Commentary on Revelation
If it be said here that this doth imply no Authority and Power, but what is common to all Societies by the Law of Nations and Nature, such as companies of Chirurgians, Wrights, and such like, have in excluding men from their own Society: which yet is no distinct Authority, but subordinate to, and derived from the Magistrate?
We answer, 1. That even these Societies in these things act by Authority, however it be derived: and so the Argument holds, that the exclusion of Members from Church-communion, doth imply an Authority: and what is said of the necessity of such a thing by the Law of Nature and Nations, doth confirm the same: for, if every Society be furnished for the maintaining of itself by the Law of Nature, so must also the Church be; except we say that it is more defective than other Societies. Beside, even such Societies could not do such a thing, were not privileges granted them by Authority for that end. 2. We answer, That although the argument hold in the general, that there is an Authority necessary; yet will it not prove it to be dependent in the Church, as in these Societies it is. For, 1. The derivation of Authority from the Magistrate to these Societies, is clear: for, such and such Societies have that Power, because it is granted to them by the superior Magistrate; and others want it, because it is not granted them: but I suppose none will plead for a derived Power to the Church from the Magistrate in this place: yea, the greatest opposers of Church-government, do acknowledge that it is not derived from him as L • d. Mol. pag. 654. There is no reason therefore that Church-government should be subordinate to Magistracy as other Societies are, which she exerces (as they speak) by a proper right and divine without delegation, Iure proprio & divino, non delegato. 2. The Magistrate may enter by his Authority such and such persons to the rights and privileges of such Societies and exclude others from them (though possibly it may be done unjustly) yet, was it ever heard of, that a Magistrate might privilege any with the privileges of Church-membership, or by his Authority un-Church any? The parallel therefore cannot be universal in these. 3. All other Societies as such, are parts of a Commonwealth, and together make up the body: and therefore in reason ought to be subordinate to the common Government; but the Church, as a Church, is no essential or integral part of a Commonwealth: there is therefore not the like reason for their subordination.
If any should yet except and say, that an Authority may be immediately from God, and not derived; and yet be by Him appointed to be subordinate to the civil Magistrate, as is instanced in that Power, that a Husband hath over the Wife; or a Parent over his Children.
We Answer, 1. That it may be questioned, if a Parent, as a Parent, be subordinated to the Magistrate, although, as a man and member of the Commonwealth, he be: for, he may command his Children without any Authority from him: yea contrary to the commands of Magistrates (and in some cases warrantably, suppose in their Marrying, adhering to the truth of God, &c.) neither can the Magistrate increase or diminish their power, although they may strengthen them, or mar them actually in the exercise thereof; yea, suppose a Parent to incline to match Son or Daughter in a way that is not sinful or inconvenient; and for this end, to command them to give obedience: and again, suppose the Magistrate to command them other ways to match: The Magistrate's command here, will not loose the Child from the Parents Authority: because, although both Parent and Child be the Magistrate's subjects; yet their obedience is called for in reference to these things that belong to a Magistrate only. Hence that case of a Magistrate's requiring one thing, and a Parents commanding of another to the same Child, is by Divines solved by this distinction, That in things belonging to the Magistrate's command, the Child ought to be obedient to him in what concerns the duty of a subject; but in things that concern the duty of a Son properly, he is to be obedient to the Father, whatever the Magistrate command: which showeth, that simply the commands of a Father, as a Father, are not subordinate to the Magistrate: and so that in reference to some persons, there may be two supreme Powers, upon divers considerations, who may command without subordination one to another; and yet their Authority be no way inconsistent together.
2. We Answer, That although the Authority of Fathers and Husbands were subject to the civil Magistrate as such; yet can it not weaken this consequence, [If the Authority of the Church be not derived from the Magistrate, Then can it not be subordinate to him:] for, the Authority of Parent, Husband, &c. is personal and natural, that is, founded in nature: and the • efore is derived by nature to Parents, Husbands, &c. And such, do not make a body of themselves, but are members of another greater body; whereas a Church, is a Society and Incorporation, complete in itself: and as such, is not founded on nature; but by God's positive grant and foundation is such: and therefore Authority must be immediately derived to the Church by the same mean, (to wit, of a positive grant) by which its being as a Church is derived. And can it be instanced that there is any such, to wit, a complete Incorporation, having immediate power from Christ for the governing of itself and shutting out of corrupt members without any derived power from the civil magistrate, who yet, are subordinated to his power in the exercise of theirs. We grant indeed, that the Church, considered as subjects and members of the commonwealth, are subject to him; but it will no way follow, that the Authority or Government wherewith she is furnished, as a Church, is to be subjected to him. Neither can this be thought strange; that a Church • udicatory, considered as such, should be accounted independent, as to the civil Magistrate, seeing we must either say, that a Minister, in his Ministerial and Pastoral duty, acteth by an Authority immediately from Christ, without any dependency on the civil Magistrate (which yet readily cannot be admitted in any other case, to wit, that a person should command without dependence on the Magistrate) Or, we must say, that the Minister preacheth and acteth in his Ministry, in the Magistrate's name mediately, and by his Authority, or by none at all: which I suppose, none will affirm. And what greater inconsistency is it with civil Power, to have distinct Authoritative Courts, than to have Rulers distinctly and Authoritatively commanding persons, especially themselves?
3. If we consider the Epistle to Thyatira, where much is commended; yet there is a notwithstanding, and reproof cast in upon this account, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, that calleth herself a Prophetess, to teach and seduce my servants. This suffering, can be no defect in respect of civil Authority: for, that was not in their power, or is it any defect of any personal or private duty: because none such can imped other persons teaching, if willfully they will set themselves to it; nor can they be thought defective in th • t, that are so commended for Faith, Charity, Works, &c. and that even in respect of their thriving and growing in their private conditions: it must therefore be a suffering of her in so far as by Church Authority she was not censured and restrained, that thereby the seducing of Christ's servants, might be prevented, whose edification is the end of this as of all other Ordinances: and so consequently, the Church of Christ is furnished with power and authority in reference to her own affairs and members.
2. This will also be clear by considering these who are primarily in this respect commended and reproved in these Epistles: it is not the body of private Christians; but the Churchofficers, as peculiarly distinguished from them: so that these threatenings and reproofs, do otherwise belong to them, than to the Church, as we will find in the progress. And there can be no other reason given of this, but because these faults were the faults of these that had Authority to right them, and did it not: which will be more clear afterward, when we consider the subject of this power.
3. These acts, are either acts of private Christians, or personal acts of Ministers and Church-officers (both which, are already overturned by the forementioned reasons) Or, it must be by some extraordinary act, as Peter's smiting of Ananias and Sapphira ; or, it must be the exercise of some ordinary Power and Authority: there is no other thing conceivable; But none of the first three can be said. Not one of the first two, for the reasons given; not the third, Because, 1. There is no warrand to look upon these Officers as furnished with that gift; nor was it ordinary to the Church, and her ordinary Officers, such as these were. 2. That would not attain the scope proposed here, which is, in part, the recovering of the offending party: therefore saith the Lord of Jezebel, verse. 21.22. I gave her space to repens ; and doth threaten her but conditionally: which showeth, that He meaned no such extraordinary off-cutting of them. It remaineth then, that it must be the exercising of an ordinary Authority and Government: and therefore such must be in the Church.
The second thing to make out the Argument, is, that this Authority and Power in the Church, is distinct and independent from any civil Government; which from the Text, may thus appear, 1. The subject is distinct, to wit, Church-officers. 2. The object is distinct, to wit, the Church and the members thereof alone, and as such: it is not the inhabitants of Pergamos and Thyatira ; but the Church-members that are under the same. 3. The matter falling under that cognition, is distinct, to wit, that which is hurtful to souls, as the seducing of Christ's servants, and scandals, considered as such. 4. The censures inflicted, are different, to wit, no civil mulct upon estates, nor punishment upon bodies, nor cancelling of the freedom of their Burgeships in Towns or such like; but seclusion from Church-privileges and membership. 5. The end is distinct, to wit, the reclaiming of the party offending, and the bringing of them to Repentance, and the preventing of soul-hurt to others, and the vindication of Christ's name. 6. The manner is different, there is no external Pomp nor Power or force in the managing thereof, such as is in civil Governments: for, that is not here conceiveable, considering the afflicted and persecuted condition of these Churches, but the sword of the mouth, and trial, and censures. And 7. They differ in their rise, civil Power being derived from Superiors to Inferiors; but this hath no rise or derivation from any civil Power, although for the time these Cities and Nations wanted it not; but did arise from that intrinsic oeconomie and power, which accompanies the very being of a Church, and which by Christ's appointment doth reside in such a number of persons, considered as a Church, which did not reside in other inhabitants of the same Towns, nor did in these before this their Church-state. 8. The account, upon which, this Government doth consider persons and actions, is distinct from the civil: men are not considered as men, nor as in-dwellers in such and such Places one • y; but as Christ's servants: and actions, are not considered, either as profitable or hurtful to men simply; but as profitable or hurtful to their spiritual estate. And therefore, it is seducing of Christ's Servants, and as such, the deeds of the Nicolaitans and Jezebel, are to be taken notice of by it.
2. We say, as it is a distinct Government from the civil; so it is independent as to it: and if the former be true, that there is an Authority and Government included here and in the former respects exercised as distinct from the civil power then in being, it will also necessarily follow, that this Authority was independently exercised in reference to that civil power?
For, 1. There is no derivation of this Church-power, from that civil power, as is said. Therefore it cannot be dependent on it, seeing it neither did, nor could derive it. And although some except (as was hinted) that there may be a power in Fathers, Husbands, and other such natu • rall relations, over Children, Wives, &c. which yet is dependent on the Magistrate; yet suppose that by the law of nature, Parents did combine in one Society and Government among themselves, as a Church doth, and in that case had a distinct Government, could that Authority and Government be accounted dependent, Seeing no Superior Authority could mar them in the exercise of their power without injustice, more than a Magistrate can mar a Father in the exercise of His Authority towards his Children when he doth it justly? So this Church-power, not being a personal privilege, but belonging to her as a body and Society of many members combining together, having that by the law of nature, as is granted (and we add, if Jesus Christ allowed them) she cannot therefore be marred 〈◊〉 any Authority in the exercising of that Government, what ever injust violence may do.
2. It appeareth to be independent in this, that there is a Church-government among Christians, even when Magistrates were setting themselves to undo the same: If then Government be necessary to the Church, and yet it be so ordered in the Lord's providence that civil Government may be for hundreds of years enemies to the Church, as was in these Primitive times. Then it will follow, that the Church-government and Authority is not placed in the Magistrate, or civil Governors: because, in that case either she should have no Government at all (which by these Epistles will be found false) or she must have a Government and Authority destructive to her, which is contrary to the end thereof; or, in the last place, her Authority must be independent, save of Jesus Christ alone: and if it were not so, considering now that these to whom Christ writeth, were not civil Magistrates, there had been no such access to expostulate with them for their ommission, if they might not have acted independently on them.
