\nthose that were never thought on till we are speaking them.\n\n8. The very fear of doing amiss, disturbeth some unready men, and\nmaketh them do all the rest the worse.\n\n9. The auditors know beforehand, whether that which they are to join\nin be sound or unsound, having time to try it.\n\n10. And they can more readily put in their consent to what is spoken,\nand make the prayer their own, when they know beforehand what it is,\nthan they can do when they know not before they hear it; it being hard\nto the duller sort of hearers, to concur with an understanding and\nconsent as quick as the speaker's words are. Not but that this may be\ndone, but not without great difficulty in the duller sort.\n\n11. And it tendeth to avoid the pride and self-deceit of many, who\nthink they are good christians, and have the spirit of grace and\nsupplication, because by learning and use they can speak many hours in\nvariety of expressions in prayer; which is a dangerous mistake.\n\nI. The commodities of free extemporate prayers, and the discommodity\nof prescribed or set forms, are these following.\n\n1. It becometh an advantage to some proud men who think themselves\nwiser than all the rest, to obtrude their compositions, that none may\nbe thought wise enough, or fit to speak to God, but in their words;\nand so introduce church tyranny.\n\n2. It may become a hinderance to able, worthy ministers that can do\nbetter.\n\n3. It may become a dividing snare to the churches, that cannot all\nagree and consent in such human impositions.\n\n4. It may become an advantage to heretics when they can but get into\npower (as the Arians of old) to corrupt all the churches and public\nworship; and thus the papists have corrupted the churches by the mass.\n\n5. It may become an engine or occasion of persecution, and silencing\nall those ministers that cannot consent to such impositions.\n\n6. It may become a means of depraving the ministry, and bringing them\nto a common idleness and ignorance (if other things alike concur). For\nwhen men perceive that no greater abilities are used and required,\nthey will commonly labour for and get no greater, and so will be\nunable to pray without their forms of words.\n\n7. And by this means christian religion may decay and grow into\ncontempt; for though it be desirable that its own worth should keep up\nits reputation and success, yet it never hitherto was so kept up\nwithout the assistance of God's eminent gifts and graces in his\nministers; but wherever there hath been a learned, able, holy,\nzealous, diligent ministry, religion usually hath flourished; and\nwherever there hath been an ignorant, vicious, cold, idle, negligent,\nand reproached ministry, religion usually hath died and been\nreproached. And we have now no reason to look for that which never\nwas, and that God should take a new course in the world.\n\nAnd the opinion of imposing forms of prayer, may draw on the opinion\nof imposing forms of preaching as much, and of restraining free\npreaching as much as free praying, as we see in Muscovy. And then when\nnothing but bare reading is required, nothing more will be ordinarily\nsought; and so the ministry will be the scorn of the people.\n\n9. And it will be a shameful and uncomfortable failing, when a\nminister is not able on variety of occasions, to vary his prayers\naccordingly; and when he cannot go any further than his book or\nlesson; it being as impossible to make prayers just fitted to all\noccasions which will fall out, as to make sermons fit for all, or, as\nthey say, to make a coat for the moon; and the people will contemn the\nministers when they perceive this great deficiency.\n\n10. And it is a great difficulty to many ministers to learn and say a\nform without book; so that they that can all day speak what they know,\ncan scarce recite a form of words one quarter of an hour, the memory\nmore depending upon the body and its temper, than the exercise of the\nunderstanding doth. He that is tied just to these words and no other,\nis put upon double difficulties (like him that on height must walk on\na narrow plank, where the fear of falling will make him fall); but he\nthat may express the just desires of his soul in what words occur that\nare apt and decent, is like one that hath a field to walk in: for my\nown part, it is easier to me to pray or preach six hours in freedom,\nabout things which I understand, than to pray or preach the tenth part\nof an hour in the fetters of a form of words which I must not vary.\nAnd so the necessity of a book coming in, doth bring down the\nreputation of the minister's abilities in the people's eyes.\n\n11. But the grand incommodity, greater than all the rest, is, that it\nusually occasioneth carelessness, deadness, formality, and heartless\nlip-labour in our prayers to God; whilst the free way of present\nprayer tendeth to excite our cogitations to consider what we say. And\nit is not only the multitude of dead-hearted hypocrites in the church\nthat are thus tempted to persevere in their lip-labour and hypocrisy,\nand to draw near to God with their lips when their hearts are far from\nhim, and are gratified in their self-deceit, whilst parrot-like they\nspeak the words which they regard not, and their tongues do overgo\ntheir hearts; but even better men are greatly tempted to dead\nremissness: I mean both the speakers and the hearers; for, (1.) It is\nnatural to man's mind to have a slothful weariness as well as his\nbody; and to do no more than he findeth a necessity of doing; and\nthough God's presence alone should suffice to engage all the powers of\nour souls, yet sad experience telleth us, that God's eye and man's\ntogether will do more with almost all men, than one alone. And\ntherefore no men's thoughts are so accurately governed as their words.\nTherefore when a minister knoweth beforehand that, as to man's\napprobation, he hath no more to do but to read that which he seeth\nbefore him, he is apt to let his thoughts fly abroad, and his\naffections lie down, because no man taketh account of these; but in\nextemporate diversified prayer, a man cannot do it without an\nexcitation of his understanding to think (to the utmost) what to say;\nand an excitation of his affections, to speak with life, or else the\nhearers will perceive his coldness. And though all this may be\ncounterfeit and hypocritically affected, yet it is a great help to\nseriousness and sincerity to have the faculties all awake; and it is a\ngreat help to awaken them to be under such a constant necessity even\nfrom man. As those that are apt to sleep at prayer, will do it less\nwhen they know men observe them, than at another time.\n\n(2.) And both to speaker and hearers, human frailty maketh it hard to\nbe equally affected with the same thing spoken a hundred times, as we\nare at first when it is new, and when it is clothed in comely variety\nof expressions. As the same book affecteth us not at the twentieth\nreading as it did at the first. Say not, it is a dishonourable\nweakness to be thus carried by the novelty of things or words; for\nthough that be true, it is a dishonour common to all mankind, and a\ndisease which is your own, and which God alloweth us all lawful means\nto cure, and to correct the unhappy effects while it is uncured.\n\n12. Lastly, set forms serve unworthy men to hide their unworthiness\nby, and to be the matter of a controversy in which they may vent their\nenvy against them that are abler and holier than themselves.\n\nIII. Having now truly showed you the commodities and incommodities of\nboth the ways, for the other question, Which of them is the best? I\nmust give you but some rules to answer it yourselves.\n\n1. That is best which hath most and greatest commodities, and fewest\nand least discommodities.\n\n2. For neither of them is forbidden, in itself considered, nor evil,\nbut by accident.\n\n3. One may have more commodities and the other more discommodities in\none country and age than in another, and with some persons than with\nothers.\n\n4. Sober christians should be very backward in such cases to quarrel\nwith the churches where they live or come, but humbly submit to them\nin lawful things, though they think them inconvenient; because it is\nnot they that are the governors and judges.\n\n5. The commands of authority and the concord of the churches may weigh\ndown many lighter accidents.\n\n6. I crave leave to profess that my own judgment is, that somewhat of\nboth ways joined together will best obviate the incommodities of both.\nTo have so much wholesome, methodical, unquestionable forms as near as\nmay be in Scripture phrase, as is necessary to avoid the inconvenience\nof a total exclusion of forms, and to the attainment of their\ndesirable ends; and to have so much withal of freedom in prayer, as is\nnecessary to its ends, and to avoid the deadness, formality, and other\nincommodities of forms alone. Though by this opinion I cross the\nconceits of prejudiced men on both extremes, I think I cross not the\njudgment of the church of England, which alloweth free prayers in the\npulpit, and at the visitation of the sick; and I cross not the opinion\nof any ancient church that ever I read of, nor of the fathers and\npastors whose works are come to our hands; nor yet of Luther,\nMelancthon, Bucer, Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza, Zanchius, and the rest of\nour famous reformers; nor yet of the famous nonconformists of England,\nCartwright, Hildersham, Greenham, Perkins, Bain, Amesius, &c. and I\nless fear erring in all this company, than with those on either of the\nextremes.[321]\n\n[321] I have a manuscript of Mr. Cartwright's in which, having fully\nproved the falsehood of Sutliff's suspicion that he was acquainted\nwith Hacket's project, he answereth his charge, as if he were against\nforms of prayer, that all the years that he lived at Middleburg and\nAntwerp, he constantly used the same form before sermon, and mostly\nafter sermon, and also did read prayers in the church; and that since\nhe seldom concluded but with the Lord's prayer.\n\n\nQuest. LXXIX. _Is it lawful to forbear the preaching of some truths,\nupon man's prohibition, that I may have liberty to preach the rest;\nyea, and to promise beforehand to forbear them? Or to do it for the\nchurch's peace?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. Some truths are of so great moment and necessity, that\nwithout them you cannot preach the gospel in a saving sort. These you\nmay not forbear, nor promise to forbear.\n\n2. Some truths are such as God at that time doth call men eminently to\npublish and receive (as against some heresy when it is at the very\nheight, or the church in greatest danger of it); or concerning some\nduty which God then specially calleth men to perform (as the duty of\nloyalty just in the time of a perilous rebellion, &c.) Such preaching\nbeing a duty, must not be forborne, when it cannot be performed upon\nlawful terms.\n\n3. But some truths are controverted among good men; and some are of a\nlower nature and usefulness: and concerning these I further say,\n\n(1.) That you may not renounce them or deny them, nor subscribe to the\nsmallest untruth for liberty to preach the greatest truth.\n\n(2.) But you may for the time that the church's benefit requireth it,\nboth forbear to preach them, and promise to forbear, both for the\nchurch's peace, and for that liberty to preach the gospel, which you\ncannot otherwise obtain. The reasons are,\n\n1. Because it is not a duty to preach them at that time; for no duty\nis a duty at all times: affirmative precepts bind not _ad semper_,\nbecause man cannot always do them.\n\n2. It is a sin to prefer a lesser truth or good before a greater. You\ncannot speak all things at once. When you have all done, some, yea, a\nthousand must be by you omitted. Therefore the less should be omitted\nrather than the greater.\n\n3. You have your office to the church's edification. Preaching is made\nfor man, and not man for preaching. But the church's edification\nrequireth you rather to preach the gospel, than that opinion or point\nwhich you are required to forbear. Without this the hearers may be\nsaved, but not without the gospel.\n\nAnd what a man may do and must do, he may on good occasion promise to\ndo.\n\nHe that thinketh diocesans, or liturgies, or ceremonies unlawful, and\nyet cannot have leave to preach the gospel (in time of need) unless he\nwill forbear, and promise to forbear to preach against them, may and\nought so to do and promise, rather than not to preach the gospel.\n\n_Object._ But if men imprison or hinder me from preaching, that is\ntheir fault; but if I voluntarily forbear any duty, it is my own\nfault.\n\n_Answ._ 1. It is to forbear a sin, and not a duty at that time; it is\nno more a duty than reading, or singing, or praying at sermon time. 2.\nWhen you are in prison, or know in all probability you shall be there,\nthough by other men's fault, it is your own fault if you will deny a\nlawful means to avoid it: for your not preaching the gospel is then\nyour own sin, as well as other men's; and theirs excuseth not yours.\n\n\nQuest. LXXX. _May or must a minister silenced, or forbid to preach the\ngospel, go on still to preach it, against the law?_\n\n_Answ._ Distinguish between, 1. Just silencing, and unjust. 2.\nNecessary preaching, and unnecessary.\n\n1. Some men are justly forbidden to preach the gospel: as, 1. Those\nthat are utterly unable, and do worse than nothing when they do it. 2.\nThose that are heretics and subvert the essentials of christianity or\ngodliness. 3. Those that are so impious and malignant, that they turn\nall against the practice of that religion which they profess; in a\nword, all that do (directly) more hurt than good.\n\n2. In some places there are so many able preachers, that some\ntolerable men may be spared, if not accounted supernumeraries; and the\nchurch will not suffer by their silence. But in other countries either\nthe preachers are so few, or so bad, or the people so very ignorant,\nand hardened, and ungodly, or so great a number that are in deep\nnecessity, that the need of preaching is undeniable. And so I\nconclude,\n\n1. That he that is justly silenced, and is unfit to preach, is bound\nto forbear.\n\n2. He that is silenced by just power, though unjustly, in a country\nthat needeth not his preaching, must forbear there, and if he can must\ngo into another country where he may be more serviceable.\n\n3. Magistrates may not ecclesiastically ordain ministers or degrade\nthem, but only either give them liberty, or deny it them as there is\ncause.\n\n4. Magistrates are not the fountain of the ministerial office, as the\nsovereign is of all the civil power of inferior magistrates; but both\noffices are immediately from God.\n\n5. Magistrates have not power from God to forbid men to preach in all\ncases, nor as they please, but justly only and according to God's\nlaws.\n\n6. Men be not made ministers of Christ only _pro tempore_ or on trial,\nto go off again if they dislike it; but are absolutely dedicated to\nGod, and take their lot for better and for worse; which maketh the\nRomanists say, that ordination is a sacrament (and so it may be aptly\ncalled); and that we receive an indelible character, that is, an\nobligation during life, unless God himself disable us.\n\n7. As we are nearlier devoted and related to God, than church lands,\ngoods, and temples are, so the sacrilege of alienating a consecrated\nperson unjustly, is greater and more unquestionable than the sacrilege\nof alienating consecrated houses, lands, or things. And therefore no\nminister may sacrilegiously alienate himself from God and his\nundertaken office and work.\n\n8. We must do any lawful thing to procure the magistrate's licence to\npreach in his dominions.\n\n9. All men silenced or forbidden by magistrates to preach, are not\nthereby obliged or warranted to forbear. For, 1. The apostles\nexpressly determine it, Acts iv. 19, \"Whether it be better to hearken\nto God rather than to you, judge ye.\" 2. Christ oft foretold his\nservants, that they must preach against the will of rulers, and suffer\nby them. 3. The apostles and ordinary ministers also for 300 years\nafter Christ did generally preach against the magistrate's will,\nthroughout the Roman empire and the world. 4. The orthodox bishops\ncommonly took themselves bound to preach when Arian or other heretical\nemperors forbad them. 5. A moral duty of stated necessity to the\nchurch and men's salvation is not subjected to the will of men for\norder's sake: for order is for the thing ordered and for the end.\nMagistrates cannot dispense with us, for not loving our neighbours, or\nnot showing mercy to the poor, or saving the lives of the needy in\nfamine and distress. Else they that at last shall hear, \"I was hungry\nand ye fed me not, I was naked and ye clothed me not, I was in prison\nand ye visited me not,\" might oft say, Our parents, masters, or\nmagistrates forbad us. Yet a lesser moral duty may be forbidden by the\nmagistrate for the sake of a greater, because then it is no duty\nindeed, and may be forborne if he forbid it not; as to save one man's\nlife, if it would prove the death of a multitude; or to save one man's\nhouse on fire, if so doing would fire many. Therefore,\n\n10. It is lawful and a duty to forbear some certain time or number of\nsermons, prayers, or sacraments, &c. when either the present use of\nthem would apparently procure more hurt than good, or when the\nforbearance were like to procure more good than the doing of them; for\nthey are all for our edification, and are made for man, and not man\nfor them (though for God). As if forbearing this day would procure me\nliberty for many days' service afterward, &c.\n\n11. It is not lawful at the command of man to forsake or forbear our\ncalling and duty, when it is to be judged necessary to the honour of\nGod, to the good of the church, and of men's souls; that is, when as\nin Daniel's case, Dan. vi. our religion itself and our owning the true\nGod, doth seem suspended by the suspense of our duty; or when the\nmultitude of ignorant, hardened, ungodly souls, and the want of fit\nmen for number and quality, doth put it past controversy, that our\nwork is greatly necessary.\n\n12. Those that are not immediately called by Christ as were the\napostles, but by men, being yet statedly obliged to the death when\nthey are called, may truly say as Paul, \"Necessity is laid upon me,\nand woe be to me if I preach not the gospel.\"[322]\n\n13. Papists and protestants concur in this judgment. Papists will\npreach when the law forbids them; and the judgment of protestants is,\namong others, by Bishop Bilson of Subjection, and Bishop Andrews,\nTortur. Tort. plainly so asserted.\n\n14. But all that are bound to preach, are not bound to do it to the\nsame number, nor in the same manner; as they have not the same\nopportunity and call. Whether it shall be, in this place or that, to\nmore or fewer, at this hour or that, are not determined in Scripture,\nnor alike to all.\n\n15. The temples, tithes, and such adjuncts of worship and ministry,\nare at the magistrate's disposal, and must not be invaded against his\nlaws.\n\n16. Where any are obliged to preach in a forbidden, discountenanced\nstate, they must study to do it with such prudence, caution,\npeaceableness, and obedience in all the lawful circumstantials, as may\ntend to maintain peace and the honour of magistracy, and to avoid\ntemptations to sedition, and unruly passions.\n\n[322] Matt, xxviii. 20; Rom. x. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 16; Acts v. 42; x. 42;\n2 Tim. iv. 1, 2; Acts viii. 4, 12; xv. 35.\n\n\nQuest. LXXXI. _May we lawfully keep the Lord's day as a fast?_\n\n_Answ._ Not ordinarily; because God hath made it a day of\nthanksgiving; and we must not pervert it from the use to which it was\nappointed by God. But in case of extraordinary necessity, it may be\ndone: as, 1. In case that some great judgment call us so suddenly to\nhumiliation and fasting, as that it cannot be deferred to the next day\n(as some sudden invasion, fire, sickness, &c.) 2. In case by\npersecution the church be denied liberty to meet on any other day, in\na time when public fasting and prayer is a duty. 3. In case the people\nbe so poor, or servants, children, and wives be so hardly restrained,\nthat they cannot meet at any other time. It is lawful in such cases,\nbecause positives give way to moral or natural duties, _c\u00e6teris\nparibus_, and lesser duties unto greater: the sabbath is made for man,\nand not man for the sabbath.[323]\n\n[323] Luke vi. 5; xiii. 15; Mark ii. 27.\n\n\nQuest. LXXXII. _How should the Lord's day be spent in the main?_\n\n_Answ._ I have so far opened that in the family directions, that I\nwill now only say, 1. That eucharistical worship is the great work of\nthe day; and that it should be kept as a day of public thanksgiving\nfor the whole work of redemption, especially for the resurrection of\nour Lord.[324]\n\n2. And therefore the celebration of the sacrament of the Lord's supper\nwas always a chief part of its observation in the primitive churches:\nnot merely for the sacrament's sake; but because with it was still\njoined all the laudatory and thanksgiving worship. And it was the\npastor's work so to pray, and praise God, and preach to the people, as\ntendeth most to possess their souls with the liveliest sense of the\nlove of the Father, the grace of the Son, and the communion of the\nHoly Spirit, on the account of our redemption.\n\n3. Though confession of sin and humiliation must not be the chief work\nof the day, yet it may and must come in, as in due subordination to\nthe chief. 1. Because there are usually many persons present, who are\nmembers only of the visible church, and are not fit for the laudatory\nand rejoicing part. 2. Because while we are in the flesh, our\nsalvation is imperfect, and so are we; and much sin still remaineth,\nwhich must be a grief and burden to believers: and therefore while sin\nis mixed with grace, repentance and sorrow must be mixed with our\nthanksgivings, and we must \"rejoice with trembling.\" And though we\n\"receive a kingdom which cannot be moved,\" yet must our \"acceptable\nservice of God be with reverence and godly fear, because our God is a\nconsuming fire.\"[325] 3. Our sin and misery being that which we are\nsaved from, doth enter the definition of our salvation. And without\nthe sense of them, we can never know aright what mercy is, nor ever be\ntruly glad and thankful. But yet take heed that this subordinate duty\nbe not pretended, for the neglecting of that thanksgiving which is the\nwork of the day.\n\n[324] Psal. xcii. 1-5; cxviii. 1-3, 15, 19, 23, 24, 27-29; Acts xx. 7,\n9; Rev. i. 10; Acts xxiv. 14, 25, 26, &c.; Psal. xvi. 7-10; 1 Cor.\nxvi. 1, 2.\n\n[325] Psal. ii. 9-11; Heb. xii. 28, 29.\n\n\nQuest. LXXXIII. _May the people bear a vocal part in worship, or do\nany more than say, Amen?_\n\n_Answ._ Yes:[326] the people should say Amen; that is, openly signify\ntheir consent. But the meaning is not that they must do no more, nor\notherwise express their consent saving by that single word. For, 1.\nThere is no scripture which forbiddeth more. 2. The people bear an\nequal part in singing the psalms; which are prayer, and praise, and\ninstruction. 3. If they may do so in the psalms in metre, there can no\nreason be given but they may lawfully do so in the psalms in prose;\nfor saying them and singing them are but modes of utterance; both are\nthe speaking of prayer and praise to God: and the ancient singing was\nliker our saying, than to our tunes, as most judge. 4. The primitive\nchristians were so full of the zeal and love of Christ, that they\nwould have taken it for an injury and a quenching of the Spirit, to\nhave been wholly restrained from bearing their part in the praises of\nthe church. 5. The use of the tongue keepeth awake the mind, and\nstirreth up God's graces in his servants. 6. It was the decay of zeal\nin the people that first shut out responses; while they kept up the\nancient zeal, they were inclined to take their part vocally in their\nworship; and this was seconded by the pride and usurpation of some\npriests thereupon, who thought the people of God too profane to speak\nin the assemblies, and meddle so much with holy things.\n\nYet the very remembrance of former zeal, caused most churches to\nretain many of the words of their predecessors, even when they lost\nthe life and spirit which should animate them. And so the same words\ncame into the liturgies, and were used by too many customarily, and in\nformality, which their ancestors had used in the fervour of their\nsouls.\n\n6. And if it were not that a dead-hearted, formal people, by speaking\nthe responses carelessly and hypocritically, do bring them into\ndisgrace with many that see the necessity of seriousness, I think few\ngood people would be against them now. If all the serious, zealous\nchristians in the assembly speak the same words in a serious manner,\nthere will appear nothing in them that should give offence. If in the\nfulness of their hearts, the people should break out into such words\nof prayer, or confession, or praise, it would be taken for an\nextraordinary pang of zeal; and were it unusual, it would take\nexceedingly. But the better any thing is, the more loathsome it\nappeareth when it is mortified by hypocrisy and dead formality, and\nturned into a mockery, or an affected, scenical act. But it is here\nthe duty of every christian to labour to restore the life and spirit\nto the words, that they may again be used in a serious and holy manner\nas heretofore.\n\n7. Those that would have private men pray and prophesy in public, as\nwarranted by 1 Cor. xiv. \"Ye may all speak,\" &c. do much contradict\nthemselves, if they say also that a layman may say nothing but Amen.\n\n8. The people were all to say Amen in Deut. xxvii. 15, 16, 18-20, &c.\nAnd yet they oftentimes said more. As Exod. xix. 8, in as solemn an\nassembly as any of ours, when God himself gave Moses a sermon (in a\nform of words) to preach to the people, and Moses had repeated it as\nfrom the Lord, (it being the narrative of his mercies, the command of\nobedience, and the promises of his great blessings upon that\ncondition,) \"all the people answered together and said, All that the\nLord hath spoken we will do.\" The like was done again, Exod. xxiv. 3,\nand Deut. v. 27. And lest you should think either that the assembly\nwas not as solemn as ours, or that it was not well done of the people\nto say more than Amen, God himself who was present declared his\napprobation, even of the words, when the speakers' hearts were not so\nsincere in speaking them as they ought: ver. 28, 29, \"And the Lord\nheard the voice of your words when you spake unto me, and the Lord\nsaid unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people--They\nhave well said all that they have spoken. O that there were such a\nheart in them--.\"\n\n_Object._ But this is but a speech to Moses, and not to God.\n\n_Answ._ I will recite to you a form of prayer which the people\nthemselves were to make publicly to God: Deut. xxvi. 13-15, \"Then\nshalt thou say before the Lord thy God, I have brought away the\nhallowed things out of my house, and also have given them unto the\nLevite and unto the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the widow,\naccording to all thy commandments which thou hast commanded me: I have\nnot transgressed thy commandments, neither have I forgotten them. I\nhave not eaten thereof in my mourning, neither have I taken away ought\nthereof for any unclean use, nor given ought thereof for the dead; but\nI have hearkened to the voice of the Lord my God, and have done\naccording to all that thou hast commanded me. Look down from thy holy\nhabitation, from heaven, and bless thy people Israel, and the land\nwhich thou hast given us, as thou swarest unto our fathers, a land\nthat floweth with milk and honey.\" Is not here a full form of prayer\nto be used by all the people? And remember that Joseph and Mary, and\nChrist himself, were under this law, and that you never read that\nChrist found fault with the people's speech, nor spake a word to\nrestrain it in his churches.\n\nIn Lev. ix. 24, \"When all the people saw the glory of the Lord, and\nthe fire that came out from it, and consumed the burnt offering, they\nshouted and fell on their faces;\" which was an acclamation more than\nbare amen.\n\n2 Kings xxiii. 2, 3, \"King Josiah went up into the house of the Lord,\nand all the men of Judah, &c. and the priests and the prophets, and\nall the people, both small and great: and he read in their ears all\nthe words of the book of the covenant. And the king stood by a pillar,\nand made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to\nkeep his commandments, &c. with all their heart, and all their soul,\n&c. And all the people stood to the covenant.\" Where, as a king is the\nspeaker, it is like that the people used some words to express their\nconsent.\n\n1 Chron. xvi. 35, 36, when David delivered a psalm for a form of\npraise: in which it is said to the people, ver. 35, \"And say ye, Save\nus, O God of our salvation, and gather us together, and deliver us\nfrom the heathen, that we may give thanks to thy holy name, and glory\nin thy praise. Blessed be the Lord God of Israel for ever and ever.\nAll the people said, Amen, and praised the Lord.\" Where it is like\nthat their praising the Lord was more than their amen.\n\nAnd it is a command, Psal. lxvii. 3, 5, \"Let all the people praise\nthee, O God, let all the people praise thee.\" And he that will limit\nthis to single persons, or say that it must not be vocally in the\nchurch, or it must be only in metre and never in prose, or only in\ntunes and not without, must prove it, lest he be proved an adder to\nGod's word.\n\nBut it would be tedious to recite all the repeated sentences in the\nPsalms, which are commonly supposed to be the responses of the people,\nor repeated by them. And in Rev. xiv. 2, 3, the voice as \"of many\nwaters and as of a great thunder, and the voice of harpers harping\nwith their harps, who sung a new song before the throne and before the\nfour beasts and the elders, a song which none could learn but the\nhundred forty and four thousand which were redeemed from the earth,\nwhich were not defiled with women, who were virgins and followed the\nLamb,\" &c. doth seem very plainly to be spoken of the praises of all\nthe saints. Chap. xvii. 15, by waters is meant people, multitudes, &c.\nAnd chap. xix. 5-8, there is expressly recited a form of praise for\nall the people: \"A voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our\nGod, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.\nAnd I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the\nvoice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying,\nAlleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad, and\nrejoice, and give honour to him; for the marriage of the Lamb is\ncome, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her it was\ngranted,\" &c.\n\nAnd indeed he that hath styled all his people \"priests to God, and a\nholy and royal priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable\nto God by Jesus Christ, and to show forth the praises (\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2,\nthe virtues) of him that hath called us out of darkness into his\nmarvellous light,\" doth seem not to take them for so profane a\ngeneration, as to be prohibited from speaking to God in public any\notherwise than by the mouth of a priest.\n\nAnd it seemeth to be more allowed (and not less) under the gospel,\nthan under the law; because then the people, as under guilt, were kept\nat a greater distance from God, and must speak to him more by a priest\nthat was a type of Christ our Intercessor.[327] But now we are brought\nnigh, and reconciled to God, and have the spirit of sons, and may go\nby Christ alone unto the Father. And therefore though it be true that\nministers yet are sub-intercessors under Christ our High Priest, yet\nthey are rarely called priests, but described more in the New\nTestament by other parts of their office.\n\n_Object._ But the people's responses make a confused noise in the\nassemblies, not intelligible.\n\n_Answ._ All things are ill done, that are done by ill men that\ncarnally and formally slubber it over: but if the best and holiest\npeople would unanimously set themselves to do it, as they do in\nsinging psalms, so that they did not only stand by to be the hearers\nof others, it would be done more orderly and spiritually, as well as\nsinging is.\n\n[326] 1 Cor. xiv.; Psal. cl.; lxxxi. 2, 3; xcviii. 5; xciv. 1-3, &c.;\ncv. 2, 7, &c.; cxlv. throughout; Col. iii. 16.\n\n[327] Numb. i. 54; iii. 10, 31; Exod. xx.; Heb. iv. 16, 17; Eph. ii.\n13; Heb. xii. 18, 21-23.\n\n\nQuest. LXXXIV. _Is it not a sin for our clerks to make themselves the\nmouth of the people, who are no ordained ministers of Christ?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. In those places where ordained deacons do it, this\nobjection hath no place. 2. The clerks are not appointed to be the\nmouth of the people, but only each clerk is one of the people\ncommanded to do that which all should do, lest it should be wholly\nleft undone. If all the congregation will speak all that the clerk\ndoth, it will answer the primary desire of the church governors, who\nbid the people do it; but if they that will not do it themselves,\nshall pretend that the clerk doth usurp the ministry, because he\nceaseth not as well as they; they might as well say so by a few that\nshould sing psalms in the church, when the rest are against it and\nforbear. May not a man do his duty in singing or saying, when you\nrefuse yours, without pretending to be your mouth, or usurping the\nministry?\n\n\nQuest. LXXXV. _Are repetitions of the same words in church prayers,\nlawful?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. It is not lawful to affect them as the heathens, who think\nthey shall be heard for their battology, or saying over the same\nwords, as if God were moved by them, as by a charm.[328] 2. Nor is it\nlawful to do that which hath a strong appearance of such a conceit,\nand thereby to make God's worship ridiculous and contemptible; as the\npapists in their psalters, and prayer books, repeating over the name\nof Jesus, and Mary, so oft together as maketh it seem a ludicrous\ncanting.\n\nBut, 1. It is lawful to speak the same words from fulness and\nfervency of zeal; 2. And when we are afraid to give over lest we have\nnot yet prevailed with God. 3. And in God's solemn praises (sung or\nsaid) a word or sentence oft repeated sometimes hath an elegancy, and\naffecting decency; and therefore it is so often used in the Psalms;\nyea, and in many Scripture prayers. 4. In such cases, to bring a\nserious urgency of spirit to the repeated words, and not to quarrel\nwith the repetitions, is the duty of one that joineth with true\nchristian assemblies, as a son of piety and peace.[329]\n\n[328] Matt. vi. 18.\n\n[329] Psal. cxxxvi.; cvii, 8, 13, 21, &c.\n\n\nQuest. LXXXVI. _Is it lawful to bow at the naming of Jesus?_\n\n_Answ._ The question either respecteth the person of Jesus, named by\nany of his names, or else this name Jesus only. And that either simply\nin itself considered; or else comparatively, as excluding, or not\nincluding, other names.\n\n1. That the person of Jesus is to be bowed to, I never knew a\nchristian deny.\n\n2. That we may lawfully express our reverence by bowing, when the\nnames, God, Jehovah, Jesus Christ, &c. are uttered, I have met with\nfew christians who deny, nor know I any reason to deny it.\n\n3. Had I been fit to have prescribed directions to other ministers or\nchurches, I would not have persuaded, much less commanded, them to bow\nat the name of Jesus, any more than at the name of God, Jehovah,\nChrist, &c. for many reasons which the reader may imagine, though I\nwill not now mention them.\n\n4. But if I live and join in a church where it is commanded and\nperemptorily urged to bow at the name of Jesus, and where my not doing\nit would be divisive, scandalous, or offensive, I will bow at the name\nof God, Jehovah, Jesus, Christ, Lord, &c. one as well as the other;\nseeing it is not bowing at Christ's name that I scruple, but the\nconsequents of seeming to distinguish and prefer that name alone\nbefore all the rest.[330]\n\n[330] Mic. vi. 6; Jer. xxiii. 27; Isa. lii. 5, 6; xxix. 24; xlii. 8,\n9; Psal. ii. 10, 11; Phil. ii. 2, 9-12; Psal. xxxiv. 3; lxvi. 2;\nlxviii. 4; lxxii. 19; lxxvi. 1, 2; xcvi. 2; c. 4; cxi. 9; cxlviii. 13;\ncxlix. 3; Isa. ix. 6, 7; xii. 4; Psal. cxxxviii. 2, 3; Rev. xv. 4; 1\nChron. xxix. 20; 2 Chron. xxix. 30.\n\n\nQuest. LXXXVII. _Is it lawful to stand up at the gospel as we are\nappointed?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. Had I been a prescriber to others myself, I should not have\nrequired the church to stand up at the reading of one part of a\nchapter by the name of the gospel, and not at the same words when the\nwhole chapter is read.\n\n2. But if I live where rulers peremptorily command it, (I suppose not\nforbidding us to stand up at the gospel read in chapters, but\nselecting this as an instance of their signified consent to the\ngospel, who will do no more,) I would obey them rather than give\noffence, by standing up at the reading of the chapters and all; which\nI suppose will be no violation of their laws.\n\n\nQuest. LXXXVIII. _Is it lawful to kneel when the decalogue is read?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. If I lived in a church that mistook the commandments for\nprayers, as many ignorant people do, I would not so harden them in\nthat error. 2. And if I knew that many of the people present are of\nthat mind, I had rather do nothing that might scandalize or harden\nthem in it.\n\nBut, 1. That the thing in itself is lawful, is past doubt: as we may\nkneel to the king when we hear him or speak to him; so it is lawful to\nkneel to God, when we read a chapter or hear it read, and specially\nthe decalogue so terribly delivered, and written by his own finger in\nstone. 2. And if it be peremptorily commanded, and the omission would\nbe offensive, I would use it though mistaking persons are present,\n(1.) Because I cannot disobey, and also differ from the whole\nassembly, without a greater hurt and scandal, than seeming to harden\nthat mistaking person. (2.) And because I could and would by other\nmeans remove that person's danger, as from me, by making him know that\nit is no prayer. (3.) And the rather in our times, because we can get\nthe minister in the pulpit publicly to tell the people the contrary.\n(4.) And in catechising it is his appointed duty so to do. (5.) And we\nfind that the same old silly people who took the commandments for a\nprayer, took the creed to be so too; when yet none kneeled at the\ncreed; by which it appeareth that it is not kneeling which deceived\nthem.\n\n\nQuest. LXXXIX. _What gestures are fittest in all the public worship?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. The customs of several countries, putting several\nsignifications on gestures, much varieth the case.\n\n2. We must not lightly differ from the customs of the churches where\nwe live in such a thing.\n\n3. According to the present state of our churches, and the\nsignification of gestures, and the necessities of men's bodies, all\nconsidered, I like best, (1.) To kneel in prayer and confession of sin\n(unless it be in crowded congregations where there is not room). (2.)\nTo stand up in actions of mere praise to God, that is, at the singing\nand reading of the psalms of praise, and at the other hymns. (3.) To\nsit at the hearing of the word read and preached (because the body\nhath a necessity of some rest).\n\n4. Had I my choice, I would receive the Lord's supper sitting; but\nwhere I have not, I will use the gesture which the church useth. And\nit is to be noted that the church of England requireth the communicant\nonly to receive it kneeling; but not to eat or drink it kneeling when\nthey have received it. The ancient churches took it for a universal\ncustom, established by many general councils, (and continued many\nhundred years,) that no churches should kneel in any act of adoration\nupon any Lord's day in the year, or any week day between Easter and\nWhitsuntide; but only stand all the time. But because the weariness of\nthe body is apt to draw the mind into consent, and make God's service\nburdensome to us, it seemeth a sufficient compliance with their custom\nand the reasons of it, if we stand up only in acts of praise (and at\nthe profession of our assent to the christian faith and\ncovenant).[331]\n\n5. And because there is so great a difference between the auditors in\nmost assemblies, some being weak and not able to stand long, &c.\ntherefore it is utterly unmeet to be too rigorous in urging a\nuniformity of gesture, or for any to be too censorious of other men\nfor a gesture.\n\n[331] 1 Chron. xvii. 16; 2 Sam. vii. 17.\n\n\nQuest. XC. _What if the pastor and church cannot agree about singing\npsalms, or what version or translation to use, or time or place of\nmeeting, &c.?_\n\n[Sidenote: I meddle not here with the magistrate's part.]\n\n_Answ._ 1. It is the office of the pastor to be the guide and ruler in\nsuch things, (when the magistrate interposeth not,) and the people\nshould obey him. 2. But if the pastor injure the church by his\nmisguidance and mal-administration, he ought to amend and give them\nsatisfaction; and if he do not, they have their remedy before\nmentioned. 3. And if the people be obstinate in disobedience upon\ncauseless quarrels, the pastor must first labour to convince them by\nreason and love, and his authority; and if no means will bring them to\nsubmission, he must consider whether it be better as to the public\ngood of the church of Christ that he comply with them, and suffer\nthem, or that he depart and go to a more tractable people; and\naccordingly he is to do. For they cannot continue together in\ncommunion if one yield not to the other: usually or ofttimes it will\nbe better to leave such an obdurate, self-willed people, lest they be\nhardened by yielding to them in their sin, and others encouraged in\nthe like by their example; and their own experience may at last\nconvince them, and make them yield to better things, as Geneva did\nwhen they revoked Calvin. But sometimes the public good requireth that\nthe pastor give place to the people's folly, and stay among them, and\nrather yield to that which is not best, (so it be otherwise lawful,)\nas a worse translation, a worse version, liturgy, order, time, place,\n&c. than quite forsake them. And he that is in the right, may in that\ncase yield to him that is in the wrong, in point of practice.\n\n\nQuest. XCI. _What if the pastor excommunicate a man, and the people\nwill not forbear his communion, as thinking him unjustly\nexcommunicated?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. Either the pastor or the people are in the error. 2. Either\nthe person is a dangerous heretic, or grossly wicked, or not. 3.\nEither the people do own the error or sin, for which he is\nexcommunicated, or only judge the person not guilty. 4. The pastor's\nand the people's part in the execution must be distinguished. And so I\nconclude,\n\n1. That if the pastor err and wrong the people, he must repent and\ngive them satisfaction; but if it be their error and obstinacy, then,\n2. If the pastor foreknow that the people will dissent, in some small\ndispensable cases he may forbear to excommunicate one that deserveth\nit; or if he know it after, that they will not forbear communion with\nthe person, he may go on in his office, and be satisfied that he hath\ndischarged his own duty, and leave them under the guilt of their own\nfaults. 3. But if it be an intolerable wickedness or heresy, (as\nArianism, Socinianism, &c.) and the people own the error or sin as\nwell as the person, the pastor is then to admonish them also, and by\nall means to endeavour to bring them to repentance; and if they remain\nimpenitent to renounce communion with them and desert them. 4. But if\nthey own not the crime, but only think the person injured, the pastor\nmust give them the proof for their satisfaction; and if they remain\nunsatisfied, he may proceed in his office as before.\n\n\nQuest. XCII. _May a whole church, or the greater part, be\nexcommunicated?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. To excommunicate is by ministerial authority to pronounce\nthe person unmeet for christian communion, as being under the guilt of\nimpenitence in heinous sin; and to charge the church to forbear\ncommunion with him, and avoid him, and to bind him over to the bar of\nGod.\n\n2. The pastor of a particular church may pronounce all the church\nuncapable of christian communion and salvation till they repent, e. g.\nIf they should all be impenitent Arians, Socinians, blasphemers, &c.\nfor he hath authority, and they deserve it. But he hath no church that\nhe is pastor of, whom he can command to avoid them. 3. The neighbour\npastors of the churches about them, may, upon full proof, declare to\ntheir own churches, that such a neighbour church that is fallen to\nArianism, &c. is unmeet for christian communion and to be owned as a\nchurch of Christ; and therefore charge their flocks not to own them,\nnor to have occasional communion with their members when they come\namong them. For there is authority, and a meet object, and necessity\nfor so doing; and therefore it may be done. 4. But a single pastor of\nanother church may not usurp authority over any neighbour church, to\njudge them and excommunicate them, where he hath neither call nor full\nproof, as not having had opportunity to admonish them all, and try\ntheir repentance.[332] Therefore the pope's excommunications are\nrather to be contemned, than regarded. 5. Yet if many churches turn\nheretics notoriously, one single neighbour pastor may renounce their\ncommunion, and require his flock for to avoid them all. 6. And a\npastor may as lawfully excommunicate the major part of his church, by\ncharging the minor part to avoid them, as he may do the minor part;\nexcept that accidentally the inconveniences of a division may be so\ngreat, as to make it better to forbear; and so it may oft fall out\nalso, if it were the minor part.\n\n[332] 2 John 10, 11; 3 John 9, 10; Rev. ii. 5, 16; iii. 5, 6, 15.\n\n\nQuest. XCIII. _What if a church have two pastors, and one\nexcommunicate a man, and the other absolve him, what shall the church\nand the dissenter do?_\n\n_Answ._ It was such cases that made the churches of old choose\nbishops, and ever have but one bishop in one church. But, 1. He that\nis in the wrong is first bound to repent and yield to the other. 2. If\nhe will not, the other in a tolerable ordinary case may for peace give\nway to him, though not consent to his injurious dealing. 3. In a\ndubious case they should both forbear proceeding till the case be\ncleared. 4. In most cases, each party should act according to his own\njudgment, if the counsel of neighbour pastors be not able to reconcile\nthem. And the people may follow their own judgments, and forbear\nobeying either of them formally till they agree.\n\n\nQuest. XCIV. _For what sins may a man be denied communion, or\nexcommunicated? Whether for impenitence in every little sin; or for\ngreat sin without impenitence?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. I have showed before that there is a suspension which is\nbut a forbearance of giving a man the sacrament, which is only upon an\naccusation till his cause be tried; and an innocent person may be\nfalsely accused, and so tried.\n\n2. Some sins may be of so heinous scandal, that if the person repent\nof them this day, his absolution and reception may be delayed till the\nscandal be removed. 1. Because the public good is to be preferred\nbefore any man's personal good. 2. And the churches, or enemies about,\ncannot so suddenly know of a man's repentance. If they hear of a man's\nmurder, perjury, or adultery to-day, and hear that he is absolved\nto-morrow, they will think that the church consisteth of such, or that\nit maketh very light of sin. Therefore the ancient churches delayed\nand imposed penances, partly to avoid such scandal. 3. And partly\nbecause that some sins are so heinous, that a sudden profession is not\na sufficient evidence of repentance, unless there be also some\nevidence of contrition.\n\n3. But ordinarily no man ought to be excommunicated for any sin\nwhatsoever, unless impenitence be added to the sin.