3. It may appear thus, that if the civil Magistrate cannot repeal by his Authority any of their sentences, then is their Authority independent as to him. Now, suppose a Church justly to degrade, or depose a false Teacher, or to cut off a rotten member, could any Magistrate by his Authority continue that man to be a Minister, or that member to be a Church-member, (what ever violence might do) Suppose some Emperor (as in some cases Julian did) had taken the recognition of Ephesus sentence against these false Apostles, and had declared it null? would not still their sentence have stood in force notwithstanding? Or suppose Pergamos, or Thyatira, had cut off Jezebel or the Nicolaitans from their Society, could any civil Mag • strate, Heathen or Christian, have enacted them to be continued Church-members? And this doth not only flow from the injustice of the matter: for, suppose a Proconsul had justly degraded some Judges of Ephesus ; and the Town of Ephesus, had justly casten out some members from their Society; yet, by the Emperors interposing his Authority, as the supreme Magistrate, both might have been fully restored (though injustly) so as they might have been really again Magistrates and Burgesses of such a City: which cannot be said in this case. No Emperors Authority could have constitute such (though injustly) to have been Officers, or members, at all of these Churches. The difference then, (I say) cannot consist in the injustice of the matter alone; (for both are injust) but it must consist in this, that civil sentences are subordinate to the supreme Magistrate, but Church-sentences are not: although by violence they might have countenanced such and such persons, and have made the effects of the sentence in many things void; yet could their Authority have never reached to the formal removing of them, as in civil cases was h • nted.
Thirdly, To make out the Argument, we say, that this distinct independent Power here mentioned, is a thing that agreeth to the Church in all Ages and conditions, and is not peculiar to any one time: as suppose, because the Church wanted Christian Magistrates at this time, it had been lawful to exercise Authority independent from them: which in other cases, where the Magistrate is Christian, is not to be granted. Therefore we say, 1. That which is attributed to these Churches here, agrees to them as Churches: and therefore to all Churches at all times: for, the duties are common, and the hazards are common, to Churches at all times. Therefore this remedy of Church-discipline, must be perpetual also, it being the cure that is appointed for such a disease. And, that often repeated word, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches, doth speak in all ages to the end of the World, alswell as then. 2. If all other directions, exhortations, &c. in these Epistles, be perpetual and binding to the Church, to the end of the World, then this must be so also: and there can be no reason given why this is to be accounted temporary, more than the other: especially, considering that Christ's sending of this Revelation, is for the good of His Servants unto the end of the World: and that especially, is aimed at in these Epistles, as the forcited close doth confirm. It must then be injurious to Christ's mind, to sc • ape out so much as concerneth Government, as not belonging to His Church for so many ages. 3. If the grounds, requiring the exercise of this power in the Churches, during this time, be perpetual, agreeing to all ages, Then it is not to be astricted to the time of the Churches being under heathen Magistrates alone; But the ground are perpetual: for, that is not because the Magistrate is a heathen; but that the person offending may be brought to repentance; and the seducing of others may be prevented: Now these ends are perpetual, which the Church is to study in all times: and seeing Church Authority and Government, is here holden forth, as a mean appointed by Jesus Christ for attaining of these ends, It must therefore be of perpetual use to the Church also.
Although these Truths be clear from the Word; yet there are some things, which are partly exceptions, partly objections, insisted on by Adversaries, which we shall speak a little to, as the nature of our intended purpose will permit.
A forcited Author? pag. 545. doth confidently undervalue all Arguments to this purpose; and denieth all distinctness of Government in the Church by any Power distinct from that of the Magistrates; and to maintain it, doth, 1. assert, That all sort of Power whatsoever, is supremely in the Magistrate, whether Heathen or Christian, by that place, Rom. 13.2. he heaps up with many bigg words several absurdities that accompany (as he alledgeth) that opinion of a distinct Church-government, which he calleth invidiously the building of an Empire within an Empire. Yet, 3. He granteth, that where the Civil Magistrate taketh not on him the care of the Church, and maintaineth it not: in that case, by the Law of Nature and Nations, the Church cometh to have an Authority, or somewhat equivalent in the place of that, whereby she is qualified for the ordering of what concerneth her Members, during that case of such a Magistracy allanerly; and denieth any other Authority to have been in the Church, during the time that these Epistles were written, but what was by voluntary confederacy, and association of Members amongst themselves: and therefore saith, That they had and exercised no less Authority, during that time, in Civil things: for which end, he maketh use of that place, 1 Corinth. 6.1, 2. &c.
In reference to all which, we say, 1. That Authority cannot be denied here (however it be derived) seeing it is a Power to Excommunicate and Exauthorate Officers and Members which they assume, as he speaks, pag. 654. Yea, a Power equivalent to that of the Magistrates, because it's a Power adequate for the time to this end of governing the Church, pag. 545. And therefore, we say, if this confederating, or up-making of this Government, be a thing jure called for, and necessary to be done, for this end; it is the thing which we assert also; and, in respect of the particular circumstances, that is, what places or persons are to associate together, is to be regulated by Christian prudence; but if it meaned of a voluntary association and confederacy, such as trades and crafts use in their Societies, as that alone which is the ground of this Power, This we altogether deny: Because, 1. If that confederating be called for, by the Law of Nature, Then it is not voluntary and free. And this Authority, is not grounded merely upon voluntary confederating: because as it is not arbitrary to a converted Christian to be Baptized or not; so, being Baptized, it is not arbitrary to him whether to join with the Church or not. And being joined, submitting to its Government, is a necessary duty to him. And it becometh not Authority to him: because he submits to it; but he is to submit to it, because it is Authority: and therefore supposing that these false Apostles, or Jezebel, or the Nicolaitans, had never consented to subject themselves to the Discipline of these Churches (as, by their taking such names of Apostles and Prophets to themselves, it's like they did never) yet notwithstanding had these Churches Authority over them, and it was their duty to submit unto them. 2. It's granted that the Authority that the Church hath in such a case, is equivalent to what the Magistrate hath and might exercise: and if it be not equivalent to this, then the Church of Christ under such Magistrates would not be so perfect as to their Church-state and well-being, as other ways: which cannot be said without wronging the wisdom of God, as if he had left His Church destitute of inward Power when she had least outward Protection; but if it be such a Power, it cannot be arbitrary and merely grounded upon the confederacy; but must be authoritative upon another account, and may authoritatively enjoin one to confederate: And so confederating, is not the ground that constituteth the power; but a mean, making way for the exercise thereof. 3. If it were asked, What evidence or proof could be given of such voluntary confederating in the Churches for that time ? It would be hard to show, that universally in all the Churches, there was such formal compacting actually agreed upon; and yet, that there was Government and Authority in them all, is evident. 4. Suppose confederacies to have been; yet could they never have constituted an Authority and Government distinct, and independent from the civil supreme Power, especially while the supreme Power opposed the same; as supposing (to keep the similitudes proponed) that many Chirurgians and Tradsemen of any kind, did live under a Magistrate and Laws, which would admit no such, by their Authority to live and confederate under them, will any say that in that case, by voluntary confederating, they could assume an Authority to themselves; and censure any Person (especially against their will) without wronging and encroaching upon that Authority, under which they live? Yet it cannot be denied to a Church, and that without any prejudice to the Magistrate: because it in nothing lessens his Authority or withdraweth anything from his cognition, which formerly used to belong unto him: but as the arising of a new Church within a Nation, hath with it new cases, actions, and considerations of persons, and deeds; so it is reason that it should have with it a new Authority to govern the same. 5. If the Church had another kind of interest, in reference to spiritual offenses, than in reference to civil debates, then this confederacy cannot be the ground of such an Authority: this will not be denied according to the former principles, which do parallel both these in the primitive Church, and make this the proof of the former; But it's clear, that the Church-authority did far other ways reach Church-members in spiritual offenses, than in civil things: which may thus be made out, 1. They might Excommunicate and un-Church for spiritual offenses and for disobedience in these, if a brother did not hear the Church, and ofttimes they did so; But it cannot be said, that if a brother had been disobedient to an arbitrary decree in civil things, that upon that account, they would have proceeded against him to Excommunication, and constrained him to have submitted: sure we are, it was never put in practice, at least till Antichrist arose. 2. In that Chapter, 1 Cor. 6.7, and 8. the Apostle reasoneth for submission to this; and exhorteth Christians, so wronged, to suffer the wrong rather than to pursue it before Infidels: which doth suppose, that the Church was not furnished with Authority to redress civil wrongs, as she was to redress scandals. And therefore, Matth. 18. our Lord giveth order to proceed, in case of nonsatisfaction, to the highest degree. And on the by, we may say, it is an odd thing to expound that place of Matthew, by this place of Paul. As if the Lord did only there warrand a man to pursue injuries before heathen Judges, when he would not submit to the advice of Church • members, seeing expressly Paul enjoineth them rather to suffer wrong, than to make the Gospel contemptible before Infidels by the contentions of Christians; which yet that exposition of Matth. 18. will approve of: which showeth, that it must be understood to speak of Church-offenses: in respect of which, suffering and bearing with them, is condemnable, as we see in these Epistles. 3. If what the Church did in civil things be common to any person or persons in any rank or condition whatsoever, and to Christians in any time and case, that is, that they may and should submit their differences to some; and these to whom they are submitted, may decide: And upon the other side, if what the Church exerced in reference to Ecclesiastic offenses and censures, be not common, but so that no submission to others but such as are in power could warrand one to draw forth such censures as are here mentioned, (yea according to the principles which we oppose, it were not lawful for Christians to do so now in civil things; for, they say it's not lawful to do now in Church-things, as these did at that time) Then the Churches Authority was not equal in civil things, as in spiritual things: And so consequently, no confederacy can warrantably ground this Church Authority; But the former, we conceive, is clear: Therefore, &c. 4. It may be clear by this, that the Church did never exact civil mulcts or inflict bodily punishments: which showeth abundantly, that she did not exerce Authority in civil things equally as in spiritual: and yet had her Authority been only grounded on the voluntary confederacy, she might have inflicted the one, as well as the other. 5. Suppose a Church member had wronged an Heathen by his miscarriage; No question, Church-discipline would have reached him: which is not the intent of that, 1 Cor. 6. Therefore that cannot be the ground of their Power alone. 6. That direction, Matth. 18. Tell the Church, was given, before this was written: seeing then, this is the foundation of civil association, as is pretended, That of Matth. 18. must be of another kind. 7. This opinion will infer the setting up of a civil Power in civil things, where the Magistrate is not Christian; yet, that was never asserted by any. 8. The Adversaries themselves grant, that in such cases, the Church may do much more in Church-matters, than in civil: because that the Magistrate doth allow his power to rectify civil things; and yet, this doth make both equally lawful. 9 Suppose the Magistrate had repealed a sentence, past in civil things; no question, it had bound them, though it had been unjust; Yet supposing he had repealed one of their Church censures, and declared excommunication void, It had not done so, nor had been acknowledged: yea, had he inhibited them to decide a particular in civil things, they would not have proceeded; but when he did inhibit censures, notwithstanding, they did proceed, and actually did suffer Martyrdom upon that account: which, in a civil action, I suppose they would not have done. 10. That, 1 Cor. 6. admitted any to be Judge that men submitted unto, or had wisdom; But Church-things were governed only by these who by office were Rulers. All which do show the vanity of that assertion, that they equally meddled with both kinds; and yet, this one thing, is the ground of all that is said to evert this Authority. Add that, 1 Cor. 6. the parties offending are reproved for going to him; here, the Church-officers, for not censuring these that offended: which supposeth a power to be in them. And it cannot be thought, that the Angels had been so censurable, had they not decided civil businesses, as for this.
Beside (pag. 548.) He denies that there was a necessity of obedience in civil things: which yet clearly, is here asserted in these Church censures. Whereas it is said, as a further evidence, that the Churches Authority during this time was only built upon this voluntary confederacy, that after supreme Magistrates became Christian, they did intermeddle with all Church power without any contradiction (pag. 544.) It is either a mere mistake or an untruth: a mistake in this, that it accounteth their meddling in a civil way with many things, which the Church still meddled-with as formerly, and adding of their civil sanction thereto, for strengthening, not for diminishing the Churches power; to be an assuming of Church Power and Authority, which are things most distinct; even as a Christian Magistrate, doth command the Son of a Christian Parent to do the same things, which his Parent doth command him in reference to the Christian Religion, which a heathen Magistrate did not; yet is the Parent's power and authority over his Son no less than when the Magistrate was heathen, because the Magistrates command is not privative; but cumulative to the Parents Authority: even so is it here. And there can be no greater reason to say that Church Power and Authority over Christians, did cease in spiritual things after Constantine became a Christian, than to say that the Power and Authority of a Christian Parent and a Christian Master did expire at that time. And seeing it is granted, that Church power, and Parentall power, are both immediately from God, without any mediate derivation by the Magistrate, It is reason that they should be of equal duration and continuance also. And in matter of fact it is clear, that the Church continued to exercise the same power, which formerly she did; and also that the Magistrate concurred in his station for the strengthening thereof: and there is not the least shadow for any delegation after that, more than formerly; But, that now by the approbation of civil Authority, the Church had access to do that, for which before that time she was persecuted, even as there was full liberty given to Preach the Gospel, which formerly was inhibited: yet, none will say, that that power of the key of Doctrine, was derived from the Magistrate. For, what is alleged of the Emperors calling of Councils, That will prove him to have put them to the exercise of their power; but not that it was derived from him, more than when before that time Provincial Councils were called by some eminent Bishops, it will prove that their Call did authorize them, But rather both these Calls do suppose Authority to be before in these that are called. And therefore there is no question, that if Constantine had called others than Church-officers, to judge and censure in reference to these differences Ecclesiastically, he could not have derived Authority to them, so as to have made them equally Rulers, and with the same Authority as if they had been Church-members and Officers: which yet might have been done, if their Authority had resided in him alone. Beside, he commanded the preaching of the Gospel also, as is said.
Whence we may see that Christian Magistrates, did not meddle with that Power and Authority, which formerly resided in the Church: neither ever was it heard of, that a Magistrate did excommunicate, authorize or ordain a Minister, and such like, wherein Churchpower is exercised. And though it be said that he doth these things mediately, by putting the Church to it, and by calling Church-officers to consult in Ecclesiastic things, which he doth confirm by his Authority, even as he doth govern other Societies, as Physicians, Lawyers, &c. by Authorizing some of their own number to manage what concerneth such Callings and Functions (in which respect, say some, the Function is different from the Magistrate,) Yet he is not the Lawyer, nor the Physician, more than he is the Minister; but the Authority is on him alone. To this we say, 1. That the parallel, is most unequal: because although a Magistrate be not by his station a Physician, or Lawyer; yet supposing him to have skill, he might lawfully do any act incumbent to these Stations: which doth indeed show, that the same Authority, whereby they act, doth reside in him: but suppose he had the Theorie of Ecclesiastic things, and skill in them; yet he might not step • to himself, to act the acts of a Ministerial Function; nor as a Magistrate, to sentence with Church sentences, Administer Sacraments, as he might do in the sentences of inferior Magistrates and Courts: which doth show, that that Authority doth not reside in him. 2. We grant that he may be said to govern mediately, as he may be said to Teach and Preach mediately (for, he ought to provide for that) But that will not infer that the Authority of Preaching is derived from him: yet, no way doth the weight of this controversy so much lie on matters of fact, what Churches or Magistrates did since the Apostles days, as by what right and warrand they did what they did.
This last assertion therefore although made out, could prove nothing without the former; nor will the instancing of exorbitancies in Church-governors, infer any nullity of that Power, more than the enumerating of miscarriages of men in civil place, will enervate that ordinance of God: yea, we are sure much ill hath come by Magistrates intrusion in this Church Power, and many have miscarried in it; much less will heaps of slanders against most faithful men do it, whom God eminently countenanced, and who singularly by suffering were honored to testify for Him, such as Mr. Welsh, Mr. Melvil, Mr. Davidson and others, who, we are persuaded, in the great Day, will be as bold in reference to their being approven in their stations, as any of their opposers or traducers on this account. This way of writing, will not be found to proceed from zeal for the Lord, which hath so little respect to such who eminently adhered to him; and let these traducers of His Ordinances and Servants, prepare for giving account for both to Him, to which we leave them.
For the absurdities wherewith he doth load this truth, they being for substance the same which often have been fully wiped away, we shall only say these two, 1. That either they are no absurdities; Or, 2. Not such as the grounds acknowledged by him will infer. For, 1. It is no absurdity simply, that a man in diverse considerations should be subject to diverse co-ordinate powers, as a son is to the Magistrate as a Member of the Commonwealth, to his parent as a child and member of the family: and in some things (as formerly hinted at) he is so obliged to be subject to the parent, that no command of a Superior can loose him from it; and in other things, so subordinated to the Magistrate, that therein the parents authority hath no place. And the same may be seen in wives, who, in some things, are subject to their husbands commands, and no Authority can warrant them to do otherwise. 2. We say, that this same absurdity might have been instanced in these Churches, that the Lord writes to, su • pose (as he doth in the other case) that the Magistrate had appointed some, whom the Church had called to her Synods (as for example, to that mentioned, Acts 15.) to some other civil employment, as they were subjects; would not the same absurdity of the interfereing of the two Authorities have followed? he must either then say that such a case was not conceivable in these times, or he must say the absurdity must be evited, or it will be fastened upon the way approven by the holy Ghost, as the Churches governing of herself distinctly is granted to be, at least during such a case: and when he loses and vindicates his own concession, it will be easy to answer his objection. 3. It cannot be denied but that a Minister may independently command a Magistrate in the Name of Christ according to the Word, and that not only by reason of the matter, as another private subject may do; but by virtue of his Office and Authority: in which respect he is not only a reporter, to tell what is Truth, but a Messenger and Herald authorized to charge all hearers to the obedience thereof, as John the Baptist did Herod, who in some respect might be subject to Herod, as in other respects Herod was to him: and if this be no absurdity in reference to particular Governors, why should it be thought absurd in reference to the Powers by which these govern? Supreme Church-Power then, and Supreme Civil-power in distinct persons, cannot be absurd. And we suppose there can be no Authoritative Officer, that upon any civil account can so independently command the Civil Magistrate: Church-power therefore is not to be regulated in everything; as the Civil is. It's strange to say that it's lawful to a Magistrate to receive Ministerial injunctions, or not as he pleaseth, or at least no more than a sick person is subject to the Physician. can it be said that a sent Minister can have no more Authority in prescribing duty in the name of Christ, than a Physician in giving directions for health? Or, will it be thought equally sinful or lawful, to disobey the directions of the one as of the other, even laying aside the matter? or, shall everyone, skillful in Divinity, be counted of equal Authority with a Minister, as the counsel of one that is skillful in Medicine, is to be counted of the same weight, as if he were a graduat Physician, if his reasons be as weighty? or, is there any exception of some, more than others from Ministerial power, because of any outward place or grandou • ? These things can hardly be conceived without wronging the Ordinances of Christ. 4. It's thought absurd to say that a Magistrate is not blindly to act according to Church conclusions and determinations but deliberately to try his own act, and yet not to be the proper Judge thereof. It cannot be denied, that a Minister is to try and judge of what commands the Magistrate shall lay on him in reference to his duty: if therefore the Magistrate's subsequent judgment, did demonstrate him to be supreme in Ecclesiastic things, the same will prove the Magistrate's judgment in the case foresaid to be subordinate to the Ministers: that therefore is no absurdity. 5. An Ambassador from one King to another, or to some inferior Magistrate, is in his personal carriage subject to the Authority within whose bounds he is; but as an Ambassador in the following of his Commission and instructions, and as such, he is only countable to these that sent him: and never was it heard that one subjected his Ambassador to the Authority of those to whom he was sent, even amongst men, But that was reserved at least, for some others appointed for that end by him: neither doth a Magistrate account an Ambassadors independency on him to be inconsistent with his Authority. Now Ministers being Ambassadors sent by Christ to Magistrates as to others, we must either say these to whom they are sent, must judge when they faithfully exerce their Commission or not, in their Masters name: which is absurd amongst men, and could not but look partial like; or we must say, they are not countable or censurable on earth; or, that Christ hath entrusted His Ambassadors and Church officers with this power of censuring men, who shall walk unworthy of their Trust.
If it be said that an Ambassador is no Magistrate, and hath but an instructed power ?
Answ. Yet is it a power, and in that respect such as Church-officers have: and suppose there were a plurality of Ambassadors for a King or State within the Dominions of another, instructed to act jointly for his affairs, and to censure any of their own number, or retinue, that should walk unworthy of their place; would any Magistrate think that these wronged his power; if they shat some from their fellowship without his warrand? or could he claim to recognosce their deed; although in a criminal case, he only might have access to punish even their members in that place?
For that qualification of his concession, which is to allow this confederate Authority only to the Church that lived under such a Magistrate, as doth not undertake the care thereof; we suppose it will not be easy to free it of absurdities, if this distinct Government be not acknowledged to be perpetual.
For, 1. Do not the same Scriptures (that place all Authority in the Christian Magistrate; and require absolute obedience from his Subjects to him) in the same manner belong to any Magistrate, as a Magistrate, and his Subjects under him, and particularly that place, Rom. 13. And suppose the Magistrate should not assume that power, and put it in exercise; yet if Ecclesiastic power be in that same gift committed to the Magistrate with the civil power, no private persons could upon any pretext meddle therewith.. For suppose the Magistrate should abstain to punish some kind of Murthers, Witchcrafts, &c. no private persons could confederate themselves to assume a power of punishing these: because • civil power to punish these things, is not committed to them; but to the Magistrate. If then the Church might censure scandals, without encroaching upon these Scriptures at that time, Why may it not do so even when the Magistrate is Christian? This Church power then cannot be understood to be comprehended under the Magistrates Commission, seeing Paul is exercising it, even while he is extending to the utmost the Magistrates Commission in all things, and quarreling Christians for encroaching upon anything due to him; and no question he knew best the extent of these directions.
2. There is no Magistrate, who will professedly disclaim the charge and Government of any people; although in practice many of them prove negligent of the Church of Christ. Now it may be asked, if this necessity of confederating for exercising of Church-authority doth • lie upon the Church only when the Magistrate is professedly Heathen, or if also when Erroneous or Atheistical and Profane, or in practice negligent and careless (like Gallio ) in what concerneth the Church? It cannot be astricted to the first: because the Church is no more obliged to an Erroneous Magistrate, then to a profane and careless Magistrate (though he be not professedly an Heretic or Erroneous) if that Authority be not improven for them: and so according to these principles, the Church is to confederate and exercise Authority within herself, even then: which will come to this, that the Church is called to assume this Authority, except in such cases as the Magistrate doth take it on him and exercise it for her good, (for if he exercise it to her hurt, it is better to want it) and so it will turn near to this, that the Church is to assume this power, save where the Magistrate is Godly, and according to conscience doth exercise his power for her good. And then it may be asked, (supposing that the Magistrate profess willingness to govern the Church,) how shall it be judged whether such and such a Magistrate be to be admitted to Govern? or, whether they be to assume Government to themselve? It will come to this, that it must rest in the judgment of discretion of these private Christians, whether they will admit the Magistrate to Govern, or not? And according to the principles of that Author, if they judge him according to their light, to be one that taketh no care of the Church, they should assume that power to themselves: for elsewhere he affirmeth the judgment of discretion to be the great decider; and that a man had better do according to the light of an erring Conscience, than against it.
Yea, 3. According to his grounds, they may not only assume power in Ecclesiastic things; but equally in civil things also. And will he say, that the Church of France may take power in civil things, as they do in Ecclesiastic, and not wrong the Magistrate? Or, can it be said that this is a privilege to the Magistrate, which makes him so to depend both in things Ecclesiastic and Civil upon a Peoples estimation of him?