[333] Because he is\nfirst to be admonished to repent, Matt. xviii. 15, 16; Tit. iii. 10.\nAnd repentance is the gospel condition of pardon to believers.\n\n4. A man is not to be excommunicated for every sin which he repenteth\nnot of. Because, 1. Else all men should be excommunicated. For there\nare in all men some errors about sin and duty, and so some sins which\nmen cannot yet perceive to be sin. 2. And ministers are not\ninfallible, and may take that for a sin which is no sin, and so should\nexcommunicate the innocent. 3. And daily unavoidable infirmities,\nthough repented of, yet awaken not the soul sometimes to a notable\ncontrition; nor are they fit matter for the church's admonition.[334]\nA man is not to be called openly to repentance before the church for\nevery idle word, or hour.\n\n4. Therefore to excommunication these two must concur: 1. A\nheinousness in the sin. 2. Impenitence after due admonition and\npatience.\n\n[333] Luke xiii. 3, 5; Acts ii. 37-39, &c.\n\n[334] Gal. vi. 1-4; James iii. 1-3.\n\n\nQuest. XCV. _Must the pastors examine the people before the\nsacrament?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. Regularly they should have sufficient notice after they\ncome to age that they own their baptismal covenant, and that they have\nthat due understanding of the sacrament and the sacramental work, and\nsuch a christian profession as is necessary to a due participation.\n\n2. But this is fitliest done at their solemn transition out of their\ninfant church state into their adult: and it is not necessarily to be\ndone every time they come to the Lord's table (unless the person\ndesire help for his own benefit); but only once, before their first\ncommunicating: if it be the satisfaction of the pastor or church that\nis intended by it.\n\n\nQuest. XCVI. _Is the sacrament of the Lord's supper a converting\nordinance?_\n\n_Answ._ You must distinguish, 1. Between the conversion of infidels\nwithout the church, and of hypocrites within it. 2. Between the\nprimary and the secondary intention of the institutor. 3. Between the\nprimary duty of the receiver, and the event. And so I conclude,\n\n1. That God did not command ministers to give infidels the Lord's\nsupper to convert them to christianity.\n\n2. He requireth us to give it to none but those that profess\nthemselves converted from infidelity and a state of wickedness, and to\nnone that profess not true saving faith and repentance.\n\n3. God never commanded or allowed any infidel to demand or receive it\nto his conversion.\n\n4. God commandeth the pastors of the church to deliver it to\nhypocrites, (who at the heart are infidels, or impenitent and\nungodly,) if they profess faith and repentance, and desire or require\nit.[335]\n\n5. There is much in the nature of the sacrament, which tendeth to the\nconversion of a hypocrite.\n\n6. And God often blesseth it to the conversion of hypocrites; so that\nit may thence be said to be his secondary intention.\n\n7. But yet he that knoweth himself to be a mere hypocrite, or void of\nsaving faith and repentance, should not come first and immediately to\nthe sacrament, to be converted by it; but should first so long hear,\nread, meditate, and pray, till he repent and believe, and his heart\nconsent to the covenant of God; and then he should come with penitent\ncontrition, and solemnly renew his covenant in this sacrament, and\nthere receive a sealed pardon.\n\n[335] Luke xxii. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 24; Acts ii. 37, 38; Matt. xxviii. 19,\n20; 1 Cor. x. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 14; Acts viii. 13, 37, 38; 1 Cor. xi.\n27-30.\n\n\nQuest. XCVII. _Must no man come to the sacrament, that is uncertain or\ndoubtful of the sincerity of his faith and repentance?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. He that is sure of his unsoundness and hypocrisy should not\ncome.[336]\n\n2. He that upon trial is not sure, but yet as far as he can understand\nhis own heart and life, doth judge himself an impenitent hypocrite,\nshould use other means to know himself certainly, and fullier to\nrepent before he cometh. And though some melancholy and timorous\npersons be falsely persuaded that they are impenitent, yet it is\nbetter that such forbear the sacrament, while they use other means for\ntheir better acquaintance with themselves, than that all the\nhypocrites, and wicked, impenitent people be told that it is their\nduty to come, if they can but make themselves uncertain whether they\nbe impenitent or not.\n\n3. But he that after the best endeavours he can use to know himself,\ncan say, I am not certain that I truly repent, but as far as I can\nknow my heart I do; is not to be hindered from the sacrament by that\nuncertainty. 1. For few of the best attain to a full certainty of\ntheir own sincerity. 2. And all that can be expected from us is, that\nwe proceed according to the best of our understandings, and the best\nacquaintance with ourselves that we can get. 3. And otherwise it would\nkeep us from all other duties proper to true christians; as from\nthanksgiving for our justification, sanctification, adoption, &c.\n\n4. He that only erreth about the nature of true faith and repentance,\nand not about the reality of it in himself, should not be kept away by\nthat error; as if he can say, As far as I know my heart, I am willing\nto part with every known sin, and to know every sin that I may part\nwith it; but I am afraid this is not true repentance; or he that\nsaith, I believe the gospel to be true, and I am willing to have\nChrist upon his covenant terms, and wholly to resign myself unto him;\nbut I am afraid yet that I am not a true believer. This person is\ntruly penitent, and is a true believer, and therefore ought to come.\n\n5. The case _de esse_, whether a man be a true christian or not, is in\norder before the case _de scire_, whether he be certain of it, or\nnot.[337] He that is a hypocrite is bound by God first to know that he\nis so, and then to repent, and then to communicate. He that is\nsincere, is bound by God to know that he is sincere, and to be\nthankful, and to communicate; and man's neglect of one duty will not\nmake God change his laws, which still bind them to all this at once.\n\n[336] 1 Cor. xi. 28, 29, 31.\n\n[337] 2 Cor. xiii. 5, 6.\n\n\nQuest. XCVIII._ Is it lawful or a duty to join oblations to the\nsacrament, and how?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. There is no question but a christian must give up himself,\nsoul and body, with all that he hath, to God for his service; and\nthis oblation is christianity itself.[338]\n\n2. It is undoubted that the Lord's day is a fit time for our\ndepositing what we have to spare for charitable and pious uses, and\nthis is partly of divine appointment, 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2.\n\n3. No doubt but what we give to the poor, should be for God's sake,\nand from our love to God; and therefore must first be devoted or given\nup to God, and but secondarily to the poor.[339]\n\n4. It is certain that the Lord's supper is as fit a season as any part\nof that day, for such oblations and collections. The ancient\nchristians did therefore call it the communion, because in it they\nshowed their love and communion, and feasted in common to that end.\nThere are two several sorts of oblations which may lawfully be made\n(and fitly) at the communion. 1. The creatures of bread and wine\nshould be offered or presented before God, as acknowledging him to be\nthe Creator and Giver of all, and to desire his acceptance and\nbenediction of them for that holy use. 2. Our alms or charitable\ncontribution may be then fitly offered to God, that he may first\naccept it, and so it may be communicated to the church and poor. When\nwe receive from God the most obliging benefits, when we return our\ngreatest thanks, when we resign ourselves and all to God, it is then\nsure a seasonable time, to express all by the oblation of our\nbenevolence: that hypocrites may not pretend that they are charitable\nin secret, but the church may have due notice of it, and the pastors\nbe duly intrusted with it.[340]\n\n[338] Rom. xii. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9.\n\n[339] Matt. x. 42; xxv. 40, &c.\n\n[340] 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2.\n\n\nQuest. XCIX. _How many sacraments are there appointed by Christ?_\n\n_Answ._ The word sacrament hath so many significations, that it is not\nfit for the question till it be explained.[341] Passing all others\nnow, we must take notice, 1. That our use of it is not so large as the\nLatin interpreter who putteth it for Mystery, but for A solemn\ndedication of man to God by a vow expressed by some sacred ceremony,\nsignifying mutually our covenant to God, and God's reception of us and\nhis covenant with us. And it is brought into the church from the Roman\nmilitary oath called a sacrament, in which, as Tertul. \"de Cor. Mil.\"\nshoweth, the soldier sware fidelity and obedience to C\u00e6sar, renouncing\nfather, mother, &c. for his service, and swearing to prefer it, and\nits safety, before them all: see Martinius's reciting the oath out of\ndivers authors. This is our sense of the word; let no man now that\ntaketh it in other sense, pretend therefore that we differ in\ndoctrine.\n\n2. Seeing it is no Scripture word, it is not of necessity to the faith\nor peace of the church; but when disputers agree not of the sense of\nthe word, they had best lay it by, and use such terms whose sense they\ncan agree on.\n\n3. The name sacrament is either taken from the covenant sworn to, or\nfrom the sign or ceremony of consent, by which we oblige ourselves, or\nfrom both together.\n\n4. The covenant of christianity is different from a particular\ncovenant of some office; and accordingly the sacrament is to be\ndistinguished.\n\n5. As civil, economical, and ecclesiastical offices are distinct, so\nare their several sacraments.\n\n6. The solemn renewing of the sacred vow or covenant, without any\ninstituted, obliging sign, is to be distinguished from the renewing\nit by such a sign of God's institution: and now I conclude,\n\n1. As the word sacrament is taken improperly _secundum quid_, from the\nnobler part only, that is, the covenant, (as a man's soul is called\nthe man,) so there are as many sacraments as covenants; and there is\nin specie but one covenant of christianity, and so but one sacrament\nof christianity, variously expressed.\n\n2. As the word sacrament is taken properly and fully according to the\naforesaid description; so there are properly two sacraments of\nchristianity, or of the covenant of grace; that is, baptism, the\nsacrament of initiation, (most fully so called,) and the Lord's\nsupper, or the sacrament of confirmation, exercise, and progress.\n\n3. As the word sacrament is taken less properly, defectively,\n_secundum quid_, for the same covenant of grace or christianity\nrenewed by any arbitrary sign of our own, without a solemn ceremony of\ndivine institution, so there are divers sacraments of christianity or\nthe covenant of grace, that is, divers solemn renewals of our covenant\nwith God. As, 1. At our solemn transition from the state of infant\nmembership unto that of the adult, when we solemnly own our baptismal\ncovenant, which Calvin and many protestants (and the English rubric)\ncall confirmation. 2. The solemn owning the christian faith and\ncovenant, in our constant church assemblies, when we stand up at the\ncreed or profession of our faith, and all renew our covenant with God,\nand dedication to him. 3. At solemn days of fasting or humiliation,\nand of thanksgiving when this should be solemnly done. Especially upon\nsome public defection. 4. Upon the public repentance of a particular\nsinner before his absolution. 5. When a man is going out of the world,\nand recommending his soul to God by Christ; all these are solemn\nrenewings of our covenant with God, in which we may use any lawful,\nnatural, or arbitrary signs or expressions, to signify our own minds\nby, as speaking, subscribing, standing up, lifting up the hand, laying\nit upon a book, kissing the book, &c. These sacraments are improperly\nso called; and are divine as to the covenant renewed, but human as to\nthe expressing signs.\n\n4. Ordination is not improperly or unfitly called a sacrament, because\nit is the solemnizing of a mutual covenant between God and man, for\nour dedication to his special service, and his reception of us and\nblessing on us, though imposition of hands be not so solemn a ceremony\nby mere institution, as baptism and the Lord's supper. But then it\nmust be noted, that this is not _sacramentum christianitatis_, a\nsacrament of the christian covenant; but _sacramentum ordinis vel\nofficii particularis_, a sacrament of orders, or a particular office;\nbut of divine institution.\n\n5. The solemn celebration of marriage, is an economical sacrament;\nthat is, a solemn obligation of man and woman by vow to one another,\nand of both to God in that relation, which may be arbitrarily\nexpressed by lawful signs or ceremonies.\n\n6. The solemn covenant of a master with his servant, is on the same\naccount an economical sacrament.\n\n7. The inauguration of a king, in which he is sworn to his subjects,\nand dedicated to God in that office, and his subjects sworn or consent\nto him, is a civil sacrament, whether unction be added or not. And so\nis a judge's entrance on his office, when it is done so solemnly by an\nobliging vow or covenant.\n\n8. Confirmation in the papists' sense, as conferred by chrism on\ninfants for giving them the Holy Ghost, is but an unwarrantable\nimitation of the old miraculous operation by the apostles, and neither\na christian sacrament, nor a warrantable practice, but a presumption.\n\n9. The same may be said of their sacrament of extreme unction.\n\n10. Their sacrament of marriage is no otherwise a sacrament, than the\ninauguration of a king is; which is approved by God as well as\nmarriage, and signifieth also an honourable collation of power from\nthe universal King.\n\n11. Their sacrament of penance is no otherwise a sacrament than many\nother forementioned renewings of our covenant are.\n\n12. Therefore the papists' seven sacraments, or septenary\ndistribution, is confused, partly redundant, partly defective, and\nunworthy to be made a part of their faith or religion, or the matter\nof their peevish and ignorant contendings. And they that peremptorily\nsay, without distinguishing, that there are but two sacraments in all,\ndo but harden them by the unwarrantable narrowing of the word.\n\n[341] Of which see Martinius fully in \"Onom. de Sacram.\" Bellarmin\nhimself reckoneth five.\n\n\nQuest. C. _How far is it lawful, needful, or unlawful for a man to\nafflict himself by external penances for sin?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. Not to the destroying of his body, life, or health, or the\ndisabling or unfitting body or mind, for the service of God.\n\n2. Not to be the expression of any sinful, inordinate dejection,\ndespondency, sorrow, or despair.\n\n3. Not so as may be an outward appearance of such inordinate passions,\nor as may be a scandal to others, and deter them from religion as a\nmelancholy, hurtful thing.\n\n4. Nor as if God would accept the mere external self-afflicting for\nitself, or as if he loved our hurt, or as if we merited of him by our\nunprofitable, voluntary troubles.\n\nBut, 1. It is a duty to express true godly sorrow by its proper\nexercise and signs, so far as either the acting of it, or the increase\nor continuance by the means of those expressions is profitable to\nourselves.\n\n2. And also so far as is needful to the profiting of others, by\nshowing them the evil of sin, and drawing them to repentance.[342]\n\n3. And so far as is necessary to the satisfying of the church of the\ntruth of our repentance, in order to our absolution and communion.\n\n4. Especially so far as is necessary to subdue our fleshly lusts, and\ntame our bodies, and bring them into a due subjection to our faith,\nand to avoid our sin for the time to come. And also by the exercise of\nsober mortification, prudently, to keep under all our worldly\nphantasies, and love of this present world, without unfitting\nourselves for duty.\n\n5. And so far as is needful by such mortification, to fit us for\nfervent prayer, especially by fasting on days of humiliation; and to\nhelp us in our meditations of death and judgment, and to further our\nheavenly contemplations and conversation.\n\n6. The greatest difficulty is, Whether any self-revenge be lawful or\ndue; which is answered by what is said already; none such as disableth\nus for God's service is lawful. But true repentance is an anger or\ngreat displeasure with ourselves for sin, and a hatred of sin, and\nloathing of ourselves for it; and to judge, condemn, and afflict our\nown souls by a voluntary self-punishing, is but that exercise of\njustice on ourselves, which is fit for pardoned sinners that are not\nto be condemned by the Lord, and indeed the just exercise of\nrepentance and displeasure against ourselves.[343] On which accounts\nof sober self-revenge we may cherish such degrees of godly sorrow,\nfasting, coarse clothing, (as sackcloth,) and denying ourselves the\npleasures of this world, as shall not be hurtful but helpful to our\nduty. And if great and heinous sinners have of old on these terms,\nexceeded other men in their austerities, and self-afflictings, we\ncannot condemn them of superstition, unless we more particularly knew\nmore cause for it. But popishly to think that self-afflicting without\nrespect to such causes or necessities is a meritorious perfection, fit\nfor others, is superstition indeed.[344] And to think, as many of the\nmelancholy do, that self-murder is a lawful self-revenge, is a heinous\nsin, and leadeth to that which is more heinous and dangerous.\n\n[342] Isa. lviii. 3, 5-8, &c.; Mark ix. 13; xii. 7; Matt. vi. 1, 3, 5,\n6, 17; Zech. viii. 19; 2 Cor. ii. 7; Col. ii. 22-24; Joel i. 14; ii.\n15; Dan. ix. 3; Acts x. 13; 1 Cor. vii. 5; Luke ii. 37; Matt. iv. 2; 2\nSam. xii. 22; Luke xviii. 12; 2 Cor. vii. 9-11; 1 Cor. ix. 27; Col. i.\n5, 6; Rom. xiii. 13, 14.\n\n[343] Psal. lxix. 10; Lev. xvi. 29, 31; xxiii. 27, 32; Numb. xxix. 7;\nxxx. 13; Ezra viii. 21.\n\n[344] Isa. lviii. 5.\n\n\nQuest. CI. _Is it lawful to observe stated times of fasting imposed by\nothers, without extraordinary occasions? And particularly Lent?_\n\n_Answ._ Remember that I here meddle not with the question, how far is\nit lawful for rulers to impose such fasts on others? save only to say,\n1. That it is undoubtedly fit for kings to do it by precepts, and\nchurches by consent, in extraordinary cases of defection, sin, or\njudgments.[345] 2. That it is undoubtedly sinful usurpation, for\neither pope or any pretended ecclesiastical, universal rulers, to\nimpose such on the universal church (because there are no universal\nrulers). Or for a neighbour bishop by usurpation to impose it on a\nneighbour church. 3. And that it is sinful in all or many churches, to\nmake by their agreements such things to be necessary to their union or\ncommunion with their neighbour churches, so that they will take all\nthose for schismatics that differ from them in such indifferent\nthings. But as to the using of such fasts (omitting the imposing) I\nsay,\n\nI. 1. That so great and extraordinary a duty as holy fasting, must not\nbe turned into a mere formality or ceremony.[346]\n\n2. No particular man must be so observant of a public, commanded,\nanniversary fast, as for it to neglect any duty commanded him by God\nwhich is inconsistent with it. As to rejoice or keep a thanksgiving in\nLent, upon an extraordinary obliging cause; to keep the Lord's day in\nLent, as a day of thanksgiving and rejoicing; to preserve our own\nhealth, &c. It is not lawful in obedience to man, to fast so much, or\nuse such diet, as is like to destroy our lives or health; these being\nnot so far put into the power of man; nor can man dispense with us as\nto the duty of self-preservation. If God himself require us not to\noffer him our lives and health needlessly, as an acceptable sacrifice,\nnor ever maketh self-destruction our duty, no nor any thing that is\nnot for man's own good; then we are not to believe without very clear\nproof that either prince or prelates have more power than ever God\ndoth use himself.\n\n3. Such an anniversary fast as is meet for the remembrance of some\ngreat sin or judgment, if commanded, is to be kept, both for the\nreason of it, and for the authority of the commander. For, 1. It is\nnot unlawful as anniversary. (For, (1.) It is not forbidden, and, (2.)\nThere may be just occasion. Some arbitrarily keep an anniversary fast\non the day of their nativity (as I have long done); and some on the\nday that they fell into some great sin; and some on the day of the\ndeath of a friend, or of some personal, domestic, or national\ncalamity; and none of this is forbidden.) 2. And that which is not\nunlawful in itself, is not therefore unlawful to be done because it is\ncommanded; seeing obedience to superiors is our duty and not our sin,\nunless in sinful things.\n\n4. Whether it be lawful or meet to commemorate Christ's sufferings by\nanniversary fasts, is next to be considered.\n\nII. As for Lent in particular, we must distinguish, 1. Between the\nancient Lent, and the later Lent. 2. Between keeping it on a civil\naccount, and on a religious. 3. Between true fasting, and change of\ndiet. 4. Between the imitation of Christ's forty days' fasting, and\nthe mere commemoration of it. Which premised I conclude,\n\n1. The keeping a true fast or abstinence from food, for forty days, on\nwhat account soever, being impossible, or self-murder, is not to be\nattempted.\n\n2. The imitation of Christ in his forty days' fasting is not to be\nattempted or pretended to; because his miraculous works were not done\nfor our imitation. And it is presumption for us to pretend to such a\npower as is necessary to miracles; or yet to make any essays at such\nan imitation, any more than at the raising of the dead.\n\n3. The pretending of a fast when men do but change their diet, flesh\nfor fish, fruit, sweetmeats, &c. is but hypocritical and ridiculous;\nmost poor labourers, and temperate ministers, do live all the year on\na more flesh-denying diet, and in greater abstinence, than many\npapists do in Lent, or on their fasting days. And what a ridiculous\ndispute is it to hear, e. g. a Calvin that never eateth but one small\nmeal a day for many years, to plead against the keeping of the popish\nfasts, and their clergy call him voracious, and carnal, and an\nepicure, and plead for fasting as holy mortification, who eat as many\nmeals and as much meat on a Lent day or fasting day, as Calvin did in\nthree feasting days; and drink as much wine in a Lent, as he in twenty\nyears! Sure I am I know many such on both sides; some that eat but a\nsmall meal a day, and never drink wine at all, and others that drink\nwine daily, and eat of many dishes at a meal, and that to the full,\nand of the sweetest, as fish, fruits, &c. yet rail at the former for\nnot fasting as they do. So delusory are the outward appearances, and\nso false the pretensions of the carnal sort!\n\n4. The ancient Lent consisted first of one day (Good Friday) alone;\nand after that of three days, and then of six, and at last it came up\nto forty. (Of which read Dall\u00e6us _ubi supra_ at large.)\n\n5. None can question the lawfulness of and obedient keeping of such a\ncivil Lent fast as our statutes command, for the vending of fish, and\nfor the breed of cattle; so be it no bodily necessity or greater duty\nbe against it.\n\n6. It is not unlawful for those that cannot totally fast, yet to use\nmore abstinence and a more mortifying sort of diet than ordinary, for\nthe exercises of repentance and mortification, in due time.\n\n7. If authority shall appoint such a mortifying, abstemious course\nupon lawful or tolerable grounds and ends, I will obey them, if they\nperemptorily require it, when my health or some greater duty\nforbiddeth it not.\n\n8. As for the commanding such an abstinence, as in Lent, not in\nimitation, but bare commemoration of Christ's forty days' fast, I\nwould not command it if it were in my power; but being peremptorily\ncommanded, I cannot prove it unlawful to obey, with the\nafore-mentioned exceptions.\n\n9. It was anciently held a crime to fast on the Lord's day, even in\nLent; and I take that day to be separated by Christ and the Holy Ghost\nfor a church festival or day of thanksgiving; therefore I will not\nkeep it as a fast, though I were commanded, unless in such an\nextraordinary necessity, as aforesaid.\n\nOf pilgrimages, saints, relics, and shrines, temples, of their\nmiracles, of praying to angels, to saints, for the dead, purgatory, of\nthe pope's pardons, indulgences, dispensations; of the power of true\npastors to forgive sins, with a multitude of such cases, which are\ncommonly handled in our controversial writers against the papists, I\nmust thither refer the reader for a solution, because the handling of\nall such particular cases would swell my book to a magnitude beyond my\nintention, and make this part unsuitable to the rest.\n\n[345] 2 Chron. xx. 3; Ezra viii. 21; Jonah iii. 5; Zech. viii. 19;\nJoel ii. 15. Read Dall\u00e6us's \"Treatise de Jejuniis.\"\n\n[346] Isa. lviii. 3, 5-8.\n\n\nQuest. CII. _May we continue in a church, where some one ordinance of\nChrist is wanting, as discipline, prayer, preaching, or sacraments,\nthough we have all the rest?_\n\n_Answ._ Distinguish, 1. Of ordinances. 2. Of a stated want, and a\ntemporary want. 3. Of one that may have better, and one that cannot.\n\n1. Teaching, prayer, and praise, are ordinances of such necessity that\nchurch assemblies have not their proper use without them.\n\n2. The Lord's supper is of a secondary need, and must be used when it\nmay, but a church assembly may attain its ends sometimes without it,\nin a good degree.\n\n3. Discipline is implicitly exercised when none but the baptized are\ncommunicants, and when professed christians voluntarily assemble, and\nthe preaching of the word doth distinguish the precious from the vile;\nmuch more when notorious, scandalous sinners are by the laws kept from\nthe sacrament (as our rubric and canons do require).\n\n4. But for the fuller, explicit, and exacter exercise of discipline,\nit is very desirable for the well-being of the churches; but it is but\na stronger fence or hedge, and preservative of sacred order; and both\nthe being of a church, and the profitable use of holy assemblies, may\nsubsist without it; as in Helvetia and other countries it is found.\n\nI conclude then, 1. That he that, _consideratis considerandis_, is a\nfree man, should choose that place where he hath the fullest\nopportunities of worshipping God, and edifying his soul.\n\n2. He is not to be accounted a free man that cannot remove, without a\ngreater hurt than the good, either to the church or country, or to his\nfamily, his neighbours, or himself.\n\n3. Without teaching, prayer, and divine praises we are not to reckon\nthat we have proper church assemblies and communion.\n\n4. We must do all that is in our power to procure the right use of\nsacraments and discipline.\n\n5. When we cannot procure it, it is lawful and a duty to join in those\nassemblies that are without it, and rather to enjoy the rest than\nnone. Few churches have the Lord's supper above once a month, which in\nthe primitive church was used every Lord's day and ofter; and yet they\nmeet on other days.[347]\n\n6. It is possible that preaching, prayer, and praise, may be so\nexcellently performed in some churches that want both discipline and\nthe Lord's supper, and all so coldly and ignorantly managed in another\nchurch that hath all the ordinances, that men's souls may much more\nflourish and prosper under the former than the latter.\n\n7. If forbearing or wanting some ordinances for a time, be but in\norder to a probable procurement of them, we may the better\nforbear.[348]\n\n8. The time is not to be judged of only by length, but by the\nprobability of success. For sometimes God's providence, and the\ndisturbances of the times, or the craft of men in power, may keep men\nso long in the dark, that a long expectation or waiting may become our\nduty.\n\n[347] Acts xxviii. 31; xi. 26; xx. 7, 20, &c.; 1 Cor. xiv.; Acts ii.\n42; 1 Tim. iv. 13, 14; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 2; 2 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. x. 25,\n26; Col. iv. 16; Acts xiii. 27; xv. 21; 1 Thess. v. 27; 1 Cor. v. 34,\n&c.\n\n[348] Matt. xxvi. 31; Acts viii. 1.\n\n\nQuest. CIII. _Must the pastors remove from one church to another\nwhenever the magistrate commandeth us, though the bishop contradict\nit, and the church consent not to dismiss us; and so of other cases of\ndisagreement?_\n\n_Answ._ As in man's soul, the intellectual guidance, the will, and the\nexecutive power do concur, so in church cases of this nature, the\npotestative government of the magistrate, the directive guidance of\nthe senior pastors, and the attractive love of the people (who are the\nchief inferior, final cause) should all concur; and when they do not,\nit is confusion: and when God's order is broken which commandeth their\nconcurrence, it is hard to know what to do, in such a division which\nGod alloweth not; as it is to know whether I should take part with the\nheart against the head, or with the head against the stomach and\nliver, on suppositions of cross inclinations or interests; whenas\nnature supposeth either a concord of inclination and interest, or else\nthe ruin, sickness, or death of the person; and the cure must be by\nreconciling them, rather than by knowing which to side with against\nthe rest.\n\nBut seeing we must suppose such diseases frequently to happen, they\nthat cannot cure them must know how to behave themselves, and to do\ntheir own duty. For my own part, in such cases I would do thus:\n\n1. I would look at my ultimate end, God's glory, and at the next end,\nthe good of souls and welfare of the church; and so at the people's\ninterest as it is the end of the order of magistracy and ministry: and\nI would take myself to be so obliged to that end, as that no point of\nmere order could disoblige me, the end being better than the means as\nsuch; therefore I would do all things to edification, supposing that\nall power of man is as Paul's was, for edification and not for\ndestruction.[349]\n\n2. But in judging of what is best for the church, I must take in every\naccident and circumstance, and look to many, more than to a few, and\nto distant parts as well as to those near me, and to the time and ages\nto come, as well as to the present, and not go upon mistaken\nsuppositions of the church's good; he that doth not see all things\nthat are to be weighed in such a case, may err by leaving out some\none.\n\n3. I would obey the magistrate formally for conscience sake in all\nthings which belong to his office; and particularly in this case, if\nit were but a removal from place to place, in respect to the temple,\nor tithes, or for the civil peace, or for the preservation of church\norder in cases where it is not grossly injurious to the church and\ngospel.\n\n4. In cases which by God's appointment belong to the conduct of\nbishops, or pastors, or the concord of consociate churches, I would\n_formaliter_ follow them. And in particular, if they satisfy me that\nthe removal of me is an apparent injury to the church, (as in the\nArian's times, when the emperors removed the orthodox from all the\ngreat churches to put in Arians,) I would not obedientially and\nvoluntarily remove.\n\n5. If magistrates and bishops should concur in commanding my remove in\na case notoriously injurious and pernicious to the church, (as in the\naforesaid case, to bring in an Arian,) I would not obey formally for\nconscience sake; supposing that God never gave them such a power\nagainst men's souls and the gospel of Christ; and there is no power\nbut of God.\n\n6. But I would prefer both the command of the magistrate, and the\ndirection of the pastors, before the mere will and humour of the\npeople, when their safety and welfare were not concerned in the case.\n\n7. And when the magistrate is peremptory, usually I must obey him\nmaterially, when I do it not formally (in conscience to his mere\ncommand). Because though in some cases he may do that which belongeth\nnot to his office, but to the pastor's, yet his violence may make it\nbecome the church's interest, that I yield and give place to his\nwrath; for as I must not resist him by force, so if I depart not at\nhis command, it may bring a greater suffering on the churches: and so\nfor preventing a greater evil he is to be submitted to in many cases,\nwhere he goeth against God and without authority; though not to be\nformally obeyed.\n\n8. Particular churches have no such interest in their ministers or\npastors, as to keep them against their wills and the magistrate's, and\nagainst the interest of the universal church, as shall be next\nasserted.\n\nI have spoken to this instance as it taketh in all other cases of\ndifference between the power of the magistrate, the pastor's and the\npeople's interest, when they disagree, and not as to this case alone.\n\n[349] Eph. iv. 12, 14; 2 Cor. x. 8; xiii. 10; Rom. xiv. 19; Rom. xv.\n2; 1 Cor. x. 23; 1 Cor. xiv. 5, 12, 26; 2 Cor. xii. 19.\n\n\nQuest. CIV. _Is a pastor obliged to his flock for life? Or is it\nlawful so to oblige himself? And may he remove without their consent?\nAnd so also of a church member, the same questions are put._\n\nThese four questions I put together for brevity, and shall answer them\ndistinctly.\n\nI. 1. A minister is obliged to Christ and the universal church for\nlife, (_durante vita_,) with this exception, if God disable him not.\n2. But as a pastor he is not obliged to this or that flock for life.\nThere is no such command or example in God's word.\n\nII. To the second: 1. It is lawful to oblige ourselves to a people for\nlife in some cases, conditionally; that is, if God do not apparently\ncall us away. 2. But it is never lawful to do it absolutely: 1.\nBecause we shall engage ourselves against God; against his power over\nus, and interest in us, and his wisdom that must guide us. God may\ncall us whither he please; and though now he speak not by supernatural\nrevelation, yet he may do it by providential alterations. 2. And we\nshall else oblige ourselves against the universal church, to which we\nare more strictly bound, than to any particular church, and whose good\nmay oblige us to remove. 3. Yea, we may bind ourselves to the hurt of\nthat church itself; seeing it may become its interest to part with us.\n4. And we should so oblige ourselves against our duty to authority,\nwhich may remove us.\n\nIII. To the third question I answer, 1. A pastor may not causelessly\nremove, nor for his own worldly commodity when it is to the hurt of\nthe church and hinderance of the gospel. 2. When he hath just cause,\nhe must acquaint the people with it, and seek their satisfaction and\nconsent. 3. But if he cannot procure it, he may remove without it: as,\n1. When he is sure that the interest of the gospel and universal\nchurch require it: 2. Or that just authority doth oblige him to it.\n\nThe reasons are plain from what is said; and also, 1. He is no more\nbound to the people, than they are to him; but they are not so bound\nto him, but they may remove on just occasion. 2. If he may not remove,\nit is either because God forbids it, or because his own contract with\nthem hath obliged him against it. But, 1. God no where forbids it: 2.\nSuch a contract is supposed not made, nor lawful to be made.\n\nIV. As to the people's case, it needs no other answer; 1. No member\nmay remove without cause. 2. Nor abruptly and uncharitably to the\nchurch's dissatisfaction, when he may avoid it. But, 3. He may remove\nupon many just causes, (private or public,) whether the church and\npastors consent or not, so the manner be as becometh a christian.\n\n\nQuest. CV. _When many men pretend at once to be the true pastors of a\nparticular church against each other's title, through differences\nbetween the magistrates, the ordainers, and the flocks, what should\nthe people do, and whom should they adhere to?_\n\n[Sidenote: What pastor to adhere to.]\n\n_Answ._ This case is mostly answered before in Quest. LXXXII. &c. I\nneed only to add these rules of caution. 1. Do not upon any pretence\naccept of a heretic, or one that is utterly unfit for the office.\n\n2. Do not easily take a dividing course or person, but keep as much as\nmay be in a way of concord with the united, faithful pastors and\nchurches in your proximity or country.\n\n3. Look to the public good and interest of religion, more than to your\nparticular congregation.\n\n4. Neglect not the greatest advantages for your own edification; but\nrather take them by a removal of your dwelling, though you suffer by\nit in your estates, than by any division, disturbance of the church's\npeace, or common detriment.\n\n5. Do not easily go against the magistrate's commands; unless they be\napparently unlawful, and to the church's detriment or ruin, in the\nreception of your pastors.\n\n6. Do not easily forsake him that hath been justly received by the\nchurch, and hath possession, that is, till necessity require it.\n\n\nQuest. CVI. _To whom doth it belong to reform a corrupted church? to\nthe magistrates, pastors, or people?_\n\n_Answ._ A church is reformed three several ways: 1. By the personal\nreformation of every member: 2. By doctrinal direction: and, 3. By\npublic, forcible execution, and constraint of others.\n\n1. Every member, whether magistrates, pastors, or people, must reform\nthemselves, by forsaking all their own sins, and doing their own\nduties. If a ruler command a private person to go to mass, to own any\nfalsehood, or to do any sin, he is not to be obeyed, because God is to\nbe first obeyed.\n\n2. The bishops or pastors are to reform the church by doctrine,\nreproof, and just exhortations, and nunciative commands in the name of\nChrist to rulers and people to do their several duties; and by the\nactual doing of his own.[350]\n\n3. The king and magistrates under him, only, must reform by the sword,\nthat is, by outward force, and civil laws and corporal penalties: as\nforcibly to break down images, to cast out idolaters, or the\ninstruments of idolatry from the temples, to put true ministers in\npossession of the temples, or the legal public maintenance; to\ndestroy, punish, or hurt idolaters, &c. Supposing still the power of\nparents and masters in their several families.\n\n[350] 1 Cor. xi. 28, 29, 31, 33, 34; 1 Cor. v. 11; Dan. iii.; vi. 1\nCor. v. 3-5; 1 Pet. v. 2, 3; Luke xxii. 24-27.\n\n\nQuest. CVII. _Who is to call synods? princes, pastors, or people?_\n\n[Sidenote: The question of the power of synods is sufficiently\nanswered before.]\n\n_Answ._ 1. There are several ways of calling synods: 1. By force and\ncivil mandates; 2. By pastoral persuasion and counsel; and, 3. By\nhumble entreaty and petition.\n\n1. Magistrates only (that is, the supreme by his own power, and the\ninferior by power derived from him) may call synods by laws and\nmandates, enforced by the sword or corporal penalties, or mulcts.\n\n2. Bishops or pastors in due circumstances may call synods by counsel\nand persuasive invitation.\n\n3. The people in due circumstances and necessity, may call synods by\nway of petition and entreaty.\n\nBut what are the due circumstances?\n\n_Answ._ 1. The magistrate may call them by command at his discretion,\nfor his own counsel, or for the civil peace, or the church's good.\n\n2. The pastors and people may not call them, nor meet when the\nmagistrate forbiddeth it, except when the necessity of the church\nrequireth it: synods may profitably be stated for order, when it may\nbe lawfully obtained (both as to limits of place, numbers, and time).\nBut these prudential orders are not of stated necessity, but must give\nplace to weightier reasons on the contrary.\n\n3. Synods themselves are not ordinarily necessary, by nature or\ninstitution; (let him that affirmeth it, prove it;) but that which is\nstatedly necessary is, The concord of the churches as the end, and a\nnecessary correspondency of the churches as the means, and synods when\nthey may well be had, as a convenient sort of means.\n\n4. When synods cannot be had, or are needless, messengers and letters\nfrom church to church may keep up the correspondency and concord.\n\n5. In cases of real necessity, (which are very rare, though usefulness\nbe more frequent,) the bishops and people should first petition the\nking for his consent: and if that cannot be had, they may meet\nsecretly and in small numbers, for mutual consultation and advice\nabout the work of God; and not by keeping up the formality of their\nset numbers, times, places, and orders, provoke the king against them.\n\n6. The contempt of synods by the separatists, and the placing more\npower in synods than ever God gave them by others, yea, and the\ninsisting on their circumstantial orders, making them like a civil\nsenate or court, have been the two extremes which have greatly injured\nand divided the churches, throughout the world.\n\n\nQuest. CVIII. _To whom doth it belong to appoint days and assemblies\nfor public humiliation and thanksgiving?_\n\n_Answ._ The answer of the last question may serve for this. 1. The\nmagistrate only may do it by way of laws, or civil mandate enforced by\nthe sword.\n\n2. The pastors may do it in case of necessity, by pastoral advice and\nexhortation, and nunciative command in the name of Christ.\n\n3. The people may do it by petition.\n\n4. As ordinary church assemblies must be held if the magistrate forbid\nthem, (of which next,) so must extraordinary ones, when extraordinary\ncauses make it a duty.\n\n5. When the magistrate forcibly hindereth them, natural impossibility\nresolveth the question about our duty.\n\n\nQuest. CIX. _May we omit church assemblies on the Lord's day, if the\nmagistrate forbid them?_\n\n[Sidenote: May we omit church assemblies on the Lord's day, if\nforbidden by magistrates.]\n\n_Answ._ 1. It is one thing to forbid them for a time, upon some\nspecial cause, (as infection by pestilence, fire, war, &c.) and\nanother to forbid them statedly or profanely.\n\n2. It is one thing to omit them for a time, and another to do it\nordinarily.\n\n3. It is one thing to omit them in formal obedience to the law; and\nanother thing to omit them in prudence, or for necessity, because we\ncannot keep them.\n\n4. The assembly and the circumstances of the assembly must be\ndistinguished.\n\n(1.) If the magistrate for a greater good, (as the common safety,)\nforbid church assemblies in a time of pestilence, assault of enemies,\nor fire, or the like necessity, it is a duty to obey him. 1. Because\npositive duties give place to those great natural duties which are\ntheir end: so Christ justified himself and his disciples' violation of\nthe external rest of the sabbath. \"For the sabbath was made for man,\nand not man for the sabbath.\" 2. Because affirmatives bind not _ad\nsemper_, and out-of-season duties become sins. 3. Because one Lord's\nday or assembly is not to be preferred before many, which by the\nomission of that one are like to be obtained.\n\n(2.) If princes profanely forbid holy assemblies and public worship,\neither statedly, or as a renunciation of Christ and our religion; it\nis not lawful formally to obey them.\n\n(3.) But it is lawful prudently to do that secretly for the present\nnecessity, which we cannot do publicly, and to do that with smaller\nnumbers, which we cannot do with greater assemblies, yea, and to omit\nsome assemblies for a time, that we may thereby have opportunity for\nmore: which is not formal but only material obedience.\n\n(4.) But if it be only some circumstances of assembling that are\nforbidden us, that is the next case to be resolved.\n\n\nQuest. CX. _Must we obey the magistrate if he only forbid us\nworshipping God in such a place, or country, or in such numbers, or\nthe like?_\n\n[Sidenote: What if we be forbidden only place, numbers, &c.]\n\n_Answ._ We must distinguish between such a determination of\ncircumstances, modes, or accidents, as plainly destroy the worship or\nthe end, and such as do not. For instance, 1. He that saith, You shall\nnever assemble but once a year, or never but at midnight, or never\nabove six or seven minutes at once, &c. doth but determine the\ncircumstance of time: but he doth it so as to destroy the worship,\nwhich cannot so be done, in consistency with its ends. But he that\nshall say, You shall not meet till nine o'clock, nor stay in the\nnight, &c. doth no such thing.\n\nSo, 2. He that saith, You shall not assemble but at forty miles'\ndistance one from another; or you shall meet only in a room, that will\nhold but the twentieth part of the church; or you shall never preach\nin any city or populous place, but in a wilderness far from the\ninhabitants, &c. doth but determine the circumstance of place: but he\nso doth it, as tends to destroy or frustrate the work which God\ncommandeth us. But so doth not he that only boundeth churches by\nparish bounds, or forbiddeth inconvenient places.\n\n3. So he that saith, You shall never meet under a hundred thousand\ntogether, or never above five or six, doth but determine the accident\nof number: but he so doth it as to destroy the work and end. For the\nfirst will be impossible; and in the second way they must keep church\nassemblies without ministers, when there is not so many as for every\nsuch little number to have one. But so doth not he that only saith,\nYou shall not meet above ten thousand, nor under ten.\n\n4. So he that saith, You shall not hear a Trinitarian, but an Arian;\nor you shall hear only one that cannot preach the essentials of\nreligion, or that cries down godliness itself; or you shall hear none\nbut such as were ordained at Jerusalem or Rome, or none but such as\nsubscribe the council of Trent, &c. doth but determine what person we\nshall hear: but he so doth it as to destroy the work and end. But so\ndoth not he that only saith, You shall hear only this able minister,\nrather than that.\n\nI need not stand on the application. In the latter case we owe formal\nobedience. In the former we must suffer, and not obey.\n\nFor if it be meet so to obey, it is meet in obedience to give over\nGod's worship. Christ said, \"When they persecute you in one city, flee\nto another;\" but he never said, If they forbid you preaching in any\ncity, or populous place, obey them. He that said, \"Preach the gospel\nto every creature, and to all nations, and all the world,\" and that\n\"would have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the\ntruth,\"[351] doth not allow us to forsake the souls of all that dwell\nin cities and populous places, and preach only to some few cottagers\nelsewhere; no more than he will allow us to love, pity, and relieve\nthe bodies only of those few, and take none for our neighbours that\ndwell in cities, but with priest and Levite to pass them by.\n\n[351] Matt. x. 30; Mark xvi. 15; Matt. xxviii. 19; 1 Tim. ii. 4; 2\nTim. ii. 25, 26; iv. 1-3.\n\n\nQuest. CXI. _Must subjects or servants forbear weekly lectures,\nreading, or such helps, above the Lord's day's worship, if princes or\nmasters do command it?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. There is great difference between a mere subject, or person\ngoverned, and a servant, slave, or child.\n\n2. There is great difference between such as are hindered by just\ncause and real necessities, and such as are hindered only through\nprofane malignity.\n\n(1.) Poor people have not so much leisure from their callings, as the\nrich; and so providing for their families may, at that time, by\nnecessity become the greater and the present duty.\n\n(2.) So may it be with soldiers, judges, and others, that have present\nurgent work of public consequence; when others have no such\nimpediment.\n\n(3.) He that is the child or slave of another, or is his own by\npropriety, is more at his power, than he that is only a subject, and\nso is but to be governed in order to his own and the common good.\n\n(4.) A servant that hath absolutely hired himself to another, is for\nthat time near the condition of a slave; but he that is hired but with\nlimitations, and exceptions of liberty, (expressed or understood,)\nhath right to the excepted liberty.