4. By these grounds, either a Church should never assume power under any Magistrate however careless and profane, and so as is granted, wrong herself, contrary to the law of nature; or by assuming power, they declare that they account the Magistrate a Heathen, Erroneous or Atheistical, &c. and is not that a greater irritation, and probable occasion of division betwixt the Magistrate and Church, than to continue this power distinct under all Magistrates equally? And truly it looketh not like God's Ordinance, that putteth His Church oftentimes in this strait, that it must either suffer prejudice, or disclame and provoke the Magistrate so as to account him an Atheist unworthy of Government; but to have forfeited so much of his Power, &c. And suppose a profane • on succeed in the Magistracy to a gracious father, or profane men be chosen to succeed others who bare rule before them even in Church-affairs, (which case is often incident) what strait would it be to the Church either to continue to be governed by the Magistrate as formerly? or, with so much disadvantage upon personal considerations, to assume a power which formerly they did not?
5. Either the Church assumeth that power contrary to the Magistrate's command; and so there is clear ground of a Persecution and War; or, it is with his good will, or, at least, permission; and that must presuppose this, that he doth account himself Heathen, Erroneous or profane, which cannot easily be expected, especially from a man not so denied and mortified, as such a Magistrate is supposed to be: for, delegated it cannot be, seeing in that case this assuming of Authority is not called for.
6. It may be asked, what degree of erroneousness, profanity, or carelessness in a Magistrate, may warrand a Church to assume this power: seeing even amongst heathens there are degrees? and if so, then how shall that be judged? Suppose a Christian Magistrate should neglect Church affairs, otherwise than as they fall within the compass of civil Government: in which respect Heathens did own them? or suppose he should own some sentences, punish some scandals, which, it seemeth Aurelian did in expelling Samosaten • s, and Severus, in commanding to give again to the Church a place where they used to meet, that some Rogues had violently put them from, saying, that it was fitter that God should be worshipped there, than that it should be employed for such an use. Now, what is called for in such a case, might be a debate; whether might not such Heathens be accounted to take care of the Church, and so it became not these Primitive Christians to have retained power during their reigns? or, what may be thought of Christian Magistrates that do no more, and, it may be, less than these? whether are these to be retained or not?
7. It may be asked in such cases, whether is explicit confederating for that end necessary or not? and suppose some would not submit willingly, How could they be compelled? Or, if so, were they liable to no censure, because of their obstinacy? It were good that these things were cleared, if it be supposed that this be a practicable thing▪ and often to be practiced.
It is further said, That the Churches greatest hazard, is from the great power of Church-men, and not of the civil Magistrate, as experience showeth: therefore it's dangerous to give them power. Answ. So the greatest danger of Error, is from Church Teachers: shall they therefore have no Teachers? So the greatest hazard of tyranny to a State in civil things, is from a civil Government: is it not therefore to be allowed? Yea, this is the reason of it, that corrupt Church-officers wrong the Church most, and that both in Government and Doctrine: because in both they come nearest Her heart: and therefore when they miscarry, it cannot be but worse than when an Authority more extrinsic doth miscarry; and by their Power, they had ever greatest access to do her good or evil: and this rather confirmeth what was said, That properly the Power doth belong to her, and had need to be well managed, because corruptio optimi est pessima. But was it ever heard of, that Church Authority, well managed, did hurt to the Church or State either, under what ever Magistrate? It followeth only that the abuse of Church Power is ill, But no more.
2. We come now in the second place to consider wherein this Authority is exercised: which we shall speak to only in so far as these Epistles give ground, and we will find it to be in these four.
1. There is a Trial, thou hast tried them that call themselves Apostles, &c. which trial inferreth Authority to cite and warn parties, to call and examine witnesses, 1 Tim. 5.19. to take Oaths; which is requisite to trial and witnessing, as that alone which putteth an end to strife amongst men, Heb. 6. Therefore, Mat. 18. the Lord giveth the same rule concerning procedor by witnessing in the Church, which Moses gave in reference to all Courts, That out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, &c. shall every matter be established. This showeth also, that they may receive the complaints of offended Brethren, (as is in Mat. 18.) keep meetings for that end, lead inquiry upon the crying fame of offenc •• (as is like they did in this case of Ephesus ) and, in a word, do everything that is needful for completing trial: for where the end is approven, the means that are necessary to the attaining thereof, must be approven also.
2. There is a Power here to judge and determine, thou hast found them liars : which doth respect these two, 1. The nature of offenses: they must judge what is truth and what error; other ways they cannot tell who is a false Apostle and who a liar: and they must judge what is scandalous in practice, and so what is lawful or not; other ways they can make no progress in trial or censure: for, they must find such a thing to be an error or scandal, and so not to be suffered in the Church. 2. It hath reference to persons: there is a Power in judging such and such persons to be guilty, whereby they pronounce not only such Doctrine to be erroneous, but such a Minister or person to be guilty thereof, as is clear from the Text, and so must judge what is proven or not, and everything tending to that, as citing witnesses and parties, hearing exceptions and answers, &c.
3. There is a Power of censuring a person found guilty. These words, thou canst not bear them, &c. thou hast them, and sufferest them, do import that, as is cleared: this having of them, implying a fault, which was, that by their Authority such were not cut off from the Church: which is the highest degree of ordinary censures; for if it be a privilege and benefit to be admitted to the visible Church, and the Ordinances of Jesus Christ therein, it cannot but be a high degree of censure to be cut off from both: and yet this is implied here to be in the Power of these Churches, and they cannot be conceived to have cutted off such from their society so as not to have had them or suffered them to remain therein, but by this which we call Excommunication. From which necessarily this followeth, that not only the Church hath a Power of censuring; but particularly of censuring thus, by cutting off one from Church-membership, and from the privileges of the external Ordinances thereof: this is called by our Lord Jesus, Matth. 18, an accounting of one a heathen and a publicane, 1 Corinth. 5.13. a putting away of the wicked person from among them; a cutting off of troublers, Gal. 5.12. and (Titus 3.10.) a rejecting of them. There is nothing almost more frequently and clearly held forth in Scripture than this, both in Doctrine and practice. The Lord hath furnished His Church with this Power to censure, that He may preserve a Majesty in His Ordinances, which appear to the most part but foolishness and weakness; and that He may have weapons of His own kind, to batter down the proud imaginations of Church-Members, and revenge all disobedience, as the Apostle speaketh, 2 Corinth. 10.6. for which cause, he calleth it a rod, 1 Corinth. 4.21. and a punishment, 2 Corinth. 2.6.
4. There is here a Power of ordering and making Laws of what concerneth the affairs of the Church, as may be gathered, 1. From this, that they try Officers: whereby it is apparent, that the Church had her Laws in reference to the admission of Ministers, before they could be accounted such; and that these who were found by their trial, to be liars, should not be accounted Apostles, or Church-officers: otherwise Authority, in the former respects, would be maimed and defective. 2. It may be gathered from this, that they might conclude what was offensive, and what not, who was to be tried, and upon what grounds, when the trial was to proceed; who and what was to be suffered in the Church, and what not; who might Preach, and what might be Preached; and in everything that concerneth Doctrine, Worship, and Order, according to the rule of the Word, and the great end of the Ordinances, to wit, the edification of the People: beside which, there is no Church Authority anywhere, it being a Power indeed, but a Power given for edification, and not to destruction, 2 Cor. 10.8. and 13.10. This Power being exercised, maketh decrees: therefore such acts are called, ( Act. 16.4.) The decrees that were ordained of the Apostles and Elders ; and by Paul, a setting of things in order, 1 Cor. 11.34. And (1 Cor. 16.) such were contributions for the poor, orderlinesse for preventing of confusions in Preaching and Hearing; calling of the people to Fasts, as Act. 12.5. and 13.3. and Chap. 14.23, &c. trying, proving, admitting, or censuring of Officers, and such like, as in the Epistles of Paul to Timothy and Titus, are clear.
The third thing we are to inquire for in these words, is, who are the proper and first subject of this Authority and Power? And we Answer, 1. negatively.
1. The civil Magistrate, is not the subject of this Power: for they to whom Christ writeth these Epistles, are the subject of this Power; But the civil Magistrate is not the party to whom Christ writeth these Epistles, as is clear, and it can be alleged by none: Therefore it is clear, that the civil Magistrate is not the subject of this Church Power. Yet, no question, our Lord Jesus knew best to whom it belonged: neither is it like, when he accounts them to have Authority, that he doth account them to have it from voluntary confederating for the time: for, he accounts their neglect of the practice of it, to be a sin, against the breach of their duty; even as He quarrelleth with the Angel of Sardis for being defective in the Doctrinal part of his Ministry; and He commendeth the Angel of Ephesus for his labor in Doctrine, zeal, and Discipline, as duties equally belonging to the Ministry upon one and the same account. And it must either be said that a Magistrate, in his Election to be a Magistrate over a Church, is necessarily to be qualified in reference to these affairs; or, that the Government thereof, doth not belong unto him; Or, that one may be called of God warrantably to a Government over a Society, and that in respect of things and persons of no les • e concernment than the civil State; and yet it not be necessary that he should be qualified in reference thereunto: which is absurd.
2. We say, that it is not the body and community of the Church and People to whom this Power is committed: which appeareth thus, 1. By the same Argument, these are the subject of this Power to whom Christ principally directeth His Epistles, whom He commendeth for the exercising of this Power, and reproveth for the ommitting thereof; But these are Church-officers, contradistinguished from the rest of the Church, as appeareth not only by the common Inscription, unto the Angel of the Church, &c. whereby they are distinctly considered; but also Chap. 2. Vers. 5. where the Church is distinguished from the Angel in the threatening, I will remove thy Candlestick, &c. which saith, that what He had spoken in the former commendation of that trial, did peculiarly belong to the Angel, whom He considereth as distinct from the Church, spoken of under the term of Candlestick. Also in the Epistle to Thyatira, the Officers are especially reproved, as appeareth from verse. 24. But unto you I say, &c. that is, the Church-officers to whom He had been formerly speaking; and to the rest in Thyatira, that is, the members, as distinct from them. It is hinted also, in the Epistle to Pergamos, as the exposition thereof cleareth; and nowhere in any of these Epistles is that distinction so clear, as in these, where He speaketh of the exercise of this Power: thereby the more clearly to show where it resideth. And though it be said in the close, Let him that hath ears, hear what the spirit saith unto the Churches : yet, that is not to extend everything equally to all the members: for, then the M • nistery of the Doctrine, would be common to all also. It is therefore to be understood w • th respect to their places and stations, as was said in our entry to speak upon the second Chapter. 2. The Church here, is divid • d in Angels and Candlesticks, that is, O •• icers and Members Now, we must either give the Power to the whole, that are comprehended under the titles of Angels, that is, Officers; and Candlesticks, that is, Churches and Members; or, we must give it to the Officers alone, as distinct from the Churches: for there is no warrand to give it to the Angels, and to some of the Church members, and not to all: for, that were again to sub-divide the Church, as if all its members were not (as to government) of one rank, contrary to the way keeped here. And indeed we know no other reason more palpable, why the Officers and Members of the Church, are so distinctly set forth; but that their distinctness in this respect might be held forth: But the first cannot be said, that all come in equally in Government, who are members: because that would take in Women and Children: Therefore it must belong to the Officers, as distinct from the other three; seeing much of this Church-power, is conversant about things of that nature, as trying of false Apostles, corrupt Doctrine, &c. which do require both fitness of qualificaton, and continuance in respect of time, and painfulness, beyond that which always Church-members use, or, are called to have in respect of the one, or can bestow in respect of the other. And seeing these are certain Truths, that these who are ordinarily called of God to the exercise of any Authority, are to be fitted for it, and patiently to follow the trial (for here these who are to censure, are also to try,) It will follow therefore that this power in such things cannot be thought to be committed unto the body of the People: especially, if we consider these two. 1. That in the choice, even of a Deacon, there is such exactness required in the trial of his qualifications, and authority to his admission to that Office: yet the power of Governing, doth not belong to this Officer, as such; but he is inferior to that. Now if it be supposed that the people generally have interest in Government and Ruling: Then it will follow, 1. That there are moe qualifications required in a Deacon, which as such, is but a service, than there is required in these that Govern in the highest things. And, 2. That to be a member of the visible Church, hath more Authority in it, than to be a Deacon, at least than a Deacon can have as such: because the one Governeth by Authority in the highest things, and the other as such but serveth: And by the Institution and rules for the Election of Deacons, it would seem that there is by that Office an accession of somewhat to them, like Authority, more than they had before, or other members have: and seeing this accession hath no Authority with it, It will seem strange to say, that a Church-member, that is overseen by an ordinary Deacon, hath Authority in him, which the Deacon, as such, hath not.
In the second place we may add this consideration, That it is simply impossible for all Church-members (even the generality of them) to understand many questions that may be agitated; yea, we may say further, they are not called to understand them; and again, others cannot possibly give their attendance for the trial of intricat things, which may draw a great length. For it is asserted by learned Thomas Hooker of New England, part. 3. chap. 3. pag. 36. and 37. That the preparation, is to be made by the Elders, because the body of the People, if numerous, they will be unable with any comely conveniency to consider and weigh all the circumstances with all the emergent difficulties, which will certainly and necessarily occur in such agitations, nor can in reason bestow their time and pains upon them, as the intricatie and perplexity of the work will sometime require. Thus far he, which doth certainly render it at least exceeding suspicious, that they should be instated with Authority to judge and determine, who cannot possibly wait on the trial; especially, considering that in all Judges and Governments, mentioned in the Scripture; and particularly in these Epistles, these two are joined together, to wit, trial and censure.
3. We say, that it is not one person or Church-officer above other Church-officers, to whom this Power and Authority is committed. Because, 1. It is to the Officers who are contradistinguished from the People, and are not comprehended under the title Candlestick or Church ; But that must be understood of all Ministers, and not of one only. 2. By this one Angel collectively taken, many Rulers governing one Body in an associated manner, are to be understood as was cleared, chap. 1. verse. 20.
And therefore, 4. The associated number of ruling Church-officers, is the proper subject of this Church-power: because it is to them that Christ directeth these Epistles under this name Angel, as was shown, Chap. 1. verse. 20. It's these He commendeth and reproveth; it's those to whom the oversight of the People belongeth in reference to these snares, Acts 20.28. &c. It's these to whom the power of trial and admission of Churchofficers pertaineth, 1 Tim, 4.14. which is the work here commended in Ephesus. And if this be true, that by Angel here is to be understood a plurality of united Church-rulers, as was said, Then this assertion laid down will also follow: for, no other rests to lay claim to this Authority.
To close then, in the fourth place, we may shortly lay down these conclusions further from these Epistles,
1. That this Discipline and Authority is to be exercised on all sorts of persons, members of the Church, whether they be pretended Teachers, as Apostles and Prophetesses, whether M • n or Women; in a word, all who are capable to give offense and to be edified by Church censures, which young Children, mad men, and such like, are not in the reach of.
2. It concerneth all sorts of cases, whether of Error or practice; and is to be exercised in reference to the first, as well as to the last, as is clear from these Epistles.
3. These highest censures, are to proceed against Errors and Scandals of a high nature, as these mentioned in the Text are; or such as are agreged with hightening circumstances, as disobedience and contempt in not hearing the Church, &c. Mat. 18. and which after trial, are clearly made out: that thereby the sentence in its equity, may be convincing for the gaining of its end, both on the offending party and others.
4. It followeth here, that when offenses are so circumstantiated in Church-members, censures are to proceed against them, and they are not to be suffered to enjoy Church-privileges, as if they were not under these offenses, except they repent of them; yea, that un-Churching and Excommunication in such cases, is an Ordinance of Jesus Christ.
5. Church-officers may be often defective in reference to Discipline as well as to Doctrine, which is also a guiltiness before the Lord, as appeareth here.
6. Although a Church be defective in the purging out of corrupt members; yet that doth not pollute the ordinances to others, or necessitate them to separate from them. These Churches continue to be Churches, and the Ordinances to be Ordinances of Christ, although such were continued in communion with them; and notwithstanding thereof, these who were free of those corruptions, are approven and commended by Jesus Christ. And if it were not so, that a persons endeavoring in his station to amend such a fault, and to have such scandals censured, did not exempt him from guiltiness, so as to continue in Churchcommunion, although the plurality of Officers should be short of their duty: in that respect then there might be still separation after separation in infinitum : which absurdity the learned H • oker, and Norton of New England, do press for the obtaining of submission to their Church censures and keeping of communion with their Churches; even upon supposition, that the plurality of a Congregation, should refuse to shut out some deserving the same. Otherwise (say they) when these did separate, upon such a new emergent occasion, there behooved to be a new separation, and so forth; because no Church or men can be expected to be so straight, as either not to keep in some injustly, or not to suspect that some such are keeped in: which also would be a snare to their consciences who judged so, and be a cause of separation, although it were not so indeed. And were this applied to the defects of Presbyterial Churches, there would be no pressing necessity of separating from them, or from communion, in any ordinance, with them.
7. We may see from these Epistles, that although exact holiness be, de jure, required of all Church-members; yet, de facto, often, They are not all exactly such, and that therefore the holiness which is spoken of, as essential to visible-Churches, or to Membership in them, is not rigidly to be extended to a reality therein. If this Church of Laodicea (wherein nothing is commended, but much found-fault with) be considered, it will be found that this holiness will not abide a rigid trial; yet it cannot be denied, but they have what is essential to a visible Church, and Membership therein; even as her Ministers, were Ministers, although not answerable to their stations, as was said: and if what these worthy men, Mr. Cotton, Norton, and Hooker, do assent unto in their writings, were accordingly adhered to in all practices, we conceive there needed not be any great controversy concerning this point. The second of these forcited Authors, part. 1. pag. 20. layeth down the pinch of the difference in these words (as he calls it.) Whether such as walk in a way of profannesse, or remain pertinaciously obstinate in some wickedness, though otherways professing and practicing the things of the Gospel, have any allowance from Christ, or may be accounted fit matter according to the terms of the Gospel, to constitute a Church ? Which Authors, also do acknowledge, that casting out of a Church, is but to proceed upon clear scandals of a gross nature, convincingly made out, and no other ways, part. 3. pag. 39. And if there be defect in the executing thereof, separation upon that account, is disclaimed, as is formerly hinted, if the Church in Doctrine and administration of Ordinances be pure, that is, without error. The judicious Cobbet of new England, hath an excellent saying (as he hath many to the Anabaptists) against whom he writeth ( p. 2. cap. 1. sect. 11.) Better (saith he) they who have not so peculiar a title thereto, be folded up in the Church, than that one of such lambs be left out in the wild wilderness. And again, cap. 3. sect. 3. is full, to show that there was no strictness observed in the admission of Professors to Baptism; but rather an enquiry of their purpose for the time to come, in bidding them bring forth fruits, and believe in Him that was to come, as from John's example, Mat. 3. and Paul's, Act. 16. where there is no mention of trying the faith of the households of Lydia and the Jailor ; who yet were instantly baptized; as also were these Pharisees so checked by John, Matth. 3. and much more hath he well to this purpose. I have but hinted at these things, to show that although there be many questions of Church-discipline; yet they are not all of one nature and hazard, with all adversaries. And the last doth rather concern the constituting of Churches, and admission of Members, supposed yet to be without, than the governing of Churches, and enchurched-members: in reference to which there is great difference.
8. We may see, that the sustaining of, and submitting unto this Church-power, is a necessary and concerning duty: and if, what is said of Church-power and Government be truth, then this submission must follow: otherwise there could be no Government nor exercise of Power, if those who are called by their stations to be governed, were not submissive thereto: and if it were the Church-officers duty to try and censure, even by cutting off such and such scandalous persons, Then it behooved to be their duty to submit, and the Churches to acknowledge these sentences, as Christ's Word is, Matth. 18. Let him be to thee as a heathen, &c. And Heb. 13.17. it is thus expressed, obey them that rule over you, and submit to them : which certainly, looks as well to the Authority of Discipline, that requireth submission, as to the obedience that ought to be given to the Word in Doctrine: for this cause, Officers are designed by the title Rulers : which is often given to civil Governors, and the fainting of such soul-overseers, is marked as a thing most unprofitable to the people themselves: and therefore is the more to be shunned.
Amongst other batteries against this Ordinance of Discipline, this is not the least that is raised against it, that it hath no compulsive force, if men willingly do not yield, which indeed tends to place all Authority in strength and force: for, by that same Argument, a strong son rebelling against his father, or a people or army against their Magistrate or General, should be exempted from their subjection to them; and the Parent, Magistrate or General, be denuded of their Authority over them: because they have not force to compel obedience. Authority lies in God's appointing of such to rule, and such others to obey; although some sinfully should invert that order, as such disputes teach men to do. And the Question here cometh, if in reason a Church-member may disclame Church-authority and censures simply, or de jure, though by Power or violence they may do so de facto : yea, this doth indeed prove Church-government to be distinct from the civil: because it is not armed with worldly Power and strength, as other Governments of the world are; and in that respect, is not of this world, as the Lord Christ said of His Kingdom, Joh. 18. yet was He still a King, and it cannot be but a high guilt to mar this, either by overturning of it altogether, or by encroaching on it, and thereby to mar its freedom or enervat its Power, or by refusing to submit unto, acknowledge, or authorize the sentences thereof, as men's places call them to do.
We may therefore propose a word or two to all, but especially to Magistrates in ref • ference to this. 1. Let Magistrates in the fear of God consider what they do, lest they involve themselves in this guilt; it hath ever been hard to kick against the pricks: and although some would make encroachment on this Government to be a sweet thing; (which men easily admit in their own persons without any restraint,) yet the end thereof is bitterness. And it would be considered, if such counsels tend to commend Religion and further it, or not? which at the best are but to mould and restrain it, so as it may be subservient to their own greatness and ends, as in Henry the 8. of England did appear. 2. They would consider if conscience put them to it, or if the most zealous press it, or if some other thing drive it on, and to what sort of persons that design is most savory? If it be not ordinarily the most profane, or otherways erroneous? and shall Magistrates be subservient to such? 3. They would consider the absurdities and consequents alleged, if they be hindrances or ills to Religion and Godliness, or but to their own power and greatness, and that in pretext only? is it because they will more zealously or profitably do it themselves, or because they had rather it were not done at all, nor done by them, and such like? If it be the strengthening of their own Power, more than of Christ's that moves them: for it hath often been a miserable mistake of the Powers of the earth, to seek the strengthening of their Government by their enervating of Christ's, which hath proven to be the overturning of their own. If Magistrates cannot in conscience clear themselves in these things, it cannot but be found to be an encroachment on Christ's Ordinances, which are useful and necessary in His Kingdom. 4. Consider the consequents, when things are marred and lie undone, or when misguided by undiscreet hands, who love nothing more than to make Ordinances despicable: for, if indeed a distinct Government be inconsistent with the civil, then a distinct incorporation as a Church is, must be inconsistent, even in its being, with a civil State and Commonwealth. And if Church-government be needless, because all things may be done by civil Rulers that are incumbent to it, a Ministry also will be needless, because civil men that have knowledge may supply that: and seldom is any found that rejects the one, but he is (at least) exceedingly lax in the other.