\n\n(5.) If the king forbid judges, soldiers, or others, whose labours are\ndue to the public, to hear sermons at that time when they should do\ntheir work, or if parents or masters so forbid children and servants,\nthey must be obeyed, while they exclude not the public worship of the\nLord's own day, nor necessary prayer and duty in our private daily\ncases.\n\n(6.) But he that is under such bondage as hindereth the needful helps\nof his soul, should be gone to a freer place, if lawfully he can. But\na child, wife, or such as are not free, must trust on God's help in\nthe use of such means as he alloweth them.\n\n(7.) A prince, or tutor, or schoolmaster, who is not a proprietor of\nthe person, but only a governor, is not to be obeyed formally and for\nconscience sake, if he forbid his subjects or scholars such daily or\nweekly helps for their salvation as they have great need of, and have\nno necessity to forbear; such as are hearing or assembling with the\nchurch on the week days at convenient time, reading the Scriptures\ndaily, or good books, accompanying with men fearing God, praying, &c.;\nbecause God hath commanded these when we can perform them.\n\n\nQuest. CXII. _Whether religious worship may be given to a creature?\nand what?_\n\n_Answ._ While the terms of the question remain ambiguous, it is\nuncapable of an answer.\n\n1. By worship is meant either _cultus in genere_, any honour expressed\nto another; or some special act of honour. We must understand the\nquestion in the first general sense, or else we cannot answer it, till\nmen tell us, what acts of honouring they mean.\n\n2. By religious is meant, either in general, that which we are bound\nto by God, or is done by virtue of a religious, that is, a divine\nobligation, and so is made part of our religion; that is, of our\nobedience to God: or else by religious is meant divine, or that which\nis properly due to God. The question must be taken in the first\ngeneral sense; or else it is no question, but ridiculous (to ask\nwhether we may give God's proper worship to a creature).\n\nAnd so I answer, 1. By way of distinction. 2. Of solution.\n\n(1.) We must distinguish between the honour of worshipping acts of the\nmind, and of the body. (2.) Between idolatry as against the first\ncommandment, and idolatry or scandal as against the second.\n\n_Af. Prop._ 1. There is due to every creature, a true estimation of it\naccording to the degree of its dignity or goodness; and a love\nproportionable: as also a belief, a trust, a fear, proportionable to\nevery man's credibility, fidelity, power, &c.\n\n2. There is an eminent degree therefore of estimation, reverence, and\nlove, and trust, due to good men above bad, and to those in heaven\nabove those on earth; and a peculiar honour to rulers as such, which\nis not due to their inferiors.[352]\n\n3. This is to be expressed by the body, by convenient actions.\n\n4. The highest honour which we owe to any, is for the image of God in\nthem; viz. 1. His natural image, as men. 2. His moral image, as\nsaints. 3. His relative image of supereminency, as superiors. And so\nit is God in them first, and they next as the images of God, who are\nto be honoured.\n\n5. There is no honour to be given to any creature, but that of which\nGod himself is the end; viz. as it referreth to his glory.\n\n6. Therefore all honour given to men must be thus far religious honour\n(or worship); for as all things are sanctified to and by saints, so\nall things that religious men do, must be religiously done.[353]\n\n7. As persons, so places, books, words, utensils, times, &c. must be\nhonoured for God's sake, as they are related to God, with such\nestimations and expressions as are suitable to their relations.\n\n_Neg._ 1. No creature must be esteemed to be a god; nor any of God's\nproper attributes or honour given to any creature whatsoever.\n\n2. No creature must be esteemed better, or greater, or wiser, than it\nis (as far as we have means to know it).\n\n3. Whatsoever outward expressions of honour (by word or deed) are\nappropriated to the true God, 1. By divine institution; 2. Or by\nnature; 3. Or by received usage, that expression of honour ought not\nto be used to a creature, were the heart never so free from honouring\nit. (1.) Because it is bodily idolatry: (2.) And scandal as being\nidolatry interpretatively, in the just sense of others.[354]\n\n4. Whatsoever outward expressions of honour idolaters have used, and\ndo use, to signify their inward idolatry, or taking a creature or a\nfiction to be God, and so make it a _tessera_, or symbol, or\nprofessing sign of that their idolatry, if those actions are so used\nor esteemed among us, or within the notice of our actions, it is\nunlawful for us to use the like to any creature. Because the use of\ntheir expression maketh it to be a profession of idolatry by us, and\nso to be interpretative idolatry and scandal; for to use professing\nsymbols is to profess.\n\nExcept when there is some notorious reason to use the same words or\nactions to another lawful signification, which is of greater weight\nthan the scandal; and we make it as public to obviate the scandal,\nthat we do it not to the idolater's intents.\n\nFor example, If the Mahometans make it a symbol of their religion, to\nsay, God is but one, upon a false supposition that the christians make\nmore gods than one; yet it is lawful for us to use that symbolical\nword to a better end. But if they add to their symbol, and Mahomet is\nhis prophet, we may not use that, because it is, 1. Symbolical of a\nfalse religion; 2. And a falsehood of itself.\n\nSo if they make it a distinctive note of their religious meetings, to\ncongregate the people by voice and not by bells, when it will be taken\nfor a professing their religion to do the same, we must avoid it; but\nnot when there is great cause for it, (as if we have no other means,)\nand the reason against it or scandal may be well avoided.\n\n5. Image worship, (or bowing or otherwise worshipping towards an image\nas an object,) in the time of divine worship, or when we otherwise\npretend to be worshipping God, is so gross an appearance of inward\nidolatry, (either as visibly describing God to be like a creature, or\nelse as seeming to mean what idolaters did by that action,) that God\nhath thought meet to forbid it to all mankind by a special law.\n(Command. 2.)\n\n6. The scandal of seeming idolatry is a heinous sin, and not to be\nexcused by the contrary meaning of the heart, no more than lying,\nidolatrous professions are. Because to blaspheme God as if he were\nlike a creature, or to tell the world by our actions that a creature\nis God, are both very heinous. And so is it to murder our brethren's\nsouls, by tempting them to the like.[355]\n\n7. It is no appearance of idolatry to kneel to a king, or a father, or\nsuperior, when we are professing nothing but to honour them with due\nhonour. But when the church assembleth professedly to worship God, if\nthen they mix expressions of veneration to angels, and saints in\nheaven, or to a king, or any creature, in their worshipping of God,\nwithout a very notorious signification of sufficient difference, it\nwill seem a joining them in part of the same divine honour.[356]\n\n8. So we may put off our hats to the chair of state, or king's image,\nyea and kneel towards it as to him, if the command is in due time and\nplace, when it is human worship only which we profess. But to kneel or\nbow as an act of honour towards the image of king, saints, or angels,\nin the time of our professed worshipping of God, is scandalous, and an\nappearance that we give them a part of that which we are giving to\nGod.\n\n9. Yet it is not unlawful even in the sacred assemblies, to bow to our\nsuperior at our entrance, or going out, or in the intervals of God's\nworship; because the time, and custom, and manner may sufficiently\nnotify the distinction, and prevent the scandal.\n\n10. If any presumptuous clergyman on pretence of their authority, will\nbring images into the churches, and set them before us in divine\nworship, as objects only of remembrance, and means of exciting our\naffections to God, that they may show _quam proxime se accedere posse\nad peccatum sine peccato_, how near they can come to sin without sin,\nit is not meet for any good christians to follow them in their\npresumption, nor by obeying them to invite them to proceed in their\nchurch tyranny.[357] Though I now determine not, whether in case of\nnecessity, a man may not be present with such a church, if their\nworship of God himself be sound, supposing him sufficiently to notify\nhis dissent, and that he do not himself scandalously direct his\nworship toward such images. (As in the Lutheran churches we may\nsuppose they do not.)\n\n[352] Psal. xv 4.\n\n[353] 1 Tim. iv. 5; Tit. i. 15; 1 Cor. x. 14; 1 Pet. iv. 3.\n\n[354] 1 Cor. vi. 9; x. 17; Rev. xxi. 8; xxii. 15; Acts xvii. 16; Gal.\nv. 20; Second commandment; Rev. xxii. 8, 9; ii. 14, 20; 1 Cor. viii.;\nx. 19, 28; 1 John v. 21; Dan. iii.\n\n[355] Rom. xi. 4; 1 Kings xix. 18; Rev. xxii. 8, 9; Josh. xxiii. 7; 2\nKings xvii. 35; Exod. xx. 5.\n\n[356] Gen. xxvii. 29; xxxii. 10; xliv. 8; Exod. xi. 8; 2 Kings v. 18;\nGen. xli. 43; Ruth ii. 10; 1 Sam. xxv. 23, 41.\n\n[357] Lev. xxvi. 1; Gal. ii. 4, 5; v. 1; 1 Cor. vii. 23.\n\n\nQuest. CXIII. _What images, and what use of images, is lawful or\nunlawful?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. It is unlawful to make any image of God. Because it would\nbe a blaspheming of him, as pretending him to be like to that which he\nis not like to, that is, a creature.[358]\n\n_Object._ Man is God's image: it is lawful to make an image of man;\nand so an image of God's image, and that may be a secondary image of\nGod.\n\n_Answ._ 1. It is the soul of man, of which no image can be drawn or\nmade, which is the image of God, and not the body. 2. The image of him\nwho _secundum quid_ as to the soul is God's image, is not God's\nimage, but man's _quoad corpus_ as to another part. We need not\ncontend much about the name, whether this may be called a remote image\nof God (though undoubtedly unfit). But we must not really take it to\nbe like him, or use it for his image.\n\n_Object._ God hath imprinted his image on the whole creation; e. g. he\nis called a consuming fire; therefore fire may be pictured as his\nimage.\n\n_Answ._ The same answer serveth as to the former objection. And it is\nnot all the impressions and _vestigia_ of God's power, wisdom, and\ngoodness, which are called his image; as the house is not the image of\nthe builder, or a clock of a clock-maker, &c. And if God be\nmetaphorically called fire, as he is called a lion, &c. because of the\nsimilitude of some operation or effect, it followeth not that these\nare his image; much less that the image of these is his image.\n\n2. No image may be made to be a teacher of lies; as we may not lie by\nwords, so neither by images. Therefore false stories, or false images\nof realities, when made as true, and pretended to be true images or\nrepresentations, are unlawful.\n\n3. Therefore it is unlawful to make an image of a spirit, pretending\nit to be a true image. Because it will be a lie.\n\n4. It is unlawful so to make, place, or use any image, as is like to\ndo more harm than good.\n\n5. Therefore it is unlawful so to make, place, or use them, as that\nthey are like to tempt a man to any sin, unless necessity for some\ngreater good require it. (Of which more anon.)\n\n6. Therefore all images of such idols or feigned deities are unlawful,\nas are like to be any temptation to any to believe in them, or worship\nthem.\n\n7. Therefore also all images of such creatures as others use to give\nunlawful worship or honour to, are unlawful when they are like to be a\ntemptation to us or others to do the like. As among papists the image\nof the crucifix, the virgin Mary, and angels may not be made, placed,\nor used so as may tempt any to worship them sinfully as they use to\ndo.\n\n8. The image of an over-honoured or falsely honoured person, (though\nnot adored,) may not be so made, placed, or used, as tendeth to tempt\nothers also to such honour. As of Mahomet, or Apollonius (as Alexander\nSeverus placed him and others, with Abraham and Christ, in his\n_lararium_ or chapel). And many give too much honour by images to\nAlexander, C\u00e6sar, and such other great thieves and murderers of\nmankind.\n\n9. It is unlawful to make lascivious images of naked persons, and\nplace or use them so, as tendeth to be a temptation to lust or\nimmodesty. A common sin of persons of unclean imaginations.\n\n10. It is also unlawful so to represent plays, pompous honours,\nsplendid clothing or buildings, as tendeth more to tempt the beholders\nto sinful desires, than to any good.\n\n11. It is unlawful to place images in churches or in secret before our\neyes when we are worshipping God, when it tendeth to corrupt the\nimagination, or by possessing it, to hinder the spiritual exercise of\nthe mind. Which is the ordinary effect of images.\n\n12. It is unlawful to use images scandalously, as any of the aforesaid\nsinners use them, though we do it not with the same intent. That is,\nso to use them, as is interpretatively or in outward appearance the\nsame with their use; because by so doing we shall dishonour God as\nthey do, and harden them in sin. Therefore images in churches or\noratories, in those countries where others use them sinfully, or near\nsuch countries where the same may harden men in their sin, is evil.\n\n13. It is unlawful to make talismans or shapes, upon false\nsuppositions that the very shape naturally disposeth the matter to\nreceive such influences of the stars, by which it shall preserve men\nfrom plagues, fire, wild beasts, serpents, diseases, or shall\notherwise work wonders; for which Gaffarel vainly pleadeth at large;\nsuch as they call naturally magical and charming shapes.\n\n14. Much more unlawful is it purposely to make shapes to be symbols or\ninstruments by which the devil shall operate, whether it be for good\nor evil; it being unlawful so far to use him.\n\n15. So is it to make such shapes, on conceit that God or good angels\nwill operate in or by them. As some use the cross or other images, to\ndefend them from devils, to cure the tooth-ache or other diseases, or\nsuch like use; when God hath neither appointed any such means to be\nused, for such ends, nor promised any such blessing or operation by\nthem.\n\n16. It is unlawful to place the image of a tutelary saint or angel in\nhouse, church, or town, on supposition that we shall be the safer\nwhile that image is there placed; or else to profess our trust in that\nparticular guardian. Because no man knoweth what angel God doth make\nhis guardian, nor can we distinguish them; much less that he maketh\nsuch or such a saint our guardian. And men's own (foolish) choosing\nsuch a one to be their guardian, will not make them so. Nor hath God\nappointed or promised to bless any such imagery.\n\n17. It is sinful to use such amorous images of the persons towards\nwhom your lust is kindled, as tendeth to increase or keep up that\nlust, or to make profession or ostentation of it. As lustful persons\nuse to carry or keep the pictures of those on whom they dote.\n\n18. It is unlawful to make such use of the pictures of our deceased\nfriends, as tendeth to increase our inordinate sorrow for them.\n\n19. It is unlawful to make such images, monuments, or memorials of the\nbest and holiest persons or martyrs, as may endanger or tempt men to\nany inordinate veneration of, or confidence in the persons honoured.\n\n20. Inward images of God imprinted on the fantasy are sinful: and so\nare other such false and sinful images as afore-mentioned, though they\nbe not made externally for the use of the eye.\n\n21. I think it is unlawful to make an image, or any equal instituted\nsign, to be the public common symbol of the christian religion (though\nit be but a professing sign); because God having already instituted\nthe symbols or public _tesser\u00e6_ of our christian profession or\nreligion, it is usurpation to do the like without his commission. As\nthe king having made the wearing of a George and star the badge of the\norder of the garter, would take it ill, if any shall make another\nbadge of the order, much more if they impose it on all of the order:\nthough I presume not to condemn it.\n\n1. All images painted or engraven are not unlawful; for God himself\ncommanded and allowed the use of many in the Old Testament. And Christ\nreprehendeth not C\u00e6sar's image on his coin.[359]\n\n2. The civil use of images in coins, sign-posts, banners, ornaments of\nbuildings, or of books, or chambers, or gardens, is not unlawful.\n\n3. As the word image is taken in general for signs, there is no\nquestion but they are frequently to be used; as all a man's words are\nthe images, that is, the signifiers of his mind; and all a man's\nwritings are the same made visible. It is therefore a blind,\nconfounding error of some now among us (otherwise very sober, good\nmen) who accuse all forms of prayer and of preaching as sinful,\nbecause (say they) they are idols, or images of prayer and of\npreaching; they are neither engraven nor painted images of any\ncreature; but all words are or should be signs of the speaker's mind.\nAnd if you will _secundum quid_ call only the inward desires by the\nname of prayer, then the words are the signs of such prayer. But\nbecause prayer in the full sense is desire expressed, therefore the\nexpressions are not the signs of such prayer, but part of the prayer\nitself, as the body is of the man: nor is a form, that is\nfore-conceived or premeditated words, (whether in mind or writing,)\nany more an image of prayer, than extemporate prayer is. All words are\nsigns, but never the more for being premeditated or written. And\naccording to this opinion, all books are sinful images, and all sermon\nnotes, and the printing of the Bible itself, and all pious letters of\none friend to another, and all catechisms: strangers will hardly\nbelieve, that so monstrous an opinion as this, should in these very\ninstances be maintained, by men otherwise so understanding and truly\ngodly, and every way blameless, as have and do maintain it at this\nday.\n\n4. The making and using of the image of Christ, as born, living,\npreaching, walking, dying, (a crucifix,) rising, ascending, is not\nunlawful in itself, though any of the forementioned accidents may make\nit so in such cases. As Christ was man like one of us, so he may be\npictured as a man.\n\n_Object._ His divine nature and human soul are Christ, and these\ncannot be pictured; therefore an image of Christ cannot be made.\n\n_Answ._ It is not the name, but the thing which I speak of: choose\nwhether you will call it an image of Christ _secundum corpus_, or an\nimage of Christ's body. You cannot picture the soul of a man, and yet\nyou may draw the picture of a man's body.\n\n5. It is a great part of a believer's work, to have Christ's image\nvery much upon his imagination, and so upon his mind.[360] As if he\nsaw him in the manger, in his temptations, in his preaching, in his\npraying, watching, fasting, weeping, doing good, as crowned with\nthorns, as crucified, &c.; that a crucified Saviour being still as it\nwere before our eyes, we may remember the price of our redemption, and\nthe example which we have to imitate; and that we are not to live like\na Dives or a C\u00e6sar, but like the servants of a crucified Christ. A\ncrucifix well befitteth the imagination and mind of a believer.\n\n6. It is a great part of true godliness, to see God's image in the\nglass of the creation; to love and honour his image on his saints, and\nall the impressions of his power, wisdom, and goodness on all his\nworks; and to love and honour him as appearing in them.[361]\n\n7. It is lawful on just occasion, to make the image of fire or light\nas signifying the inaccessible light in which God is said to dwell,\nand the glory in which he will appear to the blessed in heaven.[362]\nFor by many such resemblances the Scripture setteth these forth, in\nRev. i. xxi. xxii. &c. And Moses saw God's back parts, viz. a created\nglory.\n\n8. It is lawful to represent an angel on just occasions, in such a\nlikeness as angels have assumed in apparitions; or as they are\ndescribed in Ezekiel or elsewhere in Scripture; so be it we take it\nnot for an image of their true spiritual nature, but an improper\nrepresentation of them, like a metaphor in speech.[363]\n\n9. It is lawful (seasonably and in fit circumstances) to use images,\n1. For memory, 2. For clearer apprehension, 3. For more passionate\naffection, even in religious cases; which is commonly called the\nhistorical use of them. For these ends the Geneva Bible, and some\nother, have the Scripture histories in printed images; to show the\npapists that it is not all images, or all use of them, that they were\nagainst. And so men were wont to picture Dives in his feasting, with\nLazarus in rags, over their tables, to mind them of the sinfulness of\nsensuality. And so the sacred histories are ordinarily painted, as\nuseful ornaments of rooms, which may profit the spectators.\n\n10. Thus it is lawful to honour the memory of learned, great, and\nvirtuous persons, saints and martyrs, by keeping their images; and by\nthe beholding of them to be remembered of our duty, and excited to\nimitation of them.[364]\n\n11. It is lawful to use hieroglyphics, or images expressing virtues\nand vices, as men commonly make images to decipher prudence,\ntemperance, charity, fortitude, justice, &c. and envy, sloth, pride,\nlust, &c. As they do of the five senses, and the four seasons of the\nyear, and the several parts of man's age, and the several ranks and\nqualities of persons, &c.\n\n12. Thus it is lawful to represent the devil, and idols, when it\ntendeth but to make them odious. For as we must not take their names\ninto our mouths, Psal. xvi. 4; Exod. xxiii. 13; Eph. v. 3; that is,\nwhen it tendeth to honour them, or tempt men to it; and yet may name\nthem as Elias did in scorn, or as the prophets did by reproof of sin;\nso is it also in making representations of them. Even as a drunkard\nmay be painted in his filth and folly to bring shame and odium on the\nsin.\n\n13. It is lawful to use hieroglyphics instead of letters, in teaching\nchildren, or in letters to friends; or to make images to stand as\ncharacters instead of words, and so to use them even about sacred\nthings.\n\n14. As it is lawful to use arbitrary professing signs even about holy\nthings, which signify no more than words, and have by nature or custom\nan aptitude to such a use; while it is extended no further, than to\nopen our own minds; so it may be lawful to use such a characteristical\nor hieroglyphical image to that end, when it hath the same aptitude,\nbut not otherwise. As a circular figure or ring being a hieroglyphic\nof perpetuity, and so of constancy, is used as a significant\nprofession of constancy in marriage; and so the receiving of each\nother's picture might be used. And so in covenanting, or taking an\noath, the professing sign is left to the custom of the country;\nwhether we signify our consent by gesture, words, action, writing. And\nas it is lawful to make an image on a seal which hath a sacred\nsignification, (as a flaming heart on an altar, a Bible, a praying\nsaint, &c.) as well as to write a religious motto on a seal; so it is\nlawful to put this seal to a subscribed covenant with God and his\nchurch, or our king and country, when we have a lawful call to seal\nsuch a covenant.[365] But if law or custom would make such a seal to\nbe the common public badge or symbol of the christian religion, I\nthink it would become unlawful.\n\nAs the crucifix for aught I know might thus have been arbitrarily used\nas a seal, or as a transient, arbitrary professing sign, as the cross\nwas by the ancients at the beginning. If any man had scorned me for\nbelieving in a crucified Christ, I know not but I might have made a\ncrucifix by art, act, or gesture, to tell him that I am not ashamed of\nChrist; as well as I may tell him so by word of mouth. But if men's\ninstitution or custom shall make this a symbol or badge of a\nchristian, and twist it in baptism, or adjoin it, as a dedicating\nsign, and as the common professing symbol that every baptized person\nmust use, to signify and declare that he is not ashamed of Christ\ncrucified, but believeth in him, and will manfully fight under his\nbanner against the flesh, the world, and the devil to the death:\nthough he call it but a professing sign, and say, he doth but signify\nhis own mind, and not God's act and grace; I should wish to\ndistinguish between a private or arbitrary act of profession, and a\ncommon public badge and professing symbol of our religion; and tell\nhim that I think the instituting of the latter belongs to God alone;\nand that he hath made two sacraments to that end; which sacraments are\nessentially such symbols and badges of our profession, and are\ndedicating signs on the receiver's part; and that Christ crucified is\nthe chief grace or mercy given to the church, and his sacrifice is his\nown act: and therefore objectively, the grace, and act of God also, is\nhere signified; and therefore on two accounts set together, I fear\nthis use of the crucifix is a sin: 1. As it is an image, (though it\nshould be transient,) used as a medium in God's worship, and so\nforbidden in the second commandment (for it is not a mere circumstance\nof worship, but an outward act of worship). 2. Because it is a new\nhuman sacrament, or hath too much of the essence of a sacrament, and\nso is a usurpation of his prerogative that made the sacraments: for as\nI said, it belongeth to the king to make the common badge or symbol of\nhis own subjects, or any order honoured by him. And the general giveth\nout his own colours; and though one may arbitrarily wear another\ncolour, yet if any shall give out common colours to his army,\nregiment, or troop beside his own, to be the symbol or badge of his\nsoldiers, I think he would take it for too much boldness. Yet if only\nan inferior captain gave but subordinate colours, not to notify a\nsoldier of the army as such, but to distinguish his troop from the\nrest, it were not so much as the other: so if a bishop or ruler did\nbut make such a symbol by which the christians of his charge might be\ndiscerned from all others, and not as a badge of christianity itself,\nthough I know no reason for such distinction, and it may be faulty\notherwise, yet would it not be this usurping of sacramental\ninstitution, which now I speak of. All professing signs are not\nsymbols of christianity. Christ hath done his own work well already;\nhis colours, sacraments, or symbols are sufficient; we need not devise\nmore, and accuse his institutions of insufficiency; nor make more work\nfor ourselves in religion, when we leave undone so much that he hath\nmade us.\n\n15. All abuse of images will not warrant us to separate from the\nchurch which abuseth them; nor is all such abuse, idolatry. If the\nchurch or our rulers will against our will place images inconveniently\nin churches, we may lawfully be there, so that they be not symbols of\nidol worship, or of a religion or worship so sinful in the substance,\nas that God will not accept it; and so be it we make no sinful use of\nthose inconvenient images ourselves. Though mere temptation and\nscandal make them sinful in those that so abuse them, and set them up;\nyet he that is not the author of that temptation or scandal, may not\nforsake God's worship, because that such things are present, nor is to\nbe interpreted a consenter to them, while he cometh only about lawful\nworship (and perhaps hath fit opportunity at other times to profess\nhis dissent).\n\n16. It is lawful to preserve the honest and sober love to our friends,\nby keeping their pictures; or to show our love by decent monuments.\n\n17. Where we may use creatures themselves to profit us by the sight,\nwe may (ordinarily) use the images of those creatures. As the sight of\ntrees, fruits, cities, &c. may delight us, and mind us of the power,\nwisdom, and goodness of God (or the sight of the sun, moon, stars,\n&c.); so may the pictures of the same things. And as a dead body,\nskeleton, or skull, may profitably mind us of our latter end; so may\nthe picture of any of these, which we may more conveniently keep.\n\n18. It is not unlawful to pray before or towards an image, in a room\nwhere images are placed only for ornament, and we have no respect to\nthem as a medium or object of our worship (except by accident as\naforesaid).\n\n19. It is not unlawful to make an image (out of the cases of\naccidental evil before named) to be _objectum vel medium excitans ad\ncultum Dei_, an object or medium of our consideration, exciting our\nminds to worship God. (As a death's-head, or a crucifix, or an\nhistorical image of Christ or some holy man, yea, the sight of any of\nGod's creatures, may be so holily used, as to stir up in us a\nworshipping affection, and so is _medium cultus excitans vel\nefficienter_.) But no creature, or image, (I think,) may lawfully be\nmade the _medium cultum vel terminus, in genere caus\u00e6 finalis_, a\nworshipped medium, or the _terminus_, or the thing which we worship\nmediately, on pretence of representing God, and that we worship him in\nit ultimately. And this I take to be the thing forbidden directly in\nthe second commandment; viz. To worship a creature (with mind or body)\nin the act of divine worship, as representing God, or as the mediate\nterm of our worship, by which we send it unto God, as if it were the\nmore acceptable to him. So that it is lawful by the sight of a\ncrucifix to be provoked to worship God; but it is unlawful to offer\nhim that worship, by offering it to the crucifix first, as the sign,\nway, or means of our sending it to God.\n\n20. Yet a creature may be honoured or worshipped with such worship as\nis due to him, by the means of such a representing _terminus_ or\nimage. If the king command his subjects to bow towards his image or\nthrone when he is absent, as an act of honour, or human worship to\nhimself, it is lawful so to do, God having not forbid it. But God hath\nforbid us to do so by himself, because he hath no image, and is\nconfined to no place, and to avoid the danger and appearance of\nidolatry.\n\n21. Yet is it lawful to lift up our hand and eyes towards heaven, as\nthe place of God's glory; and I condemn not the ancient churches that\nworshipped towards the east. But it was not heaven, or the sun, or\neast that they worshipped, or to which they sent their worship, as any\n_terminus medius_, or thing mediately worshipped; but only to God\nhimself, whose glory is in the heavens.\n\n[358] Isa. xl. 18, 25; xlvi. 5; Exod. xx. 4; Gen. i. 26; v. 1; Deut.\niv. 16-18, 23, 25; v. 8; xvi. 22; 2 Chron. xxxiii. 7; Ezek. viii. 3,\n5; Dan. iii.; Rom. i. 23; Heb. xii. 29; Col. iii. 10; Deut. ix; Exod.\nxxiii. 24; xxxiv. 13; Deut. vii. 5; 1 Kings xiv. 9, 23; 2 Kings xvii.\n19; 2 Chron. xiv. 3, 5; Hab. ii. 18; Jer. x. 8; Deut. xxvii. 15; Isa.\nxvii. 8; xli. 29; 2 Chron. xxviii. 2; xxiv. 3, 4; Hos. xiii. 2; Ezek.\nxvi. 17; xxiii. 14; xxx. 13; Hos. x. 1, 2; 2 Kings xxi. 7; Jer. viii.\n19; li. 47.\n\n[359] 2 Chron. iii. 10; Matt. xxii. 10; Numb. xxi. 9; 2 Kings xvi. 17;\n1 Kings vii. 18, 19, 25, 26, 29, 30.\n\n[360] Rom. viii. 29; Rev. i. 12, &c.; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 15; Phil.\niii. 8-10, &c.\n\n[361] 1 Cor. xi. 7; 2 Cor. iii. 18; Col. iii. 10.\n\n[362] Exod. xxv. 18, 19; xxxvii. 8, 9.\n\n[363] 1 Kings vi. 24-27; Ezek. x. 2, 4, 7, 9, 14; 1 Kings vii. 29, 36;\nviii. 6, 7; 1 Sam. iv. 4; 2 Kings xix. 15; Psal. lxxx. 1; xcix. 1;\nIsa. vi. 2, 6.\n\n[364] Ut Beza Icones Viror. Illustrium.\n\n[365] Neh. ix. 48; Esth. viii. 8.\n\n\nQuest. CXIV. _Whether stage-plays, where the virtuous and vicious are\npersonated, be lawful?_\n\nBecause this is a kind of imagery, the question may be here fitly\nhandled. But I have said so much before of stage-plays, and the sin\nthat is used in them, part i. chap. 18, that I have nothing more to\nsay here, but only to decide this particular case of conscience\nconcerning them.\n\nAs I am not willing to thrust any man into extremes, nor to trouble\nmen with calling those sins, which God hath not forbidden; so I have\nreason to advise men to go, in doubtful cases, on the safer side, much\nmore to dissuade them from undoubted sin, and especially from great\nand multiplied sins; and therefore I must thus decide the question.\n\n1. It is not absolutely unlawful to personate another man, nor doth\nthe second commandment forbid such living images in this extent. I\npass by the instance of the woman of Tekoah, 2 Sam. xiv.; because the\nbare history proveth not the lawfulness. But Paul's speaking as of\nhimself and Apollos the things which concerned others, was approvable;\nand as Christ frequently taught by parables, so his parables were a\ndescription of good and evil, by the way of feigned history, as if\nsuch and such things had been done by such persons as never were. And\nthis fiction is no falsehood; for the hearer knoweth that it is not\nmeant as an historical narrative, but a parable; and it is but an\nimage in words, or a painted doctrine. And if a person and action may\nbe feigned by words, I know not where it is forbidden to feign them by\npersonal representation. Therefore to personate another is not simply\na sin.\n\n2. To personate good men in good actions, is not simply unlawful;\nbecause, 1. It is not unlawful as it is personating, as is showed. 2.\nNor as lying; because it is not an asserting, but a representing; nor\nso taken.\n\n3. To personate a bad man, in a bad action, is more dubious; but\nseemeth not in all cases to be unlawful. To pass by David's feigning\nhimself mad, (as of uncertain quality,) it is common with preachers,\nto speak oft the words of wicked men, as in their names or persons, to\ndisgrace them: and Prov. v. 11, 12, &c. cometh near it. And whether\nJob be a history, or a dialogue personating such speakers, is doubted\nby the most learned expositors.\n\n4. I think it possible to devise and act a comedy or tragedy, which\nshould be lawful, and very edifying. It might be so ordered by wise\nmen.\n\n5. I think I never knew or heard of a lawful stage-play, comedy, or\ntragedy, in the age that I have lived in; and that those now commonly\nused, are not only sins, but heinous, aggravated sins; for these\nreasons.\n\n1. They personate odious vices commonly viciously; that is, 1. Without\nneed, reciting sinful words, and representing sinful actions; which as\nthey were evil in the first committing, so are they in the needless\nrepetition. Eph. v. 3, 4, 12, \"But fornication, and all uncleanness,\nor covetousness, (or lust,) let it not be once named among you as\nbecometh saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting,\nwhich are not convenient; but rather giving of thanks.--For it is a\nshame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.\"\n2. Because they are spoken and acted commonly without that shame, and\nhatred, and grief which should rightly affect the hearers with an\nabhorrence of them; and therefore tend to reconcile men to sin, and to\ntempt them to take it but for a matter of sport.\n\n2. There are usually so many words materially false (though not proper\nlies) used in such actings of good and evil, as is unsavoury, and\ntendeth to tempt men to fiction and false speaking.\n\n3. There are usually such multitudes of vain words poured out on the\ncircumstantials, as are a sin themselves, and tempt the hearers to the\nlike.\n\n4. They usually mix such amorous or other such insnaring expressions\nor actions, as are fitted to kindle men's sinful lusts, and to be\ntemptations to the evils which they pretend to cure.\n\n5. A great deal of precious time is wasted in them, which might have\nbeen much better spent; to all the lawful ends which they can intend.\n\n6. It is the preferring of an unmeet and dangerous recreation, before\nmany fitter; God having allowed us so great choice of better, it\ncannot be lawful to choose a worse. The body which most needeth\nexercise, with most of the spectators, hath no exercise at all; and\nthe mind might be much more fruitfully recreated many ways, by variety\nof books, of converse, by contemplating God and his works, by the\nfore-thoughts of the heavenly glory, &c. So that it is unlawful, as\nunfitted to its pretended ends.\n\n7. It usually best suiteth with the most carnal minds, and more\ncorrupteth the affections and passions, as full experience proveth:\nthose that most love and use them are not reformed by them, but\ncommonly are the most loose, ungodly, sensual people.\n\n8. The best and wisest persons least relish them, and are commonly\nmost against them. And they are best able to make experiment, what\ndoth most help or hurt the soul. Therefore when the sensual say, We\nprofit by them, as much as by sermons, they do but speak according to\ntheir sense and lust. As one that hath the green-sickness may say,\ncoals and clay and ashes do more good than meat; because they are not\nso fit to judge, as those that have a healthful state and appetite.\nAnd it seldom pleaseth the conscience of a dying man, to remember the\ntime he spent at stage-plays.\n\n9. Usually there is much cost bestowed on them, which might be better\nemployed, and therefore is unlawful.\n\n10. God hath appointed a stated means of instructing souls, by\nparents, ministers, &c. which is much more fit and powerful; therefore\nthat time were better spent.[367] And it is doubtful whether\nplay-houses be not a stated means of man's institution, set up to the\nsame pretended use as the church and ministry of Christ, and so be not\nagainst the second commandment. For my part I cannot defend them, if\nany shall say that the devil hath apishly made these his churches, in\ncompetition with the churches of Christ.\n\n11. It seemeth to me a heinous sin for players to live upon this as a\ntrade and function, and to be educated for it, and maintained in it.\nThat which might be used as a recreation, may not always be made a\ntrade of.\n\n12. There is no mention that ever such plays were used in Scripture\ntimes by any godly persons.\n\n13. The primitive christians and churches were commonly against them;\nmany canons are yet to be seen, by which they did condemn them. Read\nbut Dr. J. Reignolds against Albericus Gentilis, and you shall see\nunanswerable testimonies, from councils, fathers, emperors, kings, and\nall sober antiquity against them.\n\n14. Thousands of young people in our time have been undone by them;\nsome at the gallows, and many apprentices who run out in their\naccounts, neglect their masters' business, and turn to drunkenness,\nand whoredom, and debauchery, do confess that stage-plays were not the\nlast or least of the temptations which did overthrow them.\n\n15. The best that can be said of these plays is, that they are\ncontroverted and of doubtful lawfulness; but there are other means\nenough of undoubted and uncontroverted lawfulness, for the same\nhonest ends; and therefore it is a sin to do that which is doubtful\nwithout need.\n\nUpon all these reasons, I advise all that love their time, their\nsouls, their God and happiness, to turn away from these nurseries of\nvice, and to delight themselves in the law and ordinances of their\nSaviour, Psal. i. 2, 3.\n\n[366] Psal. xxvi. 4; cxix. 113; 1 Tim. vi. 20; Matt. xii. 36, 37; 1\nPet. i. 18; Eccl. vii. 3-7; Eph. iv. 29, 30; v. 15, 16; Luke xii.\n17-19; Rom. xiii. 13, 14.\n\n[367] John vi. 12; 1 Pet. iv. 10; Matt. xviii. 23; Rom. xiv. 12; Phil.\niv. 17; Psal. i. 2; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 2.\n\n\nQuest. CXV. _Is it ever unlawful to use the known symbols and badges\nof idolatry?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. Ordinarily it is unlawful, as being the thing forbidden in\nthe second commandment. For he that useth them, 1. Is corporally\nidolatrous, whatever his secret thoughts may be. 2. And he is\ninterpretatively an idolater, and actually persuadeth others to be so.\n\n2. But yet though no man may ever use such symbols of idolatry\n_formaliter, qua tales_, as such; yet materially he may use them in\nsome cases.\n\nAs, 1. When an idolater will take an ordinance of God, and an\nappointed duty, and turn it into a symbol of his idolatry (as in the\nforegoing instance of the Mahometans). We may not therefore forsake\nthat duty; but we must do it in such a manner, as may sufficiently\ndisclaim the idolater's use of it. As if any idolaters will make a\nsymbol of some Scripture texts, or of the Lord's day, or of the\nsacramental bread and wine, &c. we must not therefore disuse them.\n\n2. When a thing indifferent is made an idolatrous symbol or badge,\nthough I must not use it as idolaters do, yet if any act of Divine\nProvidence make it become necessary as a moral duty, I may be obliged\nto use it, disclaiming the idolater's manner and end: and then it will\nbe known that I use it not as their symbol. As if a man, by famine or\na swoon, were dying in an idol's temple, I might give him meat and\ndrink there to save his life, though such as was a badge of their\nidolatry, while I disclaim their ends and use. The reason is, 1.\nBecause at such a time it is a natural duty, and therefore may not be\nomitted for fear of scandal, or seeming sin, which at that time is no\nsin. 2. Because Christ hath taught us in the instance of himself and\nhis disciples, that positive commands give place to natural, _c\u00e6teris\nparibus_. And that the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the\nsabbath; and that we must learn what this meaneth, \"I will have mercy\nand not sacrifice.\" And if we must break the rest of the sabbath for\nthe life, yea, the feeding of an ox or ass, much more of a man:[368]\nand the positives of the second commandment must be regulated as the\npositives of the fourth. 3. And the scandal in such a case may be\navoided, by declaring that I do disclaim their use and ends.\n\nIn a country where kneeling or being uncovered to the prince is a\ncivil, honouring custom, if the prince should be a Caligula, and\ncommand the subjects to worship him and his image as a god, and make\nbowing, kneeling, or being uncovered the badge or symbol of it; here I\nwould ordinarily avoid even that which before was a duty, because it\nwas but by accident a duty, and now interpreted a heinous sin. But in\ncase that the life of any man lay on it, or that the scandal on\nreligion for my denying civil honour to the prince, would be greater\nand of more perilous consequence, than the scandal of seeming\nidolatry, I would perform that civil honour which I did before, and\nwhich God enjoineth me to perform to my prince. But I would avoid the\nscandal, by open protesting (seasonably) against the idolatry.\n\n[368] Mark ix. 13; xii. 7; ii. 17.\n\n\nQuest. CXVI. _Is it unlawful to use the badge or symbol of any error\nor sect in the worship of God?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. It is unlawful to use it formally as such.\n\n2. But not materially, when, 1. There are just and weighty reasons for\nit. 2. And I may disown the error.\n\n[Sidenote: Every sect of erring christians accordingly useth to err in\nworship, and have some badge and symbol of their sect and error.]\n\nFor, 1. All sects and erroneous persons may turn holy words and duties\ninto symbols of their errors. 2. All christians in the world being\nimperfect, do sometimes err in matter or manner in their worship. And\nhe that will materially avoid all the badges or symbols of their\nerrors, shall have no communion with any church or christian. 3. As we\nmust do our best so to avoid all their errors, that we choose them\nnot, and make them not formally our own practice; (as tautologies,\nvain repetitions, disorders, unfit phrases, &c. We must ourselves when\nwe are the speakers do as much better as we can;) so we must not\ntherefore separate from them that do use them, nor deny them our\ncommunion when they use them; else we must separate from all others,\nand all others from us. 4. But when we are present with them, our\nminds must disown all the faults of the holiest prayer in the world\nwhich we join in: we may be bound to stay with them, and join in all\nthat is good and warrantable, and yet as we go along, to disown in our\nminds all that we know to be amiss.\n\n\nQuest. CXVII. _Are all indifferent things made unlawful to us, which\nshall be abused to idolatrous worship?_\n\n_Answ._ You must distinguish, 1. Of the symbol of idolatry before\nspoken of, and other by-abuses. 2. Of an abuse done in former ages or\nremote countries, and in our own age and country. 3. Of the reasons\ninviting us to use them, whether necessary or not.\n\n1. The case of symbols or badges is not here spoken of, but other\nabuses.\n\n2. An abuse committed in the age and place we live in, or any other,\nwhich will by the scandal imbolden others to the like, may not be\ncomplied in, without so great reason, as will notably preponderate the\nevil consequents.\n\n3. But yet in many cases such abused, indifferent things, may after be\nlawfully used by believers. For instance:\n\n1. Names may be things indifferent, abused to idolatry, and yet\nlawfully used by us: as the name God, _Deus_, Lord, holy, just, good,\ntemple, altar, sacrifice, priest, heaven, sun, moon, Jupiter, Saturn,\nand a hundred such; I mean these letters and syllables in these\nlanguages. That these names are all in themselves indifferent\nappeareth in that they are neither naturally necessary, nor by God's\ninstitution, but arbitrary signs of human invention and choice: for we\nmay easily and lawfully make new words to signify all the same things\nthat these do: and that they are abused to idolatry is notoriously\nknown: and that yet they are lawfully used, the practice of all\nchristians, English and Latin, even the most scrupulous themselves,\ndoth judge.\n\n2. And the use of temples (these individuals which have been used to\nidolatry) is lawful.\n\n3. So also of bells, pulpits, cups, tables, and fonts, and other\nutensils.\n\n4. The Bible itself, as it is this individual book rather than\nanother, is a thing indifferent, yet it may be read in after it hath\nbeen abused to idolatry.\n\n5. If the king would not only give the garments, but the money, lands,\nlordships, houses, which have been consecrated or otherwise abused to\nidolatry, to any poor people, or most of the scrupulous, they would\nthink it lawful to receive and use them; yea, it is lawful to dedicate\nthe same lands and money afterwards to holy uses, and to maintain\nreligious worship.\n\n6. Otherwise it were in the power of any idolater whenever he pleased,\nto deprive all the christian world of their christian liberty, and to\nmake nothing indifferent to us, seeing they can abuse them all.\n\n7. Yea, almost nothing is then already indifferent, there being few\nthings that some person in some time and place hath not abused to\nidolatry.\n\n8. If the question be only of all individual things abused to\nidolatry, the decision now given will hold good; but if it be also of\nall species of such things, it will be a dishonour to a man's reason\nto make a question of it.\n\n\nQuest. CXVIII. _May we use the names of week days which idolatry\nhonoured their idols with; as Sunday, Monday, Saturday, and the rest?\nAnd so the months?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. It were to be wished that the custom were changed; 1.\nBecause the names have been so grossly abused; 2. And we have no need\nof them; 3. And as the papists say, Our monuments, temple names, and\nother relics among you prove ours to be the old religion, and keep\npossession for us till it be restored; so the heathens say to all the\nchristians, Your very names of your days and months prove our religion\nto be elder than yours, and keep possession for us till it be\nrestored.\n\n2. It is meet that we wisely do our duty toward the reformation of\nthis abuse.\n\n3. But yet long custom and sound doctrine hath so far taken away the\nscandal and ill effects, that rather than be an offence to any by\nseeming singularity, it is as lawful still to use these names, as it\nwas to Luke to use the names of Castor and Pollux, Jupiter and\nMercury, historically.\n\n4. In such cases the true solution of the question must be by weighing\naccidents and foreseen consequents together wisely and impartially;\nand he that can foresee which way is likely to do most good or hurt,\nmay satisfactorily know his duty.\n\n\nQuest. CXIX. _Is it lawful to pray secretly when we come first into\nthe church, especially when the church is otherwise employed?