5. Suppose it be obtained, that this Government be born down, what doth the Magistrates gain thereby? It is but, either that such things, that Church-discipline takes notice of, should altogether be slighted, that so there may be confusion in the Church: which is but a poor advantage: or, it is that the burden may be doubled on him who had it heavy enough before, and so he be made more immediately liable for all the defects that shall be in those things. And at the most, supposing that they should be diligent in the outward duties for the restraining of the outward man; yet doth never that come up to the use of edifying, as it doth by Christ's Ordinance of Discipline: for men, are but punished as men, and not as Christians; and faults are but censured, as in other States, and not as in Christ's Church.
6. Let them consider, that the establishing of this Power, as distinct from theirs, doth not exclude them upon the matter from having access to anything which may edify the Church: for they are admitted to oversee the spreading of pure Doctrine and the restraining of false Doctrine, error and vice, and to every other thing conducing to the end of edification in the way suitable to their places: only it bounds them here, that pure Doctrine be Preached by Christ's orderly called Ministers, and not by themselves or others, upon their mere command, and so that order be preserved, and Discipline and censures be exerced and made effectual in the Church in the same method. And this is not to restrain them in Government and incapacitate them for edifying the Church in their places, more than by refusing them power to Preach authoritatively, and to administer the Sacraments as Christ's Ambassadors; or, more than a Father is incapacitated to exerce his fatherly power on an unruly child, because a Magistrate or Church-Judicatory doth concur with him.
7. They are no way weakened in civil things: for, what ever the Magistrate formerly possessed before the constituting of the Church, or what ever Magistrates in other States, where no Churches are, do possess, that is still allowed to him, where this distinct Government is erected: therefore it cannot be said, that it doth encroach on him: for, what cases do flow from a State, as a State, are still left untouched by this Authority: only what cases flow from it as a Church, or from the Members thereof, considered as Christians, these only are meddled with by it, to wit, trial of Gifts, admission of Ministers, censuring of Church-officers and Members, and that with Church censures, others than have been, or are used in any mere State or Commonwealth, and such like, &c. And seeing none of these belonged to the Magistrate formerly, and do but flow from this consideration of their being a Church: It follows that the keeping of Power distinct in these, can no way be said to encroach on the Magistrates Power, seeing he possesseth still, what ever any Magistrate possessed: yea, seeing by the Church there is a new relation arising from what formerly was, it seems convenient and necessary, that there should be a new distinct way of ordering and governing the same: else supposing that a Magistrate had under him both Christians and Heathens in the same incorporation, he were either not to censure Christians other ways for their faults than heathens: which is absurd, seeing the fault of a Christian hath a distinct notion from the same fault in a Heathen, to wit, it is an offense and scandal which ariseth from this, that the person committing it, is a Church-member; and so by their miscarriages, they reflect more on their head, and the profession of the Gospel, than the faults of others: or, he must punish the same faults that are done by persons under the same civil Law with several and distinct punishments, which is no less inconsistent with the nature of a civil State considered in its self, which admits not of distinct censures of the same faults and persons, more than of a distinct Power. And so if the consideration of a new Church-relation will admit of distinct Laws and censures, without wronging of the nature of a State, and that equity which ought to be kept in reference to Subjects, neither ought this of a distinct Power to make these Laws, and execute these censures, be thought inconsistent with Magistracy, seeing it flows from the same new relation; and this equity among Subjects, is no less essential to a well ordered Commonwealth, than universal Supremacy and Power to the Magistrate. And the convening of Church-officers for the exercising of Discipline, and that without dependence on the Magistrate, can be no more inconsistent with subjection to him in civil things, than the convening of Church-members for hearing of the Word and receiving of the Sacraments, even though it should be expressly contrary to His command.
8. It would be considered, that the right exercise of Church-power, doth not only not weaken; but on the contrary, doth exceedingly strengthen civil Authority and obedience thereunto in the Church. For, where this is, a Magistrate hath all Authority that civil Laws give him, and all the power that the Word upon consciences doth imprint; and he hath beside these, Church-power and censures concurring for his strengthening: because disobedience to him, is accounted a scandal by the Church; and therefore is amongst other scandals to be taken notice of, and censured by this Power; even as they take notice of disobedient Children, Servants, and Wives; which doth exceedingly strengthen the Authority of these relations in the Church, beyond that which can be elsewhere. And thus the Churches Power doth confirm the Power of the State, when they censure disobedience to them, and when they censure the same faults in the same persons, which the State doth, though under a different notion: and by so doing, they pronounce the Power and proceeding of the civil State to be just, when the things punished by it, are thus represented to them, and not only as faults against human Laws and inconsistent with Civil-states, but also as sins against Christ and unbecoming His Church: which certainly cannot but add a great impression of reverence unto the civil Power. Thus these two distinct Governments, do no way interfere, but support each other. And so as it's no obstruction, but a great furtherance unto Church-power in the exercise thereof (although it be still distinct and independent as such) to have Civil-power after its own manner concurring with it; so is it a strengthening to Civil-power, to have the accession of Church-power in its kind, to concur with it. And if indeed we suppose Magistrates to punish all things that are scandalous in the Church, there can be no prejudice to the Power by this, which doth censure the same things on another account. And if we suppose them not to do so, Then there is necessity for this Church-power, that such things may be taken notice of, as hath been said.
9. The exercise of this distinct Church-power, is a great advantage to the Church; and so cannot but be well consistent with Magistracy: for these two ordinances, cannot but be consistent. 1. It maketh sin hateful. 2. It strengtheneth the Authority of all other Ordinances. 3. There can be no such way for trying qualified men fit to manage Church-censures and Church-affairs, as such who are purposely chosen. 4. It hath what the Magistrate can give, and this beside. 5. It proveth more convincing and edifying to the person censured: for, (what ever is said to the contrary) experience doth prove, that no censure hath such convincing weight on consciences, as when it's distinctly administered by Church-officers. 6. It doth more show the Holiness of the Head Christ, and the completeness of His Ordinances, and other advantages that may be gathered from what we said at the entry to this d • gression. In a word, if civil powers mind edification in their place, and to be a terror to evil doers, this proves strengthening to them: because it furthers that end. If they mind not that, it is no marvel such a power be suspicious like, which tendeth only to the carrying on thereof.
It is ordinary to men to suspect more the encroaching of Church-men in Power and their exorbitancy than of any other, that being ever thought by natural men to be a bondage, and these ever esteemed to be more proud, rigid, &c. and I know not what in the exercise of their Power. But men would soberly consider, 1. If that be the fault of the Ordinance, or of the persons, and if Discipline well discharged and Ecclesiastically followed with love, meekness, conviction, &c. if so it were not useful? And if the fault be in the persons, why should it be imputed to the Power itself in this case, more than in other cases? 2. Is there anything in a Church-office to occasion this exorbitancy and miscarriage, more than in another civil Station? This looketh not like in itself. 3. If more nearly we consider Church-officers, there is no such reason to suspect them: for, is there any rank of persons so regulated, and to be tried in their qualifications for the exercise of their Trust, as by the Scripture they are? Or, are any places more deliberately filled, that men conscientious and fit for such a Trust may be called thereto? And are there any sort of persons so bounded with profitable rules in the exercise of their Authority? If there be defect in the observing of these, it ought tenderly to be remedied; yet, it cannot be thought but Church-officers must be most fit to manage Church-matters. 4. Let them that are employed in Church-power be considered, without respect to that, are they not of themselves men of tenderness, conscience, and gifts proportionably, as men in any other Station are, so that it may be supposed for their qualifications and carriage, they might have been men of other Stations; and if called thereto, Judges, Rulers, &c. without any just ground of suspicion more than others? And if so, shall the very Office, which ought to capacitat them more, only render them obnoxious to suspicion? This had need to be adverted unto, least their office be reproached. And may not that Power put in civil hands, be as ready to miscarry as in theirs? 5. What Church-men are usually most mistaken? is it not they who still have been most faithful and zealous in their duty? Have not such ever also been thought most intolerable even in respect of their freedom in the Word, as we may see in the case of Elia, John the Baptist, &c. and the two Prophets, chap. 11. Shall therefore Doctrine and Power in the Word, be thought insufferable? Or, shall the false Prophets of Baal, or of Antichrist, be thought more fit to have place than the Lord's faithful servants? This can be no good ground that doth reflect only upon these that are faithful, others being ready to apply themselves to the pleasing of men both in Word and Discipline. 6. It would be considered, what may move men of judgment and parts (especially if they be conscientious) to top with Magistrates? It's not like that self interests doth that; seeing flatterers that seek that most, take the contrary way and come speed, when as the most faithful are often under a cloud. Or, is it like that the most zealous, humble and tender, should be most subject to miscarry? And if there be ground to reprove or censure either by Word or Discipline, is it not most profitable, even though most displeasing, that it be done? 7. Consider, who most readily fret at this Power? it will be found they are such, who from inclination to lousnesse or error cannot abide any bands, or from a principle of politick indifferency in the matters of Religion, would mould all in a State-frame; and such are imbittered at freedom in Preaching, as well as Power in Governing; or, they are such as are led with a prejudice at the power of Ordinances, which certainly men naturally are not free of: and it would be adverted in this. 8. Consider, that this mistake of Church-men's Power, doth often arise in such cases, wherein they are serving Christ: and men entertain it most in such times, when their frame is least spiritual and sober, as the observation thereof in experience will evidence. What man at the approach of death hath been comforted in such an opposition, or challenged for submission? Although contempt thereof hath lien heavy on many, and that to scare others from following their ways. All therefore of all ranks, would be obtested to advert to this, lest they be found even fighters against God: especially at such times, when this design by some is driven; least by putting to their hand to pull down this Authority, they themselves perish in the fall thereof. And what doth the advantage at most amount unto? It is this, there shall be greater freedom to sin, and fewer means to reclaim from it; or what censure shall be inflicted, may be done in such a way as may stand with men's laughing at their sin, without being affected in the conscience by any convincing mean? Hath this ever profited any hitherto? Or, hath the right exercise of Discipline ever been prejudicial to any? And do not ordinarily Religion and Discipline flourish together? And are not Congregations in best case, where this Ordinance is most vigorous? And do not the sad effects of the want of this in other places evidently demonstrate the necessity thereof? People would consider these things, especially these who are engaged singularly for the supporting of this Ordinance: for, a time of reckoning will come, when this exercise of Discipline and submission thereto according to men's places and engagements, will not be found so indifferent as now it is esteemed by many. And disputes of this kind, we suppose, will not be admitted, when the Lord will declare that he hath ratified in Heaven, what according to His will hath been pronounced in this ordinance of Discipline upon earth: which by Divines, is well accounted to be the ratification and confirmation of the threatenings contained in His Word, and added to make them the more weighty, as the Sacraments are unto the promises of His Grace.
2. Concerning a Ministers relation to a particular Congregation.
THis relation between the Angels and the Churches, is mentioned in all these Epistles. The Minister, or Angel, is called the Minister of such a Church peculiarly: here the Church, or Candlestick, is called His, I will remove thy Candlestick. It will not therefore be impertinent to inquire a little concerning this mutual tie and relation in these three, 1. In the general. 2. In the grounds of this peculiar tie. 3. In the nature of it; particularly, in these two, 1. If a Minister, as such, be only a Minister to a particular Congregation, in which he serves: And, 2. If that tie be such, as upon no consideration it may be broken or loosed, and he removed by transportation to some other charge. We are the rather to take notice of this: not only because it serves to clear the Text in hand; but also because it supplieth somewhat yet defective in reference to a Ministers Call, (of which we have formerly spoken) to wit, what may be thought of a Call, that is, by transporting of a man that is already fixed in a particular Congregation; or, if a Minister settled in some particular charge, may upon occasion act Ministerially in things peculiar to a Minister without the same.
For clearing of the first, we would distinguish a threefold relation that a Minister of the Gospel stands into. The first is, a relation that is between Christ the Master and Lord, and him as his Servant and Ambassador. This is the first relation, and fountain of all the rest: in this respect, they are the Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the mysteries of God, 1 Corinth. 4.1. and Ambassadors for Christ, 2 Corinth. 5.20. &c. because they have their Authority and Commission from Him, and He peculiarly is their Master and owner. In this respect also we may consider the Church; and so she is Christ's Church, purchased with His own blood, Acts 20.28. This is the principal relation, by which both Angels and Churches are Christ's, as He is the Sovereign Master and owner of both: And so neither are the Churches the Ministers, nor the Ministers the Churches; but both are Christ's.
2. There is a less principal relation, which is delegatory, and flows from the former, He, to whom both Ministers and Churches do belong, thinking good to bestow Ministers as a Gift unto His Church: in this respect, Ministers relation is primarily unto the Catholic Church, and so, 1 Corinth. 12.28. it is said, God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, &c. And again, Ephes. 4.11, 12. He gave some Apostles, some Pastors, some Teachers, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Here we may see that Ministers belong to the Church universal, and have relation to it, they being Ministers of that same Church, that the Apostles were Apostles of, and for that same end, to wit, the building of Christ's body, which takes in both Jew and Gentile, as from that, 1 Corinth. 12. verse. 13. &c. doth appear. In this respect the Ministers principal relation and charge, is Christ's Church universal, and His body: and they are given thereto, to wit, to the House of God, which is the Church of the living God, into the which they are to behave themselves as Stewards, &c. as Paul hath it, 1 Timothy 3.15.
3. We may consider this relation, as more particular, and less principal and as subservient to the former end: and so Ministers, are Ministers to particular Churches, and not to others; and Churches, are the Churches of such Ministers, and not of others, as we may see in these Epistles. These relations are neither inconsistent, nor yet to be confounded: and may, from the comparisons used in Scripture, be thus illustrated. The Church is compared to a City, or Vineyard, or Flock; the Ministers are Watchmen, Dressers, or Pastors: The Lord Christ is the Sovereign, and owner of all. Now, if the question be moved concerning these Watchmen, Dressers, or Pastors, to whom they belong? First of all, they are Christ's, as appointed by Him for such a Work, and countable to Him in it, as Watchmen are the Watchmen of such a State, or King, whom they serve. Secondly, They are also Watchmen of the City, in common, as that is the object of their watching, committed to them; or, they are Dressers of the Vineyard, &c. and so it may be said, they are Watchmen to the whole City. Yet, Thirdly, Because there are several Towers of that one City, and it requires several Watchmen, and these require an orderly appointment of them to their several posts; and so in this respect, a Watchman that is a Watchman of the whole City, may be called peculiarly the Watchman of such and such a particular Tower, and Fort, for distinguishing him from other Watchmen of the same City; who, in that respect, cannot be called Watchmen of any particular Tower, but such as is allotted to them, although they be Watchmen of the whole City principally; and so may be said of the other similitudes. Even so it is with Ministers, who are primarily Christ's, and by Him are delegates principally to the oversight of His whole Catholic Church; yet so, as for the better attaining of that end, each hath his particular Post assigned him; from which, for distinctions sake, he is denominated, as specially belonging to it. The former relation is essential to a Minister of Christ, to wit, that he belongs to Christ's Church, and is commissionated for the edifying thereof. The last, to wit, a Ministers relation to this, or that particular Church, is not essential to a Minister of Christ; but is to be subservient to the former: for, we see Apostles and Evangelists had no such particular relation: and it is not impossible but a Minister may be separated from such a relation; yet is he still to continue a Minister of Christ: much less is the difference between one particular Church and another, to be counted essential to a Ministerial relation. Thus, in a great house, there may be many Stewards for distributing to the Children or Servants; and for order, each may have his number assigned to him for whom he is to provide, and on whom he is to wait. They are all, 1. Stewards of that one Master. And, 2. in reference to his own house, they are all also Stewards of it. Yet, 3. By peculiar delegation, they are only Stewards according to their peculiar assignments. It's essential by their commission to be Stewards of that house; but not that they should be Stewards of such and such a number: for, this addeth no new power to them; but orders them in the exercise of the former.
In the second place, this particular relation between the Minister and a particular Flock, doth arise from these grounds, 1. From the Lord's special assigning of one particular Church, to one man, rather than to another: in which he is to labor for the good of the whole. In which respect, as he is a Minister of Christ, to the Catholic Church, and hath that common with all other Ministers; so hath he this peculiar to him, that he is specially designed in reference to that portion, as it were his particular Post, as hath been said. 2. Upon this delegation by the Master, such a people become peculiarly his; and by the Masters appointment, are to submit to the Ordinances administrated by Him: because, that same Lord and Master of the Minister, who warrands him peculiarly to treat with such a people, being also Master of that Flock, calleth them peculiarly to submit to Him: from which, according to his appointment, there doth arise a mutual obligation between such a Minister and such a People: he is, obliged to minister unto them in the Gospel; and they, are obliged to submit to him, strengthen him, acknowledge him, communicate to him in all good things, and to provide for him, &c. And this mutual relation, is not founded merely on voluntary consent, nor is of a personal nature (to speak so) that is, as if he, or they were disposing of themselves as principal parties; but it is an obligation flowing from the former delegation, and cannot but follow from the nature thereof, and by virtue of the general commands given, Heb. 13.17. 1 Thes. 5.12. Gal. 6.6. &c. although there were no explicit covenanting in reference to these ends amongst these parties: and where any is, it is but a formal expressing of that which otherwise is implied: and is necessary, not for binding up that relation simply; but for the better furthering the ends thereof. Therefore in that tie, Ministers and People both, are to look upon that obligation as a mean subservient to an end, & so to be regulated by it: and (as was hinted at) both would remember that they do principally belong to Christ; and that therefore it is not free to them to article or not, or as they will in that obligation, or other ways than may stand with the Masters end, and delegation foresaid. 3. From this mutual obligation, there doth arise a more near mutual sympathy between that Minister and Church, than between him and any other Church, or them, and any other Minister: they have common interests, common hazards, common joy and grief, &c. in which respect a cross to one of them, is a cross to both, as this threatening here doth clear: and in this respect, there is a greater sibnesse between them than others not in this peculiar relation. 4. As there are peculiar duties called for on both sides from each to other, which are not so required between them and others; so there is a particular charge or reckoning and account, which will follow thereupon: in this respect, a Minister is to count more peculiarly for that particular Church than others; and the people again for the reverencing and encouraging of him in a special manner, as may be gathered from, Heb. 13. verse. 17. And upon this account, Paul did particularly aggrege the Ge ••• les slighting and grieving of him, in his Epistle to the Corinthians and Galatians, because of his particular delegation in reference to them. In which respect, although he was an Apostle of the universal Church; yet peculiarly was he the Apostle of the Gentiles : and upon that ground, did plead a peculiar claim to them; But still as subordinate and subservient to the former.
The third thing proposed, is, that which mainly is to be inquired into, to wit, The nature of this eye and relation betwixt the Minister and a particular Church; if it be such as doth bound him in his Authority, so as he may not perform any Ministerial act without the same? and so upon the other side, if he be so tied to that Church, that, for the greater good of the universal Church, he may not be loosed from it, and be made use of, as a Minister, elsewhere?
For the first, We may take these general Conclusions for helping us in the understanding thereof. The first is, That there is an Union and Communion in the Catholic visible Church: which is one Body, 1 Cor. 12. and that both of Jews and Gentiles, one City and House, one Commonwealth, Ephes. 2.19. &c. one Mother of us all, Gal. • . one Bride and Spouse, &c. Which expressions, do hold forth this Uunion in reference to all visible Churches, and all the members thereof. There are not two Bodies, Cities, or Commonwealths in this respect; yet must these places be understood of the visible Church, it being that Body, into which we are entered by Baptism, 1 Cor. 12.13. and that City, in which Watch-men are set, and external Ordinances; and that Commonwealth, which succeedeth to that which once was peculiar to Israel, and from which the Gentiles were once separated by a Partition • wall, which is now taken down by the Gospel.
Conclusion 2. Although this Church be one in itself; yet it is sub-divided in particular Churches, which are as parts of that whole. This ariseth from accidental considerations of the number of Professors, distance of place, and such like: in which respect, it's needful for her edification, and the going about of the Ordinances, that this should be; yet is this subdivision without prejudice of the Union foresaid, yea it is subservient thereto; even as supposing a numerous City or Incorporation should be sub-divided in so many Quarters, or lesser Societies, for the good of the whole. Thus the Church at first, being one, upon the former considerations, upon this occasion did extend herself in this manner; and these who just now were of one Church, and meeting together for the Ordinances, were induced to divide in several Societies and meeting-places, (as may be gathered from the History of the Acts ) yet continuing still of the same Body together, in the first respect. In which respect, sometimes the visible Church is spoken of in the plural number; sometimes again only in the singular, as pointing out an Unity: such are these phrases, to edify the Church, to add to the Church, to cast out of the Church, &c. which respect the whole Church, considered as an integral whole, existing in particular Churches, as we say, the whole world, which doth yet but exist in so many particular Notions, and hath no existence distinct from them; and to say it were considered as a genus in this sense; would not be intelligible.
Conclus. 3. Our Lord Jesus, the owner both of Ministers and Church, hath given Ministers, principally for the edification of His Catholic Church, without respect to this or that particular Congregation, but as that is subservient to the former end, as it is, Ephes. 4.11, 12. 1 Cor. 12.28. it being one Church to which both Apostles, Pastors, Prophets, and Teachers are given; and they having all one scope, to wit, the perfecting of the Saints; and one Commission, to wit, the preaching of the Gospel, which principally is to engage Souls to the Bridegroom. Hence in their Preaching, we are to conceive this order, 1. Apostles and Ministers, &c. treat with sinners, to have them engaged by faith to Christ, as the Master for whom they treat. 2. To enter them in the Catholic visible Church by Baptism as the entering of them within Christ's House in general, without respect to this or that particular Congregation: as when Philip, Acts 8. did first Preach Christ to the Eunuch, and afterward did Baptize him, and then left him. And, 3. Being thus entered and brought in to the Catholic Church, thereupon followeth their entering into particular Congregations, that so they may be the more conveniently and commodiously edified and provided for, as all that are in Christ's House should be: who therefore are committed to some special Overseers and Stewards for that end: as suppose the Eunuch had been admitted to some particular Church for partaking of the Ordinances therein after his Baptism; that he should be a member of Christ's Church in general, which is sealed by Baptism, 1 Cor. 12.13. was not indifferent to him, but of what particular Church he might be a member, that by after conveniency was to be regulated. Whence it doth appear, 1. That there is a consideration of the Church as universal, beside the considering of her in particular Churches. 2. That the Church so considered, as an integral whole, is before the particular Churches; and they are derived from her. 3. That the work of the Ministry doth relate principally to the whole, their Commission being, in common, to build the Body, to watch the City, feed the Flock, preach the Gospel, &c. and their delegation to particular Churches, is in a subserviency to this, that is, so as this may be the more orderly and conveniently followed: even as suppose so many Eldermen or Watchmen were by some Superior designed for the governing and watching of one City, and should for the better accomplishing thereof, have their several Quarters and Divisions assigned to them; yet still were they to be accounted as Governors and Watchmen of the City principally, and not of these particular portions only.