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. This is a thing which God hath given us no particular law\nabout; but the general laws must regulate us, \"Let all be done\ndecently, in order, and to edification.\"\n\n2. Our great and principal business in coming to the church assembly\nis to join with them in the public worship; and this is it that\naccordingly, as our great business, we must intend and do.\n\n3. In a place where superstition makes ignorant people think it a\nmatter of necessity, so to begin with secret prayer, when the church\nis otherwise employed, the use of it is the more scandalous, as\nencouraging them in their error.\n\n4. It is the best way to come before the public worship begin, and\nthen they that think it most decent may do it without scruple or just\noffence.\n\n5. But as a man's heart may put up a short ejaculation as he walketh\nup the church, without losing what else he might hear, so a man may\non his knees be so brief, as that his loss shall be but small; and\nwhether his profit preponderate that little time's loss, he can judge\nbetter than another. Therefore though I like best keeping to concord\nwith the assembly in our devotion, yet these are things in which it\nill beseemeth christians to judge or despise each other; and I shall\ntake on either side the judging and despising of those that differ\nfrom us, to be a far greater sin, than the doing or not doing of the\nthing.\n\n_Object._ Is it not called in Eccles. v. 1, 2, \"The sacrifice of fools\nwho know not that they do evil?\"\n\n_Answ._ No: I have wondered to hear that text so ordinarily thus\nperverted. The text is, \"Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of\nGod, and be more ready to hear, than to offer the sacrifice of\nfools.----\" Which is no more, than that it is the imagination and\ncustom of fools to think to please God by their sacrifices, and\nbringing somewhat to him, while they refuse or neglect to hear his\ncommands and obey him. Whereas obedience is better than sacrifice; and\nthe sacrifice of the wicked is abomination to the Lord: and he that\nturneth away his ear from hearing the law, his prayer is abominable:\nand because they hate instruction--they shall cry and God will not\nhear them. Therefore be first careful to hear what God saith to thee,\nand to learn his will and do it, and then bring thy sacrifice to him:\nleave thy gift at the altar, and go and be reconciled to thy brother:\nobey first, and then come and offer thy gift. This is all the meaning\nof the text. See also Psal. l. 8, and compare these cited texts, 1\nSam. xv. 22; Prov. xv. 8; xxi. 17; Matt. v. &c. But whether we should\nbegin with prayer or hearing when we enter into the church, God hath\nleft to prudence to be decided by the general rules.\n\n\nQuest. CXX. _May a preacher kneel down in the pulpit, and use his\nprivate prayers when he is in the assembly?_\n\n_Answ._ This will have the same answer with the former; and therefore\nI shall trouble the reader with no more.\n\n\nQuest. CXXI. _May a minister pray publicly in his own name singly, for\nhimself or others? or only in the church's name, as their mouth to\nGod?_\n\n_Answ._ It is good to be as exact in order and decency as we can; but\nthey that would not have other men's ceremonies brought in on that\npretence, should not bring in their own made doctrines.\n\n1. It is certain that all the assembly come thither, not only to hear\na prayer, but to pray as well as the minister; and therefore the\npractice of all churches in the world (as is seen in all the\nliturgies) is for the minister to speak in the plural number, and\nusually to pray in the church's name. And so he is both their guide\nand mouth in prayer. Therefore even when he prayeth for himself, it is\nusually fittest (or very fit) for him rather to say, We beseech thee,\ngive the speaker thy assistance, &c. than I beseech thee.\n\n2. And even subjectively it is not inconvenient to speak of himself in\nthe third person, Give him, or Give the speaker thy help, instead of\nGive me.\n\n3. But they that will place a necessity in either of these, and make\nthe contrary a sin, must have more knowledge than I have to be able to\nprove it.\n\nFor, 1. In the latter case the minister doth not pray in his own\nperson, but only for his own person, when he saith, We beseech thee,\ngive me thy help, &c.\n\n2. And I know no word of God that saith, either that the minister is\nonly the mouth of the people, or that he is to speak only in their\nnames, or that he may not pray for himself or them in his ministerial\ncapacity in the first person.[369]\n\nFor, 1. He is a minister of Christ for the church, and not the\nminister of the church properly. And he is subordinate to Christ in\nhis priestly office, as well as in his teaching and ruling office: and\nthe priests did always take it for their office, not only to speak as\nthe people's mouth, but as sub-mediators or intercessors for them to\nGod; and as then they were types of Christ by standing between God and\nthe people, so they were his officers as well as types; and so they\nare his officers to this day: and as they teach and rule in his name\nby office, so do they intercede in his name: all men confess that they\nmay do this in private; and where is it forbidden to be done in\npublic?\n\n2. And there are some cases in which it is fittest that it should be\nso. That is, when it is supposed that the congregation doth not join\nwith him. As, 1. When the whole church is fallen into some error of\njudgment, (as who hath not many,) and he knoweth that they differ from\nhim, it is fitter for him to pray as a sub-intercessor for them in his\nown person, than to speak as in their persons, who he knoweth join not\nwith him. For that hath a plain untruth in it. 2. If the whole church\nbe fallen into some little sin, which seduction yet hindereth them\nfrom repenting of, he were better confess it, and profess sorrow for\nit, in his own person, than in theirs that join not with him in it. 3.\nWhen he prayeth for somewhat for himself and them, that is above their\nunderstanding, (as for direction in some difficult controversies, &c.)\nI know not that he is bound to speak in their names that understand\nhim not.\n\nTherefore this is no business for christians that are not possessed\nwith a proud, peevish, self-conceited, quarrelsome humour, to censure\nor despise a minister for; nor should any introduce that false\ndoctrine of man's invention into the church, that the minister is only\nto pray in public as the people's mouth. But the power of prejudice is\ngreat.\n\n[369] 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2; Isa. lix. 16; Jer. xxvii. 18; vii. 16; xxix. 7;\nxxxvii. 3; xlii. 2, 4, 20; 1 Sam. vii. 5; xii. 19, 23; 2 Cor. xiii. 7;\nPhil. i. 9; Col. i. 9, 3; 1 Thess. v. 23; 2 Thess. i. 11; 1 Thess.\niii. 10.\n\n\nQuest. CXXII. _May the name, priests, sacrifice, and altars, be\nlawfully now used instead of, Christ's ministers, worship, and the\nholy table?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. He that useth them in design to bring in the popish\ntransubstantiation and real sacrifice of the mass, doth heinously sin\nin such a design and use.\n\n2. In a time and place where they may not be used without scandal, or\ntempting or encouraging any to their errors, the scandal will be a\ngrievous sin.\n\n3. The New Testament useth all the Greek names which we translate,\npriests, sacrifice, and altars, therefore we may use the same in\nGreek; and our translation and English names are not intolerable. If\npriest come from presbyter I need not prove that; if it do not, yet\nall ministers are subordinate to Christ in his priestly office as\nessentially as in the rest. And Rev. i. 6; v. 10; xx. 6, it is said,\nthat we are or shall be made priests of God, and unto God. And 1 Pet.\nii. 5, we are \"an holy priesthood,\" and ver. 9, a \"royal priesthood:\"\nif this be said of all, then especially of ministers.\n\nAnd the word sacrifice is used of us and our offered worship, 1 Pet.\nii. 5; Heb. xiii. 15, 16; Phil. iv. 18; Eph. v. 2; Rom. xii. 1.\n\nAnd Heb. xiii. 10, saith, \"We have an altar whereof they partake not,\"\n&c. And the word is frequently used in the Revelation, chap. vi. 9;\nviii. 3, 5; xvi. 7, &c. in relation to gospel times. We must not\ntherefore be quarrelsome against the bare names, unless they be abused\nto some ill use.\n\n4. The ancient fathers and churches did ever use all these words so\nfamiliarly without any question or scruple raised about them, either\nby the orthodox or any heretics, that at present I can remember to\nhave ever read of, that we should be the more wary how we condemn the\nbare words, lest thence we give advantage to the papists to make them\ntell their followers, that all antiquity was on their side; which were\nvery easy for them to prove, if the controversy were about the names\nalone. Extremes and passionate imprudence do give the adversaries\ngreat advantages.\n\n5. The names of sacrifice and altar, were used by the ancient\nchurches, not properly, but merely in allusion to the Jewish and\nheathen sacrifices and altars, together with a tropical use from the\nchristian reasons of the names.\n\nAs the Lord's supper is truly the commemoration of Christ's sacrifice;\nand therefore called by protestants, a commemorative sacrifice; so\nthat our controversy with the papists is not, whether it may be called\na sacrifice, but whether it be only the sacrament of a sacrifice, or a\nsacramental, commemorative sacrifice, or also a real, proper sacrifice\nof the very body and blood itself of Christ. For we acknowledge, that\nThis is a sacrifice, is no more tropical a speech, than This is my\nbody and blood.\n\n6. Yet it must be noted, that the Scripture useth the word sacrifice\nabout ourselves, and our thanksgivings, and praises, and works of\ncharity, rather than of the Lord's supper; and the word priests, of\nall men, lay or clergy, that offer these foresaid sacrifices to God.\nThough the ancient doctors used them familiarly, by way of allusion,\nof the sacrament and its administrators.\n\n7. In a word, as no christian must use these or any words to false\nends or senses, or deceiving purposes, nor yet to scandal; so out of\nthese cases, the words are lawful: and as the fathers are not to be\nany further condemned for using them, than as the words (which they\nforesaw not) have given advantage to the papists, to bring in an ill\nsense and doctrine; so those that now live in churches and countries,\nwhere the public professed doctrine doth free them from the suspicion\nof a popish ill sense, should not be judged nor quarrelled with for\nthe terms; but all sober christians should allow each other the\nliberty of such phrases without censoriousness, or breach of charity\nor peace.\n\n\nQuest. CXXIII. _May the communion table be turned altar-wise, and\nrailed in? And is it lawful to come up to the rails to communicate?_\n\n_Answ._ The answer to this is mostly the same with that to the\nforegoing question. 1. God hath given us no particular command or\nprohibition about these circumstances; but the general rules, for\nunity, edification, order, and decency; whether the table shall stand\nthis way or that way, here or there, &c. he hath not particularly\ndetermined.\n\n2. They that turn the table altar-wise and rail it in, out of a design\nto draw men to popery, or in a scandalous way which will encourage men\nto or in popery, do sin.\n\n3. So do they that rail in the table to signify that the vulgar or\nlay christians must not come to it, but be kept at a distance; when\nChrist in his personal presence admitted his disciples to communicate\nat the table with himself.\n\n4. But where there are no such ends, but only to imitate the ancients\nthat did thus, and to show reverence to the table on the account of\nthe sacrament, by keeping away dogs, keeping boys from sitting on it;\nand the professed doctrine of the church condemneth transubstantiation,\nthe real corporal presence, &c. (as ours doth;) in this case\nchristians should take these for such as they are, indifferent things,\nand not censure or condemn each other for them; nor should any force\nthem upon those that think them unlawful.\n\n5. And to communicate is not only lawful in this case, where we cannot\nprove that the minister sinneth, but even when we suspect an ill\ndesign in him, which we cannot prove; yea, or when we can prove that\nhis personal interpretation of the place, name, situation, and rails\nis unsound; for we assemble there to communicate in and according to\nthe professed doctrine of christianity and the churches, and our own\nopen profession, and not after every private opinion and error of the\nminister. As I may receive from an anabaptist or separatist\nnotwithstanding his personal errors; so may I from another man, whose\nerror destroyeth not his ministry, nor the ordinance, as long as I\nconsent not to it, yea, and with the church profess my dissent.\n\n6. Yet, _c\u00e6teris paribus_, every free man that hath his choice, should\nchoose to communicate rather where there is most purity and least\nerror, than with those that swerve more from regular exactness.\n\n\nQuest. CXXIV. _Is it lawful to use David's psalms in our assemblies?_\n\n_Answ._ Yes: 1. Christ used them at his last supper, as is most\nprobable; and he ordinarily joined with the Jews that used them; and\nso did the apostles.\n\n2. It is confessed lawful to read or say them; therefore also to sing\nthem. For saying and singing difference not the main end.\n\n3. They are suitable to our use, and were the liturgy of the Jewish\nchurch, not on a ceremonial account, but for that fitness which is\ncommon to us with them.\n\n4. We are commanded in the New Testament to sing psalms; and we are\nnot commanded to compose new ones; nor can every one make psalms, who\nis commanded to sing psalms. And if it be lawful to sing psalms of our\nown or our neighbour's making, much more of God's making by his Spirit\nin his prophets.[370]\n\n_Object._ They are not suitable to all our cases, nor to all in the\nassembly.\n\n_Answ._ 1. We may use them in that measure of suitableness to our\ncases which they have. You may join with a man in prayer who\nexpresseth part of your wants, though he express not all. Else you\nmust join with no man in the world.\n\n2. If ungodly men are present when the faithful speak to God, must we\nnot speak our proper case, because they are present? The minister in\nchurch administrations speaketh principally in the name of the\nfaithful, and not of hypocrites. Must he leave out of his prayers all\nthat is proper to the godly, merely because some wicked men are there?\nNo more must the church do in singing unto God.\n\n3. They that cannot speak every word in a psalm just as their own\ncase, may yet speak it as instructive; otherwise they might not read\nor say it.\n\nBut the sectarian objections against singing David's psalms are so\nfrivolous, that I will not tire the reader with any more.[371]\n\n[370] Matt. xxvi. 30; Mark xiv. 26; Luke iv. 16; vi. 6; John vi. 59;\nxviii. 20; Mark i. 21, 23, 29; iii. 1; vi. 2; 1 Chron. xvi. 7; Psal.\nxcv. 2; cv. 2; James v. 13; 1 Chron. xvi. 9.\n\n[371] James v. 13; Eph. v. 19; Col. iii. 16.\n\n\nQuest. CXXV. _May psalms be used as prayers, and praises, and\nthanksgivings, or only as instructive? even the reading as well as the\nsinging of them?_\n\n_Answ._ The sober reader who knoweth not what errors others hold, will\nmarvel that I trouble men with such questions. But I have oft been\ntroubled with those that (having no other shift to deny the lawfulness\nof written and set forms of prayer) do affirm that psalms are neither\nto be read or sung at all as prayers, but only as doctrinal scriptures\nfor instruction.[372] But that this is false appeareth,\n\n1. In that those that are real, material prayers, and praises, and\nthanksgivings, and were penned for that very use, as the titles show,\nand those that were so used by the Jewish synagogues where Christ was\nordinarily present, may be so used by us: but such are the psalms both\nas said and sung.\n\n2. And those that we are commanded to sing as psalms, and have\nChrist's example so to use, (who sung a hymn or psalm of praise at his\nlast supper,) we also may so use: but, &c.\n\n3. And those that are by God's Spirit fitted for use in prayer,\npraise, and thanksgiving, and never forbidden so to be used, may by us\nbe so used: but such are the psalms, &c. I will weary you with no\nmore.\n\n[372] Psal. lxxii. 20; xc. title; lxxxvi. title; xvii. title; &c.\n\n\nQuest. CXXVI. _Are our church tunes lawful, being of man's invention?_\n\n_Answ._ Yes: they are a lawful invention, allowed us by God, and\nfitted to the general rules of edification. Scripture is no particular\nrule for such modes and circumstances.\n\n_Object._ They breed a carnal pleasure by the melody, which is not fit\nfor spiritual devotion.\n\n_Answ._ 1. It is a lawful sensitive pleasure, sanctified to a holy\nuse, not hindering, but greatly helping the soul in spiritual worship.\n\nEither you call it carnal, because it gratifieth the sinful, corrupt\ninclinations of man; or only because it is sensitive, or a pleasure in\nthe imagination and lower faculties. If the former, 1. There is\nnothing in it which is a necessary cause of any sinful pleasure, nor\nany impediment to spiritual pleasure. 2. But a lustful person will\nturn all sensitive pleasure into sin; our meat, and drink, and\nclothes, and houses, and friends, and health: the bread and wine in\nthe sacrament may be thus abused.[373]\n\n2. But you must know, that as our bodies are here united to our souls,\nso they act together, and while the sensitive part is subordinate to\nthe rational, it is serviceable to it, and not a hinderance: when you\ncome to have souls that are separated from the body, you shall use no\nbodily instruments; and yet even then it is uncertain to us, whether\nthe sensitive powers of the soul do not accompany it, and be not used\nby it. But certainly in the meantime, he that will not use sense,\nshall not use reason. And he that acteth not sensibly, acteth not as a\nman: it is not a sin to be a man; and therefore not to see, to hear,\nto taste, to smell, &c. Nor is it a sin to taste sweetness in our meat\nor drink; nor is it a sinful pleasure for the eyes to behold the\nlight, or the variety of the beauteous works of God, or to take\npleasure in them. \"His works are great, sought out of all them that\nhave pleasure therein,\" Psal. cxi. 2.\n\nYou know not what it is to be a man, if you know not that God hath\nmade all the senses to be the inlets of objects, and so of holy\npleasure into the soul. Would he have given us eyes, and ears, and\nappetites, and made his creatures sweet and beauteous, that all might\neither be sin or useless to us? No: all things are sanctified, and\npure to the pure.[374] The sense is the natural way to the\nimagination, and that to the understanding; and he that will have no\nsensible and natural pleasure, shall have no spiritual pleasure: and\nhe that will have none but sensitive pleasure, were better have none\nat all. It is therefore a foolish pretence of spirituality, to dream\nof acting without our senses, or avoiding those delights, which may\nand must be sanctified to us. Harmony and melody are so high a\npleasure of the sense, that they are nearest to rational delights, if\nnot participating of them, and exceedingly fitted to elevate the mind\nand affections unto God.\n\nAnd as it is the very nature of true holiness, to be so suited to holy\nthings, as that they may be our delight, and he is the genuine saint,\nand the best of christians, who most delighteth in God and holiness;\nso that is the best means to make us the best christians, which\nhelpeth us best to these delights; and if any thing on earth be like\nto heaven, it is to have our delight in God. And therefore if any\nthing may make us heavenly, it is that which raiseth us to such\ndelights. And therefore a choir of holy persons, melodiously singing\nthe praises of Jehovah, are likest to the angelical society, Psal. cl.\n\n[373] Luke xii. 17-19; xvi. 20-22.\n\n[374] Rom. viii. 18, 32; Tit. i. 15; Rom. xiv. 20; 1 Cor. iii. 21; 2\nCor. iv. 15.\n\n\nQuest. CXXVII. _Is church music by organs or such instruments,\nlawful?_[375]\n\n_Answ._ I know that in the persecuted and poorer times of the church,\nnone such were used (when they had not temples, nor always a fixed\nmeeting place). And that the author of the Quest. et Resp. in Justin\nMartyr speaketh against it (which Perkins and others cite to that\npurpose). And I grant,\n\n1. That as it is in the power of weak, diseased christians, to make\nmany things unlawful to their brethren lest we be hurtful to them, and\nto deprive us of much, not only of our liberties but our helps; so in\nabundance of congregations, church music is made unlawful by accident,\nthrough their mistake. For it is unlawful (_c\u00e6teris paribus_) by an\nunnecessary thing to occasion divisions in the churches; but where one\npart judgeth church music unlawful, for another part to use it, would\noccasion divisions in the churches, and drive away the other part.\nTherefore I would wish church music to be no where set up, but where\nthe congregation can accord in the use of it; or at least where they\nwill not divide thereupon.\n\n2. And I think it unlawful to use such strains of music as are light,\nor as the congregation cannot easily be brought to understand; much\nmore on purpose to commit the whole work of singing to the choristers,\nand exclude the congregation. I am not willing to join in such a\nchurch where I shall be shut out of this noble work of praise.\n\n3. But plain, intelligible church music, which occasioneth not\ndivisions, but the church agreeth in, for my part I never doubted to\nbe lawful. For, 1. God set it up long after Moses' ceremonial law, by\nDavid, Solomon, &c.\n\n2. It is not an instituted ceremony merely, but a natural help to the\nmind's alacrity: and it is a duty and not a sin to use the helps of\nnature and lawful art, though not to institute sacraments, &c. of our\nown. As it is lawful to use the comfortable helps of spectacles in\nreading the Bible, so is it of music to exhilarate the soul towards\nGod.[376]\n\n3. Jesus Christ joined with the Jews that used it, and never spake a\nword against it.\n\n4. No Scripture forbiddeth it, therefore it is not unlawful.\n\n5. Nothing can be against it, that I know of, but what is said against\ntunes and melody of voice. For whereas they say that it is a human\ninvention; so are our tunes (and metre, and versions). Yea, it is not\na human invention; as the last psalm and many others show, which call\nus to praise the Lord with instruments of music.\n\nAnd whereas it is said to be a carnal mind of pleasure, they may say\nas much of a melodious, harmonious concert of voices, which is more\nexcellent music than any instruments.\n\nAnd whereas some say that they find it do them harm, so others say of\nmelodious singing; but as wise men say, they find it do them good. And\nwhy should the experience of some prejudiced, self-conceited person,\nor of a half-man that knoweth not what melody is, be set against the\nexperience of all others, and deprive them of all such helps and\nmercies, as these people say they find no benefit by.\n\nAnd as some deride church music by many scornful names, so others do\nby singing (as some congregations near me testify, who these many\nyears have forsaken it, and will not endure it; but their pastor is\nfain to unite them, by the constant and total omission of singing\npsalms). It is a great wrong that some do to ignorant christians, by\nputting such whimsies and scruples into their heads, which as soon as\nthey enter, turn that to a scorn, and snare, and trouble, which might\nbe a real help and comfort to them, as it is to others.\n\n[375] Rev. xiv. 2, 3. \"The voice of harpers harping with their harps,\"\nis ordinarily expounded of public worship.\n\n[376] 1 Sam. xviii. 6; 1 Chron. xv. 16; 2 Chron. v. 13; vii. 6; xxiii.\n13; xxxiv. 22; Psal. xcviii.; xcix.; cxlix.; cl.\n\n\nQuest. CXXVIII. _Is the Lord's day a sabbath, and so to be called and\nkept, and that of divine institution? And is the seventh-day sabbath\nabrogated? &c._\n\n_Answ._ All the cases about the Lord's day (except those practical\ndirections for keeping it, in the Economical part of this book) I have\nput into a peculiar treatise on that subject by itself; and therefore\nshall here pass them over, referring the reader to them in that\ndiscourse.\n\n\nQuest. CXXIX. _Is it lawful to appoint human holy days, and observe\nthem?_\n\n_Answ._ This also I have spoke to in the foresaid treatise, and my\n\"Disput. of Church Government and Cer.\" Briefly, 1. It is not lawful\nto appoint another weekly sabbath, or day wholly separated to the\ncommemoration of our redemption: for that is to mend (pretendedly) the\ninstitutions of God; yea, and to contradict him who hath judged one\nday only in seven to be the fittest weekly proportion.\n\n2. As part of some days may be weekly used in holy assemblies, so may\nwhole days on just, extraordinary occasions, of prayer, preaching,\nhumiliation, and thanksgiving.\n\n3. The holy doctrine, lives, and sufferings of the martyrs and other\nholy men, hath been so great a mercy to the church, that (for any\nthing I know) it is lawful to keep anniversary thanksgivings in\nremembrance of them, and to encourage the weak, and provoke them to\nconstancy and imitation.\n\n4. But to dedicate days or temples to them in any higher sense, as the\nheathen and idolaters did to their heroes, is unlawful; or any way to\nintimate an attribution of divinity to them, by word or worship.\n\n5. And they that live among such idolaters must take heed of giving\nthem scandalous encouragement.\n\n6. And they that scrupulously fear such sin more than there is cause,\nshould not be forced to sin against their consciences.\n\n7. But yet no christians should causelessly refuse that which is\nlawful, nor to join with the churches in holy exercises on the days of\nthankful commemoration of the apostles, and martyrs, and excellent\ninstruments in the church; much less petulantly to work and set open\nshops to the offence of others; but rather to persuade all to imitate\nthe holy lives of those saints to whom they give such honours.\n\n\nQuest. CXXX. _How far are the holy Scriptures a law and perfect rule\nto us?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. For all thoughts, words, affections, and actions, of divine\nfaith and obedience (supposing still God's law of nature). For it is\nno believing God to believe what he never revealed; nor any trusting\nGod, to trust that he will certainly give us that which he never\neither directly or indirectly promised; nor any obeying God, to do\nthat which he never commanded.\n\n2. The contents will best show the extent; whatever is revealed,\npromised, and commanded in it, for that it is a perfect rule. For\ncertainly it is perfect in its kind and to its proper use.\n\n3. It is a perfect rule for all that is of universal moral necessity;\nthat is, whatever it is necessary that man believe, think, or do, in\nall ages and places of the world, this is of divine obligation.\nWhatever the world is universally bound to, (that is, all men in it,)\nit is certain that God's law in nature, or Scripture, or both, bindeth\nthem to it. For the world hath no universal king or lawgiver but God.\n\n4. God's own laws in nature and Scripture are a perfect rule for all\nthe duties of the understanding, thoughts, affections, passions,\nimmediately to be exercised on God himself; for no one else is a\ndiscerner or judge of such matters.[377]\n\n5. It perfectly containeth all the essential and integral parts of the\nchristian religion; so that nothing is of itself, and directly, any\npart of the christian religion which is not there.\n\n6. It instituteth those sacraments perfectly, which are the seals of\nGod's covenant with man, and the delivery of the benefits, and which\nare the badges or symbols of the disciples and religion of Christ in\nthe world.\n\n7. It determineth what faith, prayer, and obedience shall be his\nappointed means and conditions of justification, adoption, and\nsalvation. And so what shall be professed and preached in his name to\nthe world.\n\n8. It is a perfect instrument of donation or conveyance of our right\nto Christ, and of pardon, and justification, and adoption, and the\nHoly Spirit's assistances, and of glory. As it is God's covenant,\npromise, or deed of gift.\n\n9. It instituteth certain ministers as his own church officers, and\nperfectly describeth their office, as instituted by him.\n\n10. It instituteth the form of his church universal, which is called\nhis body; and also of particular holy societies for his worship; and\nprescribeth them certain duties, as the common worship there to be\nperformed.\n\n11. It determineth of a weekly day, even the first, to be separated\nfor and used in this holy worship.\n\n12. It is a perfect general rule for the regulating of those things,\nwhich it doth not command or forbid in particular. As that all be done\nwisely, to edification, in charity, peace, concord, season, order, &c.\n\n13. It giveth to magistrates, pastors, parents, and other superiors,\nall that power by which they are authorized to oblige us, under God,\nto any undetermined particulars.\n\n14. It is the perfect rule of Christ's judging, rewarding, and\npunishing at last, according to which he will proceed.\n\n15. It is the only law that is made by primitive power.\n\n16. And the only law that is made by infallible wisdom.\n\n17. And the only law which is faultless, and hath nothing in it that\nwill do the subject any harm.\n\n18. And the only law which is from absolute power, the rule of all\nother laws, and from which there is finally no appeal.[378]\n\nThus far the holy Scripture with the law of nature is our perfect\nrule. But not in any of the following respects.\n\n1. It is no particular revelation or perfect rule of natural sciences,\nas physics, metaphysics, &c.\n\n2. It is no rule for the arts, for medicine, music, arithmetic,\ngeometry, astronomy, grammar, rhetoric, logic; nor for the mechanics,\nas navigation, architecture; and all the trades and occupations of\nmen; no, not husbandry by which we have our food.\n\n3. It is no particular rule for all the mutable, subordinate duties of\nany societies. It will not serve instead of all the statutes of this\nand all other lands, nor tell us, when the terms shall begin and end,\nnor what work every parent and master shall set his children and\nservants in his family, &c.\n\n4. It is no full rule in particular for all those political principles\nwhich are the ground of human laws; as whether each republic be\nmonarchical, aristocratical, or democratical; what person or of what\nfamily shall reign; who shall be his officers and judges, and how\ndiversified; so of his treasury, munition, coin, &c.\n\n5. It is no rule of propriety in particular, by which every man may\nknow which is his own land, or house, or goods, or cattle.\n\n6. It is no particular rule for our natural actions; what meat we\nshall eat; what clothes we shall wear; so of our rest, labour, &c.\n\n7. It is no particular law or rule for any of all those actions and\ncircumstances about religion or God's own ordinances, which he hath\nonly commanded in general, and left in specie or particular to be\ndetermined by man according to his general laws; but of these next.\n\n[377] 2 Tim. iii. 16; 2 Pet. i. 10; 2 Tim. iii. 15; Rom. xv. 4; xvi.\n26; John v. 39; Acts xvii. 2, 11; John xix. 24, 28, 36, 37.\n\n[378] Psal. xii. 6; xix. 7-10; cxix.\n\n\nQuest. CXXXI. _What additions or human inventions in or about\nreligion, not commanded in Scripture, are lawful or unlawful?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. These following are unlawful. 1. To feign any new article\nof faith or doctrine, any precept, promise, threatening, prophecy, or\nrevelation, falsely to father it upon God, and say, that it is of\nhim, or his special word.[379]\n\n2. To say that either that is written in the Bible which is not, or\nthat any thing is the sense of a text which is not; and so that any\nthing is a sin or a duty by Scripture which is not. Or to father\napocryphal books, or texts, or words upon the Spirit of Christ.\n\n3. To make any law for the church universal, or as obligatory to all\nchristians; which is to usurp the sovereignty of Christ; for which\ntreasonable usurpation it is that protestants call the pope,\nantichrist.\n\n4. To add new parts to the christian religion.\n\n5. To make any law, which it did properly belong to the universal\nSovereign to have made, if it should have been made at all: or which\nimplieth an accusation of ignorance, oversight, error, or omission, in\nChrist and the holy Scriptures.\n\n6. To make new laws for men's inward heart duties towards God.\n\n7. To make new sacraments for the sealing of Christ's covenant and\ncollation of his benefits therein contained, and to the public\n_tesser\u00e6_, badges or symbols of christians and christianity in the\nworld.\n\n8. To feign new conditions of the covenant of God, and necessary means\nof our justification, adoption, and salvation.\n\n9. To alter Christ's instituted church ministry, or add any that are\nsupra-ordinate, co-ordinate, or derogatory to their office, or that\nstand on the like pretended ground, and for equal ends.\n\n10. To make new spiritual societies or church forms which shall be\neither supra-ordinate, co-ordinate, or derogatory to the forms of\nChrist's institution.[380]\n\n11. Any impositions upon the churches (be the thing never so lawful)\nwhich is made by a pretended power not derived from God and the\nRedeemer.[381]\n\n12. Any thing that is contrary to the church's good and edification,\nto justice, charity, piety, order, unity, or peace.[382]\n\n13. Any unnecessary burden imposed on the consciences of christians;\nespecially as necessary either to their salvation, communion, liberty,\nor peace.\n\n14. And the exercise of any power, pretended to be either primitive\nand underived, or infallible, or impeccable, or absolute.\n\n15. In general, any thing that is contrary to the authority, matter,\nform, obligation, honour, or ends of the laws of God, in nature or\nScripture.\n\n16. Any thing which setteth up those judaical laws and ceremonies\nwhich Christ hath abrogated, in that form and respect in which he\nabrogated them.\n\n17. Where there is a doubt among sober, conscionable christians, lest\nin obeying man they should sin against God and disobey his laws, and\nthe matter doubted of is confessed unnecessary by the imposers: so\ninfinite is the distance between God and man, and so wholly dependent\non him are the highest, that they should be exceedingly unwilling to\nvie with the authority of their Maker in men's consciences, or to do\nany thing unnecessary which tendeth to compel men to tread down God's\nauthority in their consciences, and to prefer man's. Much more\nunwilling should they be, to silence the sober preachers of Christ's\ngospel upon such accounts.\n\n[379] Deut. xii. 32; Rev. xxii. 18; Col. ii. 18, 23-26; Matt. xv. 3,\n8, 9; Gal. i. 8, 9; Jer. v. 12; xiv. 14; xxiii. 25, 26, 32; Ezek.\nxiii. 9, 19; xxii. 28; Zech. xiii. 2-6.\n\n[380] Gal. ii. 5.\n\n[381] Acts xv. 23-25.\n\n[382] 2 Cor. x. 8; xiii. 10; 1 Cor. xiv. 5, 12, 26; 2 Cor. xii. 19;\nEph. iv. 12, 16; 1 Tim. i. 4.\n\n\nQuest. CXXXII. _Is it unlawful to obey in all those cases, where it is\nunlawful to impose and command? Or in what cases? And how far pastors\nmust be believed and obeyed?_\n\n_Answ._ I must entreat the reader carefully to distinguish here, 1.\nBetween God's law forbidding rulers to do evil; and his law forbidding\nsubjects or private men.\n\n2. Between obedience formally so called; which is, when we therefore\nobey in conscience, because it is commanded, and the commander's\nauthority is the formal reason and object of our obedience: and\nobedience material only, which is properly no obedience, but a doing\nthe thing which is commanded upon other reasons, and not at all\nbecause it is commanded.\n\n3. Between formal obedience to the office of the ruler in general, and\nformal obedience to him, as commanding this very matter in particular.\n\n4. Between such authority in the ruler as will warrant his impositions\nbefore God for his own justification; and such authority as may make\nit my duty to obey him. And so I answer,\n\n1. We shall not be judged by those laws of God which made the ruler's\nduty, but by that which made our own. It is not all one to say, Thou\nshalt not command it, and to say, Thou shalt not do it.\n\n2. Whatever God absolutely forbiddeth men to do, we must not do,\nwhoever command it.\n\n3. There are many of the things forementioned absolutely and always\nunlawful, as being evil of themselves, which no man may either command\nor do; and there are some of them, which are only evil by accident,\nwhich may not be commanded, but may be done when contrary, weightier\naccidents do preponderate.\n\n4. Many such things may be done materially on other reasons, (as for\nthe church's good, the furtherance of the gospel, the winning of men\nto God, the avoiding of scandal, or of hurt to others or ourselves,\n&c.) when they are not to be done in formal obedience, out of\nconscience to the authority imposing (as if it be commanded by one\nthat hath no just power).\n\n5. Our actions may participate of obedience in general, as being\nactions of subjects, when they are not obedience in the full and\nperfect formality as to the particular. The last leaf of Richard\nHooker's eighth book of Eccles. Polit. will show you the reason of\nthis. He that hath not just power to command me this one particular\nact, yet may be my ruler in the general, and I am bound to honour him\nin general as my ruler; and to disobey him in a thing lawful for me to\ndo, though not for him to command, may be dishonouring of him, and an\nappearance of disobedience and denial of his power.[383] A parent is\nforbidden by God to command his child to speak an idle word, or to do\na vain and useless action (much more a hurtful). Yet if a parent\nshould command a child to speak an idle word, or do a vain action, the\nduty of obedience would make it at that time not to be vain and idle\nto him; yea, if he bid him throw away a cup of wine, or a piece of\nbread, which is evil when causeless, the child may be bound to do it:\nnot only because he knoweth not but the parents may have lawful ends\nand reasons for their command, (as to try and exercise his obedience,)\nbut also if he were sure that it were not so; because he is a subject,\nand the honouring of a parent is so great a good, and the dishonouring\nhim by that disobedience may have such ill consequences, as will\npreponderate the evil of the loss of a cup of wine, &c. Yet in this\ncase, the act of obedience is but mixed: it is an act of subjection\nor honour to a parent, because in general he is a governor: but it is\nbut materially obedience in respect of that particular matter, which\nwe know he had no authority to command.\n\n6. In this respect, therefore, a ruler may have so much power as may\ninduce on the subject an obligation to obey, and yet not so much as\nmay justify his commands before God, nor save himself from divine\npunishment.\n\nI add this so distinctly, lest any should misapply Mr. Rich. Hooker's\ndoctrine aforesaid, Eccl. Pol. lib. viii. p. 223, 224. \"As for them\nthat exercise power altogether against order, though the kind of power\nwhich they have may be of God, yet is their exercise thereof against\nGod, and therefore not of God, otherwise than by permission, as all\ninjustice is.--Usurpers of power, whereby we do not mean them that by\nviolence have aspired unto places of highest authority, but them that\nuse more authority than they did ever receive in form and manner,\nbefore mentioned.--Such usurpers thereof, as in the exercise of their\npower, do more than they have been authorized to do, cannot in\nconscience bind any man to obedience.\"\n\nLest any should gather hence that they are never bound in conscience\nto obey their parents, their king, their pastors, in any point wherein\nthey exercise more power than God gave them, I thought meet to speak\nmore exactly to that point, which needed this distinguishing. For the\nground is sure that There is no power but of God;[384] and that God\nhath given no man power against himself, his laws and service; but yet\nthere are many cases in which God bindeth children and subjects to\nobey their superiors, in such matters as they did sinfully command.\n\n7. It greatly concerneth all sober christians therefore to be well\nstudied in the law of God, that we may certainly know what those\nthings are which God hath absolutely forbidden us to do, whoever\ncommand them, and to distinguish them from things that depend on\nmutable accidents; that as the three witnesses and Daniel, Dan. iii.\nvi. we may be true to God whatever we suffer for it; and yet may obey\nmen in all that is our duty to them.\n\nThus the apostles knew that no man had power from God to silence them,\nor persecute them for the gospel. Therefore they would not obey those\nthat forbad them to preach; and yet they would appear before any\nmagistrate that commanded them, and obey their summons; and so we may\ndo even to a usurper, or a private man.\n\n8. The principal and most notable case, in which we must obey when a\nruler sinfully commandeth, is, when the matter which he commandeth is\nnot such as is either forbidden us by God, or out of the verge of his\nplace and calling at all to meddle with and command, nor yet such as\nis destructive of our duty to God; but such as in general belongeth to\nhis office to determine of according to God's general rules; but he\nmisseth it in the manner and goeth against those rules; yet not so far\nas to destroy the duty we owe to God, or the end of it.\n\nFor instance, it is not in the ruler's power to determine whether\nthere shall be preaching or none, true doctrine or false, &c. But it\nis in his power to regulate the circumstances of time, place, &c.\n(next to be recited). Now if he do these to order, unity, and\nedification, I will obey him formally and fully for conscience sake.\nIf he so do it as is destructive to the end, (as is aforesaid,) as to\nsay, You shall meet only at twenty miles' distance, or only at\nmidnight, &c. I will obey him no further than necessity and the common\ngood requireth me. If he do it only with a tolerable inconvenience,\n(as to say, You shall meet no where but in the open fields, &c.) I\nwill obey for conscience sake, as I am in general a subject bound to\nhonour the magistrate; but not as he nameth an unmeet circumstance, in\nthat respect my obedience shall be but material.\n\nI need not handle it as a distinct question, Whether pastors are to be\nbelieved or obeyed any further than they show a word of God revealing\nand commanding the particular thing? Divine faith and obedience is one\nthing, and human is another. 1. If as a preacher he shall say, This is\nGod's word, believe it and obey it as such, you must believe with a\nhuman faith that it is liker that he knoweth what he saith, than you\ndo, (unless, (1.) You see evidence; (2.) Or the consent of more\ncredible persons to be against him, and then you are not to believe\nhim at all). Even as a child believeth his teacher in order to learn\nthe things himself, so you are so far to take his word while you are\nlearning to know whether it be so or not. But not to rest in it as\ncertain, nor to take your belief of him and obedience to him, to be a\nbelieving and obeying God formally, though a duty.\n\n[383] Eph. v. 24; Col. iii. 20, 22; Rom. xiii. 1-6.\n\n[384] John xix. 11; Rom. xiii. 1.\n\n\nQuest. CXXXIII. _What are the additions or inventions of men which are\nnot forbidden by the word of God (whether by rulers or by private men\ninvented)?_\n\n_Answ._ This is handled under the directions for worship; to which I\nrefer the reader, as also for part of the answer to the former cases.\nYet here I shall trouble you with so much repetition, as to say, that,\n\n1. Such inventions and additions are lawful as God hath commanded men\n(rulers, pastors, parents, or private persons) to make under the\nregulation of his general laws.\n\n2. All such additions are lawful as are merely subordinate and\nsubservient to God's laws and orders, and not forbidden by him, among\nthe forementioned prohibited additions.\n\nInstances are many. 1. All such modes of a duty as are necessary _in\ngenere_, or one way or other to be determined of, but left to human\nprudence as to particulars. As, 1. Whether I shall (this week or\nmonth) publish the gospel by speaking, or by writing, or by printing.\n2. Whether I shall use this method, or that, or another method in this\nsermon. 3. Whether I shall use these phrases and words, or other\nwords. 4. Whether I shall use notes for my memory or not. And whether\nlarge ones or short ones. 5. Whether I shall be an hour or two in\npreaching. 6. Whether I shall preach with a loud voice or a low. 7.\nWhether I shall at this time more endeavour explication or\napplication, comfort or terror, reprehension or direction, &c. All\nwhich are to be varied by man's lawful invention according to God's\ngeneral rules.\n\n2. It is also lawful and needful, that our own invention or our\nsuperior's according to God's general laws, do determine of the\nparticular subjects of our office; which Scripture doth not\nparticularly determine of, viz. 1. Scripture telleth not ministers\nwhat country, parish, or church they shall bestow their labours in. 2.\nNor to how many they shall be a pastor. 3. Nor what text or subject\nthey shall preach on. 4. Nor what singular persons they shall apply\ncomfort, counsel, or terror to, this or that. 5. Nor whom they shall\nadmit to the sacrament (but by the general rule or description). 6.\nNor whom they shall openly rebuke or excommunicate. 7. Nor whom they\nshall absolve. It telleth them not whom the persons be to whom the\nScripture character doth belong, in any of these cases. 8. Nor\nwhether the witnesses say truly or falsely who accuse a man. 9. Nor\nwhether the accused be to be taken as guilty of heresy, scandal, or\nschism, &c.\n\n3. It is also a lawful invention of man, to find, choose, and use,\nsuch natural helps, as are useful to further us in the obedience of\nGod's laws, and the practice of his worship, and are not forbidden by\nhim. Yea, _in genere_ they are commanded, and yet never particularly\ndetermined of in the Scripture: as, 1. What will clear a preacher's\nvoice, to speak audibly. 2. The advantage of a pulpit to be above the\npeople. 3. The use of spectacles to them that need them to read the\nScripture. 4. The translating of the Scriptures into our native\nlanguage. 5. Which translation of many we shall use in the churches.\n6. The printing of the Bible. 7. The dividing it into chapters and\nverses. 8. The printing of good books, to expound and apply the\nScripture; commentaries, sermons, &c. 9. The forms of school\nexercises, disputations, &c. to prepare students for the ministry; and\nwhat books of divinity tutors shall read to their pupils, or every\nstudent shall have in his library. 10. The manner and tune of singing\npsalms in the churches. 11. What version or metre to use, this or\nthat. 12. What form of catechism, (verbal, written, or printed,) to\nuse among many, in the church or family. 13. Whether to pray in the\nsame words often, or in various. 14. Whether to use words of our own\ncomposing or invention primarily, or of other men's; and that by\ndirection, persuasion, or command. 15. To use a written or printed\nform, or neither; to read it on the book, or speak it by memory. 16.\nTo use Scripture forms only, of prayer, praise, psalms and hymns, or\nthose that are of later composure also. 17. To print the Bible and use\nit with marginal notes, and contents, or without. 18. To baptize in a\nriver, well, pool, or font. 19. To have sponsors or witnesses of the\nparents' trustiness, and the child's covenant, or not. 20. At how many\ndays old children shall be baptized. 21. Whether they shall be named\nin baptism, or before, or after. 22. Whether one of the ministers\nshall be a tutor or teacher to the rest that are younger. 23. How far\nthe rest shall submit their judgments to one that is eldest and\nablest, and be ruled by him. 24. Whether there shall be any\ndeaconnesses in the church. 25. Whether a church shall have one\nminister, two, or more. 26. Who shall be the men. 27. What space of\nground shall be the church bounds, for the cohabitation of the\nmembers. 28. How many neighbour churches shall make a synod; and which\nbe they. 29. How many members a synod shall consist of. 30. Who shall\nbe president. Or whether any. And who shall gather the votes. 31. Who\nshall record their acts, as scribe. 32. What messenger shall carry\nthem to the churches. 33. What letters for correspondence and\ncommunion shall be written to the churches. 34. When pastors shall\nremove from one church to another; and to which. 35. Who shall be\nordained ministers to preach, baptize, and gather churches. 36. How\nmany the ordainers shall be. 37. Whether there shall be any music by\ninstruments in the church or house, for the praises of God; and what.\n38. Who shall lead the psalm. 39. Who shall read. 40. What words the\nchurch's profession of faith shall be expressed by. 41. By what signs\nthe church shall signify their consent; whether lifting up the hand,\nstanding up, bowing the head, or by voice, or writing. 42. By what\nsign or ceremony men shall take an oath; whether lifting up the hand\ntowards heaven, or laying it on a book, or kissing the book, &c. 43.\nWhether the people at the sacrament sit near the table, or keep\nfarther off. 44. Whether it be put into each person's hand, or they\ntake it themselves. With many more such like.\n\n4. And it is a lawful invention to determine of mere circumstances of\ntime and place which God hath not determined of in Scripture: as, 1.\nAt how many times in the year or week, baptism shall be administered.\n2. At what age persons be admitted to the Lord's supper. 3. On what\ndays and hours of the week there shall be lectures, or church\nassemblies. 4. How oft and when ministers shall catechise and instruct\nthe people privately. 5. On what hour the church shall assemble on the\nLord's days, and receive the sacrament. 6. How long prayer, reading,\nand sermon shall be. 7. At what hour to end the public exercises. 8.\nAt what hours to pray in families or in secret. 9. How often\ndisciplinary meetings shall be held, for the trial of accused members.\n10. How often synods shall meet; and how long continue. Of holy days\nbefore.\n\n5. The same is to be said for the places of holy exercises. 1. What\nedifices the church shall have for such uses? 2. In what places they\nshall be situate? 3. Where the pulpit shall stand? 4. And where the\nfont? 5. And where the table? 6. Where each of the people shall sit?\n7. Where synods shall meet? 8. How many temples shall be in a city?\n&c.\n\n6. The same is to be said of all accidental, subordinate officers; as\nlecturers, clerks, door-keepers, churchwardens, and many before\nmentioned.\n\n7. The same is to be said of church utensils; as table, cups, linen,\npulpits, fonts, clock, hour-glass, bells, seats, decent habit of\nclothes, &c.\n\n8. The same may be said of decent gestures, not particularly\ncommanded; as what gesture to preach in, standing or sitting? What\ngesture to read in? What gesture to hear in? What gesture to sing\npsalms in? Whether to be covered or bare-headed? In what gesture to\nreceive the Lord's supper? (In which Scripture no more regulateth us,\nthan of the room, the hour of communicating, the number of\ncommunicants, the place; in all which Christ's example was not a\nparticular law.)\n\n9. The same may be said of order. 1. Whether the pastor shall begin\nwith prayer, reading, or exhortation? 2. Whether the people shall\nbegin with prayer or ejaculations privately? 3. Whether we shall make\nbut one or two long continued prayers, or many short ones? 4. Whether\nwe shall pray before sermon immediately, and after, in the pulpit or\nin the reading place? 5. When the psalms shall be said or sung, and\nhow many? 6. How many chapters shall be read? and which and in what\norder? 7. Whether baptism shall be before, or after, or when? 8. When\nthe catechumens and learners shall be dismissed, and the proper\neucharistical church exercises begin? 9. When collections made? &c.\n\nBut, O Lord, have compassion on thy scattered flock, who are afflicted\nand divided by the imperiousness of those pastors, who think it not\nenough for the exercise of their domination, to promote all thine own\nholy laws and doctrines, and to make their own canons in all these\ncases, or such like; but they must needs make more work than all this\ncometh to, for themselves and for their flocks, even unto those\ndistractions, and dissipations, and fierce persecutions and\ncontentions, which many hundred years have exercised the Greek and\nLatin churches, and many more throughout the world.\n\n\nQuest. CXXXIV. _What are the mischiefs of unlawful additions in\nreligion?_\n\n_Answ._ Alas! many and great. 1. They tend to dethrone Christ from his\nsovereignty, and legislative prerogative. 2. And to advance man, blind\nand sinful man, into his place. 3. And thereby to debase religion,\nmaking it but a human or a mixed thing (and it can be no more noble\nthan its author is). 4. And thereby they debase also the church of\nGod, and the government of it, while they make it to be but a human\npolicy, and not divine. 5. They tend to depose God from his authority\nin men's consciences, and to level or join him there but with man. 6.\nThey tend to men's doubtfulness and uncertainty of their religion;\nseeing man is fallible, and so may his constitutions be. 7. They tend\nto drive out all true religion from the world, while man that is so\nbad is the maker of it; and it may be suspected to be bad, that is\nmade by so bad an author. 8. And it taketh off the fear of God, and\nhis judgment: for it is man that must be feared, so far as man is the\nmaker of the law. And it destroyeth the consolation of believers,\nwhich consisteth in the hopes of a reward from God; for he that\nserveth man, must be rewarded by man; and though they do not exclude\nGod, but join him with themselves, yet this mixture debaseth and\ndestroyeth religion, as the mixture of God and mammon in men's love,\nand as mixed and debased metals do the sovereign's coin. 9. It\nhardeneth infidels and hindereth their conversion; for they will\nreverence no more of our religion than we can prove to be divine: and\nwhen they find one part of it to be human, they suspect the rest to be\nso too, and contemn it all; even as protestants do popery, for the\nabundance of human trinkets and toys with which we see them exercise\nand delude their silly followers. 10. It is the great engine of\ndividing all the churches, and breeding and feeding contentions in the\nchristian world. 11. And because men that will command, will be\nobeyed, and they that are absolutely subjected to God, will obey none\nagainst him, whatever it cost them, (as Dan. iii.; vi.; Heb. xi.; Luke\nxiv. 26, 33; Matt. v. 10-12,) therefore it hath proved the occasion of\nbloody persecutions in the churches, by which professed christians\ndraw the guilt of christian blood upon themselves. 12. And hereby it\nhath dolefully hindered the gospel, while the persecutors have\nsilenced many worthy, conscionable preachers of it. 13. And by this it\nhath quenched charity in the hearts of both sides, and taught the\nsufferers and the afflicters to be equally bitter in censuring if not\ndetesting one another. 14. And the infidels seeing these dissensions\nand bitter passions among christians, deride, and scorn, and hate them\nall.[385] 15. Yea, such causes as these in the Latin and Greek\nchurches have engaged not only emperors and princes against their own\nsubjects, so that chronicles and books of martyrs perpetuate their\ndishonour, as Pilate's name is in the creed; but also have set them in\nbloody wars among themselves. These have been the fruits, and this is\nthe tendency of usurping Christ's prerogative over his religion and\nworship in his church.\n\nAnd the greatness of the sin appeareth in these aggravations. 1. It is\na mark of pitiful ignorance and pride when dust shall thus (like\nNebuchadnezzar) exalt itself against God, to its certain infamy and\nabasement.\n\n2. It showeth that men little know themselves, that think themselves\nfit to be the makers of a religion for so many others: and that they\nhave base thoughts of all other men, while they think them unfit to\nworship God any other way, than that of their making; and think that\nthey will all so far deny God as to take up a religion that is made\nby man.\n\n3. It shows that they are much void of love to others, that can thus\nuse them on so small occasion.\n\n4. And it showeth how little true sense or reverence of christian\nreligion they have themselves who can thus debase it, and equal their\nown inventions with it.\n\n5. And it leaveth men utterly unexcusable, that will not take warning\nby so many hundred years' experiences of most of the churches through\nthe world? Even when we see the yet continued divisions of the eastern\nand western churches, and all about a human religion (in the parts\nmost contended about); when they read of the rivers of blood that have\nbeen shed in Piedmont, France, Germany, Belgia, Poland, Ireland, and\nthe flames in England, and many other nations, and all for the human\nparts of men's religion? He that will yet go on and take no warning,\nmay go read the eighteenth and nineteenth of the Revelation, and see\nwhat joy will be in heaven and earth, when God shall do justice upon\nsuch.\n\nBut remember that I speak all this of no other, than those expressly\nhere described.\n\n[385] Rom. xiv. xv.\n\n\nQuest. CXXXV. _What are the mischiefs of men's error on the other\nextreme, who pretend that Scripture is a rule where it is not, and\ndeny the foresaid lawful things, on pretence that Scripture is a\nperfect rule (say some, for all things)?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. They fill their own minds with a multitude of causeless\nscruples, which on their principles can never be resolved, and so will\ngive themselves no rest.\n\n2. They make themselves a religion of their own, and superstition is\ntheir daily devotion; which being erroneous, will not hang together,\nbut is full of contradictions in itself; and which being human and\nbad, can never give true stability to the soul.\n\n3. Hereby they spend their days much in melancholy troubles, and\nunsettled distracting doubts and fears; instead of the joys of solid\nfaith, and hope, and love.\n\n4. And if they escape, this their religion is contentious, wrangling,\ncensorious, and factious, and their zeal flieth out against those that\ndiffer from their peculiar superstitions and conceits.\n\n5. And hereupon they are usually mutable and unsettled in their\nreligion; this year for one, and the next for another; because there\nis no certainty in their own inventions and conceits.\n\n6. And hereupon they still fall into manifold parties, because each\nman maketh a religion to himself, by his misinterpretation of God's\nword; so that there is no end of their divisions.\n\n7. And they do a great deal of hurt in the church, by putting the same\ndistracting and dividing conceits into the heads of others. And young\nchristians, and women, and ignorant, well meaning people, that are not\nable to know who is in the right, do often turn to that party which\nthey think most strict and godly (though it be such as our quakers).\nAnd the very good conceit of the people whom they take it from, doth\nsettle so strong a prejudice in their mind, as no argument or evidence\nscarcely can work out; and so education, converse, and human\nestimation breedeth a succession of dividers, and troublers of the\nchurches.\n\n8. They sin against God by calling good evil, and light darkness, and\nhonouring superstition, which is the work of Satan, with holy\nnames.[386]\n\n9. They sin by adding to the word of God; while they say of abundance\nof lawful things, This is unlawful, and that is against the word of\nGod, and pretend that their Touch not, taste not, handle not, is in\nthe Scriptures.[387] For while they make it a rule for every\ncircumstance in particular, they must squeeze, and force, and wrest\nit, to find out all those circumstances in it which were never there;\nand so by false expositions make the Scriptures another thing.\n\n10. And how great a sin is it to father Satan's works on God, and to\nsay that all these and these things are forbidden or commanded in the\nScripture, and so to belie the Lord and the word of truth.\n\n11. It engageth all subjects against their rulers' laws and\ngovernment, and involveth them in the sin of denying them just\nobedience; while all the statute book must be found in the Scriptures,\nor else condemned as unlawful.\n\n12. It maintaineth disobedience in churches, and causeth schisms and\nconfusions unavoidably; for they that will neither obey the pastors,\nnor join with the churches, till they can show scriptures particularly\nfor every translation, method, metre, tune, and all that is done, must\njoin with no churches in the world.\n\n13. It bringeth rebellion and confusion into families, while children\nand servants must learn no catechism, hear no minister, give no\naccount, observe no hours of prayer, nay, nor do any work, but what\nthere is a particular scripture for.\n\n14. It sets men on enthusiastical expectations, and irrational,\nscandalous worshipping of God, while all men must avoid all those\nmethods, phrases, books, helps, which are not expressly or\nparticularly in Scripture, and men must not use their own inventions,\nor prudence, in the right ordering of the works of religion.\n\n15. It destroyeth christian love and concord, while men are taught to\ncensure all others, that use any thing in God's worship which is not\nparticularly in Scripture, and so to censure all true worshippers in\nthe world.\n\n16. Yea, it will tempt men at last to be weary of their own religion,\nbecause they will find it an unsatisfactory, uncomfortable, tiresome\nthing, to do their own superstitious work.\n\n17. And they will tempt all that they draw into this opinion, to be\nweary of religion also. And truly had not God's part, which is wise,\nand good, and pleasant, prevailed against the hurtfulness of men's\nsuperstition, which is foolish, bad, and unpleasant, religion had ere\nthis been cast off as a wearisome, distracting thing; or, which is as\nbad, been used but to delude men.\n\n18. Yea, it will tempt men at last to infidelity; for Satan will\nquickly teach them to argue, that if Scripture be a perfect,\nparticular rule, for forty things that were never there, then it is\ndefective, and is not of God, but an undertaking of that which is not\nperformed, and therefore is but a deceit.\n\n19. And the notoriousness and ridiculousness of this error, will tempt\nthe profane to make religious people a scorn.\n\n20. Lastly, and rulers will be tempted in church and state, to take\nsuch persons for intolerable in all societies, and such whose\nprinciples are inconsistent with government. And no thanks to this\nopinion, if they be not tempted to dislike the Scripture itself, and\ninstead of it to fly to the papists' traditions, and the church's\nlegislative sovereignty, or worse.\n\nBut here also remember that I charge none with all this, but those\nbefore described.\n\n[386] Isa. v. 20, 21.\n\n[387] Col. ii 21-23.\n\n\nQuest. CXXXVI. _How shall we know what parts of Scripture precept or\nexample were intended for universal, constant obligations, and what\nwere but for the time and persons that they were then directed to?_\n\n_Answ._ It is not to be denied, but some things in Scripture, even in\nthe New Testament, are not laws, much less universal and perpetual.\nAnd the difference is to be found in the Scripture itself.\n\n1. All that is certainly of universal and perpetual obligation, which\nis but a transcript of the universal and perpetual law of nature.\n\n2. And all that which hath the express characters of universality and\nperpetuity upon it; and such are all the substantial parts of the\ngospel; as, \"Except ye repent, ye shall all perish,\" Luke xiii. 3, 5.\n\"Except a man be born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of\nheaven,\" John iii. 3, 5. \"He that believeth in him, shall not perish,\nbut have everlasting life,\" John iii. 16. \"He that believeth and is\nbaptized, shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned,\"\nMark xvi. 16. \"Without holiness none shall see God,\" Heb. xii. 14.\n\"Go, preach the gospel to all nations, baptizing them, &c. teaching\nthem to observe all things that I have commanded you,\" Matt, xxviii.\n19, 20. Abundance such texts have the express characters of\nuniversality and perpetuity (which many call morality).\n\n3. And with these we may number those which were given to all the\nchurches, with commands to keep them, and propagate them to posterity.\n\n4. And those that have a plain and necessary connexion to these before\nmentioned.\n\n5. And those which plainly have a full parity of reason with them; and\nwhere it is evident that the command was given to those particular\ntimes and persons, upon no reasons proper to them alone, but such as\nwere common to all others. I deny not but (as Amesius noteth after\nothers) many ceremonial and temporary laws are urged (when they are\nmade) with natural and perpetual motives: but the reasons of making\nthem were narrower, whatever the reasons of obeying them may be.\n\nOn the other side, narrow and temporary precepts and examples, 1. Are\nvoid of all these foresaid characters. 2. They are about materials of\ntemporary use. 3. Or they are but the ordering of such customs as were\nthere before, and were proper to those countries. 4. And many speeches\nare plainly appropriate to the time and persons. 5. And many actions\nwere manifestly occasional, without any intimation of reason or\npurpose of obliging others to imitation.\n\nFor instance, 1. Christ's preaching sometimes on a mountain, sometimes\nin a ship, sometimes in a house, and sometimes in the synagogues, doth\nshow that all these are lawful in season on the like occasion: but he\npurposed not to oblige men to any one of them alone.\n\n2. So Christ's giving the sacrament of his body and blood, in an upper\nroom, in a private house after supper, to none but ministers, and none\nbut his family, and but to twelve, and on the fifth day of the week\nonly, and in the gesture of a recumbent, leaning, sitting; all these\nare plainly occasional, and not intended as obliging to imitation: for\nthat which he made a law of, he separated in his speeches, and\ncommanded them to do it in remembrance of him till his coming. And\nPaul expoundeth the distinction, 1 Cor. xi. in his practice.\n\nSo the promise of the spirit of revelation and miracles is expounded\nby the event, as the seal of the gospel and Scripture, proper to those\ntimes in the main.\n\nSo the primitive christians selling their estates, and distributing to\nthe poor, or laying it down at the apostles' feet, was plainly\nappropriated to that time, or the like occasions, by the reason of it;\nwhich was suddenly to show the world what the belief of heaven through\nthe promises of Christ, could make them all, and how much their love\nwas to Christ and one another, and how little to the world; and also\nby the cessation of it, when the persecutions abated, and the churches\ncame to any settlement; yea, and at first it was not a thing commanded\nto all, but only voluntarily done.\n\nSo the women's veil, and the custom of kissing each other as a token\nof love, and men's not wearing long hair, were the customs of the\ncountry there ordered and improved by the apostles about sacred\nthings; but not introduced into other countries that had no such\ncustom.\n\nSo also anointing was in those countries taken for salubrious, and\nrefreshing to the body, and a ceremony of initiation into places of\ngreat honour; whereupon it was used about the sick, and God's giving\nthe gift of healing in those times was frequently conjunct with this\nmeans. So that hence the anointing of the sick came up; and the\nancient christians turned it into an initiating ceremony, because we\nare kings and priests to God. Now these occasions extend not to those\ncountries where anointing neither was of such use, or value, or\nsignification.\n\nSo also Paul's becoming a Jew to the Jews, and being shaved, and\npurifying himself, and circumcising Timothy, are evidently temporary\ncompliances in a thing then lawful, for the avoiding of offence, and\nfor the furtherance of the gospel, and no obligatory, perpetual laws\nto us. And so most divines think the eating of things strangled, and\nblood, were forbidden for a time to them only that conversed with the\nJews, Acts xv. Though Beckman have many reasons for the perpetuity,\nnot contemptible.\n\nSo the office of deaconesses (and some think of deacons) seemeth to be\nfitted to that time, and state, and condition of christians. And where\nthe reasons and case are the same, the obligations will be the same.\nIn a word, the text itself will one way or other show us, when a\ncommand or example is universally and durably obligatory, and when\nnot.\n\n\nQuest. CXXXVII. _How much of the Scripture is necessary to salvation,\nto be believed, and understood?_\n\n_Answ._ This question is the more worthy consideration, that we may\nwithal understand the use of catechisms, confessions, and creeds, (of\nwhich after,) and the great and tender mercies of God to the weak, and\nmay be able to answer the cavils of the papists against the\nScriptures, as insufficient to be the rule of faith and life, because\nmuch of it is hard to be understood.\n\n1. He that believeth God to be true, and the Scripture to be his word,\nmust needs believe all to be true which he believeth to be his word.\n\n2. All the Scripture is profitable to our knowledge, love, and\npractice; and none of it to be neglected, but all to be loved,\nreverenced, and studied, in due time and order, by them that have time\nand capacity to do it.\n\n3. All the holy Scriptures, either as to matter or words, are not so\nnecessary, as that no man can be saved, who doth not either believe or\nunderstand them; but some parts of it are more necessary than others.\n\n4. It is not of necessity to salvation to believe every book or verse\nin Scripture, to be canonical, or written by the Spirit of God. For as\nthe papists' canon is larger than that which the protestants own; so\nif our canon should prove defective of any one book, it would not\nfollow that we could not be saved for want of a sufficient faith. The\nchurches immediately after the apostles' time, had not each one all\ntheir writings, but they were brought together in time, and received\nby degrees, as they had proof of their being written by authorized,\ninspired persons. The second of Peter, James, Jude, Hebrews, and\nRevelation, were received in many churches since the rest. And if some\nbook be lost, (as Enoch's prophecy, or Paul's epistle to the\nLaodiceans, or any other of his epistles not named in the rest,) or if\nany hereafter should be lost or doubted of, as the Canticles, or the\nsecond or third epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, &c. it would\nnot follow, that all true faith and hope of salvation were lost with\nit.\n\nIt is a controversy whether 1 John v. 7, and some other particular\nverses, be canonical or not, because some Greek copies have them, and\nsome are without them; but whoever erreth in that only, may be saved.\n\n5. There are many hundred or thousand texts of Scripture, which a man\nmay possibly be ignorant of the meaning of, and yet have a saving\nfaith, and be in a state of salvation. For no man living understandeth\nit all.\n\n6. The holy Scripture is an entire, comely body, which containeth not\nonly the essential parts of the true religion, but also the integral\nparts, and the ornaments and many accidents; which must be\ndistinguished, and not all taken to be equal.[388]\n\n7. So much as containeth the essentials of true religion, must be\nunderstood and believed of necessity to salvation; and so much as\ncontaineth the integrals of religion doth greatly conduce to our\nsalvation, both that we may be the surer and the better christians, as\nhaving greater helps to both.\n\nThe very adjuncts also have their use to make us the more adorned\nchristians, and to promote our knowledge of greater things.\n\n[388] Rom. xiv. 17, 18; xiii. 8-10; 1 Cor. xv. 2-6; Mark xvi. 16.\n\n\nQuest. CXXXVIII. _How may we know the fundamentals, essentials, or\nwhat parts are necessary to salvation? And is the papists' way\nallowable that (some of them) deny that distinction, and make the\ndifference to be only in the degrees of men's opportunities of\nknowledge?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. Those papists' perverseness can mean no better than that\nChristianity itself is not necessary to salvation, to those that have\nnot opportunity to know it (as Johnson's Rejoinder to me, and Sancta\nClara, and many others, plainly intimate); and were that never so true\nand certain, it were nothing to the question between them and us,\nwhich is, What are the essentials of christianity? And what is\nnecessary to salvation, where christianity is necessary? or where the\nchristian religion is made known, and men may come to the knowledge of\nit, if they will do their best? This is the true state of our\ncontroversy with them. And whereas they would make all the parts of\nchristian faith and practice equally necessary, where men have a\ncapacity and ability to know, believe, and practise them, it is a\ngross deceit, unworthy of men pretending to a mediocrity of knowledge\nin the nature of religion; and thereby they make all sins and errors\nas equal as all duties and truths. Whereas, 1. There is no man that\nhath not some error and some sin.[389] 2. There is no man that doth\nall that ever he was able to do, to understand all the truth. 3.\nTherefore there is no man whose errors themselves are not (many of\nthem at least) culpable or sinful. 4. And they that distinguish\nbetween mortal and venial sins, and yet will not distinguish between\nmortal and venial errors, are either blind, or would keep others\nblind. As it is not so damning a sin for a man to think a vain\nthought, or to speak a vain word, as not to love God, or holiness;\n(no, though he was more able to have forborne that idle word, than to\nhave loved God;) so it is not so mortal a sin, (that is, inconsistent\nwith a justified state,) to mistake in a small matter, (as who was the\nfather of Arphaxad, or what year the world was drowned in, &c.) as to\nblaspheme the Holy Ghost, or deny Jesus Christ to be the Saviour of\nthe world, or to deny that there is a God, or everlasting life, or a\ndifference between good and evil. All sins are not equal in magnitude\nor danger. Therefore all errors are not equal in magnitude,\nsinfulness, or danger.\n\n2. And what priest is able to know whom to take for a christian, and\nbaptizable upon such terms as these? Who knoweth just what\nopportunities of knowledge other men have had, and what impediments?\nAnd will they indeed baptize a man that is a heathen, because he had\nnot opportunity to come to the knowledge of christianity? I think they\nwill not. Or will they deny baptism to one that knoweth and believeth\nonly all the articles of the creed, and the chief points of religion,\nbecause he knoweth not as much more, as he had opportunity to know? I\nthink not. Do not these men perceive how they condemn themselves? For\ndo they not say themselves, that baptism to the due receiver washeth\naway sin, and puts the person in a state of life? O when will God\ndeliver his poor church from factious deceivers?\n\n3. Either christianity is something and discernible, or nothing and\nundiscernible. If the latter, then christians are not to be\ndistinguished from heathens and infidels. If the former, then\nchristianity hath its constitutive parts, by which it is what it is.\nAnd then it hath essential parts distinguishable from the rest.\n\n4. The word fundamentals being but a metaphor, hath given room to\ndeceivers and contenders to make a controversy, and raise a dust about\nit. Therefore I purposely use the word essentials, which is not so\nliable to men's cavils.\n\n5. Those are the essentials of christianity, which are necessary to\nthe baptism of the adult. Know but that, and you answer all the\npratings of the papists, that bawl out for a list of fundamentals. And\nsure it is not this day unknown in the christian world, either what a\nchristian is, or who is to be baptized: do not the priests know it,\nwho baptize all that are christened in the world? And why is baptism\ncalled our christening, if it make us not christians? And why hath\nChrist promised, that \"he that believeth and is baptized, shall be\nsaved,\" Mark xvi. 16, if that so much faith as is necessary to\nbaptism, will not also serve to a man's state of salvation?\n\n6. The baptismal covenant of grace therefore is the essential part of\nthe gospel, and of the christian religion; and all the rest are the\nintegrals, and accidents or adjuncts.\n\n7. This covenant containeth,\n\nI. Objectively, 1. Things true as such; 2. Things good as such; 3.\nThings practicable or to be done, as such: the _credenda, diligenda,\n(et eligenda,) et agenda_; as the objects of man's intellect, will,\nand practical power.\n\nThe _credenda_, or things to be known and believed, are, 1. God as\nGod, and our God and Father. 2. Christ as the Saviour, and our\nSaviour. 3. The Holy Ghost as such, and as the Sanctifier, and our\nSanctifier (as to the offer of these relations in the covenant).\n\nThe _diligenda_ are the same three Persons in these three relations as\ngood in themselves and unto us, which includeth the grand benefits of\nreconciliation and adoption, justification, and sanctification, and\nsalvation.\n\nThe _agenda_ in the time of baptism that make us christians, are, 1.\nThe actual dedition, resignation, or dedication of ourselves, to God\nthe Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in these relations. 2. A promise or\nvow to endeavour faithfully to live according to our undertaken\nrelations (though not in perfection); that is, as creatures to their\nCreator, and their reconciled God and Father; as christians to their\nRedeemer, their Teacher, their Ruler, and their Saviour; and as\nwilling receivers of the sanctifying and comforting operations of the\nHoly Spirit.\n\nII. The objects tell you what the acts must be on our part; 1. With\nthe understanding, to know and believe; 2. With the will to love,\nchoose, desire, and resolve; and, 3. Practically to deliver up\nourselves for the present, and to promise for the time to come. These\nare the essentials of the christian religion.\n\n8. The creed is a larger explication of the _credenda_, and the Lord's\nprayer of the _diligenda_, or things to be willed, desired, and hoped\nfor; and the decalogue of the natural part of the _agenda_.\n\n9. Suffer not your own ignorance, or the papists' cheats, to confound\nthe question about fundamentals, as to the matter, and as to the\nexpressing words. It is one thing to ask, What is the matter essential\nto christianity? And another, What words, symbols, or sentences are\nessential to it? To the first, I have now answered you. To the second\nI say, 1. Taking the christian religion as it is, an extrinsic\ndoctrine _in signis_, so the essence of it is, words and signs\nexpressive or significant of the material essence. That they be such\nin specie is all that is essential. And if they say, But which be\nthose words? I answer, 2. That no particular words in the world are\nessential to the christian religion. For, (1.) No one language is\nessential to it. It is not necessary to salvation that you be\nbaptized, or learn the creed or Scriptures, in Hebrew, or Greek, or\nLatin, or English, so you learn it in any language understood. (2.) It\nis not necessary to salvation that you use the same words in the same\nlanguage, as long as it hath more words than one to express the same\nthing by. (3.) It is not necessary to salvation, that we use the same\n(or any one single) form, method, or order of words, as they are in\nthe creeds, without alteration. And therefore while the ancients did\ntenaciously cleave to the same symbol or creed, yet they used various\nwords to express it by. (As may be seen in Iren\u00e6us, Tertullian,\nOrigen, and Ruffin, elsewhere cited by me; so that it is plain, that\nby the same symbol they meant the same matter, though expressed in\nsome variety of words.) Though they avoided such variety as might\nintroduce variety of sense and matter.\n\n10. Words being needful, 1. To make a learner understand; 2. To tell\nanother what he understandeth: it followeth that the great variety of\nmen's capacities maketh a great variation in the necessity of words or\nforms. An Englishman must have them in English, and a Frenchman in\nFrench. An understanding man may receive all the essentials in a few\nwords; but an ignorant man must have many words to make him understand\nthe matter. To him that understandeth them, the words of the baptismal\ncovenant express all the essentials of christianity: but to him that\nunderstands them not, the creed is necessary for the explication: and\nto him that understandeth not that, a catechism, or larger exposition,\nis necessary. This is the plain explication of this question, which\nmany papists seem loth to understand.\n\n[389] James iii. 2; 1 John i. 10.\n\n\nQuest. CXXXIX. _What is the use and authority of the creed? And is it\nof the apostles' framing or not? And is it the word of God or not?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. The use of the creed is, to be a plain explication of the\nfaith professed in the baptismal covenant. 1. For the fuller\ninstruction of the duller sort, and those that had not preparatory\nknowledge, and could not sufficiently understand the meaning of the\nthree articles of the covenant, what it is to believe in God the\nFather, Son, and Holy Ghost, without more words. 2. And for the\nsatisfaction of the church, that indeed men understood what they did\nin baptism, and professed to believe.\n\n2. The creed is the word of God, as to all the doctrine or matter of\nit, whatever it be as to the order and composition of words.\n\n3. That is oft by the ancients called the apostles', which containeth\nthe matter delivered by the apostles, though not in a form of words\ncompiled by them.\n\n4. It is certain that all the words now in our creed, were not put in\nby the apostles, 1. Because some of them were not in till long after\ntheir days. 2. Because the ancient _formul\u00e6_ agree not in words among\nthemselves.[390]\n\n5. It is not to be doubted of, but the apostles did appoint and use a\ncreed commonly in their days. And that it is the same with that which\nis now called the apostles' and the Nicene in the main; but not just\nthe same composure of words, nor had they any such precise composure\nas can be proved. But this much is easily provable:--\n\n(1.) That Christ composed a creed when he made his covenant, and\ninstituted baptism, Matt, xxviii. 19.\n\n(2.) That in the Jewish church, where men were educated in the\nknowledge of the Scriptures, and expectation of the Messiah, it was\nsupposed that the people had so much preparatory knowledge, as made\nthem the more capable of baptism, as soon as they did but seriously\nprofess to believe, and consent to the terms of the covenant; and\ntherefore they were presently baptized, Acts ii. 38-40.\n\n(3.) That this could not be rationally supposed among the gentiles,\nand common, ignorant people of the world. And _ignorantis non est\nconsensus_. He doth not covenant who understandeth not the covenant,\nas to what is promised him, and what he promiseth.\n\n(4.) That the apostles baptized, and caused others to baptize many\nthousands, and settle many churches, before any part of the New\nTestament was written, even many and many years.\n\n(5.) That the apostles did their work as well and better than any that\nsucceeded them.\n\n(6.) That their successors in the common ministry, did, as far as any\nchurch history leadeth us up, instruct and catechise men in the\nmeaning of the baptismal covenant, (which is the christian faith,)\nbefore they baptized them: yea, they kept them long in the state of\ncatechumens usually, before they would baptize them. And after\nbaptized but twice a year, at Easter and Whitsuntide (as our liturgy\nnoteth). And they received an account of their tolerable understanding\nof religion, before they would receive them into the church.\n\n(7.) No doubt then but the apostles did cause the baptizable to\nunderstand the three articles of Christ's own creed and covenant, and\nto give some account of it before they baptized them, ordinarily among\nthe gentiles.\n\n(8.) No doubt therefore but they used many more explicatory words, to\ncause them to understand those few.\n\n(9.) There is neither proof nor probability, that they used a\ncomposure of just the same words, and no more or less: because they\nhad to do with persons of several capacities, some knowing, who needed\nfewer words, and some ignorant and dull, who needed more: nor is any\nsuch composure come down to our hands.\n\n(10.) But it is more than probable, that the matter opened by them to\nall the catechumens was still the same, when the words were not the\nsame. For God's promises and man's conditions are still the same\n(where the gospel cometh). Though since by the occasion of heresies,\nsome few material clauses are inserted. For all christians had one\nchristianity, and must go one way to heaven.\n\n(11.) It is also more than probable, that they did not needlessly vary\nthe words, lest it should teach men to vary the matter: but that all\nchristians before baptism, did make the same profession of faith as\nthe sense, and very much the same as to the very words; using\nnecessary caution, and yet avoiding unnecessary preciseness of\nformality; but so as to obviate damnable heresies, that the christian\nprofession might attain its ends.\n\n(12.) Lastly, no doubt but this practice of the apostles was\nexemplary, and imitated by the churches, and that thus the essentials\nof religion were, by the tradition of the creed and baptism, delivered\nby themselves, as far as christianity went, long before any book of\nthe New Testament was written: and every christian was an impress, or\ntranscript, or specimen of it.[392] And that the following churches\nusing the same creed, (wholly in sense, and mostly in words,) might so\nfar well call it the apostles' creed; as they did both the Western and\nthe Nicene.\n\n[390] Vid. Usher and Vossium de Symbolis.\n\n[391] Heb. v. 11, 12; vi. 1-3.\n\n[392] 2 Tim. i. 13; 2 Cor. iii. 2, 3, 7; Heb. viii. 10; x. 16.\n\n\nQuest. CXL. _What is the use of catechisms?_\n\n_Answ._ To be a more familiar explication of the essentials of\nchristianity, and the principal integrals, in a larger manner than the\ncreed, Lord's prayer, and decalogue do; that the ignorant may the more\neasily understand it. Every man cannot gather out of the Scripture the\ngreatest matters in the true method, as distinct from all the rest:\nand therefore it is part of the work of the church's teachers, to do\nit to the hands and use of the ignorant.\n\n\nQuest. CXLI. _Could any of us have known by the Scriptures alone the\nessentials of religion from the rest, if tradition had not given them\nto us in the creed, as from apostolical collection?_\n\n_Answ._ Yes: for the Scripture itself telleth us what is necessary to\nsalvation; it describeth to us the covenant of grace, both promises\nand conditions; and it were strange if so large a volume should not as\nplainly tell us what is necessary to salvation, as fewer words! The\nScripture hath not less than the creed, but more.\n\n\nQuest. CXLII. _What is the best method of a true catechism or sum of\ntheology?_\n\n_Answ._ God willing, I shall tell the church my opinion of that at\nlarge, in a peculiar Latin treatise, called \"Methodus Theologi\u00e6,\"\nwhich here I cannot do. Only I shall say, that among all the great\nvariety of methods used in these times, I think none cometh nearer the\norder of the matter, (which is the true commendation of a method,)\nthan those which open theology, 1. In the breviate of the baptismal\ncovenant. 2. In the three explicatory sums, the creed, Lord's prayer,\nand decalogue, with the added gospel precepts. 3. In the largest form,\nwhich is the whole Scripture. And that our common English catechism,\nand Par\u00e6us or Ursine, and many such who use that common easy method,\nare more truly methodical, than most that pretend to greater\naccurateness (though I much commend the great industry of such as\nDudley, Fenner, Gomarus, and especially George Sohnius).\n\n\nQuest. CXLIII. _What is the use of various church confessions or\narticles of faith?_\n\n_Answ._ I will pass by the very ill use that is made of them in too\nmany countries, where unnecessary opinions or uncertain are put in,\nand they that can get into favour with the secular power, take\nadvantage under pretence of orthodoxness and uniformity, truth and\npeace, to set up their opinions and judgments to be the common rule\nfor all to bow to, though wiser than themselves: and to silence all\nministers, and scatter and divide the flocks that will not say or\nswear as they do, that is, that they are wise men, and are in the\nright.\n\nThe true and commendable use of various church professions, or\nconfessions of faith, is, 1. To be an instruction to the more ignorant\nhow to understand the Scriptures in most of the most weighty points.\n2. To be an enumeration of those doctrines, against which no minister\nshall be allowed to preach, and according to which he is to instruct\nthe people. 3. To be a testimony to all neighbour or foreign churches\nin a heterodox, contentious, and suspicious age, how we understand the\nScriptures, for the confuting of scandals and unjust suspicions, and\nthe maintaining communion in faith, and charity, and doctrine.\n\n\nQuest. CXLIV. _May not the subscribing of the whole Scriptures serve\nturn for all the aforesaid ends without creeds, catechisms, or\nconfessions?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. By subscribing to the Scriptures you mean either, generally\nand implicitly, that all in them is true and good (though perhaps you\nknow not what is in it). Or else particularly and explicitly, that\nevery point in it is by you both understood and believed to be true.\n\nIn the first sense, it is not sufficient to salvation: for this\nimplicit faith hath really no act in it, but a belief that all that\nGod saith is true; which is only the formal object of faith, and is no\nmore than to believe that there is a God (for a liar is not a God).\nAnd this he may do, who never believed in Christ, or a word of\nScripture, as not taking it to be God's word; yea, that will not\nbelieve that God forbiddeth his beastly life. Infidels ordinarily go\nthus far.\n\nIn the second sense, (of an explicit, or particular actual belief,)\nthe belief of the whole Scripture is enough indeed, and more than any\nman living can attain to. No man understandeth all the Scripture.\nTherefore that which no man hath, is to be exacted of all men, or any\nman, in order to ministration or communion. While, 1. No man can\nsubscribe to any one translation of the Bible, that it is not faulty,\nbeing the work of defectible man. 2. And few have such acquaintance\nwith the Hebrew, and Chaldee, and Greek, as to be able to say that\nthey understand the original languages perfectly. 3. And no man that\nunderstands the words, doth perfectly understand the matter. It\nfolloweth that no man is to be forced or urged to subscribe to all\nthings in the Scriptures, as particularly understood by him, with an\nexplicit faith. And an implicit is not half enough.\n\n2. The true mean therefore is the ancient way, 1. To select the\nessentials for all christians, to be believed particularly and\nexplicitly. 2. To collect certain of the most needful integrals, which\nteachers shall not preach against. 3. And for all men moreover to\nprofess in general that they implicitly believe all which they can\ndiscern to be the holy canonical Scripture, and that all is true which\nis the word of God; forbearing each other even about the number of\ncanonical books and texts.\n\nAnd it is the great wisdom and mercy of God, which hath so ordered it,\nthat the Scripture shall have enough to exercise the strongest, and\nyet that the weakest may be ignorant of the meaning of a thousand\nsentences, without danger of damnation, so they do but understand the\nmarrow or essentials, and labour faithfully to increase in the\nknowledge of the rest.[393]\n\n[393] 1 Cor. viii. 1-3; xiii. 1-4; Rom. viii. 28.\n\n\nQuest. CXLV. _May not a man be saved that believeth all the essentials\nof religion, as coming to him by verbal tradition, and not as\ncontained in the holy Scriptures, which perhaps he never knew?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. He that believeth shall be saved, which way ever he cometh\nby his belief; so be it it be sound as to the object and act; that is,\nif it contain all the essentials, and they be predominantly believed,\nloved, and practised.\n\n2. The Scriptures being the records of Christ's doctrine delivered by\nhimself, his Spirit, and his apostles, it is the office of ministers,\nand the duty of all instructors, to open these Scriptures to those\nthey teach, and to deliver particulars upon the authority of these\ninspired, sealed records which contain them.\n\n3. They that thus receive particular truths, from a teacher explaining\nthe Scripture to them, do receive them in a subordination to the\nScripture, materially, and as to the teacher's part; though not\nformally, and as to their own part; and though the Scripture authority\nbeing not understood by them, be not the formal object of their faith,\nbut only God's authority in general.\n\n4. They that are ignorant of the being of the Scripture, have a great\ndisadvantage to their faith.\n\n5. Yet we cannot say, but it may be the case of thousands to be saved\nby the gospel delivered by tradition, without resolving their faith\ninto the authority of the Scriptures. For,\n\n1. This was the case of all the christians (as to the New Testament)\nwho lived before it was written; and there are several articles of the\ncreed now necessary, which the Old Testament doth not reveal.[394]\n\n2. This may be the case of thousands in ignorant countries, where the\nBible being rare, is to most unknown.[395]\n\n3. This may be the case of thousands of children who are taught their\ncreed and catechism, before they understand what the Bible is.\n\n4. This may be the case of thousands among the papists, where some\nperverse priests do keep not only the reading, but the knowledge of\nthe Scriptures from the people, for fear lest they should be taught\nto resolve their faith into it; and do teach them only the articles of\nfaith and catechism, as known by the church's tradition alone.\n\n[394] Matt. xvi. 16.\n\n[395] Rom. x. 9, 10, 13-15.\n\n\nQuest. CXLVI. _Is the Scripture fit for all christians to read, being\nso obscure?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. The essentials and points necessary to salvation are plain.\n\n2. We are frequently and vehemently commanded to delight in it, and\nmeditate in it day and night; to search it; to teach it our very\nchildren, speaking of it at home and abroad, lying down and rising up,\nand to write it on the posts of our houses, and on our doors, &c.\n\n3. It is suited to the necessity and understanding of the meanest, to\ngive light to the simple, and to make the very foolish wise.[396]\n\n4. The ancient fathers and christians were all of this mind.\n\n5. All the christian churches of the world have been used to read it\nopenly to all, even to the simplest; and if they may hear it, they may\nread the same words which they hear.\n\n6. God blessed the ignorant Ethiopian eunuch when he found him reading\nthe Scriptures, though he knew not the sense of what he read, and sent\nhim Philip to instruct him and convert him.\n\n7. Timothy was educated in the knowledge of the Scriptures in his\nchildhood.\n\n8. That which is written to and for all men, may be read by all that\ncan; but the Scripture was written to and for all,[397]----&c.\n\n_Object._ But there are many things in it hard to be understood.\n\n_Answ._ 1. And there are many things easy to be understood. 2. We\nnever said that men should not use the help of their teachers, and all\nthat they can to understand it. 3. Were not those teachers once\nignorant? And yet they did read it by the help of teachers; and so may\nothers. 4. As the king for concord commandeth all the schoolmasters to\nteach one grammar; so God maketh it the minister's office to instruct\npeople in the Scriptures. And were it not a question unworthy of a\nschoolmaster, to dispute, Whether the scholars must learn by their\nbook, or by their master? Yea, to conclude that it must be by their\nmaster, and not by their book: or that they must never open their\nbook, but when their master is just at hand to teach them. The\ndoctrine of the papists, who tell us that the Scriptures should not be\nread by the vulgar, it being the rise of all heresies, is so inhuman\nand impious, as savouring of gross enmity to Scriptures, and to\nknowledge, that were there no other, it would make the lovers of\nreligion and men's souls to pray earnestly to Christ to save his\nflocks from such seducers, who so Jewishly use the key of knowledge.\n\n_Object._ But many wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction, and\nwhat heresy is not defended as by their authority?\n\n_Answ._ 1. And many thousands receive saving knowledge and grace by\nthem. The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. All\nScripture is profitable to instruction, &c. to make the man of God\nperfect. It is the incorruptible seed by which we are born again, and\nthe sincere milk, by which we are nourished.[398]\n\n2. And is it not as true, 1. That the law of the land is abused by\nevery false pretender, lawyer, and corrupt judge? What title so bad,\nthat is not defended in Westminster Hall sometimes, under pretence of\nlaw? And what action so bad, that some pretend not law for? What then?\nMust the law be forbidden the common people for this?\n\n2. Nay, what is so much abused to unrighteousness and sin as reason\nitself? What heresy or crime do not men plead reason for? Must reason\ntherefore be forbidden the vulgar?\n\n3. Yea, contrarily, this signifieth that law and reason are so far\nfrom being things to be forbidden men, that they are indeed those\nthings by which nature and necessity have taught all the world to try\nand discern right from wrong, good from bad; otherwise good and bad\nmen would not all thus agree in pretending to them, and appealing to\ntheir decisions.\n\n4. If many men are poisoned or killed in eating or drinking, if many\nmen's eye-sight is abused to mislead them unto sin, &c. the way is\nnot, to eat nothing but what is put into our mouths; nor to put out\nour eyes, or wink, and be led only by a priest; but to use both the\nmore cautiously, with the best advice and help that we can get.\n\n5. And do not these deceivers see, that their reason pleadeth as\nstrongly that priests and prelates themselves should never read the\nScripture (and consequently that it should be banished out of the\nworld)? For who that is awake in the world can be ignorant, that it is\npriests and prelates, who have been the leaders of almost all heresies\nand sects; who differ in their expositions and opinions, and lead the\nvulgar into all the heresies which they fall into? Who then should be\nforbidden to read the Scripture, but priests and prelates, who wrest\nthem to their own and other men's destruction?\n\n[396] John v. 39; Psal. i. 2; Deut. vi.; xi.; Psal. xix. 7-11; 2 Tim.\niii. 15; Psal. cxix. 98, 105, 133, 148; Acts xvii. 11; viii.\n\n[397] 2 Tim. iii. 15; Rom. xv. 4; Matt. xii. 24.\n\n[398] 2 Pet. iii. 16; Psal. xix. 3, 8-10; 3 Tim. iii. 16; 1 Pet. i.\n23.\n\n\nQuest. CXLVII. _How far is tradition and men's words and ministry to\nbe used or trusted in, in the exercise of faith?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. The churches and ministers received the gospel in Scripture\nfrom the apostles, and the creed as the summary of faith: and they\ndelivered it down to others, and they to us.\n\n2. The ministers by office are the instructors of the people in the\nmeaning of it; and the keepers of the Scriptures, as lawyers are of\nthe laws of the land.[399]\n\n[399] Heb. ii. 3, 4; 2 Pet. i. 17-21; 2 John i. 1-5; iv. 6; 2 Tim. ii.\n2; Tit. i. 5.\n\n\nQuest. CXLVIII. _How know we the true canon of Scripture from\napocrypha?_\n\n_Answ._ By these means set together: 1. There is, for the most part, a\nspecial venerable excellency in the books themselves, which helpeth us\nin the distinct reception of them.\n\n2. The tradition of infallible church history telleth us, which books\nthey are which were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who\nsealed their doctrine with miracles in those times; it being but\nmatter of fact, (which books such men wrote whom God bare witness to,)\ninfallible church history (such as we have to know which are the\nstatutes of the land, and which are counterfeit) is a sufficient\nnotification and proof.\n\n3. The sanctifying Spirit still in all ages and christians, attested\nthe divinity and truth of the doctrine of the main body of the Bible,\nespecially the gospel; and then if we should err about the authority\nof a particular book, it would not overthrow our faith. It is not\nnecessary to salvation to believe this particular text to be divine,\nbut it is sin and folly to doubt causelessly of the parts, when the\nSpirit attesteth the doctrine and the body of the book. I pass these\nthings briefly, because I have largelier handled them elsewhere.\n\n\nQuest. CXLIX. _Is the public reading of the Scripture the proper work\nof a minister? or may a layman ordinarily do it? or another officer?_\n\n_Answ._ In such cases as I before showed that a layman may preach, he\nmay also read the Scriptures. Of which look back.\n\n2. No doubt but it is a work well beseeming the ordained ministers or\npastors, and an integral part of their office; and should not be put\noff by them when they can do it.\n\n3. When they need help the deacons are ordained ministers, authorized\nto help them in such work, and fittest to do it.\n\n4. Whether in a case of necessity a layman may not ordinarily read the\nScripture to the congregation, is a case that I am loth to determine,\nbeing loth to suppose such a necessity. But if the minister cannot,\nand there be no deacon, I cannot prove it unlawful for a layman to do\nit under the direction of the pastor. I lived some time under an old\nminister of about eighty years of age, (who never preached himself,)\nwhose eye-sight failing him, and having not maintenance to keep an\nassistant, he did by memory say the Common-prayer himself, and got a\ntailor one year, and a thresher or poor day-labourer another year, to\nread all the Scriptures. Whether that were not better than nothing, I\nleave to consideration.\n\nAnd I think it is commonly agreed on, that where there is no minister,\nit is better for the people to meet and hear a layman read the\nScriptures and some good books, than to have no public helps and\nworship.\n\n\nQuest. CL. _Is it lawful to read the apocrypha, or any good books\nbesides the Scriptures, to the church? As homilies, &c.?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. It is not lawful to read them as God's word, or to pretend\nthem to be the holy Scriptures, for that is a falsehood, and an\naddition to God's word.\n\n2. It is not lawful to read them scandalously, in a title and manner\ntending to draw the people to believe that they are God's word, or\nwithout a sufficient distinguishing of them from the holy Scriptures.\n\n3. If any one of the apocryphal books, (as Judith, Tobit, Bel and the\nDragon, &c.) be as fabulous, false, and bad as our protestant writers\n(Reignoldus, Amesius, Whitakers, Chamier, and abundance more) affirm\nthem to be, it is not lawful ordinarily to read them, in that\nhonourable way as chapters called lessons are usually read in the\nassemblies. Nor is it lawful so to read heretical, fabulous, or\nerroneous books.\n\nBut it is lawful to read publicly, apocryphal and human writings,\nhomilies, or edifying sermons, on these conditions following.\n\n1. So be it they be indeed sound doctrine, holy, and fitted to the\npeople's edification.\n\n2. So be it they be not read scandalously without sufficient\ndifferencing them from God's book.\n\n3. So they be not read to exclude or hinder the reading of the\nScriptures, or any other necessary church duty.\n\n4. So they be not read to keep up an ignorant, lazy ministry that can\nor will do no better; nor to exercise the minister's sloth, and hinder\nhim from preaching.\n\n5. And especially if authority command it, and the church's agreement\nrequire it, as a signification what doctrine it is which they profess.\n\n6. Or if the church's necessities require it; as if they have no\nminister, or no one that can do so much to their edification any other\nway.\n\n7. Therefore the use of catechisms is confessed lawful in the church,\nby almost all.\n\n\nQuest. CLI. _May church assemblies be held where there is no minister?\nOr what public worship may be so performed by laymen? (As among\ninfidels, or papists, where persecution hath killed, imprisoned, or\nexpelled the ministers.)_\n\n_Answ._ 1. Such an assembly as hath no pastor, or minister of Christ,\nis not a church, in a political sense, as the word signifieth a\nsociety consisting of pastor and flock; but it may be a church in a\nlarger sense, as the word signifieth only a community or association\nof private christians for mutual help in holy things.\n\n2. Such an assembly ought on the Lord's days, and at other fit times,\nto meet together for mutual help, and the public worshipping of God,\nas they may, rather than not to meet at all.\n\n3. In those meetings they may do all that followeth. 1. They may pray\ntogether; a layman being the speaker. 2. They may sing psalms. 3. They\nmay read the Scriptures. 4. They may read some holy, edifying writings\nof divines, or repeat some minister's sermons. 5. Some that are ablest\nmay speak to the instruction and exhortation of the rest, as a master\nmay do in his family, or neighbours to stir up God's graces in each\nother, as was opened before. 6. And some such may catechise the\nyounger and more ignorant. 7. They may by mutual conference open their\ncases to each other, and communicate what knowledge or experience they\nhave, to the praise of God and each other's edification. 8. They may\nmake a solemn profession of their faith, covenant, and subjection to\nGod the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and all this is better than\nnothing at all.\n\nBut, 1. None of them may do any of this as a pastor, ruler, priest, or\noffice teacher of the church. 2. Nor may they baptize. 3. Nor\nadminister the Lord's supper. 4. Nor excommunicate by sentence (but\nonly executively agree to avoid the notoriously impenitent). 5. Nor\nabsolve ministerially, or as by authority; nor exercise any of the\npower of the keys, that is, of government. 6. And they must do their\nbest to get a pastor as soon as they are able.\n\n\nQuest. CLII. _Is it lawful to subscribe or profess full assent and\nconsent to any religious books besides the Scripture, seeing all are\nfallible?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. It is not lawful to profess or subscribe that any book is\ntruer or better than it is; or that there is no fault in any that is\nfaulty; or to profess that we believe any mortal man to be totally\ninfallible in all that he shall write or say, or impeccable in all\nthat he shall do.\n\n2. Because all men are fallible, and so are we in judging, it is not\nlawful to say of any large and dubious books, in which we know no\nfault, that there is no fault or error in them: we being uncertain,\nand it being usual for the best men even in their best writings,\nprayers, or works to be faulty, as the consequent or effect of our\ncommon culpable imperfection. But we may say, that we know no fault or\nerror in it, if indeed we do not know of any.\n\n3. It is lawful to profess or subscribe our assent and consent to any\nhuman writing which we judge to be true and good, according to the\nmeasure of its truth and goodness; as if church confessions that are\nsound be offered us for our consent, we may say or subscribe, I hold\nall the doctrine in this book to be true and good. And by so doing I\ndo not assert the infallibility of the authors, but only the verity of\nthe writing. I do not say that he cannot err, or that he never erreth;\nbut that he erreth not in this, as far as I am able to discern.\n\n\nQuest. CLIII. _May we lawfully swear obedience in all things lawful\nand honest, either to usurpers, or to our lawful pastors?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. If the question were of imposing such oaths, I would say,\nthat it was many a hundred years before the churches of Christ (either\nunder persecution, or in their prosperity and glory) did ever know of\nany such practice, as the people or the presbyters swearing obedience\nto the bishops. And when it came up, the magistracy, princes, and\nemperors fell under the feet of the pope; and the clergy grew to what\nwe see it in the Roman kingdom, called a church. And far should I be\nfrom desiring such oaths to be imposed.\n\n2. But the question being only of the taking such oaths, and not the\nimposing of them, I say, that, (1.) It is not lawful to swear\nobedience to a usurper, civil or ecclesiastical, _in licitis et\nhonestis_; because it is a subjecting ourselves to him, and an\nacknowledging that authority which he hath not; for we can swear no\nfurther to obey the king himself but in things lawful and honest; and\nto do so by a usurper is an injury to the king, and unto Christ.\n\n(2.) But if the king himself shall command us to swear obedience to a\nsubordinate civil usurper, he thereby ceaseth to be a usurper, and\nreceiveth authority, and it becometh our duty. And if he that was an\necclesiastical usurper, _quoad personam_, that had no true call to a\nlawful office, shall after have a call, or if any thing fall out,\nwhich shall make it our duty to consent and call him, then the\nimpediment from his usurpation is removed.\n\n(3.) It is not lawful, though the civil magistrate command us to swear\nobedience even _in licitis et honestis_, to such a usurper, whose\noffice itself is unlawful, or forbidden by Christ, as he is such an\nofficer. No protestant thinketh it lawful to swear obedience to the\npope as pope; nor do any that take lay-elders to be an unlawful\noffice, think it lawful to swear obedience to them as such.\n\n(4.) If one that is in an unlawful ecclesiastical office, be also at\nonce in another that is lawful, we may swear obedience to him in\nrespect of the lawful office. So it is lawful to swear obedience to\nthe pope in Italy, as a temporal prince in his own dominions; and to a\ncardinal, (as Richelieu, Mazarine, Ximenes, &c.) as the king's\nministers, exercising a power derived from him: so it is lawful for a\ntenant, where law and custom requireth it, to swear fidelity to a\nlay-elder, as his landlord or temporal lord and master. And so the old\nnonconformists, who thought the English prelacy an unlawful office,\nyet maintained that it is lawful to take the oath of canonical\nobedience, because they thought it was imposed by the king and laws,\nand that we swear to them not as officers claiming a divine right in\nthe spiritual government, but as ordinaries, or officers made by the\nking to exercise so much of ecclesiastical jurisdiction under him, as\nhe can delegate; according to the oath of supremacy, in which we all\nacknowledge the king to be supreme in all ecclesiastical causes; that\nis, not the supreme pastor, bishop, or spiritual key-bearer or ruler,\nbut the supreme civil ruler of the church, who hath the power of the\nsword, and of determining all things extrinsic to the pastoral office;\nand so of the coercive government of all pastors and churches, as well\nas of other subjects. And if prelacy were proved never so unlawful, no\ndoubt but by the king's command we may swear or perform formal\nobedience to a prelate, as he is the king's officer. Of the\nnonconformists' judgment in this, read Bradshaw against Canne, &c.\n\n(5.) But in such a case no oath to inferiors is lawful without the\nconsent of the sovereign power, or at least against his will.\n\n(6.) Though it be a duty for the flock to obey every presbyter, yet if\nthey would make all the people swear obedience to them, all wise and\nconscionable christians should dissent from the introduction of such a\ncustom, and deny such oaths as far as lawfully they may: that is,\n\n1. If the king be against it, we must refuse it.\n\n2. If he be neutral or merely passive in it, we must refuse, unless\nsome apparent necessity for the church's good require it.\n\n1. Because it savoureth of pride in such presbyters.\n\n2. Because it is a new custom in the church, and contrary to the\nancient practice.\n\n3. It is not only without any authority given them by Christ, that\nthey exact such oaths, but also contrary to the great humility,\nlowliness, and condescension, in which he describeth his ministers,\nwho must be great, by being the servants of all.[4001]\n\n4. And it tendeth to corrupt the clergy for the future.\n\n5. And such new impositions give just reason to princes and to the\npeople to suspect that the presbyters are aspiring after some\ninordinate exaltation, or have some ill project for the advancement of\nthemselves.\n\n(7.) But yet if it be not only their own ambition which imposeth it,\nbut either the king and laws command it, or necessity require it for\nthe avoidance of a greater evil, it may be lawful and a duty to take\nan oath of obedience to a lawful presbyter or bishop; because, 1. It\nis a duty to obey them. 2. And it is not forbidden us by Christ to\npromise or swear to do our duty (even when they may sin in demanding\nsuch an oath).\n\n(8.) If an office be lawful in the essential parts, and yet have\nunlawful integrals, or adjuncts, or be abused in exercise, it will not\nby such additions or abuses be made unlawful to swear obedience to the\nofficer as such.\n\n(9.) If one presbyter or bishop would make another presbyter or bishop\nto swear obedience to him without authority, the case is the same as\nof the usurpers before mentioned.\n\n[400] Matt. xxii. 4, 10; Luke xxii. 27, &c.; Mark ix. 35; 1 Pet. v. 2,\n3; 1 Cor. ix. 19; iv. 1; 2 Cor. iv. 5.\n\n\nQuest. CLIV. _Must all our preaching be upon a text of Scripture?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. In many cases it may be lawful to preach without a\ntext;[401] to make sacred orations like Gregory Nazianzen's, and\nhomilies like Macarius's, Ephrem Syrus's, and many other ancients, and\nlike our own church homilies.\n\n2. But ordinarily it is the fittest way to preach upon a text of\nScripture.[402] 1. Because it is our very office to teach the people\nthe Scripture. The prophets brought a new word or message from God;\nbut the priests did but keep, interpret, and preach the law already\nreceived: and we are not successors of the inspired prophets, but as\nthe priests were, teachers of God's received word. And this practice\nwill help the people to understand our office. 2. And it will preserve\nthe due esteem and reverence of the holy Scriptures, which the\ncontrary practice may diminish.\n\n[401] Acts ii.; iii.; Luke iv. 18.\n\n[402] Mal. ii. 7.\n\n\nQuest. CLV. _Is not the law of Moses abrogated, and the whole Old\nTestament out of date, and therefore not to be read publicly and\npreached on?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. The covenant of innocency is ceased _cessante subditorum\ncapacitate_, as a covenant or promise. And so are the positive laws\nproper to Adam, in that state, and to many particular persons since.\n\n2. The covenant mixed of grace and works, proper to the Jews, with all\nthe Jewish law as such, was never made to us, or to the rest of the\nworld; and to the Jews it is ceased by the coming and perfecter laws\nand covenant of Christ.\n\n3. The prophecies and types of Christ, and the promises made to Adam,\nAbraham, and others, of his coming in the flesh, are all fulfilled,\nand therefore not useful to all the ends of their first making: and\nthe many prophecies of particular things and persons past and gone are\naccomplished.\n\n4. But the law of nature is still Christ's law; and that law is much\nexpounded to us in the Old Testament: and if God once, for another\nuse, did say, This is the law of nature, the truth of these words as a\ndivine doctrine and exposition of the law of nature is still the same.\n\n5. The covenant of grace made with Adam and Noah for all mankind, is\nstill in force as to the great benefits and main condition, that is,\nas to pardon given by it to true penitent believers, with a right to\neverlasting life, and as to the obligation to sincere obedience for\nsalvation: though not as to the yet future coming of Christ in the\nflesh. And this law of grace was never yet repealed any further than\nChrist's coming did fulfil it and perfect it: therefore to the rest of\nthe world, who never can have the gospel or perfecter testament, as\nchristians have, the former law of grace is yet in force. And that is\nthe law, conjoined with the law of nature, which now the world without\nthe church is under: under, I say, as to the force of the law, and a\nformer promulgation made to Adam and Noah, and some common intimations\nof it in merciful forbearances, pardons, and benefits; though how many\nare under it as to the knowledge, reception, belief, and obedience of\nit, and consequently are saved by it, is more than I or any man\nknoweth.\n\n6. There are many prophecies of Christ and the christian church in the\nOld Testament yet to be fulfilled, and therefore are still God's word\nfor us.\n\n7. There are many precepts of God to the Jews and to particular\npersons, given them on reasons common to them with us; where parity of\nreason will help thence to gather our own duty now.\n\n8. There are many holy expressions, (as in the Psalms,) which are\nfitted to persons in our condition, and came from the Spirit of God;\nand therefore as such are fit for us now.\n\n9. Even the fulfilled promises, types, and prophecies, are still God's\nwords, that is, his word given to their several proper uses: and\nthough much of their use be changed or ceased, so is not all: they are\nyet useful to us, to confirm our faith, while we see their\naccomplishment, and see how much God still led his church to happiness\nin one and the same way.\n\n10. On all these accounts therefore we may still read the Old\nTestament, and preach upon it in the public churches.[403]\n\n[403] 2 Tim. iii. 15; Rom. xv. 4; xvi. 26; Matt. xxii. 29; Luke xxiv.\n27, 32, 45; John v. 39; Acts xvii. 2, 11; xviii. 24, 25; John xx. 9;\nvii. 38, 42; x. 35; xiii. 18; xix. 24, 28; Luke iv. 18, 21; 2 Tim.\niii. 16; 2 Pet. i. 19, 20; Acts viii. 32, 33, 35; Rom. i. 2.\n\n\nQuest. CLVI. _Must we believe that Moses's law did ever bind other\nnations; or that any other parts of the Scripture bound them, or\nbelong to them? or that the Jews were all God's visible church on\nearth?_\n\n_Answ._ I conjoin these three questions for despatch.\n\nI. 1. Some of the matter of Moses's law did bind all nations; that is,\nthe law of nature as such.\n\n2. Those that had the knowledge of the Jewish law, were bound\ncollaterally to believe and obey all the expositions of the law of\nnature in it, and all the laws which were given upon reasons common to\nall the world; (as about degrees of marriage, particular rules of\njustice, &c.) As if I heard God from heaven tell another that standeth\nby me, Thou shalt not marry thy father's widow; for it is abominable,\nI ought to apply that to me, being his subject, which is spoken to\nanother on a common reason.[404]\n\n3. All those gentiles that would be proselytes, and join with the Jews\nin their policy, and dwelt among them, were bound to be observers of\ntheir laws. But, 1. The law of nature as mosaical, did not formally\nand directly bind other nations. 2. Nor were they bound to the laws of\ntheir peculiar policy, civil or ecclesiastical, which were positives.\nThe reason is, (1.) Because they were all one body of political laws,\ngiven peculiarly to one political body. Even the decalogue itself was\nto them a political law. (2.) Because Moses was not authorized or sent\nto be the mediator or deliverer of that law to any nation but the\nJews. And being never in the enacting or promulgation sent or directed\nto the rest of the world, it could not bind them.\n\nII. As to the second question, Though the Scripture as a writing bound\nnot all the world, yet, 1. The law of nature as such which is recorded\nin Scripture did bind all. 2. The covenant of grace was made with all\nmankind in Adam and Noah; and they were bound to promulgate it by\ntradition to all their offspring. And no doubt so they did; whether by\nword, (as all did,) or by writing also, (as it is like some did, as\nEnoch's prophecies were it is like delivered, or else they had not in\nterms been preserved till Jude's time). 3. And God himself as\naforesaid by actual providences, pardoning, and benefits given to them\nthat deserved hell, did in part promulgate it himself. 4. The\nneighbour nations might learn much by God's doctrine and dealing with\nthe Jews.[405]\n\nIII. To the third question, I answer, 1. The Jews were a people chosen\nby God out of all the nations of the earth, to be a holy nation, and\nhis peculiar treasure, having a peculiar divine law and covenant, and\nmany great privileges, to which the rest of the world were strangers;\nso that they were advanced above all other kingdoms of the world,\nthough not in wealth, nor worldly power, nor largeness of dominion,\nyet in a special dearness unto God.[406]\n\n2. But they were not the only people to whom God made a covenant of\ngrace in Adam and Noah, as distinct from the law or covenant of\ninnocency.\n\n3. Nor were they the only people that professed to worship the true\nGod; neither was holiness and salvation confined to them; but were\nfound in other nations. Therefore though we have but little notice of\nthe state of other kingdoms in their times, and scarcely know what\nnational churches (that is, whole nations professing saving faith)\nthere were, yet we may conclude that there were other visible churches\nbesides the Jews. For, 1. No Scripture denieth it; and charity then\nmust hope the best. 2. The Scriptures of the Old Testament give us\nsmall account of other countries, but of the Jews alone, with some of\ntheir neighbours. 3. Shem was alive in Abraham's days (yea, about 34\nyears after Abraham's death, and within 12 years of Ishmael's death,\nviz. till about An. Mundi 2158). And so great and blessed a man as\nShem, cannot be thought to be less than a king, and to have a kingdom\ngoverned according to his holiness; and so that there was with him not\nonly a church, but a national church, or holy kingdom. 4. And\nMelchizedec was a holy king and priest; and therefore had a kingdom\nholily governed; and therefore not only a visible but also a national\nchurch (supposing that he was not Shem, as the Jews and Broughton, &c.\nthink; for the situation of his country doth make many desert that\nopinion). 5. And Job and his friends show that there were churches\nthen besides the Jews. 6. And it is not to be thought that all\nIshmael's posterity suddenly apostatized. 7. Nor that Esau's posterity\nhad no church state (for both retained circumcision). 8. Nor is it\nlike that Abraham's offspring by Keturah were all apostates, being\nonce inchurched. For though the special promise was made to Isaac's\nseed, as the peculiar holy nation, &c. yet not as the only children of\nGod, or persons in a state of salvation. 9. And the passages in Jonah\nabout Nineveh give us some such intimations also. 10. And Japheth and\nhis seed being under a special blessing, it is not like that they all\nproved apostates. And what was in all other kingdoms of the world is\nlittle known to us.\n\nWe must therefore take heed of concluding, (as the proud Jews were at\nlast apt to do of themselves,) that because they were a chosen nation\nprivileged above all others, that therefore the Redeemer under the law\nof grace made to Adam, had no other churches in the world, and that\nthere were none saved but the Jews and proselytes.[407]\n\n[404] Rom. ii.; i. 20, 21; Exod. xii. 19, 43, 48, 49; xx. 10; Lev.\nxvii. 12, 15; xviii. 26; xxiv. 16, 22; Numb. ix. 14; xv. 14-16, 29,\n30; xix. 10; Deut. i. 16.\n\n[405] Psal. cxlv. 9; ciii. 19; c. 1; Rom. xiv. 11; Judg. xiv. 15.\n\n[406] Deut. xiv. 2, 3; vii. 2, 6, 7; Exod. xix. 5; vi. 7, 8; Lev. xx.\n24, 26; Deut. iv. 20, 33; xxix. 13; xxxiii. 29; Rom. iii. 1-3.\n\n[407] It is this Jewish pride of their own prerogatives which Paul so\nmuch laboureth in all his epistles to pull down.\n\n\nQuest. CLVII. _Must we think accordingly of the christian churches\nnow, that they are only advanced above the rest of the world as the\nJews were, but not the only people that are saved?_\n\n_Answ._ This question being fitter for another place, what hope there\nis of the salvation of the people that are not christians, I have\npurposely handled in another treatise, (in my \"Method. Theologi\u00e6,\")\nand shall only say now, 1. That those that receive not Christ and the\ngospel revealed and offered to them cannot be saved.[408] 2. That all\nthose shall be saved (if such there be) who never had sufficient means\nto know Christ incarnate, and yet do faithfully perform the common\nconditions of the covenant of grace as it was made with Adam and Noah;\nand particularly all that are truly sanctified, who truly hate all\nknown sin, and love God as God above all, as their merciful,\nreconciled, pardoning Father, and lay up all their hopes in heaven, in\nthe everlasting fruition of him in glory, and set their hearts there,\nand for those hopes deny the interest of the flesh, and all things of\nthis world.[409]\n\n3. But how many or who doth this abroad in all the kingdoms of the\nworld, who have not the distinct knowledge of the articles of the\nchristian faith, it is not possible for us to know.\n\n4. But (as Aquinas and the schoolmen ordinarily conclude this\nquestion) we are sure that the church hath this prerogative above all\nothers, that salvation is incomparably more common to christians, than\nto any others, as their light, and helps, and means are more. The\nopinions of Justin, and Clem. Alexandr. Origen, and many other\nancients, of the heathens' salvation, I suppose is known. In short:\n\n1. It seems plain to me, that all the world that are no christians,\nand have not the gospel, are not by Christ's incarnation put into a\nworse condition than they were in before; but may be saved on the same\nterms that they might have been saved on before.[410]\n\n2. That Christ's apostles were in a state of salvation before they\nbelieved the articles of Christ's dying for sin, his resurrection,\nascension, the giving of the Holy Ghost, and Christ's coming to\njudgment, as they are now to be believed.[411]\n\n3. That all the faithful before Christ's coming were saved by a more\ngeneral faith than the apostles had, as not being terminated in this\nperson, Jesus, as the Messiah, but only expected the Messiah to\ncome.[412]\n\n4. That as more articles are necessary to those that have the gospel,\nthan to those that have it not, and to those since Christ's\nincarnation that hear of him, than to the Jews before, so before,\nthere were more things necessary even to those Jews, (that had a\nshorter creed than that which the apostles believed before the\nresurrection,) than was to the rest of the world that had not\npromises, prophecies, types, and laws, so particular, distinct, and\nfull as they had.[413]\n\n5. That the promises, covenant, or law of grace, was made to all\nlapsed mankind in Adam and Noah.[414]\n\n6. That this law or covenant is still of the same tenor, and not\nrepealed.[415]\n\n7. That this covenant giveth pardoning mercy, and salvation, and\npromiseth victory over Satan, to and by the holy seed.[416]\n\n8. That the condition on man's part, is repentance, and faith in God\nas a merciful God, thus pardoning sin, and saving the penitent\nbeliever. But just how particular or distinct their belief of the\nincarnation of Christ was to be, is hard to determine.[417]\n\n9. But after Christ's incarnation, even they that know it not, yet are\nnot by the first covenant bound to believe that the Messiah is yet to\nbe incarnate, or the word made flesh; for they are not bound to\nbelieve an untruth, and that as the condition of salvation.[418]\n\n10. Men were saved by Christ about four thousand years before he was\nman, and had suffered, satisfied, or merited as man.\n\n11. The whole course of God's actual providence since the fall, hath\nso filled the world with mercies contrary to man's demerit, that it is\nan actual universal proclamation of the pardoning law of grace; which\nis thereby now become even a law of nature, that is, of lapsed,\npardoned nature, as the first was the natural law of innocence.[419]\n\n12. Christ giveth a great deal of mercy to them that never heard of\nhim or know him: and he giveth far more mercy to believers, than they\nhave a particular knowledge and belief of.[420]\n\n13. There is no salvation but by Christ the Saviour of the world;\nthough there be more mercy from Christ, than there is faith in\nChrist.[421]\n\n14. No man could ever be saved without believing in God as a merciful,\npardoning, saving God, though many have been saved who knew not the\nperson of Christ, determinately. For he that cometh to God must\nbelieve that God is, and that he is the rewarder of them that\ndiligently seek him; who is no respecter of persons, but in every\nnation, he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of\nhim.[422]\n\n15. All nations on earth that have not the gospel, are obliged by God\nto the use of certain means, and improvement of certain mercies, in\norder or tendency to their salvation. And it is their sin if they use\nthem not.[423]\n\n16. God hath appointed no means in vain, which men must either not\nuse, or use despairingly. But his command to use any means for any\nend, containeth (though not an explicit promise, yet) great and\ncomfortable encouragement to use that means in hope.[424]\n\n17. Therefore the world is now in comparison of the catholic church,\nmuch like what it was before Christ's incarnation in comparison of the\nJews' church; who yet had many ways great advantage, though God was\nnot the God of the Jews only, but also of the gentiles, who had a law\nwritten in their hearts, and an accusing or excusing conscience.\n\n18. Those over-doing divines who pretend to be certain that all the\nworld are damned that are not christians, do add to God's word, and\nare great agents for Satan to tempt men to infidelity, and to atheism\nitself, and to dissuade mankind from discerning the infinite goodness\nof God; and occasion many to deny the immortality of the soul, rather\nthan they will believe, that five parts in six of the world now, and\nalmost all before Christ's incarnation, have immortal souls purposely\ncreated in them, to be damned, without any propounded means and\npossibility natural of remedy; and as I know they will pour out their\nbitter censure on these lines, (which I could avoid if I regarded it\nmore than truth,) so with what measure they mete, it shall be measured\nto them; and others will damn them as confidently as they damn almost\nall the world; and I will be bold to censure that they are undoers of\nthe church by over-doing. See more in my \"Vindication of God's\nGoodness.\"\n\n[408] Mark xvi. 16; John iii. 16-20; i. 11, 12.\n\n[409] Psal. xix. 1-5; Acts x. 2, 3, 35; Rom. ii.\n\n[410] 1 Tim. ii. 4; iv. 10; Tit. ii. 11; John i. 29; iii. 17; iv. 42;\nRom. i. 21.\n\n[411] John v. 1, &c.; ix. 12, &c.; Matt. xvi. 22; John xii. 26; Luke\nxviii. 34.\n\n[412] Mal. iii. 1, 2; John iv. 25.\n\n[413] Rom. ii. 12, 14, 26; Luke xii. 47, 48; xvi. 10.\n\n[414] Gen. iii. 15; ix. 1-4.\n\n[415] Psal. cxxxvi.; ciii. 27; c. 5.\n\n[416] Gen. iii. 15; Jonah iii. 9, 10; iv. 2.\n\n[417] Jonah ibid.; Rom. ii. 4; Luke xiii. 3, 5; Acts l. 35; John iii.\n19-21.\n\n[418] 1 John iv. 2, 3; 1 Tim. iii. 16.\n\n[419] Rom. i. 20, 21; Acts xiv. 17; Rom. ii. 15, 16; Psal. xix. 1-3;\nProv. i. 20-24; Exod. xxxiv. 6; Jer. iii. 12; John iv. 2; Luke vi. 36;\nxviii. 13.\n\n[420] Psal. cxlv. 9; 1 Tim. iv. 10; Rom. x. 20\n\n[421] Acts iv. 12; John xiv. 6, 7.\n\n[422] Heb. xi. 6; Acts x. 35; 2 Thess. i. 11, 12; Jer. x. 25; Rom. x.\n12-15.\n\n[423] Acts xiv. 47; xvii. 27-30; Rom. i. 19-22; ii. 4, 7, 10, 14-16,\n27; Isa. lv. 6, 7.\n\n[424] Jonah iv. 2; iii. 10; Acts x. 35; Mal. iii. 14; Isa. xlv. 19;\nDeut. xxxii. 47; Mal. i. 10; Prov. i. 22-24; Gen. iv. 7; Rom. ii.;\niii.\n\n\nQuest. CLVIII. _Should not christians take up with Scripture wisdom\nonly, without studying philosophy and other heathens' human learning?_\n\n_Answ._ I have already proved the usefulness of common knowledge\ncalled human learning, by twenty reasons in my book called \"The\nUnreasonableness of Infidelity,\" part ii. sect. 23. p. 163, to which I\nrefer the reader; and only say now, 1. Grace presupposeth nature; we\nare men in order of nature at least before we are saints, and reason\nis before supernatural revelation. 2. Common knowledge therefore is\nsubservient unto faith: we must know the Creator and his works; and\nthe Redeemer restoreth us to the due knowledge of the Creator: human\nlearning in the sense in question is also divine, God is the author of\nthe light of nature, as well as of grace. We have more than heathens,\nbut must not therefore have less, and cast away the good that is\ncommon to them and us; else we must not have souls, bodies, reason,\nhealth, time, meat, drink, clothes, &c. because heathens have them.\nGod's works are honourable, sought out of all them that have pleasure\ntherein; and physical philosophy is nothing but the knowledge of God's\nworks. 3. And the knowledge of languages is necessary both for human\nconverse, and for the understanding the Scriptures themselves. The\nScriptures contain not a Greek and Hebrew grammar to understand the\nlanguages in which they are written, but suppose us otherwise taught\nthose tongues that we may interpret them. 4. The use of the gospel is\nnot to teach us all things needful to be known; but to teach us, on\nsupposition of our common knowledge, how to advance higher to\nsupernatural saving knowledge, faith, love, and practice. Scripture\ntelleth us not how to build a house, to plough, sow, weave, or make\nour works of art. Every one that learneth his country tongue of his\nparents hath human learning of the same sort with the learning of\nGreek and Hebrew; he that learneth not to read, cannot read the Bible.\nAnd he that understandeth it not in the original tongues, must trust\nother men's words that have human learning, or else remain a stranger\nto it.[425]\n\nBut though none but proud fools will deny the need of that human\nlearning which improveth nature, and is subservient to our knowledge\nof supernatural revelations, yet well doth Paul admonish us, to take\nheed that none deceive us by vain philosophy; and saith that the\nwisdom of the world is foolishness with God, and that the knowledge of\nChrist crucified is the true christian philosophy or wisdom. For\nindeed the dark philosophers groping after the knowledge of God, did\nfrequently stumble, and did introduce abundance of logical and\nphysical vanities, uncertainties, and falsities, under the name of\nphilosophy, by mere niceties and high pretendings, seeking for the\nglory of wisdom to themselves; whenas it is one thing to know God's\nworks and God in them, and another thing to compose a system of\nphysics and metaphysics containing abundance of errors and confusion,\nand jumbling a few certainties with a great many uncertainties and\nuntruths, and every sect pulling down what others asserted, and all of\nthem disproving the methods and assertions of others, and none proving\ntheir own. And the truth is, after all latter discoveries, there is\nyet so much error, darkness, uncertainty, and confusion in the\nphilosophy of every pretending sect, (the Peripatetics, the Stoics,\nthe Pythagoreans and Platonists, much more the Epicureans, the\nLullianists, and Cartesians, Telesius, Campanella, Patricius,\nGassendus, &c.) that it is a wonder that any that ever thoroughly\ntried them, can be so weak as to glory much of the certainties and\nmethods of any, which hitherto are so palpably uncertain, and full of\ncertain errors. We may therefore make use of all true human learning,\nreal and organical (and he is the happy scholar who fasteneth upon the\ncertain and the useful parts well distinguished from the rest, and\ntruly useth them to their great and proper ends): but niceties and\nfooleries which some spend their lives in for mere ostentation, and\nalso uncertain presumptions, should be much neglected; and the great,\ncertain, necessary, saving verities of morality and the gospel must be\ndearly loved, and thankfully embraced, and studiously learned, and\nfaithfully practised, by all that would prove wise men at last.[426]\n\n[425] Prov. ii.-vi; Psal. xcii. 5, 6; civ. 24, 25; cxiii. 5, 6; cvii.\n8, 15, 21; lxvi. 3, 4; cxi. 2-6; cxlv. 7-11, 17-19; Acts ii. 6-9; xxi.\n40; xxiv. 2; 1 Cor. xiv. 2, 4, 9, 13, 14, 19, 26, 27; Rev. ix. 11;\nxiv. 16; v. 9; Psal. xix. 1-3; xciv. 10; cxxxix. 6; Prov. ii. 1-4,\n8-10, 12; 1 Cor. xv. 34; Prov. xix. 2; Job xxxii. 8; xxxviii. 36. Yet\nI refer the reader to my \"Treatise of Knowledge,\" which showeth the\nvanity of pretended learning.\n\n[426] Col. ii. 8, 9, 23; 1 Cor. ii. 1, 4-6, 13; iii. 19; 2 Cor. i. 12;\nJob xxviii. 28; Prov. i 7; ix. 10; John xvii. 3; Gal. iv. 9; Eph. iii.\n10; 1 John ii. 13, 14; Col. i. 9, 27, 28; Eph. vi. 19; 1 Cor. ii. 11;\nCol. iii. 16; Acts xvii. 18, 19, &c. Eph. iv. 18, 19; Hos. iv. 8; vi.\n6; Psal. cxix. 99; 2 Pet. iii. 18; i. 3, 5, 8; Col. ii. 3; iii. 10;\nPhil. iii. 8; Eph. iii. 19; i. 17; Rom. i. 20-22; Eccl. i. 16-18; 1\nCor. viii. 1, 11; xiii. 2, 3, 8, 9; Rom. ii. 20; James iii. 13, 14,\n17; Jer. iv. 22; 1 Cor. viii. 2.\n\n\nQuest. CLIX. _If we think that Scripture and the law of nature do in\nany point contradict each other, which may be the standard by which\nthe other must be tried?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. It is certain that they never do contradict each other. 2.\nThe law of nature is either that which is very clear by natural\nevidence, or that which is dark, (as degrees of consanguinity unfit\nfor marriage,[427] the evil of officious lies, &c.) 3. The Scriptures\nalso have their plain and their obscurer parts. 4. A dark scripture is\nnot to be expounded contrary to a plain, natural verity. 5. A dark and\ndoubtful point in nature is not to be expounded contrary to a plain\nand certain scripture. 6. To suppose that there be an apparent\ncontradiction in cases of equal clearness or doubtfulness, is a case\nnot to be supposed; but he that should have such a dream, must do as\nhe would do if he thought two texts to be contradictory, that is, he\nmust better study both till he see his error; still remembering that\nnatural evidence hath this advantage, that it is, 1. First in order;\n2. And most common and received by all; but supernatural evidence hath\nthis advantage, that it is for the most part the more clear and\nsatisfactory.[428]\n\n[427] 1 Cor. v. 1, 2.\n\n[428] 1 John i. 1-3; Heb. ii. 3, 4.\n\n\nQuest. CLX. _May we not look that God should yet give us more\nrevelations of his will, than there are already made in Scripture?_\n\n_Answ._ You must distinguish between, 1. New laws or covenants to\nmankind, and new predictions or informations of a particular person.\n2. Between what may possibly be, and what we may expect as certain or\nprobable. And so I conclude,\n\n1. That it is certain that God will make no other covenant, testament,\nor universal law, for the government of mankind or the church, as a\nrule of duty and of judgment. Because he hath oft told us, that this\ncovenant and law is perfect, and shall be in force as our rule till\nthe end of the world.[429]\n\n_Object._ So it was said of the law of Moses, that it was to stand for\never, yea, of many ceremonies in it.\n\n_Answ._ 1. It is in the original only, for ages and ages; or to\ngenerations and generations, which we translate for ever, when it\nsignifieth but to many generations. 2. It is no where said, of Moses's\nlaw as such, that it should continue either till the end of the world,\nor till the day of judgment, as it is said of the gospel. And, 3. It\nis not said that he will add no more to the former testament, but\ncontrarily, that he will make a new covenant with them, &c. But here\nin the gospel he peremptorily resolveth against all innovations and\nadditions.[430]\n\n2. It is certain that God will make no new scripture or inspired word\nas an infallible, universal rule for the exposition of the word\nalready written. For, 1. This were an addition which he hath\ndisclaimed; and, 2. It would imply such an insufficiency in the gospel\nto its ends (as being not intelligible) as is contrary to its asserted\nperfection; and, 3. It would be contrary to that established way for\nthe understanding of the Scripture, which God hath already settled and\nappointed for us till the end.[431]\n\n3. It is certain that God will give all his servants in their several\nmeasures, the help and illumination of his Spirit, for the\nunderstanding and applying of the gospel.\n\n4. It is possible that God may make new revelations to particular\npersons about their particular duties, events, or matters of fact, in\nsubordination to the Scripture, either by inspiration, vision, or\napparition, or voice; for he hath not told us that he will never do\nsuch a thing. As to tell them, what shall befall them or others; or to\nsay, Go to such a place, or, Dwell in such a place, or, Do such a\nthing, which is not contrary to the Scripture, nor co-ordinate, but\nonly a subordinate determination of some undetermined case, or the\ncircumstantiating of an action.\n\n5. Though such revelation and prophecy be possible, there is no\ncertainty of it in general, nor any probability of it to any one\nindividual person, much less a promise. And therefore to expect it, or\npray for it, is but a presumptuous tempting of God.[432]\n\n6. And all sober christians should be the more cautelous of being\ndeceived by their own imaginations, because certain experience telleth\nus, that most in our age that have pretended to prophecy, or to\ninspirations, or revelations, have been melancholy, cracked-brained\npersons, near to madness, who have proved to be deluded in the end;\nand that such crazed persons are still prone to such imaginations.\n\n7. Therefore also all sober christians must take heed of rash\nbelieving every prophet or pretended spirit, lest they be led away\nfrom the sacred rule, and before they are aware, be lost in vain\nexpectations and conceits.\n\n[429] Gal. i. 7-9; Matt. xxviii. 20; 2 Thess. i. 10,11; Mark xvi. 15,\n16.\n\n[430] Rev. xiv. 6; xxii. 18, 19; Heb. vii. 28, 29; 1 Tim. i. 16; Rom.\nvi. 22; John v. 22, 24; vi. 27, 40, 47; xii. 50; Heb. i. 7-9.\n\n[431] Eph. i. 18, 19.\n\n[432] Micah ii. 11; 1 Kings xxii. 21, 22; 1 John iv. 1, 2; 2 Thess.\nii. 2.\n\n\nQuest. CLXI. _Is not a third rule of the Holy Ghost, or perfecter\nkingdom of love, to be expected, as different from the reign of the\nCreator and Redeemer?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. The works _ad extra_ and the reign of the Father, Word,\nand Spirit are undivided. But yet some things are more eminently\nattributed to one person in the Trinity, and some to another.[433]\n\n2. By the law and covenant of innocency, the Creator eminently ruled\nomnipotently. And the Son ruled eminently sapientially, initially\nunder the covenant of promise or grace from Adam till his incarnation\nand the descent of the Holy Ghost, and more fully and perfectly\nafterward by the Holy Ghost. And the Holy Ghost ever since doth rule\nin the saints as the Paraclete, Advocate, or Agent of Christ, and\nChrist by him, eminently by holy love; which is yet but initially: but\nthe same Holy Ghost by perfect love shall perfectly rule in glory for\never; even as the Spirit of the Father and the Son. We have already\nthe initial kingdom of love by the Spirit, and shall have the perfect\nkingdom in heaven; and besides the initial and the perfect there is no\nother. Nor is the perfect kingdom to be expected before the day of\njudgment, or our removal unto heaven; for our kingdom is not of this\nworld. And they that sell all and follow Christ, do make the exchange\nfor a reward in heaven; and they that suffer persecution for his sake,\nmust rejoice because their reward in heaven is great: and they that\nrelieve a prophet or righteous man for the sake of Christ, and that\nlose any thing for him, shall have indeed a hundredfold (in value) in\nthis life, but in the world to come eternal life. We shall be taken up\nin the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be\nwith the Lord: and those are the words with which we must comfort one\nanother, and not Jewishly with the hopes of an earthly kingdom. And\nyet \"we look for a new heaven and a new earth wherein dwelleth\nrighteousness, according to his promise.\" But who shall be the\ninhabitants, and how that heaven and earth shall differ, and what we\nshall then have to do with earth, whether to be overseers of that\nrighteous earth (and so to judge or rule the world) as the angels are\nnow over us in this world, are things which yet I understand not.[434]\n\n[433] John v. 21, 25; Prov. i. 20, 21.\n\n[434] Matt. v. 11, 12; Luke xviii. 22, 23; Matt. x. 41, 42; Luke vi.\n23; xvi. 20; 1 Cor. xii. 2, 3; v. 1, 3, 8; Matt. xviii. 10; 1 Thess.\niv. 17, 18; Mark xii. 25; 2 Pet. iii. 11-13; 1 Pet. i. 4; Heb. x. 34;\nxii. 13; Col. i. 5; Phil. iii. 20, 21.\n\n\nQuest. CLXII. _May we not look for miracles hereafter?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. The answer to quest. clx. may serve to this. 1. God may\nwork miracles if he please, and hath not told us that he never\nwill.[435]\n\n2. But he hath not promised us that he will, and therefore we cannot\nbelieve such a promise, nor expect them as a certain thing. Nor may\nany pray for the gift of miracles.\n\n3. But if there be any probability of them, it will be to those that\nare converting infidel nations, when they may be partly of such use as\nthey were at first.\n\n4. Yet it is certain, that God still sometimes worketh miracles; but\narbitrarily and rarely, which may not put any individual person in\nexpectation of them.\n\n_Object._ Is not the promise the same to us as to the apostles and\nprimitive christians, if we could but believe as they did?\n\n_Answ._ 1. The promise to be believed goeth before the faith that\nbelieveth it, and not that faith before the promise.\n\n2. The promise of the Holy Ghost was for perpetuity, to sanctify all\nbelievers: but the promise of that special gift of miracles, was for a\ntime, because it was for a special use; that is, to be a standing\nseal to the truth of the gospel, which all after-ages may be\nconvinced of in point of fact, and so may still have the use and\nbenefit of.[436] And Providence (ceasing miracles) thus expoundeth the\npromise. And if miracles must be common to all persons and ages, they\nwould be as no miracles. And we have seen those that most confidently\nbelieved they should work them, all fail.\n\nBut I have written so largely of this point in a set disputation in my\nTreatise called \"The Unreasonableness of Infidelity,\" fully proving\nthose first miracles satisfactory and obligatory to all following\nages, that I must thither now refer the reader.\n\n[435] Luke xxiii. 8.\n\n[436] 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29; Heb. ii. 3, 4; John x. 41.\n\n\nQuest. CLXIII. _Is the Scripture to be tried by the Spirit, or the\nSpirit by the Scripture, and which of them is to be preferred?_\n\n_Answ._ I put the question thus confusedly, for the sake of those that\nuse to do so, to show them how to get out of their own confusion. You\nmust distinguish, 1. Between the Spirit in itself considered, and the\nScripture in itself. 2. Between the several operations of the Spirit.\n3. Between the several persons that have the Spirit. And so you must\nconclude,\n\n1. That the Spirit in itself is infinitely more excellent than the\nScripture. For the Spirit is God, and the Scripture is but the work of\nGod.\n\n2. The operation of the Spirit in the apostles was more excellent than\nthe operation of the same Spirit now in us; as producing more\nexcellent effects, and more infallible.\n\n3. Therefore the holy Scriptures which were the infallible dictates of\nthe Spirit in the apostles, are more perfect than any of our\napprehensions which come by the same Spirit (which we have not in so\ngreat a measure).[437]\n\n4. Therefore we must not try the Scriptures by our most spiritual\napprehensions, but our apprehensions by the Scriptures: that is, we\nmust prefer the Spirit's inspiring the apostles to indite the\nScriptures, before the Spirit's illuminating of us to understand them,\nor before any present inspirations, the former being the more perfect;\nbecause Christ gave the apostles the Spirit to deliver us infallibly\nhis own commands, and to indite a rule for following ages; but he\ngiveth us the Spirit but to understand and use that rule aright.[438]\n\n5. This trying the Spirit by the Scriptures, is not a setting of the\nScripture above the Spirit itself; but is only a trying the Spirit by\nthe Spirit: that is, the Spirit's operations in ourselves and his\nrevelations to any pretenders now, by the Spirit's operations in the\napostles, and by their revelations recorded for our use. For they, and\nnot we, are called foundations of the church.[439]\n\n[437] John iv. 1, 2, 6; John xviii. 37; viii. 47.\n\n[438] Acts xvii. 11, 12; Matt. v. 18; Rom. xvi. 26; Matt. xxviii. 20;\nLuke x. 16.\n\n[439] Rev. ii. 2; Jude 17; 2 Pet. iii. 2; Eph. iv. 11, 12; 1 Cor. xii.\n28, 29; Eph. ii. 20.\n\n\nQuest. CLXIV. _How is a pretended prophet, or revelation, to be\ntried?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. If it be contrary to the Scripture it is to be rejected as\na deceit.[440]\n\n2. If it be the same thing which is in the Scripture, we have it more\ncertainly revealed already; therefore the revelation can be nothing\nbut an assistance of the person's faith, or a call to obedience, or a\nreproof of some sin; which every man is to believe according as there\nis true evidence that indeed it is a divine revelation or vision;\nwhich if it be not, the same thing is still sure to us in the\nScripture.\n\n3. If it be something that is only besides the Scripture, (as about\nevents and facts, or prophecies of what will befall particular places\nor persons,) we must first see whether the evidence of a divine\nrevelation be clear in it or not; and that is known, 1. To the person\nhimself, by the self-attesting and convincing power of a divine\nrevelation, which no man knoweth but he that hath it (and we must be\nvery cautelous lest we take false conceptions to be such). 2. But to\nhimself and others it is known, (1.) At present by clear, uncontrolled\nmiracles, which are God's attestation; which if men show, we are bound\n(in this case) to believe them. (2.) For the future, by the event,\nwhen things so plainly come to pass, as prove the prediction to be of\nGod. He therefore that giveth you not by certain miracles\nuncontrolled, a just proof that he is sent of God, is to be heard with\na suspended belief; you must stay till the event show whether he say\ntrue or not: and not act any thing in the mean time upon an unproved\npresumption either of the truth or falsehood of his words.[441]\n\n4. If you are in doubt whether that which he speaketh be contrary to\nGod's word or not, you must hear him with a proportionable suspicion,\nand give no credit to him till you have tried whether it be so or not.\n\n5. It is a dangerous snare and sin to believe any one's prophecies or\nrevelations merely because they are very holy persons, and do most\nconfidently aver or swear it. For they may be deceived themselves. As\nalso to take hysterical or melancholy delirations or conceptions for\nthe revelations of the Spirit of God, and so to father falsehood upon\nGod.\n\n[440] Acts xvii. 11; 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4; John x. 35; xix. 24, 28, 36, 37.\n\n[441] John iii. 2; xiii. 19; xiv. 20; Luke xxi. 7, 9, 28, 31, 36;\nMatt. v. 18; xxiv. 34; xxi. 4.\n\n\nQuest. CLXV. _May one be saved who believeth that the Scripture hath\nany mistake or error, and believeth it not all?_\n\n_Answ._ The chief part of the answer to this must be fetched from what\nis said before about fundamentals. 1. No man can be saved who\nbelieveth not that God is no liar, and that all his word is true;\nbecause indeed he believeth not that there is a God.[442]\n\n2. No man can be saved who believeth not the points that are essential\nto true godliness; nor any man that heareth the word, who believeth\nnot all essential to christianity, or the christian covenant and\nreligion.\n\n3. A man may be saved who believeth not some books of Scripture (as\nJude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Revelation) to be canonical, or the\nword of God; so he heartily believe the rest, or the essentials.\n\n4. He that thinketh that the prophets, sacred historians, evangelists,\nand apostles, were guided to an infallible delivery and recording of\nall the great, substantial, necessary points of the gospel, but not to\nan infallibility in every by-expression, phrase, citation, or\ncircumstance, doth disadvantage his own faith as to all the rest; but\nyet may be saved, if he believe the substance with a sound and\npractical belief.[443]\n\n[442] Rev. vi. 10; xix. 9, 11; xxi. 5; xxii. 6; 1 John ii. 8; v. 20; 2\nCor. i. 18; 1 Cor. xv. 1-3, &c.\n\n[443] Mark xvi. 16; Rom. x. 12, 13; John iii. 16, 18; 1 John iv. 2, 3.\n\n\nQuest. CLXVI. _Who be they that give too little to the Scripture, and\nwho too much; and what is the danger of each extreme?_\n\n_Answ._ I. It is not easy to enumerate all the errors on either\nextreme; but only to give some instances of each. 1. They give too\nlittle to the Scripture who deny it to be indited by inspiration of\nthe infallible Spirit of God, and to be wholly true. 2. And they that\ndetract from some parts or books of it while they believe the rest. 3.\nAnd they that think it is not given as a law of God, and as a rule of\nfaith and life. 4. And they that think it is not a universal law and\nrule for all the world, but for some parts only (supposing the\npredication of it). 5. And they that think it an imperfect law and\nrule, which must be made up with the supplement of traditions or\nrevelations. 6. And they that think it was adapted only to the time it\nwas written in, and not to ours, as not foreseeing what would be. 7.\nAnd they that think it is culpably defective in method. 8. And they\nthat think it culpably defective in phrase, aptness, or elegancy of\nstyle. 9. And they that think that it containeth not all that was\nnecessary or fit for universal determination, of that kind of things\nwhich it doth at all universally determine of; as e. g. that it made\ntwo sacraments, but not all of that kind that are fit to be made, but\nhath left men to invent and make more of the same nature and use. 10.\nAnd those that think that it is fitted only to the learned, or only to\nthe unlearned, only to princes, or only to subjects, &c. 11. And those\nthat think that it is but for a time, and then by alteration to be\nperfected, as Moses's law was. 12. And those that think that the pope,\nprinces, or prelates, or any men, may change or alter it.[444]\n\nII. Those give too much (in bulk, but too little in virtue) to the\nScripture, 1. Who would set them up instead of the whole law and light\nof nature, as excluding this as useless where the Scripture is.\n\n2. And they that feign it to be instead of all grammars, logic,\nphilosophy, and all other arts and sciences, and to be a perfect,\nparticular rule for every ruler, lawyer, physician, mariner,\narchitect, husbandman, and tradesman, to do his work by.\n\n3. And they that feign it to be fully sufficient to all men to prove\nits own authority and truth, without the subsidiary use of that church\nhistory and tradition which telleth us the supposed matters of fact,\nand must help us to know what books are canonical and what not; and\nwithout historical evidence, that these are the true books which the\nprophets and apostles wrote, and the miracles and providences which\nhave attested them.[445]\n\n4. And those that think that it is sufficient for its own\npromulgation, or the people's instruction, without the ministry of man\nto preserve, deliver, translate, expound, and preach it to the people.\n\n5. And those that think it sufficient to sanctify men, without the\nconcourse of the Spirit's illumination, vivification, and inward\noperation to that end.[446]\n\n6. And they that say that no man can be saved by the knowledge,\nbelief, love, and practice of all the substantial parts of\nchristianity brought to him by tradition, parents, or preachers, who\ntell him nothing of the Scriptures, but deliver him the doctrines as\nattested by miracles and the Spirit without any notice of the\nbook.[447]\n\n7. And those that say that Scripture alone must be made use of as to\nall the history of Scripture times, and that it is unlawful to make\nuse of any other historians (as Josephus and such others).\n\n8. And they that say, no other books of divinity but Scripture are\nuseful, yea or lawful to be read of christians, or at least in the\nchurch.\n\n9. And they that say that the Scriptures are so divine, not only in\nmatter, but in method and style, as that there is nothing of human\n(inculpable) imperfection or weakness in them.\n\n10. And those that say that the logical method, and the phrase, is as\nperfect as God was able to make them.\n\n11. And they that say that all passages in Scripture, historically\nrelated, are moral truths; and so make the devil's words to Eve, of\nJob, to Christ, &c. to be all true.\n\n12. And they that say that all passages in the Scripture were equally\nobligatory to all other places and ages, as to those that first\nreceived them, (as the kiss of peace, the veils of women, washing\nfeet, anointing the sick, deaconnesses, &c.)\n\n13. And they that make Scripture so perfect a rule to our belief, that\nnothing is to be taken for certain, that cometh to us any other way\n(as natural knowledge, or historical).\n\n14. And those that think men may not translate the Scripture, turn the\nPsalms into metre, tune them, divide the Scripture into chapters and\nverses, &c. as being derogatory alterations of the perfect word.\n\n15. And those that think it so perfect a particular rule of all the\ncircumstances, modes, adjuncts, and external expressions of and in\nGod's worship, as that no such may be invented or added by man, that\nis not there prescribed; as time, place, vesture, gesture, utensils,\nmethods, words, and many other things mentioned before.[448]\n\n16. And those that Jewishly feign a multitude of unproved mysteries to\nlie in the letters, order, numbers, and proper names in Scripture\n(though I deny not that there is much mystery which we little\nobserve).\n\n17. They that say that the Scripture is all so plain, that there are\nno obscure or difficult passages in them, which men are in danger of\nwresting to their own destruction.\n\n18. And they that say that all in the Scripture is so necessary to\nsalvation, (even the darkest prophecies,) that they cannot be saved\nthat understand them not all; or at least endeavour not studiously and\nparticularly to understand them.[449]\n\n19. And they that say that every book and text must of necessity to\nsalvation be believed to be canonical and true.\n\n20. And those that say that God hath so preserved the Scripture, as\nthat there are no various readings and doubtful texts thereupon,[450]\nand that no written or printed copies have been corrupted (when Dr.\nHeylin tells us, that the king's printer printed the seventh\ncommandment, Thou shalt commit adultery). All these err in over-doing.\n\nIII. The dangers of the former detracting from the Scripture are\nthese: 1. It injureth the Spirit who is the author of the Scriptures.\n2. It striketh at the foundation of our faith, by weakening the\nrecords which are left us to believe; and imboldeneth men to sin, by\ndiminishing the authority of God's law; and weakeneth our hopes, by\nweakening the promises. 3. It shaketh the universal government of\nChrist, by shaking the authority or perfection of the laws by which he\ngoverneth. 4. It maketh way for human usurpations, and traditions, as\nsupplements to the holy Scriptures; and leaveth men to contrive to\namend God's word and worship, and make co-ordinate laws and doctrines\nof their own. 5. It hindereth the conviction and conversion of\nsinners, and hardeneth them in unbelief, by questioning or weakening\nthe means that should convince and turn them. 6. It is a tempting men\nto the cursed adding to God's word.\n\nIV. The dangers of over-doing here are these: 1. It leadeth to\ndownright infidelity; for when men find that the Scripture is\nimperfect or wanting in that which they fancy to be part of its\nperfection, and to be really insufficient, e. g. to teach men physics,\nlogic, medicine, languages, &c. they will he apt to say, It is not of\nGod, because it hath not that which it pretends to have. 2. God is\nmade the author of defects and imperfections. 3. The Scripture is\nexposed to the scorn and confutation of infidels. 4. Papists are\nassisted in proving its imperfection. But I must stop, having spoke to\nthis point before in quest. 35, and partly quest. 30, 31, 33, more at\nlarge.\n\n[444] James iv. 12; Isa. xxxiii. 22; Rev. xxii. 18, 19; Matt. xxviii.\n20; Isa. viii. 16, 20; Psal. xix. 7, 8; cxix. 130; Prov. xiv. 20, 22;\nviii. 5; Deut. xii. 32.\n\n[445] 1 John i. 1-3; 3 John 12; Heb. ii. 3, 4; John ii. 24; Eph. iv.\n8-16.\n\n[446] John vi. 63; Rom. viii. 9; 1 John iii. 24; John iii. 5, 6.\n\n[447] Many Romish priests and others do so.\n\n[448] 1 Cor. xiv. 26, 32, 40.\n\n[449] Heb. v. 10-12.\n\n[450] Of which see Lud. Capellus Crit. Sacr.\n\n\nQuest. CLXVII. _How far do good men now preach and pray by the\nSpirit?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. Not by such inspiration of new matter from God as the\nprophets and apostles had which indited the Scriptures.\n\n2. Not so as to exclude the exercise of reason, memory, or diligence:\nwhich must be as much and more than about any common things.\n\n3. Not so as to exclude the use and need of Scripture, ministry,\nsermons, books, conference, examples, use, or other means and helps.\n\nBut, 1. The Spirit indited that doctrine and Scripture which is our\nrule for prayer and for preaching.\n\n2. The Spirit's miracles and works in and by the apostles seal that\ndoctrine to us, and confirm our faith in it.[451]\n\n3. The Spirit in our faithful pastors and teachers teacheth us by them\nto pray and preach.[452]\n\n4. The Spirit by illumination, quickening, and sanctification, giveth\nus an habitual acquaintance with our sins, our wants, with the word of\nprecept and promise, with God, with Christ, with grace, with heaven.\nAnd it giveth us a habit of holy love to God, and goodness and\nthankfulness for mercy and faith in Christ, and the life to come, and\ndesires of perfection, and hatred of sin; and he that hath all these,\nhath a constant habit of prayer in him; for prayer is nothing but the\nexpression with the tongue of these graces in the heart; so that the\nSpirit of sanctification is thereby a Spirit of adoption and of\nsupplication. And he that hath freedom of utterance can speak that\nwhich God's Spirit hath put into his very heart, and made him esteem\nhis greatest and nearest concernment, and the most necessary and\nexcellent thing in all the world. This is the Spirit's principal\nhelp.[453]\n\n5. The same Spirit doth incline our hearts to the diligent use of all\nthose means, by which his abilities may be increased; as to read, and\nhear, and confer, and to use ourselves to prayer, and to meditation,\nself-examination, &c.\n\n6. The same Spirit helpeth us in the use of all these means, to profit\nby them, and to make them all effectual on our hearts.\n\n7. The same Spirit concurreth with means, habits, reason, and our own\nendeavours, to help us in the very act of praying and preaching. 1.\nBy illuminating our minds to know what to desire and say. 2. By\nactuating our wills to love, and holy desire, and other affections. 3.\nBy quickening and exciting us to a liveliness and fervency in all. And\nso bringing our former habits into acts, the grace of prayer is the\nheart and soul of gifts; and thus the Spirit teacheth us to pray.[454]\n\nYea, the same Spirit thus by common helps assisteth even bad men in\npraying and preaching, giving them common habits and acts that are\nshort of special saving grace. Whereas men left to themselves without\nGod's Spirit, have none of all these forementioned helps. And so the\nSpirit is said to intercede for us by exciting our unexpressible\ngroans; and to help our infirmities when we know not what to ask as we\nought.[455]\n\n[451] Heb. ii. 3, 4; 1 Pet. i. 2, 22.\n\n[452] 2 Thess. i. 13.\n\n[453] John iii. 5, 6; Rom. viii. 8, 9, 15, 16, 26, 27; 2 Tim. i. 7;\nNeh. ix. 20; Isa. xi. 2; Ezek. xxxvi. 26; xxxvii. 14; Gal. iv. 6;\nZech. xii. 10; Ezek. xviii. 31; xi. 19.\n\n[454] Rom. vii. 6; John iv. 23, 24; vii. 38, 39; 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11;\nvi. 11, 17; 2 Cor. iv. 13; Gal. v. 5, 16-18, 25; Eph. iii. 16; v. 9,\n18; vi. 18; 1 Thess. v. 19.\n\n[455] Rom. viii. 26.\n\n\nQuest. CLXVIII. _Are not our own reasons, studies, memory, strivings,\nbooks, forms, methods, and ministry, needless, yea, a hurtful\nquenching or preventing of the Spirit, and setting up our own, instead\nof the Spirit's operation?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. Yes; if we do it in a conceit of the sufficiency of\nourselves,[456] our reason, memory, studies, books, forms, &c. without\nthe Spirit; or if we ascribe any thing to any of these which is proper\nto Christ or to his Spirit. For such proud, self-sufficient despisers\nof the Spirit, cannot reasonably expect his help. I doubt among men\ncounted learned and rational there are too many such,[457] that know\nnot man's insufficiency or corruption, nor the necessity and use of\nthat Holy Ghost into whose name they were baptized, and in whom they\ntake on them to believe. But think that all that pretend to the Spirit\nare but fanatics and enthusiasts, and self-conceited people; when yet\nthe Spirit himself saith, Rom. viii. 9, \"If any man have not the\nSpirit of Christ, the same is none of his.\" And Gal. iv. 6, \"Because\nwe are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our\nhearts, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.\"\n\n2. But if we give to reason, memory, study, books, methods, forms, &c.\nbut their proper place in subordination to Christ and to his Spirit,\nthey are so far from being quenchers of the Spirit, that they are\nnecessary in their places, and such means as we must use, if ever we\nwill expect the Spirit's help. For the Spirit is not given to a brute\nto make him a man, or rational; nor to a proud despiser, or idle\nneglecter of God's appointed means, to be instead of means; nor to be\na patron to the vice of pride or idleness, which he cometh chiefly to\ndestroy; but to bless men in their laborious use of the means which\nGod appointed him: read but Prov. i. 20, &c. ii. iii. v. vi. viii.,\nand you will see that knowledge must be laboured for, and instruction\nheard; and he that will lie idle till the Spirit move him, and will\nnot stir up himself to seek God, or strive to enter in at the strait\ngate, nor give all diligence to make his calling and election\nsure,[458] may find that the Spirit of sloth hath destroyed him, when\nhe thought the Spirit of Christ had been saving him. He that hath but\ntwo articles in his creed, must make this the second: \"For he that\ncometh to God must believe that God is, and that he is the rewarder of\nthem that diligently seek him,\" Heb. xi. 6.\n\n[456] John xv. 1, 3-5, 7.\n\n[457] Even among them that in their ordination heard \"Receive ye the\nHoly Ghost,\" and \"Over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.\"\n\n[458] Isa. lxxxiv. 7; Matt. vii. 13, 14; 2 Pet. i. 10.\n\n\nQuest. CLXIX. _How doth the Holy Ghost set bishops over the churches?_\n\n_Answ._ 1. By making the office itself, so far as the apostles had any\nhand in it, Christ himself having made their office.[459]\n\n2. The Holy Ghost in the electors and ordainers directeth them to\ndiscern the fitness of the persons elected and ordained, and so to\ncall such as God approveth of, and calleth by the Holy Ghost in them.\nWhich was done, 1. By the extraordinary gift of discerning in the\napostles. 2. By the ordinary help of God's Spirit in the wise and\nfaithful electors and ordainers ever since.[460]\n\n3. The Holy Ghost doth qualify them for the work, by due life, light,\nand love, knowledge, willingness, and active ability, and so both\ninclining them to it, and marking out the persons by his gifts, whom\nhe would have elected and ordained to it: which was done, 1. At first\nby extraordinary gifts. 2. And ever since by ordinary. (1.) Special\nand saving in some. (2.) Common, and only fitted to the church's\ninstruction, in others. So that whoever is not competently qualified,\nis not called by the Holy Ghost: when Christ ascended, he gave \"gifts\nto men, some apostles, prophets, and evangelists, some pastors and\nteachers, for the edifying of his body,\" &c. Eph. iv. 7-10.[461]\n\n[459] Acts xx. 28.\n\n[460] Acts i. 24; xiii. 2; xv. 28, &c.; xiv. 23.\n\n[461] 1 Cor. xii. 12, 23, 28, 29.\n\n\nQuest. CLXX. _Are temples, fonts, utensils, church lands, much more\nthe ministers, holy? And what reverence is due to them as holy?_\n\n_Answ._ The question is either _de nomine_, whether it be fit to call\nthem holy; or _de re_, whether they have that which is called\nholiness.\n\nI. The word holy signifieth in God, essential, transcendent\nperfection; and so it cometh not into our question. In creatures it\nsignifieth, 1. A divine nature in the rational creature, (angels and\nmen,) by which it is made like God, and disposed to him and his\nservice, by knowledge, love, and holy vivacity; which is commonly\ncalled real saving holiness as distinct from mere relative. 2. It is\ntaken for the relation of any thing to God as his own peculiar\nappropriated to him: so infinite is the distance between God and us,\nthat whatever is his in a special sense, or separated to his use, is\ncalled holy; and that is, 1. Persons. 2. Things. 1. Persons are\neither, (1.) In general devoted to his love and service. (2.) Or\nspecially devoted to him in some special office; which is, (1.)\nEcclesiastical. (2.) Economical. (3.) Political. Those devoted to this\ngeneral service are, (1.) Either heartily and sincerely so devoted,\n(who are ever sanctified in the first real sense also). (2.) Or only\nby word or outward profession. 2. Things devoted to God are, 1. Some\nby his own immediate choice, designation, and command. 2. Or by\ngeneral directions to man to do it. And these are, 1. Some things more\nnearly. 2. Some things more remotely separated to him. None of these\nmust be confounded; and so we must conclude,\n\n1. All that shall be saved are really holy by a divine inclination and\nnature, and actual exercise thereof; and relatively holy in a special\nsense, as thus devoted and separated to God.\n\n2. All the baptized and professors (not apostate) are relatively\nholy, as verbally devoted and separated to God.\n\n3. All that are ordained to the sacred ministry are relatively holy,\nas devoted and separated to that office. And the well qualified are\nalso really holy, as their qualifications are either special or\ncommon.\n\n4. All that are duly called of God to the place of kings, and judges,\nand rulers of families, are relatively sacred, as their offices and\nthey are of God and for him, and devoted to him.\n\n5. Temples and other utensils designed by God himself, are holy, as\nrelated to him by that designation.\n\n6. Temples, utensils, lands, &c. devoted and lawfully separated by man,\nfor holy uses, are holy, as justly related to God by that lawful\nseparation. To say as some do, that They are indeed consecrated\nand separated, but not holy, is to be ridiculously wise by\nself-contradiction, and the masterly use of the word holy, contrary\nto custom and themselves.\n\n7. Ministers are more holy than temples, lands, or utensils, as being\nnearlier related to holy things. And things separated by God himself\nare more holy than those justly separated by man. And so of days.\n\n8. Things remotely devoted to God, are holy in their distant place and\nmeasure; as the meat, drink, house, lands, labours of every godly man,\nwho with himself devoteth all to God; but this being more distant, is\nyet a remoter degree of holiness.[462]\n\n[Sidenote: Uncovered in church and reverent gestures.]\n\nII. Every thing should be reverenced according to the measure of its\nholiness; and this expressed by such signs, gestures, actions, as are\nfittest to honour God, to whom they are related; and so to be\nuncovered in church, and use reverent carriage and gestures there,\ndoth tend to preserve due reverence to God and to his worship, 1 Cor.\nxvi. 20.\n\n[462] Mark vi. 20; Col. i. 22; Tit. i. 8; 1 Pet. i. 15, 16; iii. 5; 2\nPet. iii. 11; Exod. xxii. 31; 1 Cor. i. 1-3; vi. 9-11; Heb. xii. 14;\nTit. iii. 3, 5, 6; ii. 13, 14; 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9; Exod. xix. 6; Rom. i.\n1, 2; 1 Cor. iii. 17; vii. 14; Zech. ii. 12; Hag. ii. 12; Luke i. 71,\n72; Ezra viii. 28; ix. 2; Numb. xxxi. 6; vi. 8, 20; Lev. xvi. 4, 33;\nExod. xxix. 6, 33; Psal. lxxxix. 20; Numb. xxxv. 25; 2 Tim. iii. 15;\nIsa. lviii. 13; Psal. xlii. 4; 2 Pet. i. 18, 21; Psal. lxxxvii. 1;\nNumb. v. 17; Exod. iii. 5; 1 Sam. xxi. 5; Neh. viii. 9-11.\n\n\nQuest. CLXXI. _What is sacrilege, and what not?_\n\n_Answ._ I. Sacrilege is robbing God by the unjust alienation of holy\nthings. And it is measured according as things are diversified in\nholiness; as,\n\n1. The greatest sacrilege is a profane, unholy alienating a person to\nthe flesh and the world, from God, and his love, and his service, who\nby baptism was devoted to him. And so all wicked christians are\ngrossly sacrilegious.\n\n2. The next is alienating consecrated persons from the sacred work and\noffice, by deposing kings, or by unjust silencing or suspending true\nministers, or their casting off God's work themselves. This is far\ngreater sacrilege than alienating lands or utensils.\n\n3. The next is the unjust alienating of temples, utensils, lands,\ndays, which were separated by God himself.[463]\n\n4. And next such as were justly consecrated by man; as is aforesaid in\nthe degrees of holiness.\n\nII. It is not sacrilege, 1. To cease from the ministry or other holy\nservice, when sickness, disability of body, or violence, utterly\ndisable us.\n\n2. Nor to alienate temples, lands, goods, or utensils, when Providence\nmaketh it needful to the church's good: so the fire in London hath\ncaused a diminution of the number of churches: so some bishops of\nold, sold the church plate to relieve the poor: and some princes have\nsold some church lands to save the church and state in the necessities\nof a lawful war.[464]\n\n3. It is not sacrilege to alienate that which man devoted, but God\naccepted not, nor owned as appropriate to him (which his prohibition\nof such a dedication is a proof of). As if a man devote his wife to\nchastity, or his son to the ministry, against their wills: or if a man\nvow himself to the ministry that is unable and hath no call: or if so\nmuch lands or goods be consecrated, as is superfluous, useless, and\ninjurious to the common welfare and the state. Alienation in these\ncases is no sin.\n\n[463] Rom. ii. 22; 2 Pet. ii. 20-22; Heb. vi. 6, 7; x. 26-29; 1 Thess.\nii. 15, 16; Lev. xix. 8; Heb. xii. 16; Acts v. 5, &c.; Ezek. xxii. 26;\nxlii. 20; xliv. 23.\n\n[464] Matt. xii. 5.\n\n\nQuest. CLXXII. _Are all religious and private meetings, forbidden by\nrulers, unlawful conventicles? Or are any such necessary?_\n\n_Answ._ Though both such meetings and our prisons tell us how greatly\nwe now differ about this point, in the application of it to persons\nand our present case, yet I know no difference in the doctrinal\nresolution of it among most sober christians at all (which makes our\ncase strange).\n\nFor aught I know, we are agreed,\n\nI. 1. That it is more to the honour of the church, and of religion,\nand of God, and more to our safety and edification, to have God's\nworship performed solemnly, publicly, and in great assemblies, than in\na corner, secretly, and with few.[465]\n\n2. That it is a great mercy therefore where the rulers allow the\nchurch such public worship.\n\n3. That, _c\u00e6teris paribus_, all christians should prefer such public\nworship before private; and no private meetings should be kept up,\nwhich are opposite or prejudicial to such public meetings.\n\n4. And therefore if such meetings (or any that are unnecessary to the\nends of the ministry, the service of God and good of souls) be\nforbidden by lawful rulers, they must be forborne.\n\nII. But we are also agreed, 1. That it is not the place but the\npresence of the true pastors and people that make the church.[466]\n\n2. That God may be acceptably worshipped in all places when it is our\nduty.\n\n3. That the ancient churches and christians in times of persecutions,\nordinarily met in secret against the ruler's will, and their meetings\nwere called conventicles (and slandered, which occasioned Pliny's\nexamination, and the right he did them).\n\n4. That no minister must forsake and give over his work while there is\nneed, and he can do it.[467]\n\n5. That where there are many thousands of ignorant and ungodly\npersons, and the public ministers, either through their paucity,\n(proportioned to the people,) or their disability, unwillingness, or\nnegligence, or all, are insufficient for all that public and private\nministerial work, which God hath appointed for the instruction,\npersuasion, and salvation of such necessitous souls, there is need of\nmore ministerial help.[468]\n\n6. That in cases of real (not counterfeit) necessity, they that are\nhindered from exercising their ministerial office publicly, should do\nit privately, if they have true ordination, and the call of the\npeople's necessity, desire, and of opportunity; so be it they do it in\nthat peaceable, orderly, and quiet manner, as may truly promote the\ninterest of religion, and detract not from the lawful public ministry\nand work.\n\n7. That they that are forbidden to worship God publicly, unless they\nwill commit some certain sin, are so prohibited as that they ought not\nto do it on such terms.[469]\n\n8. That the private meetings which are held on these forementioned\nterms, in such cases of necessity, are not to be forsaken, though\nprohibited; though still the honour of the magistrate is to be\npreserved, and obedience given him in all lawful things. And such\nmeetings are not sinful nor dishonourable (to the assemblies); for as\nTertullian (and Dr. Heylin after him) saith, _Cum pii, cum boni\ncoeunt, non factio dicenda est, sed curia_: When pious and good people\nmeet, (especially as aforesaid,) it is not to be called a faction, but\na court. Thus far I think we all agree.\n\nAnd that the church of England is really of this mind is certain; 1.\nIn that they did congregate in private themselves, in the time of\nCromwell's usurpation, towards the end when he began to restrain the\nuse of the Common-prayer. 2. In that they wrote for it: see Dr. Hide\n\"Of the Church,\" in the beginning. 3. Because both in the reign of\nformer princes, since the reformation, and to this day, many laborious\nconforming ministers have still used to repeat their sermons in their\nhouses, where many of the people came to hear them. 4. Because the\nliturgy alloweth private baptism, and restraineth not any number from\nbeing present, nor the minister from instructing them in the use of\nbaptism (which is the sum of christianity). 5. Because the liturgy\ncommandeth the visitation of the sick, and alloweth the minister there\nto pray and instruct the person according to his own ability, about\nrepentance, faith in Christ, and preparation for death and the life to\ncome, and forbiddeth not the friends and neighbours of the sick to be\npresent. 6. Because the liturgy and canons allow private communion\nwith the sick, lame, or aged that cannot come to the assembly; where\nthe nature of that holy work is to be opened, and the eucharistical\nwork to be performed; and some must be present, and the number not\nlimited. 7. And as these are express testimonies, that all private\nmeetings are not disallowed by the church of England, so there are\nother instances of such natural necessity as they are not to be\nsupposed to be against. As, (1.) For a captain to pray, and read\nScripture or good books, and sing psalms with his soldiers, and with\nmariners at sea, when they have no minister. (2.) There are many\nthousands and hundred thousands in England, that some live so far from\nthe church, and some are so weak that they can seldom go, and some\nchurches have not room for a quarter of the parish; and none of the\nthousands now meant can read, and so neither can help themselves, nor\nhave a minister that will do it; and thousands that when they have\nheard a sermon cannot remember it, but lose it presently. If these\nthat cannot read or remember, nor teach their own families, nor go to\nchurch, do take their families, many of them, to some one neighbour's\nhouse where the sermon is repeated, or the Bible or liturgy read,\nmethinks the church should not be against it.\n\nBut it must be still remembered, that, 1. Rulers that are infidels,\npapists, heretics, or persecutors, that restrain church meetings to\nthe injury of men's souls, must be distinguished from pious princes\nthat only restrain heretics and real schismatics for the church's\ngood. 2. And that times of heresy and schism may make private meetings\nmore dangerous than quiet times. And so even the Scottish church\nforbad private meeting in the separatists' days of late. And when they\ndo more hurt than good, and are justly forbidden, no doubt, in that\ncase, it is a duty to obey and to forbear them, as is aforesaid.\n\n[465] Psal. i. 2, 4, 5; xxii. 25; xxxv. 18; xl. 2, 10; Acts xxviii.\n30, 31; Heb. x. 20; Acts xx. 7; i. 15; ii. 44; 1 Cor. xliv. 23.\n\n[466] 1 Cor. xvi. 12; Rom. xvi. 5; Acts xii. 12; Col. iv. 15.\n\n[467] Matt. xviii. 20; 1 Cor. ix. 16; 1 Thess. ii. 15, 16; Acts iv.\n19. See Dr. Hammond in loc.\n\n[468] 1 Tim. ii. 8; Acts viii. 4; 1 John iii. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 1-3; Heb.\nx. 25.\n\n[469] See much of this case handled before, quest. 109, 113.\n\n\nQuest. CLXXIII. _What particular directions for order of studies, and\nbooks, should be observed by young students?_\n\nBecause disorder is so great a disadvantage to young students, and\nbecause many have importuned me to name them some few of the best\nbooks, because they have no time to read, nor money to buy many, I\nshall here answer these two demands.\n\n1. The order of their studies is such as respecteth their whole lives,\nor such as respecteth every day. It is the first which I now intend.\n\n_Direct._ I. The knowledge of so much of theology as is necessary to\nyour own duty and salvation, is the first thing which you are to learn\n(when you have learnt to speak). Children have souls to save; and\ntheir reason is given them to use for their Creator's service and\ntheir salvation. 1. They can never begin to learn that too soon which\nthey were made and redeemed to learn, and which their whole lives must\nbe employed in practising. 2. And that which absolute necessity\nrequireth, and without which there is no salvation. 3. And that which\nmust tell a man the only ultimate end which he must intend, in all the\nmoral actions of his life. For the right intention of our end is\nantecedent to all right use of means; and till this be done, a man\nhath not well begun to live, nor to use his reason; nor hath he any\nother work for his reason, till this be first done. He liveth but in a\ncontinual sin, that doth not make God and the public good, and his\nsalvation, his end. Therefore they that would not have children begin\nwith divinity, would have them serve the devil and the flesh. God must\nbe our first and last, and all.\n\nNot that any exact or full body or method of divinity is to be learnt\nso early. But, 1. The baptismal covenant must be well opened betimes,\nand frequently urged upon their hearts. 2. Therefore the creed, the\nLord's prayer, and decalogue, must be opened to such betimes; that is,\nthey must be wisely catechised. 3. They must be taught the Scripture\nhistory, especially Genesis and the gospel of Christ. 4. They must,\nwith the other scriptures, read the most plain and suitable books of\npractical divines (after named). 5. They must be kept in the company\nof suitable, wise, and exemplary christians, whose whole conversation\nwill help them to the sense and love of holiness; and must be kept\nstrictly from perverting, wicked company. 6. They must be frequently,\nlovingly, familiarly, yet seriously, treated with about the state of\ntheir own souls, and made to know their need of Christ and of his Holy\nSpirit, of justification and renovation. 7. They must be trained up in\nthe practice of godliness, in prayer, pious speeches, and obedience to\nGod and man. 8. They must be kept under the most powerful and\nprofitable ministers of Christ that can be had. 9. They must be much\nurged to the study of their own hearts; to know themselves; what it is\nto be a man, to have reason, free-will, and an immortal soul: what it\nis to be a child of lapsed Adam, and an unregenerate, unpardoned\nsinner: what it is to be a redeemed, and a sanctified, justified\nperson, and an adopted heir of life eternal. And by close examination\nto know which of these conditions is their own; to know what is their\ndaily duty; and what their danger, and what their temptations and\nimpediments, and how to escape.\n\nFor if once the soul be truly sanctified, then, 1. Their salvation is\nmuch secured, and the main work of their lives is happily begun, and\nthey are ready to die safely whenever God shall call them hence. 2. It\nwill possess them with a right end, in all the studies and labours of\ntheir lives; which is an unspeakable advantage, both for their\npleasing of God and profiting of themselves and others; without which\nthey will but profane God's name and word, and turn the ministry into\na worldly, fleshly life, and study and preach for riches, preferment,\nor applause, and live as he, Luke xii. 18, 19, \"Soul, take thy ease,\neat, drink, and be merry;\" and they will make theology the way to\nhell, and study and preach their own condemnation. 3. A holy heart\nwill be always under the greatest motives; and therefore will be\nconstantly and powerfully impelled (as well in secret as before\nothers) to diligence in studies and all good endeavours. 4. And it\nwill make all sweet and easy to them, as being a noble work, and\nrelishing of God's love, and the endless glory to which it tendeth. A\nholy soul will all the year long be employed in sacred studies and\nworks, as a good stomach at a feast, with constant pleasure. And then\noh how happily will all go on! When a carnal person with a dull,\nunwilling, weary mind, taketh now and then a little, when his carnal\ninterest itself doth prevail against his more slothful, sensual\ninclinations; but he never followeth it with hearty affections, and\ntherefore seldom with good success. 4. And a holy soul will be a\ncontinual treasury and fountain of holy matter, to pour out to others,\nwhen they come to the sacred ministry; so that such a one can say more\nfrom the feeling and experience of his soul, than another can in a\nlong time gather from his books. 5. And that which he saith will come\nwarm to the hearers, in a more lively, experimental manner, than usual\ncarnal preachers speak. 6. And it is liker to be attended by a greater\nblessing from God. 7. And there are many controversies in the church,\nwhich an experienced, holy person (_c\u00e6teris paribus_) hath great\nadvantage in, above all others, to know the right, and be preserved\nfrom errors.\n\n_Direct._ II. Let young men's time (till about eighteen, nineteen, or\ntwenty) be spent in the improvement of their memories, rather than in\nstudies that require much judgment. Therefore let them take that time\nto get organical knowledge; such as are the Latin and Greek tongues\nfirst and chiefly, and then the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic;\nwith the exactest acquaintance with the true precepts of logic: and\nlet them learn some epitome of logic without book. In this time also\nlet them be much conversant in history, both civil, scholastical, (of\nphilosophers, orators, poets, &c.) and ecclesiastical. And then take\nin as much of the mathematics as their more necessary studies will\nallow them time for (still valuing knowledge according to the various\ndegrees of usefulness).\n\n_Direct._ III. When you come to seek after more abstruse and real\nwisdom, join together the study of physics and theology; and take not\nyour physics as separated from or independent on theology, but as the\nstudy of God in his works, and of his works as leading to himself.\nOtherwise you will be but like a scrivener or printer, who maketh his\nletters well, but knoweth not what they signify.\n\n_Direct._ IV. Unite all \u1f40\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1, or knowledge of real entities,\ninto one science; both spirits and bodies; God being taken in as the\nfirst and last, the original, director, and end of all: and study not\nthe doctrine of bodies alone, as separated from spirits; for it is\nbut an imaginary separation, and a delusion to men's minds. Or if you\nwill call them by the name of several sciences, be sure you so link\nthose severals together that the due dependence of bodies on spirits,\nand of the passive natures on the active, may still be kept\ndiscernible; and then they will be one while you call them divers.\n\n_Direct._ V. When you study only to know what is true, you must begin\nat the _primum cognoscibile_, and so rise _in ordine cognoscendi_; but\nwhen you would come to see things in their proper order, by a more\nperfect, satisfying knowledge, you must draw up a synthetical scheme,\n_juxta ordinem essendi_, where God must be the first and last; the\nfirst efficient Governor and End of all.\n\n_Direct._ VI. Your first study of philosophy therefore should be, of\nyourselves; to know a man. And the knowledge of man's soul is a part\nso necessary, so near, so useful, that it should take up both the\nfirst and largest room in all your physics, or knowledge of God's\nworks: labour therefore to be accurate in this.\n\n_Direct._ VII. With the knowledge of yourselves join the knowledge of\nthe rest of the works of God; but according to the usefulness of each\npart to your moral duty; and as all are related to God and you.\n\n_Direct._ VIII. Be sure in all your progress that you keep a distinct\nknowledge of things certain and things uncertain, searchable and\nunsearchable, revealed and unrevealed; and lay the first as your\nfoundation, yea, rather keep the knowledge of them as your science of\nphysics by itself, and let no obscurity in the rest cause you to\nquestion certain things; nor ever be so perverse as to try things\nknown, by things unknown, and to argue _a minus notis_. Lay no stress\non small or doubtful things.\n\n_Direct._ IX. Metaphysics as now taken is a mixture of organical and\nreal knowledge; and part of it belongeth to logic, (the organical\npart,) and the rest is theology, pneumatology, and the highest parts\nof ontology, or real science.\n\n_Direct._ X. In studying philosophy, 1. See that you neither neglect\nany helps of those that have gone before you, under pretence of taking\nnothing upon trust, and of studying the naked things themselves (for\nif every man must begin all anew, as if he had been the first\nphilosopher, knowledge will make but small proficiency). 2. Nor yet\nstick in the bare belief of any author whatsoever, but study all\nthings in their naked natures and proper evidences, though by the\nhelps that are afforded you by others. For it is not science, but\nhuman belief, else, whoever you take it from.\n\n_Direct._ XI. So certain are the numerous errors of philosophers, so\nuncertain a multitude of their assertions, so various their sects, and\nso easy it is for any to pull down much which the rest have built, and\nso hard to set up any comely structure that others in like manner may\nnot cast down; that I cannot persuade you to fall in with any one sort\nor sect, who yet have published their sentiments to the world. The\nPlatonists made very noble attempts in their inquiries after spiritual\nbeing; but they run into many unproved fanaticisms, and into divers\nerrors, and want the desirable helps of true method. The wit of\nAristotle was wonderful for subtilty and solidity; his knowledge vast;\nhis method (oft) accurate; but many precarious, yea erroneous\nconceptions and assertions, are so placed by him, as to have a\ntroubling and corrupting influence into all the rest. The Epicureans\nor Democratists were still and justly the contempt of all the sober\nsects; and our late Somatists that follow them, yea, and Gassendus,\nand many that call themselves Cartesians, yea, Cartesius himself,\nmuch more Berigardus, Regius, and Hobbes, do give so much more to mere\nmatter and motion, than is truly due, and know or say so much too\nlittle of spirits, active natures, vital powers, which are the true\nprinciples of motion, that they differ as much from true philosophers,\nas a carcass or a clock from a living man. The stoics had noble\nethical principles, and they (and the Platonists with the cynics) were\nof the best lives; but their writings are most lost, and little of\ntheir physics fully known to us, and that also hath its errors.\nPatricius is but a Platonist so taken with the nature of light, as\ninsisting on that in fanatical terms, to leave out a great deal more\nthat must he conjoined. Telesius doth the like by heat and cold,\nheaven and earth, and among many observable things, hath much that is\nunsound and of ill consequence. Campanella hath improved him, and hath\nmany hints of better principles (especially in his primalities) than\nall the rest; but he fanatically runs them up into so many unproved\nand vain, yea, and mistaken superstructures, as that no true body of\nphysics can be gathered out of all his works. The attempt that pious\nCommenius hath made in his small manual hath much that is of worth;\nbut far short of accurateness. The Hermetical philosophers have no\ntrue method of philosophy among them; and to make their three or five\nprinciples to be so many elements, or simple bodies, constituting all\ncompounds, and form up a system of philosophy on their suppositions,\nwill be but a trifle, and not to satisfy judicious minds; especially\nconsidering how defective their philosophy is made by their omissions.\nLullius and his followers fit not their method to the true order of\nthe matter. Scaliger, Scheggius, Wendeline, and Sennertus (especially\nin his Hypomnemata) were great men, and have many excellent things;\nbut too much of Aristotle's goeth for current with them. My worthy,\nlearned, and truly pious friend Mr. Sam. Gott, in his new book on Gen.\ni. hath many excellent notions, and much that is scarce elsewhere to\nbe met with; but the tedious paragraphs, the defect of method, and\nseveral unproveable particulars, make it, like all human works,\nimperfect.\n\nTherefore if I must direct you according to my judgment, I must advise\nyou, 1. To suppose that philosophers are all still in very great\ndarkness, and there is much confusion, defectiveness, error, and\ndivision, and uncertainty among them. 2. Therefore addict not\nyourselves absolutely to any sect of them. 3. Let your first studies\nof them all leave room for the changing of your judgment, and do not\ntoo hastily fix on any of their sentiments as sure, till you have\nheard what others say, and with ripened understandings have deeply and\nlong studied the things themselves. 4. Choose out so much of the\ncertainties and useful parts of physics as you can reach to, and make\nthem know their places in subserviency to your holy principles and\nends; and rather be well content with so much, than to lose too much\ntime in a vain fatiguing of your brains for more.\n\nI have made some attempt to draw out so much, especially _de mundo et\nde homine_, in my \"Methodus Theologi\u00e6,\" though I expect it should no\nmore satisfy others, than any of theirs have satisfied me.\n\n_Direct._ XII. When you have well stated your ontology or real\nscience, then review your logic and organical part of metaphysics; and\nsee that _verba rebus aptentur_; fetch then your words and organical\nnotions from the nature of the things. Abundance are confounded by\ntaking up logical notions first which are unsuitable to true physical\nbeings.\n\n_Direct._ XIII. Somewhat of ethics may be well learned of\nphilosophers, but it is nothing to the Scripture's christian ethics.\n\n_Direct._ XIV. Somewhat of artificial rhetoric and oratory should be\nknown; but the oratory which is most natural, from the evidence of\nthings, well managed by a good understanding and elocution, which hath\nleast of appearing art or affectation, is ever the most effectual, and\nof best esteem.\n\n_Direct._ XV. The doctrine of politics, especially of the nature of\ngovernment and laws in general, is of great use to all that will ever\nunderstand the nature of God's government and laws, that is, of\nreligion. Though there be no necessity of knowing the government and\nlaws of the land or of other countries, any further than is necessary\nto our obedience or outward concernments, yet so much of government\nand laws as nature and Scripture make common to all particular forms\nand countries, must be known by him that will understand morality or\ndivinity, or will ever study the laws of the land. And it is a\npreposterous course, and the way of ignorance and error, for a divine\nto study God's laws, and a lawyer man's laws, before either of them\nknow in general what a law or what government is, as nature notifieth\nit to us.\n\n_Direct._ XVI. When you come to divinity, I am not for their way that\nwould have you begin with the fathers, and thence form a body of\ndivinity to yourselves: if every young student must be put on such a\ntask, we may have many religions quickly, but shall certainly have\nmuch ignorance and error. We must not be so blind or unthankful to God\nas to deny that later times have brought forth abundance of\ntheological writings, incomparably more methodical, judicious, full,\nclear, and excellently fitted also by application, to the good of\nsouls, than any that are known to us since the writing of the sacred\nScriptures. Reverence of antiquity hath its proper place and use, but\nis not to make men fools, non-proficients, or contemners of God's\ngreater mercies.\n\nMy advice therefore is, that you begin with a conjunction of English\ncatechisms, and the confessions of all the churches, and the practical\nholy writings of our English divines; and that you never separate\nthese asunder.[470] These practical books do commonly themselves\ncontain the principles, and do press them in so warm a working manner\nas is likest to bring them to the heart; and till they are there, they\nare not received according to their use, but kept as in the porch. Get\nthen six or seven of the most judicious catechisms, and compare them\nwell together, and compare all the confessions of the churches (where\nyou may be sure that they put those which they account the weightiest\nand surest truths). And with them read daily the most spiritual\nheart-moving treatises, of regeneration, and our covenant with God in\nChrist, of repentance, faith, love, obedience, hope, and of a heavenly\nmind and life; as also of prayer and other particular duties, and of\ntemptations and particular sins.\n\nAnd when you have gone through the catechisms, read over three or four\nof the soundest systems of divinity. And after that proceed to some\nlarger theses, and then to the study of the clearest and exactest\nmethodists; and think not that you well understand divinity, till, 1.\nYou know it as methodized and jointed in a due scheme, and the several\nparts of it in their several schemes, seeing you know not the beauty\nor the true sense of things, if you know them not in their proper\nplaces, where they stand in their several respects to other points:\nand, 2. Till it be wrought into your very hearts, and digested into a\nholy nature; for when all is done, it is only a holy and heavenly\nlife, that will prove you wise, and make you happy, and give you solid\npeace and comfort.\n\n_Direct._ XVII. When you have gone so far, set yourselves to read the\nancients: 1. And take them in order as they lived. 2. Observe most the\nhistorical parts, what doctrines and practices _de facto_ did then\nobtain. 3. Some must be read wholly, and some but in part. 4. Councils\nand church history here have a chief place.\n\n_Direct._ XVIII. With them read the best commentators on the\nScriptures, old and new.\n\n_Direct._ XIX. And then set yourselves to the study of church\ncontroversies (though those that the times make necessary must be\nsooner looked into). Look first and most into those which your own\nconsciences and practice require your acquaintance with: and above all\nhere, read well those writings that confute atheists and infidels, and\nmost solidly prove the truth of the christian religion; and then those\nthat defend the greatest points. And think not much to bestow some\ntime and labour in reading some of the old school divines.\n\n_Direct._ XX. When you come to form up your belief of certainties in\nreligion, take in nothing as sure and necessary, which the ancient\nchurches did not receive. Many other things may be taken for truths;\nand in perspicuity and method the late times much excel them; but\nchristian religion is still the same thing, and therefore we must have\nno other religion in the great and necessary parts than they had.\n\n_Direct._ XXI. Still remember, that men's various capacities do\noccasion a great variety of duties. Some men have clear and strong\nunderstandings by nature; these should study things as much as books;\nfor possibly they may excel and correct their authors. Some are\nnaturally of duller or less judicious heads, that with no study of\nthings can reach half so high, as they may do by studying the writings\nof those who are wiser than ever they are like to be. These must take\nmore on trust from their authors, and confess their weakness.\n\n_Direct._ XXII. After or with all controversies, be well versed in the\nwritings of those reconcilers who pretend to narrow or end the\ndifferences. For usually they are such as know more than the\ncontenders.\n\nI proceed now to give you some names of books.\n\n[470] I mention not your reading the Scripture, as supposing it must\nbe your constant work.\n\n\nQuest. CLXXIV. _What books, especially of theology, should one choose,\nwho for want of money or time can read but few?_\n\n_Answ. General._ The truth is, 1. It is not the reading of many books\nwhich is necessary to make a man wise or good; but the well reading of\na few, could he be sure to have the best. 2. And it is not possible to\nread over very many on the same subjects, without a great deal of loss\nof precious time; 3. And yet the reading of as many as is possible\ntendeth much to the increase of knowledge, and were the best way, if\ngreater matters were not that way unavoidably to be omitted: life\ntherefore being short, and work great, and knowledge being for love\nand practice, and no man having leisure to learn all things, a wise\nman must be sure to lay hold on that which is most useful and\nnecessary. 4. But some considerable acquaintance with many books is\nnow become by accident necessary to a divine. 1. Because unhappily a\nyoung student knoweth not which are the best, till he hath tried them;\nand when he should take another man's word, he knoweth not whose word\nit is that he should take: for among grave men, accounted great\nscholars, it is few that are truly judicious and wise, and he that is\nnot wise himself cannot know who else are so indeed: and every man\nwill commend the authors that are of his own opinion. And if I commend\nyou to some authors above others, what do I but commend my own\njudgment to you, even as if I commended my own books, and persuaded\nyou to read them; when another man of a different judgment will\ncommend to you books of a different sort? And how knoweth a raw\nstudent which of us is in the right? 2. Because no man is so full and\nperfect as to say all that is said by all others; but though one man\nexcel in one or many respects, another may excel him in some\nparticulars, and say that which he omitteth, or mistaketh in. 3. But\nespecially because many errors and adversaries have made many books\nnecessary to some, for to know what they say, and to know how to\nconfute them, especially the papists, whose way is upon pretence of\nantiquity and universality, to carry every controversy into a wood of\nchurch history, and ancient writers, that there you may first be lost,\nand then they may have the finding of you: and if you cannot answer\nevery corrupted or abused citation of theirs out of councils and\nfathers, they triumph as if they had justified their church tyranny.\n4. And the very subjects that are to be understood are numerous, and\nfew men write of all. 5. And on the same subject men have several\nmodes of writing; as one excelleth in accurate method, and another in\nclear, convincing argumentation, and another in an affectionate,\ntaking style: and the same book that doth one, cannot well do the\nother, because the same style will not do it.\n\n_Object._ But the ancient fathers used not so many books as we do, no,\nnot one for our hundreds: and yet we honour them above the Neoterics:\nthey lived before these libraries had a being. Yea, they exhort\ndivines to be learned in the holy Scriptures, and the fourth council\nof Carthage forbad the reading of the heathens' books: and many\nheretics are accused by the fathers and historians, as being studied\nin logic, and curious in common sciences; and Paul saith, that the\nScriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation.\n\n_Answ._ 1. And yet the New Testament was written (or most of it) after\nthe Scriptures which Paul is commonly supposed to mean, and some of\nit, after he said so, which showeth that he meant not to exclude more\nwriting.\n\n2. The Scriptures are sufficient for their proper use, which is to be\na law of faith and life, if they be understood. But, 1. They are not\nsufficient for that which they were never intended for: 2. And we may\nby other books be greatly helped in understanding them.\n\n3. If other books were not needful, teachers were not needful; for\nwriting is but the most advantageous way of teaching by fixed\ncharacters, which fly not from our memory as transient words do. And\nwho is it that understandeth the Scriptures that never had a teacher?\nAnd why said the eunuch, \"How should I (understand what I read) unless\nsome man guide me?\" Acts viii. 31. And why did Christ set teachers in\nhis church to the end, till it be perfected? Eph. iv. 11-13, if they\nmust not teach the church unto the end. Therefore they may write unto\nthe end.\n\n4. Reverence to antiquity must not make us blind or unthankful.\nAbundance of the fathers were unlearned men, and of far less knowledge\nthan ordinary divines have now; and the chief of them were far short\nin knowledge of the chiefest that God of late hath given us. And how\nshould it be otherwise, when their helps were so much less than ours?\n\n5. Knowledge hath abundantly increased since printing was invented;\ntherefore books have been a means to it.\n\n6. The fathers then wrote voluminously; therefore they were not\nagainst more writing.\n\n7. Most of the bishops and councils that cried down common learning,\nhad little of it themselves, and therefore knew not how to judge of\nit; no more than good men now that want it.\n\n8. They lived among heathens that gloried so in their own learning, as\nto oppose it to the word of God (as may be seen in Julian, and\nPorphyry, and Celsus): therefore christians opposed it, and contemned\nit; and were afraid while it was set in competition with the\nScriptures, lest it should draw men to infidelity, if overvalued.\n\n9. And finally, the truth is, that the sacred Scriptures are now too\nmuch undervalued, and philosophy much overvalued by many both as to\nevidence and usefulness: and a few plain, certain truths which all our\ncatechisms contain, well pressed and practised, would make a better\nchurch and christians, than is now to be found among us all. And I am\none that after all that I have written, do heartily wish that this\nwere the ordinary state of our churches. But yet by accident much more\nis needful, as is proved: 1. For the fuller understanding of these\nprinciples. 2. For the defending of them (especially by those that are\ncalled to that work). 3. To keep a minister from that contempt which\nmay else frustrate his labours. 4. And to be ornamental and\nsubservient to the substantial truths.\n\nAnd now I will answer the question more particularly in this order.\n\nI. I will name you the poorest or smallest library that is tolerable.\n\nII. The poorer (though not the poorest); where a competent addition is\nmade.\n\nIII. The poor man's library, which yet addeth somewhat to the former,\nbut cometh short of a rich and sumptuous library.\n\n\nI. The poorest library is, 1. The Sacred Bible. 2. A Concordance\n(Downame's the least, or Newman's the best). 3. A sound Commentary or\nAnnotations, either Diodates, the English Annotations, or the Dutch.\n4. Some English catechisms, (the Assemblies' two, Mr. Gouge's, Mr.\nCrook's Guide,) Amesius's Medulla Theologi\u00e6, et Casus Conscienti\u00e6,\n(which are both in Latin and English,) and his Bellarminus Enervatus.\n5. Some of the soundest English books which open the doctrine of\ngrace, justification, and free-will and duty; as Mr. Truman's Great\nPropitiation, Mr. Bradshaw of Justification, Mr. Gibbon's Sermon of\nJustification, in the morning exercises at St. Giles in the Fields,\nMr. Hotchkis of Forgiveness of Sin. 6. As many affectionate practical\nEnglish writers as you can get; especially Mr. Richard Allen's Works,\nMr. Gurnall's, Dr. Preston, Dr. Sibbs, Mr. Robert Bolton, Mr.\nWhateley, Mr. Reyner, Mr. Scudder, Mr. T. Ford, Mr. Howe of\nBlessedness, Mr. Swinnock, Mr. Gouge's, The Practice of Piety, The\nWhole Duty of Man, Dr. Hammond's Practical Catechism, Dr. Pearson on\nthe Creed, Dr. Downame on the Lord's Prayer, Mr. Dod on the\nCommandments, Bishop Andrews on the Commandments, Mr. Joseph\nBrinsley's True Watch, Mr. Greenham's Works, Mr. Hildersham's Works,\nMr. Anthony Burgess's Works, Mr. Perkin's Works, Dr. Harris's Works,\nMr. Burrough's, Mr. Thomas Hooker, Mr. Pinke's Sermons, J. Downame's\nChristian Warfare, Richard Rogers, John Rogers of Faith and Love, Dr.\nStoughton, Dr. Thomas Tailor, Mr. Elton, Mr. Daniel Dike, Jeremy Dike,\nMr. J. Ball of Faith, of the Covenant, &c., Culverwell of Faith, Mr.\nRanew, Mr. Teate, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Rawlet, Mr. Janeway, Mr. Vincent, Mr.\nDoelittle, Mr. Samuel Ward's Sermons, Mr. W. Fenner, Mr. Rutherford's\nLetters, Mr. Jos. Allein's Life and Letters, and Treatise of\nConversion, Mr. Samuel Clarke's Lives, and his Martyrology, The\nMorning Exercises at St. Giles Cripplegate, and at St. Giles in the\nFields, Mr. Benjamin Baxter's Sermons, Mr. George Hopkin's Salvation\nfrom Sin, Dr. Edward Reynolds, Mr. Meade's Works, Mr. Vine's Sermons,\nHenry Smith, Samuel Smith, Thomas Smith, Mr. Strong, J. Simmonds; as\nmany of them as you can get. 7. And for all other learning,\nAlstedius's Encyclop\u00e6dia alone: supposing that you are past the\ngrammar school, and have necessary Lexicons, specially Martinius and\nLeigh's Critica Sacra: if you can have more, get Bellarm. de Scriptor.\nEccles., Cook's Censura Patrum, Sculteti Medulla Patrum, Clem. Rom.,\nJustin, Tertullian, and Cyprian; Helvici Chronolog., Hammond's and\nBeza's Annotations, with Junius and Tremellius, Calvin on the New\nTestament, Thadd\u00e6i Conciliationes, Alstedii Definit. et Distinct.,\nCastanei Distinct., Ursini Catechis., Wendelini Theolog., Snecani\nMethod. Descriptio, Davenant's Works, and Camero's, Le Blanc's Theses,\nGrotius de Satisfact., Caranza's Epitom. Concil., Usher's Annals, and\nAnswer to the Jesuit, and de Success. Eccles. Stat., Drelincourt's and\nPoole's Manual, Corpus Confessionum.\n\n\nII. When you can get more, the next rank must have all the former with\nthese additions following.\n\nI. For lexicons: 1. For Latin, besides Goldman, or Holyoke, or rather\nHutton's Morellius, or Cowper, get Martinii Onomasticon: 2. For Greek,\nScapula, Pasor, Leigh, Simpson and Henricpetri Lexicon. 3. For Hebrew,\nBuxtorf, Schindler, Leigh.\n\nII. For logic: 1. Fasciculus Logicus, or Smith, Keckerman,\nBurgersdicius. 2. Of the moderate Ramists, that take in both, Henry\nGutherleth.\n\nIII. For physics: 1. Magirus, Combachius, Burgersdicius, Wendeline,\nand Sennertus. 2. Commenius. 3. Mr. Gott. 4. Lord Bacon and Mr. Boyle.\n\nIV. More particularly, De Anima: Tolet, Melancthon, with Vives and\nAmerbachius, (they are printed together in one book,) Sennerti\nHypomnemata, Scaliger's Exercitationes.\n\nV. De Corpore Humano: Galen, Fernelius, Bartholine, Harvy de\nGeneratione Animalium.\n\nVI. De Motu: Mousnerius, Dr Wallis.\n\nVII. Of astronomy: Gassendus, Riolanus.\n\nVIII. Of geography: Cluverius, or Abbot, Ortelius, Mercator, Heylin,\nthe globe or map Geog. Nubiens.\n\nIX. Of mathematics in general: Euclid, Barrow, Rami Schol. cum\nProlegom., Snellii, Bettinus, Herigone.\n\nX. Arithmetic in particular: Record, Wingate, &c.\n\nXI. Geometry: Ramus cum comment. Snellii, and Schoneri, Metii, Dr.\nWallis, &c.\n\nXII. Music: Thos. Morley, Simpson.\n\nXIII. Of chronology and general history: Helvici Chronol., Usher's\nAnnals, Idea Histor. Univers., Bucholtzer, Calvisius, Functius, Jacob.\nCapellus, Raleigh.\n\nXIV. Particular history is endless: among so many I scarce know what\nto say more, than read as many as you can; especially,\n\n1. The Roman historians (which are joined together).\n\n2. The Greek historians.\n\n3. Diog. Laertius and Eunapius de vitis Philosoph.\n\n4. Plutarch's Lives.\n\n5. Of England, Matth. Paris, Hoveden, Camden, Speed, Rushworth's\nCollections.\n\n6. Of France, Thuanus, (who also taketh in most of the European\nhistory of his time,) Commines, Serres.\n\n7. Of Belgia, Grimston, and Grotius, and Strada.\n\n8. Of Germany, the collections of Pistorius, Ruberus, and Freherus.\n\n9. Of Italy, Guicciardine.\n\n10. Knowles's Turkish History, and Leunclavius.\n\n11. Of Abassia, Godignus, and Damianus a Goes.\n\n12. Of Judea, George Sandys's Travels, and Brocardus.\n\n13. Of Armenia and Tartary, Haitho Armenius, and the rest in the Novus\nOrbis, especially Paulus Venetus there.\n\n14. Of Africa and India, Leo Afer, and Ludovicus Romanus.\n\n15. Of China, Siam, Japan, &c. Varenius, Maff\u00e6i Histor. Indica cum\nEpist. Jesuit., Alvarez and Martinius.\n\n16. Of Indostan, Terry.\n\n17. Of Muscovy, Sigismundus.\n\n18. Of Sweden, Olaus Magnus (but fabulous.)\n\n19. Of Scotland, J. Major, Hector Boethius, Dempster.\n\n20. Of antiquities: Rosinus Rom. Antiquit., Godwin, Selden de diis\nSyris, &c., Ferrarii Lexicon.\n\nXV. Of church history: Josephus, Eusebius, Ruffinus Tripartite, above\nall Socrates and Sozomen, Orosius, Sulpitius Severus, Theodoret,\nVictor Uticensis, Beda, Jacobus a Vitriaco, Nicephorus Callist.,\nPlatina and Massonius de vitis Pontif., Abbas Urspergensis, Sleidan,\nMicr\u00e6lius, Gentii Hist. Jud., Molani Martyrolog., Clarke's\nMartyrolog., Hottinger, Illyrici Catalogus Testium Veritatis, or\nMorney's Mystery of Iniquity, Perin and Morland's History of Piedmont\nand the Waldenses, Histor. Persecut. Bohem., Sculteti Annales, et\nCurriculum Vit\u00e6 su\u00e6, Knox's and Spotswood's Hist. Scot., Regenvolscius\nHist. Eccl. Sclavon., Usher's Primordia Eccles. Brit., Parker's\nAntiquitates Eccles. Brit., Melchior Adami Vit\u00e6 Theolog. Medicorum,\nJuris-consult. et Philosoph. German., Fuller's Church History, Clark's\nLives, many particular lives, as Jewell's by Dr. Humphry, Mr. Joseph\nAllein's, &c., Bolton's, &c. Also read the epistles of Melancthon,\nCalvin, Beza, Saravia.\n\nXVI. Of medicine, study no more than such as Horstius de Sanitate\nStudiosorum Tuenda, or Follinus, or Graterolus, or an Herbal, except\nyou can go quite through with it; lest by half skill you kill yourself\nor others: but take, 1. Sufficient exercise _ad sudorem (aliquando\nlargiorem, in habitu seroso vel pituitoso)_. 2. Temperance. 3. A\npleased and contented mind. 4. Warmth, and avoiding inward and outward\ncold: 5. And experience for your best physic; and meddle with no more\nwithout necessity, and the advice of a very able, experienced man,\n\nXVII. Of politics, and civil law, and ethics, read Besoldus, Willius,\nDan\u00e6us, Fragoso de Reg. Rep., Mr. Lawson's Theological Works,\nAngelius, Dr. Zouch, Grotius de Jure Belli, Mynsynger's Institut.\nWesembecius, Calvin's Lexicon, Eustachius's Ethics and Pemble's.\n\nXVIII. For methods of divinity, read Par\u00e6us's edition of Ursine,\nTrelcatius, Amesii Medulla, Musculi Loci Communes, Dr. Tully, Georg.\nSohnius, Tzegedine's Tables, Calvin's Institutions, or Colonius's\nabbreviation of him, Lawson's Theopolitica, Wollebius, Cluto's Idea\nTheolog.\n\nXIX. Theological disputations and treatises which I take to be\nextraordinary clear and sound, escaping the extremes which many err\nin, and opening the reconciling truth: Strangius, Le Blanc's Theses,\nMr. Truman's three books, Grotius de Satisfactione, Bradshaw of\nJustification, Gibbon's Sermon of Justification, Hotchkis of\nForgiveness of Sin, all Davenant's Works, Camera's Works, Testardus de\nNatura et Gratia, all Josue Plac\u00e6us's Works, Theses Salmurienses,\nAmyraldus, Johan. Bergius, Conrad. Bergius, Ludovic. Crocii Syntag.\nTheolog. Synod. Dort, especially the British and Breme Divines in\nsuffrag., Jansenii Augustinus, all Augustine, Prosper and Fulgentius,\nMusculi Loci Communes, Dalleus de Redemp., Wotton de Reconcil.,\nGataker, Woodbridge of Justification, Stillingfleet, Usher's Answer to\nthe Jesuit's Challenge, and his Notes de Redempt. Univers., W. Fenner,\nRob. Baronius de Peccato Mort. et Ven., Bishop Preston, Whateley,\nVossii Theses, Bullinger's Decades, Rob. Abbot.\n\nXX. Commentators, (besides the forenamed Annotations,) Beza, and\nPiscator, Junii et Tremellii Annot., Dr. Hammond, Grotius in Evang.,\nCalvin, especially in Nov. Test., or Marlorate's Collection on Gen.\nPsal. Isa. and N. Test., which containeth Calvin, with others, Mr.\nPool's Critics, Ainsworth, Mollerus, Willet, Par\u00e6us, Musculus, Lyra,\nEstius, Jansenius, Chemnitius Harm., Mr. Cradock's Harm., Maldonate,\nLorinus, Dixon, Hutchinson, Drusius, Picherelli Opuscula.\n\nXXI. Such as open some hard texts only, and reconcile seeming\ncontradictions, Thadd\u00e6us, Spanhemii Dubia Evangelica, Magrii\nConciliat., Sharpii Symphonia, Bertram, Brugensis, Alba, Walther,\nLydius, Gatakeri Cinnus et alia, Richardson, Camero's Myrothec., with\nLud. Capellus, Croyus, Broughton, Heinsius, Nic. Fuller's Miscellan.,\nGregory, Doughty's Analecta, Dieterici Antiq. Biblic\u00e6, Caninii Disq.,\nSuicerus, Boies, Mede's Works, Weemse, Bootii, Sculteti\nExercitationes.\n\nXXII. Helps to understand the Scriptures: Broughton's Consent of\nScripture, Usher of the Septuagint, &c., Illirici Clavis Scriptur\u00e6,\nthe foresaid Treatises of Customs, all Bochartus, (Geograph. et de\nAnimalibus,) Brierwood's Inquiries, Buxtorf de Synag. Jud., Cun\u00e6us,\nSigonius and Steph. Menochius de Repub. Hebr., Sixt. Amama, Euseb.\nNirembergius de Antiq. Scriptur\u00e6, the Polyglot Bibles various\nversions, Ravanellus.\n\nXXIII. For defence of the christian faith against atheists and\ninfidels: Hier. Savonarola, Vander Meulin, Stillingfleet's Orig.\nSacr\u00e6., Grotius de Verit. Relig. Christ., Morney, Camero de Verbo Dei,\nMicrelii Ethnophron. Lod. Vives, Ficinus cum notis Lud. Crocii, Dr.\nJackson's Truth of Scripture, Campanella's Atheismus Triumphatus,\nLessius, Waddesworth of the Immortality of the Soul, Sir Charles\nWolseley against Atheism, Aut Deus aut Nihil, besides abundance of the\nfathers, John Goodwin of Scriptures.\n\nXXIV. Cases of conscience, besides Amesius, Perkins, Dixon, Greg.\nSayrus's Clavis Regia, Azorius, Dr. Jer. Taylor's Ductor Dubitantium.\n\nXXV. Councils: Lydius Caranza, Crab, Binnius, Spelman, Justellus,\nSynod. Dordr.\n\nXXVI. Canonists and helps to understand councils: The Decretals, or\nCorpus Juris Canon., Zabarell, Panormitane, Navarrus, Albaspin\u00e6us,\nJustellus, Blondel de Decret., Balsamon, Zonaras and Photius, Mir\u00e6i\nNotitia Episcopatuum, (but not trusty,) Chenu de Episcopatibus\nGallicis, Filesacus. Histor. Concil. Trident.\n\nXXVII. Fathers: Clem. Rom., Usher's and Iz. Vossii Ignatius, Justin\nMartyr, Iren\u00e6us, Clem. Alexand., Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen,\nAthenagoras, Tatianus, Arnobius cum Minutio F\u0153lice, Lactantius,\nAthanasius. These are not very voluminous: Optatus, Eusebii Pr\u00e6paratio\net Demonstratio Evangelica, as much of Hierom, Augustine, and\nChrysostom as you can; Hilarius Pictaviensis, Prosper, Fulgentius,\nVincent. Lirinensis, and (before them) Basil, Greg. Nazianzen, and\nGreg. Nyssen., Epiphanius, Ambrose, Paulinus Nolanus, Cassianus,\nSalvianus, Gennadius Massil., Gildas, Claudius Turonensis, Rabanus\nMaurus, Bernard.\n\nXXVIII. Helps to know and understand the fathers: Sculteti Medulla\nPatrum, Cocu's Censura Patrum, Rivet's Critica Sacra, Dr. James, all\nBishop Usher's Works; (but above all, a manuscript of his now in the\nhands of the archbishop of Canterbury;) Sixti Senensis Bibliotheca,\nPossevinus, many of Erasmus's Prefaces and Notes, Dall\u00e6us de usu\nPatrum, et de Pseudepigraphis Apostol. et de Cultu Latinorum, et in\nDionys. et in Ignatium, et pleraque illius, et D. Blondelli Opera,\nBellarminus de Scriptoribus Ecclesiast., Casaubonis Exercit., Vedelius\nde Sapient. Veterum, Polydore Virgil de Invent. Rer. Albaspine, Vossii\nHistor. Pelag. et de Symbolis, Pauli Erinarchi Trias Patrum, Photii\nBiblioth., Rouse's Mella Patrum, De la Cerda, and many others' Notes.\n\nXXIX. Later writers and schoolmen: Damasus, Anselmus Cantuar.,\nGulielmus Parisiensis, Guil. de Sancto Amore, Gerhardus Zutphaniensis,\n(in Bibl. Patr.,) Thaulerus, Thomas a Kempis, Lombard, Aquinas,\nDurandus, Scotus, Ockham, Greg. Ariminensis, Rada, Alvarez, Ruiz,\nSuarez, Lud. a Dola, Ripalda, Buridane's Ethics, Meurisse Metaphys.,\nFerrii Scholast. Orthod. et Defens. Posewitz Theolog. Scholast. Dr.\nTwisse, Strangius, Rob. Baronii Metaphys., Schiebleri Metaphys.,\nCalovii Metaphys. Divin., Dr. Barlow's Metaphys. Exercitat., Dr.\nMore's Metaphysics.\n\nXXX. Controversies (besides the forementioned against heathens and\ninfidels).\n\n1. Protestants and papists: Bellarmine, Stapleton, Costerus, Becanus,\nHolden, Brierley's Protest. Plea, Richworth's and White's Dialogues.\n\nAgainst them: Amesii Bellarm. Enervatus, Dr. Challoner's Credo Eccles.\nCathol., Chamier, Sadeel, Chillingworth, Usher's Answer to the\nJesuit's Challenge, and de Success. Eccles., Illyrici Catalog. Testium\nVeritatis, Du Plessis (Morney) de Eccles. and Mystery of Iniquity, Dr.\nField of the Church, Whitaker, Dr. John White's Way to the True\nChurch, and the Defence, Blondel de Ecclesia (Gallic\u00e9); all Dall\u00e6us's\nWorks; Albertinus de Transubst. cum Clodii Defens. Davenant de\nJustitia et Determinationes, Rivet's Cathol. Orthod., Pet. Molin\u00e6i de\nNovitate Papismi, (Englished,) Pet. Molin\u00e6us Junior's Answer to\nPhalanax Anglicus, Chemnitii Exam. Concil. Trident., Rainold's\nConference with Hart, and de lib. Apocry. Pet. Cousins, Bishop of\nDurham, of the Canon of Scripture, Drelincourt's Manual, Poole's\nNullity and Dial., Bishop Downame de Antichristo, Stillingfleet,\nTillotson, Voetius de Desper. Causa Papatus. Especially for the right\nof kings against them; Will. Barclay, Grotius de Imperio Summar.\nPotest., Bishop Bilson of Obedience, Bishop Carlton de Jurisdictione,\nBishop Robert Abbots, Goldastus de Monarchia, (a multitude of old\nwriters collected,) and Constitut. Imperial., M. Ant. de Dominus\nSpalatensis de Republ. Eccl.; all Ludovicus Molin\u00e6us's Works.\n\n2. About predestination, grace, free-will, the Jesuits, Lutherans, and\nArminians against the Dominicans, Jansenists, and Calvinists. On one\nside, Molin\u00e6us, Fonseca, Pennottus propugnac. Libert. Petr. a Sancto\nJoseph, Arminius, Episcopius, Covinus, Grevinchovius, Tilenus, Tilenus\njunior.\n\nOn the other side; Alvarez, Jumel, Jansenius, Twisse, Synod. Dord.,\nMolin\u00e6i Anatom. Armini., Amesius, Zanchius, &c. But the conciliators\nare soundest.\n\n3. Of Socinianism and Arianism. For them: historians, Philostorgius\nand Sandius: disputers, Volkelius, Socinus, Lushington on the Hebr.\n\nAgainst them: Jos. Plac\u00e6us, Stegman, Botsaccus, Grotius de Satisfact.,\nZarnovecius, and Joh. Junius de Satisfact., Lawson on the Hebrews,\nBeckman's Exercitations, Truman's Great Propitiation, Stillingfleet of\nSatisfaction, Q. V. Crellius Refutatus, Essenius, Hoornbeck.\n\n4. Of justification, enow are named before, XVIII. specially Le Blanc,\nalso Pemble, Bishop Downame, Warren.\n\n5. The antinomian and libertine controversies: _pro_, Dr. Crisp,\nMaccovius in quibusdam, Saltmarsh, Crandon, Paul Hobson, Den, Town,\nEaton.\n\n_Contr._ Gataker, Ball of the Covenant, Anth. Burgess; all the writers\nof justification before praised, XVIII.; Weld's History of\nAntinomians.\n\n6. About infant baptism: _cont._ Tombes, Blackwood, Fisher.\n\n_Pro_, Church, Marshall, Whiston, Blake.\n\n7. Of the Lord's day, or christian sabbath: _cont._ Ironside, Heylin,\nPocklington, Franc. White, Brierwood, Broad.\n\n_Pro_, Dr. Young, Eaton, Cawdrey, and Palmar, Dr. Twisse, Hughes,\nSprint, Dr. Owen, Mr. George Abbot, Shephard.\n\n8. Of diocesan prelacy: _cont._ Cartwright, Calderwood's Altare\nDamascenum, Rob. Parker de Polit. Eccles., Beza, Gerson Bucer's\nDissert. de Gubern. Eccles., Baines Diocesan's Trial, Blondel de\nEpisc. et Presbyt., Salmasius, Smectymnuus.\n\n_Pro_, Petavius, Saravia, George Downame, Bilson, Hooker, Whitgift,\nDr. Hammond.\n\n9. Of the rest of English conformity, liturgy, and ceremonies: _pro_,\nDr. John Burgess, Whitgift, Hooker, Sprint's Necessity of Conformity\nin Case of Deprivation, Paybody of Kneeling, Fulwood, Stileman, Durel,\nThe Friendly Debate, The Ecclesiastical Polity.\n\n_Contr._ Cartwright, Parker of the Cross, Bradshaw's Twelve Arguments,\n&c., Amesius against Morton, and his Fresh Suit against Burgess,\nNicols, the Savoy Prop.\n\nAgainst the new additions, little is said yet, through the restraint\nof the law, except by Mr. Daniel Cawdrey, and a Latin Apology, and Mr.\nCrofton, and Dr. Collins of the Covenant, and some things thrust out\nsecretly, which contain but little of the true state of the case.\n\n10. Of Erastianism: _pro_, Erastus, Coleman, Hussey, Lud. Molin\u00e6us,\n(in appearance,) Selden de Synedriis.\n\n_Cont._ Beza, Gillespie's Aaron's Rod, and Nihil Respondes, Hammond of\nthe Keys.\n\n11. Of separation: _pro_, Johnson, Canne, Ainsworth; and for\nsemi-separation, (from liturgy and sacraments, but not from sermons,)\nRobinson.\n\n_Cont._ John Paget, Bradshaw, Gifford, Hildersham, Ball, Gataker,\nBernard, Rob. Abbot, (not the bishop,) William Allen's Retract. of\nSeparation.\n\n12. Of independency: _pro_, Norton, (moderate,) Hooker, Allen and\nShephard, Burton, Apologet. Narrative, Reasons of the Dissenters in\nthe Assembly, Dr. Owen's Catechism, and of Schism.\n\n_Cont._ J. Ball, Rutherford, the Assembly's Reply, the London\nMinisters' Jus Divinum Presbyterii, Cawdrey against Dr. Owen, &c. Ben.\nCamfield against Dr. Owen's Catechism.\n\nXXXI. Conciliators. 1. Between discordant christians in general:\nJacobi Acontii Stratagemata Satan\u00e6, Usher in Eph. iv. 3, old\nVincentius Lirinensis, Ruperti Meldenii Par\u00e6nensis; a Socinian Veritas\nPacifica (and many such of theirs proposing ill terms.)\n\n2. Between protestants and papists: Thuanus, Picherellus, Erasmus,\nWicelius, Cassander, Baldwin, Grotius, Davenport, alias Franc. a\nSancta Clara, M. A. de Dom. Spalatensis de Rep. Eccles., Guil. Forbes\nEpiscop. Edinburgens., Dr. Hammond, specially on Thess. and Rev.; but\nLe Blanc judiciously only by right stating and narrowing\ncontroversies. See Pet. Heylin of the Life of Archbishop Laud, Bishop\nBramhall.\n\n3. Between all protestants, especially Lutherans, Arminians, and the\nreformed churches: Dur\u00e6us, Calixtus, Hall's Peacemaker, and Pax\nTerris, Bishop Morton, Davenant, and Hall together, their Pacific.;\nAmyraldus, Junius de Pr\u00e6determinatione and Irenic., Hottonus de\nTolerantia, Par\u00e6i Irenic., Scultetus in Tit., all the judicious\nTreatises commended XVIII. And of papists about the like\ncontroversies; Sarnanus, Suarez, Arriba, Jansenius, Gibieuf. Guil.\nCamerarius, Scotus a Dola.\n\n4. Of church government: Usher's Reduction, John Forbez Irenic.,\nStillingfleet's Irenic., Hall's Peacemaker and Modest Offer,\nBurroughs's Cure of Heart Divisions, Matt. Newcomen's Reconcil. of\nPresb. and Indep., The New England Synod's Prop, and the Defence,\nLloyd.\n\n\nIII. I have gone so far in this second rank, that I must add but a few\nmore for the third, lest I go above a poor man's library.\n\nI. Add when you come to your lexicons, Morellius or Cowper, Beckman de\nOrig. Verb., Phavorinus and Hesychius, and Dr. Castle's Oriental\nLexicon.\n\nII. To logicians, Downame, Dietericus, Lublin, Smigletius, with\nAristotle, Claubergius.\n\nIII. To physics, Philoponus, Telesius, Le Grand, Cartesius, Regius,\nHereboord, Sckeggius, Gassendus, Patricius, K. Digby, White.\n\nIV. De corpore humano: Crook's Anatomy, or Vesalius, Lower de Motu\nCordis, Harvey and Wall\u00e6us de Circulat. Sang., Willis's Works, Needham\nde Form. F\u0153tus, Steno de Musculis, Sylvius, Horne, Bates and\nGlisson, Anatom. Hepat. and de Rachitide, Wharton de Glandulis.\n\nV. De anima: Claud. Mammertus, Nemesius, (in Bibl. Pat.,) Plato,\nPlotinus, Fromondus, Cicero Tusc. Qu., H. More.\n\nVI. Of metaphysics: Scheilbler, Suarez, Timpler, Burgersdicius,\nSenguerdius, Jacch\u00e6us, Gorl\u00e6us, Ritschel, Camponella, Meurisse.\n\nVII. Of chronology: Petavius, Usher's Chronol. and de Anno Maced.,\nIsaacson's Chronol., Simpson's Chron., Beroaldus, Carion, Scaliger de\nEmend. Tempor. on Euseb. &c., Dr. Drake; see Bellarmin. Index in\nScript. Eccles.\n\nVIII. History. The Roman and Greek are known. Of the church; Evagrius,\nGregor. Turonicus, Paulus Diaconus, Luitprandus, Frodoardus, Cedrenus,\nCuropalates, Ingulphus, Otho Frisengens., Crantzius, Trithemius,\nCamerarius, Spondani Epit. Baronii, Luc. Osiander's Epit. Magdeburg,\nFox's Martyrology, Ebinger's History of England, Ingulphus, Will.\nMalmsbury, Matt. Westminster, Bal\u00e6us, Hollingshed, Lord Herbert's Life\nof Hen. VII., The Lives of Edw. VI., Q. Eliz. by Camden, K. James by\nWilson, K. Charles, Cromwell's Life, Pryn's History of Bishops'\nTreasons, and of Canterbury's (Laud's) Doom, Heylin's Life of Laud,\nThe Troubles at Frankfort, The Cabala Letters. Of Ireland; Sir John\nTemple, Dr. Jones of the Rebellion, the Earl of Orrery's Answ. to a\nPetition. Of Scotland and other churches; Petr\u00e6us's History. Also,\nMart. Crusii Turcogr\u00e6cia; Kircher of the Coptics, Hornius,\nArchotologia Gothofredi edit. 1649, Rovillii promptuarium Iconum,\nVerheiden's Icones Theolog. Reformat. fol., Vossius de Historicis,\nBez\u00e6 Icones, Hospinian's Histor. Sacrament. et de Orig. Templorum,\nVossii Hist. Pelag., Gutherleth's Hist., Par\u00e6us, L\u00e6tus, Pezelius: but\nthere is no end.\n\nIX. Medicine. Herbals; Matthiolus, Johnson, Gerrard, Parkinson,\nLangham, Monardus. Dispensatories; London Physicians', Schroderus.\nAnatomists beforenamed, and Knoblochius. Practitioners; Hippocrates,\nGalen, Celsus, Fernelius, Montani Consilia, Crato in Scholtzii, ep. et\nConsil., Platerus, Forestus, Skenkii Observ., Hollerius, Sennertus,\nRondeletius, Horstius, Frambassarius, Scoltzii Aphoris., Solenander,\nEpiphan. Ferdinandus, Dodon\u00e6i Praxis, Morellius, Schonbornii Manual,\nDorncrellius, Conringius de Ferment., Fienus, Gordonius; especially\nRiverius, Prevotius, et si vacat, Zacutus Lusitan., Hartman,\nQuercetane, Crollius, Valentine, Helmont. For surgery; Fabricius\nHildanus, Trigaltius, Forestus, Par\u00e6us.\n\nBut the chief treatises of medicine are those that treat of particular\ndiseases or kinds; as Carolus Piso de Morbis Serosis, Eugalenus,\nMartinius, Sennertus, &c. de Scorbuto, Dr. Sidenham de Febribus, Dr.\nGlisson de Rachitide, Willis de Fermentatione et de Febribus,\nCattierus de Rheumatismo, Marcuccius, &c. de Melancholia, Schmuzen,\n&c. de Calculo, Capellutus de Bubon., Guarencier's de Tabe Anglica. It\nis too long to name all.\n\nSo Rudius de Pulsibus, Forestus de Insert. Urin. judic. Sanctorius et\nOpicius de Med. Statica, Deodatus de Di\u00e6tetic., Bacon de Vita Longa,\nVenner, Brunfelsis.\n\nX. To politics add, Tholosanus, Althusius, Arnis\u00e6us, Bodin de Rep.\nWhite.\n\nTo ethics, Buridane, More, Wendeline, Dan\u00e6us, Gataker's Antonine,\nSeneca, Plutarch's Morals.\n\nXI. Systems of theology: Synopsis Leidensium, Lud. Crosius, Polanus,\nBucanus, Dudley Fenner, Wendeline, Pet. Martyr's Loci Com., Theses\nSedanenses, Ant. Fayus, Melancthon, Gomarus, Pezelius, Catechismus\nRomanus, Corpus Confessionum, Altingius, Spanhemii Disput. Snecanus.\n\nXII. Choice treatises: Parker de Descensu ad Inferos, Garbut of the\nResurrection of Christ, Bullinger de Orig. Errorum, Martinius de\nSymbol. et alia., Olevian de F\u0153dere, Sanderson de Juram., Pemble's\nWorks, all Mede's Works, Rivet's Select Disputations, Zanchii Opera,\nDr. Field, all Dall\u00e6us, and Blondel, Turretine de Satisfactione.\n\nXIII. Commentators: Davenant in Colos., Martyr in Rom. and Cor.,\nPelargus in Matt., Fayus, Scultetus, Crocius in Eph., Luther in\nGalat., Sclater in Thess., Cartwright and Fulke on the Rhemists'\nNotes, Arth. Jackson's Annot., Erasmus's Paraphrase, Illyricus,\nLightfoot, Tessanus, Melancthon, Rollocke, Manton on James and Jude,\nAmesius on Pet., Lud. de Dieu on the Revel., Mede, Stephens, Napier,\nK. James, Brightman; all these on the New Testament or part. And\npapists; Tolet, (on Rom. &c.,) Ferus, Brugensis, Montanus, Pererius,\nCorn. Mussus, Espenc\u00e6us. On the Old Testament; Cajetan, Bonfrerius,\nPererius, Paul. Fagius, Mercennus, Rivet, Masius Serrarius, Sanctius,\nMercer, Amesius, in Psal., Amyraldus in Psal., Ford in Psal., Pemble,\nBroughton, and Parker on Dan., Attersol on Numb. &c., King on Jonah.\nIf you would have more, see Bishop Wilkins's Eccles., and Voetii\nBibliot.\n\nXIV. Subordinate helps for understanding and preaching. Concordances:\nHeb. Buxtorf, Gr\u00e6c. Stephani, Tossani Index: Clark's Holy Oil,\nWilkins's Ecclesiastes and Gift of Prayer, Chappel and Zepper's Method\nof Preaching, Oliv. Bowles, Alstedii Definit. et Distinct., Castanei\nDist. cum Reeb., Drusii Prov. and Adag. Heb., Delrius and Schottus,\nGlassii Philol. Zehner, Capelli Critica Sacra, Gruteri vel Langii\nPolyanth., Schotanus in Creat., Mountague's Apparat. et de Orig.\nEccl., Franzius de Sacrif., Wittichius de Stylo.\n\nXV. Of christian religion; its defence, latitude, and the infidels and\nheathens compared: Raymundus de Sabundis Theolog. Natur., Pacardus,\nAquinas cont. Gent. Pansa, Varenius de Relig. Indor., Brierwood's\nInquiries, Thom. a Sancto Jesu, and Acosta de Convers., Breganius de\nTheol. Gentil., Vossius de Idolol., Vossius de Theol. Natura, Collius\nde Animabus Paganorum, Eugubinus, Fotherby, Mersennus in Genesin.\n\nXVI. Cases of conscience more: Filliucius, Tolet de Sacerdot.,\nReginald, Cajetan, Navarrus. See Montaltus against the Jesuits'\ncasuists, and the Jesuits' morals, Downame's and Whateley's Tables on\nthe Commandments, Sanderson de Juramento, and Fragoso aforenamed.\n\nXVII. Of councils more, and canonists, and liturgies: Jus Orientale\nGr\u00e6corum per Leunclavium, Bochelli Decreta Gallic. Sirmondi Concil.\nGall. Longus.\n\nActus Conventus Thorunensis, Formula Concordi\u00e6 Germ. The Westminster\nAssembly's Acts, English Canons, Fasti Siculi, Morini exercit. Eccles.\n\nZepper. Polit. Eccles., Hammond, Lestrange of Liturgies, Antiquitates\nLiturgic\u00e6, Cassander's Works, Claud. Sainctes, Gavantes de Ritibus,\nVicecomes.\n\nXVIII. More of the fathers I need not name; if you can get and read\nthem, you may find their names, e. g. in Bellarmin. de Script. Eccles.\nGet the Bibliothec. Patrum of de la Bigne, and Macarius Hom., Ephrem\nSyrus, (plain honest things,) Theodoret, Cyril Hieros., Cyril\nAlexand., Isidore Pelusiota, Theophylact and Oecumenius, Sedulius and\nPrimasius, Remigius, Beda, &c. But many of them are very weak and dry.\nThe chief use of the fathers is to know historically what doctrine was\nthen taught.\n\nXIX. Schoolmen more; Bonaventure, Alensis, Cajetan, Bannez, Biel,\nCameracensis, Franc. Mayro, Capreolus, R. Armachanus, Bradwardine,\nFaber Faventinus, Herv\u00e6us, John and Fr. Pici Mirandula, Fr. Victoria,\nSuarez, Vasquez, Albertinus in Thom. Aquila Scottellus: Ripalda nameth\nmore if you would have more.\n\nXX. Antipapists; Pappus of their contradictions, Gentiletus, Morton's\nApology and Grand Imposture, Buckeridge Roffensis for Kings,\nCrakenthorpe, Par\u00e6us cont. Bellarm., Junius on Bellarm., Birkbeck's\nProtestant's Evidence, Hunnii Eccles. Rom. non est Christ., Hottoman,\nBrutum fulmen, &c., Eusebius Captivus, Joh. Crocius de Schismate,\nJewel, all Whitaker, Andrews Tortura Torti, Wotton, Dr. Jer. Taylor's\nDissuasive. But they are almost numberless.[471]\n\n_Note_ 1. That these may seem too many, though they are few to a full\nand rich library.\n\n2. That it is not my advice that you read over all these, or half; for\nthat would but make them a snare for sinning, and waste of time: but a\nminister of the gospel should have more books by him than he can read\nover, for particular uses, and to see the author's judgment\noccasionally, and to try other men's citations.\n\n3. That a minister must neither study the matter without the help of\nother men's studies by reading much; nor yet read much without\nstudying the thing itself.\n\n4. That though a man must not speak or write before he knoweth what\nand how, yet thus exercising the knowledge that we have doth greatly\nincrease it. And no minister must be studying, when he should be\npreaching, praying, catechising, or visiting, or instructing his\nflock.\n\n5. It is but few men that are born with an acumen fit for writings and\ncontroversies; those few must read the more to be fit for it; the rest\nmay take up with such preparations as they have use for, and exercise\nthem, viz. in the pastoral oversight of the flocks, and propagating\nplain and necessary truths. And therefore though I am one that have\nbeen thought to burden men's understandings with methods,\ndistinctions, directions, and controversies, it is but few that I\npersuade to use them; and am as much as any for most men's adhering to\nplain fundamentals, and truths of daily use, and love and honour those\nthat go no further, and are faithful in this work; so be it they have\nnot the pride to think that they know more than they do, and to\nwrangle against that which they understand not, and set not the church\non fire as ancient ignorance did, by accusing those of heresy that\nknew more than themselves, when they got but the throne or the major\nvote.\n\n6. That though I chiefly commend systems of theology, I know not one\nwhose method satisfieth me, as well agreeing with Scripture, and the\nmatter (else I had not troubled myself so much to seek a right method,\nand propose what I found). And I think no common method more genuine,\nthan theirs that expound the creed, Lord's prayer, and decalogue, and\nthe sacraments, as the sum of all.\n\n7. I mention none of my own writings, for it will seem vanity; but, as\nmany as they are, I wrote none which I thought needless at the time of\nwriting them.\n\n8. Though none should have so great fitness for the holy education of\nchildren and government of families as ministers, yet so great is the\nwork of overseeing the flock, requiring more time and parts than all\nthat we have, and so great are the matters of our studies and labours,\nrequiring our total and most serious thoughts, that I earnestly advise\nall that can possibly, to live single and without a family, lest they\nmar their work by a divided mind: For _nunquam bene fit, quod fit\npr\u00e6occupato animo_, saith Hierom truly.\n\nThe whole man and whole time is all too little in so great a work.\n\n[471] He that would have more books may see Voetius Bibliothec. and\nmany other catalogues.","title":"A Christian Directory, Part 3: Christian Ecclesiastics","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":242579}