Conclus. 4. Although they be designed principally for the Catholic Church, and their Commission will bear them to treat anywhere; yet are they not Catholic Officers of that Church, nor at their arbitriment to treat where they will; but (according to the order which he hath settled) in particular Churches as parts of that whole; that being the way which He hath laid down for edification. I say, 1. They are not Catholic Officers, there being great odds here betwixt Officers of the Catholic Church, and Catholic Officers of the Catholic Church, such the Apostles and Evangelists were; such the Pope claims to be, that is, to have an immediate access for exercising the Trust equally to all places. Officers of the Catholic Church, are such as are placed in it for the building up thereof, and have Commission in reference to that end; yet is it to be executed according to the rules laid down, that is, as Christ's Call in an ordinary way shall give them access. For although (as was said,) they have a Power and Commission, actu primo, to be Ministers of the whole Church, and Watchmen of the City indefinitely; yet, actu secundo, they are specially delegated for such and such Congregations or Posts, as was hinted in the former similitudes. In this respect, Peter and Paul were Apostles of the Catholic Church equally; yet, for the good thereof, by special appointment Peter becometh the Apostle of the Circumcision, and Paul of the Gentiles: and so Paul could not be called the Apostle of the Circumcision, nor Peter of the Gentiles, in an equal manner. Hence that Argument may be answered, if a Minister be a Minister to more Congregations beside his own, Then he must either be a Minister to them as to his own equally, and so have common charge of all: which were indeed absurd, and would constitute him a Catholic Officer; or, he behooved to be to them a Minister or Officer of some other kind than to his own, which were also absurd, and would introduce a new kind of office and Officer: It's answered, actu primo, he is a Minister of the same kind to all the Churches, to wit, a Minister or Ambassador of Christ; but, actu secundo, and in respect of special delegation, he is peculiarly Minister of that Congregation, whereto particularly he is appointed: in which respect, Paul and Peter are equally, and yet not equally Apostles of the same Catholic Church.
Conclus. 5. Notwithstanding of this particular delegation; yet is it profitable that a Minister should exerce Ministerial acts, upon occasions warrantably calling for the same in other Churches; and when called to it, he may do it, not only by virtue of his gift; but also Authoritatively and by virtue of his Office and Commission, as a Minister of Jesus Christ: even by that same Authority and Warrand, whereby ordinarily he ministers within his own Congregation; and they are acts of Ministerial Authority in the one as well as in the other: for Ministers in the Church, are not to be looked upon as Majors of several Towns, or Sheriffs of several Counties, who cannot exerce Authority out of their own Bounds; but they are to be looked upon as Heralds of one King, having Authority to charge in His Name, where ever it be, within His Dominions, although for the better supply of the Subjects, some of them be designed for one corner, some of them for another of the Kingdom: or, they are like Ambassadors, Authorized to treat with rebellious Subjects, who have each of them Authority to treat and conclude with whosoever shall come in their way: although for the better carrying one of that treaty, some of them be designed for such a corner, and to tryst at such a place, and others elsewhere; yet all of them being jointly Ambassadors, and any of them warranted, if it were possible, to treat and conclude with all, by virtue of their Power: so that the ending of the Capitulation with one of them, is equally strong and binding as if it had been closed with another, although for eschewing of confusion they met in their treaty severally. It is so here, every Ambassador of Christ, upon God's occasional Call, hath warrand to propose the same terms, and conclude the treaty with a sinner; yea, to seal it in any Congregation, as well as in his own: which may be cleared and confirmed further in these following considerations.
1. The Power and Commission, which a Minister hath to perform Ministerial duties, he hath it from Christ the Master and Lord of the whole Church: and in this respect, is the Minister of Christ, 1 Cor. 4.1. and His Ambassador, 2 Cor. 5.20. and therefore may his power extend itself to His visible Kingdom, he being a Herald Authorized to proclaim in the Name of that King: as far therefore, as His Authority as Master doth reach; so far may his Ministerial delegation under Him, upon just occasion, be extended. Indeed were his Authority derived from a particular Church, it could be extended no further than itself; (which is the ground of this mistake) But his Authority being derived from Christ, the Master, though in a mediate way; and the Minister being His Ambassador, treating and performing all his acts in His Name, There is no ground to deny this Ministerial Authority of the servant, where the Master is acknowledged.
2. Consider, that the Masters intent in sending Ministers, is, by them not only to edify particular Congregations, but the whole Body, as is said. A Minister therefore in his acting as a Minister upon such occasions, must be as a Minister in them; otherwise he were only given as a Minister to that particular Church.
3. If his relation to the Catholic Church be principal, and his relation to a particular Congregation subordinate to that, Then must his Ministerial Authority, in the case foresaid, extend itself to others of the visible Church, beside that particular Congregation: because, according to the rule, propter quod unumquedgue est tal • , id ipsum est magis tale, that is to say, if because he is a Minister of the Catholic Church, he is therefore capable to be a Minister of a particular Church; or, if his Authority reacheth to that particular Church, because it is a part of the whole, Then much more must he have a relation to the whole: But the former is true, as hath been cleared. Ministers are in capacity of taking the Oversight of such and such Congregations, because such Congregations, are parts of the whole Church; and Ministers are appointed to edify the same; and do undertake that particular charge, as it is subservient to the general end of edifying the whole: even as Watchmen take the oversight of such a Post, because they are Watchmen of the City; and their overseeing such a place in particular, doth contribute to the good of the whole.
4. Their Commission which they have from Christ, will suit as well in one Congregation as in another, it being indefinite to Preach the Gospel without respect to this or that particular People; and it agreeth also with their office, and His end: seeing therefore their Commission, in the matter of it, is not bounded, What warrand is there to bound their Authority, as if as Ambassadors they did treat with one People, and as private persons with another; whereas their Commission, in itself, is indefinite, and by accidental considerations but appropriated some way to one people more than another? For further clearing whereof, consider,
1. That the Apostles had their bounds in Christian policy asigned to them; yet notwithstanding might they Authoritatively, as Apostles, act anywhere in the Church: therefore will not the particular allotting of Congregations for Ministers in a special manner, confine their Authority within the same. It's true, they were Apostles of the Catholic Church, and so might use Apostolic power in any part thereof, which a Minister cannot do; yet proportionally, he is a Minister of that same Church, as is said: and therefore as that peculiar delegation did not mar the Apostles in the use of their Apostolic power when it was called for any other where; (for, although they did it in an extraordinary way, yet Peter had still Apostolic power in reference to the Gentiles, and Paul to the Jews, when they exercised it;) So may a Minister have Ministerial power, in Ministerial acts, and may act by virtue thereof, when in an ordinary way he is called to it without the bounds of his own Congregation.
2. If Apostles might use Apostolic Power, and, as Apostles, act without the bounds of the Catholic Church, Then may Ministers act, as Ministers, without the bounds of their particular Churches: because there is a proportionablnesse in respect of the extent of power betwixt Ministers in their particular Congregations, and Apostles in the Catholic Church; But it's certain that the Apostles, as Apostles, did Preach to Heathens, and engage them to Christ, and enter them in the Church, and that by virtue of their Apostolic Commission and Authority: It will follow therefore, that a Minister is not so bounded by his relation to a particular Church, but that he may exercise Ministerial power • without the bounds thereof.
3. If a Minister, by that same Authority, may Preach and administrate the Sacraments to others without the Congregation, as to these within, Then is not his Ministerial Authority confined to one particular Congregation; But the former is true. For the matter of Preaching, it is not denied: only it is said that they Preach not by Ministerial Authority, but as gifted private men. Unto which we oppose, 1. If a Ministers warning, reproof, invitation, &c. have equal weight with it in every part of the Church, as it hath in his own Congregation, Then must he Preach everywhere as a Minister; because, it cannot be denied, but he hath in his own Church a Ministerial Authority, beside that which a gifted Brother would have; But the former is true, the Word by him hath the same weight as preached by Commission from, and in the Name of, Christ, so that he may say, We pray you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled, which another cannot do: and the guilt of refusing the Word from him, will be found upon the account of his Authority, no less inexcusable than if the refuser were a member of his own Congregation. And I suppose a conscience will not get a defense tabled for excuse upon this exception. Beside, the Minister hath Ministerial Authority, as an Ambassador, to conclude with them that receive his word; and by the power of the keys, to pronounce pardon upon the terms of the Gospel in one Church, as well as in another; and one may receive that word, and rest on it as spoken by an Ambassador, and expect the ratifying thereof. And if it were not so, their consolation were exceedingly lessened, and the Minister disabled from concluding the treaty as an Ambassador, which doth not agree with Christ's end of sending Ministers, which is the perfecting of the Saints, and edifying the Body indefinitely, Ephes. 4.12. And therefore may he, as an Ambassador, act in these Ministerial duties.
The considering of the second Branch, will clear it more, to wit, thus, If a Minister may administrate the Sacraments without his own Congregation, Then must his Ministerial power go beyond that relation: because there is a Ministerial power requisite for these, which no gifted person whatsoever can assume; But the former is true. Ergo, &c.
This minor is denied by some, as being an unwarrantable practice; yet being generally used by all, it is thus answered, That a Minister may give the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to one not of his Congregation, because the body of the Church thinks good to admit them: and therefore he may warrantably administrate it to them, it being still lawful to him in itself to consecrate the elements in his own Congregation. But we reply, 1. That a Minister may warrantably Baptize one, who is no member of his Congregation: and therefore neither of the former answers will weaken this Argument; As suppose a Minister did encounter some heathen, it cannot be denied, but he might Preach the Gospel to him; and upon his professed Faith and Conversion, baptize him: other ways it were now impossible to baptize and bring in a heathen: which were absurd. Yet could not that be done, without Authority, as is granted; nor could it be done to him as to a Member of a particular Church: because, even after his Baptism, it were lawful for him to choose what particular Church he would join unto; neither before that, were he in capacity thereof, nor could the Minister act therein by the Churches warrand: because, 1. The Church could not judge a person that is without: that were not within their reach. 2. Because a Minister might do this upon occasion, where there could not be access to have any Church determination concerning the thing, as suppose it were abroad on a journey, as Philip's encounter was with the Eunuch, Acts 8. yet can it not be said that upon the heathens proposing this question, What doth hinder me to be baptized ? that it might be answered warrantably by the Minister, it hindereth, because thou art no Church member; or, my Church is not here to authorize me, &c. such answers would be uncomfortable to the man, and disproportionable to Christ's end. It followeth therefore, that the Minister, as a Minister, might baptize him, and seal the treaty, and so Authoritatively treat and Preach as a Minister, seeing Authoritatively he may seal it. The former answer is therefore weak: And, 1. doth speak nothing at all to the case of Baptism; Nor, 2. to the administration of the Lord's Supper out of his own Congregation, seeing it alloweth him power only to consecrate the elements there: yet there can be no question, but Authority to administrate the Lord's Supper, must be as broad in this respect, as to administrate Baptism, seeing they are both seals of the same Covenant. 3. If a Ministers power were peremptorily commensurable with his flock, even in that case of the plurality of the Church their admitting of such a member, the Minister could not be warranted to administrate to him; because still notwithstanding that person continues to be no member of that particular Church, nor subject to other Ordinances of Discipline: and therefore, according to the former grounds, no such determination of a people could communicate Authority to a Minister by such an act, as to make him use Ministerial power in reference to a person, not under his charge; if other ways he were not furnished therewith.
4. These principles seem to be repugnant, both to the commission, and practice generally of all the Ministers of the Gospel: For, 1. They have one commission for all places and persons where they shall be called: this maketh them to act as Ministers in one place, and not in another. 2. Their commission is to treat for Christ indefinitely, and for the carrying on of His design, without respect to this or that particular charge, except in a subordinate manner, so that by their commission, they are constitute Christ's Ambassadors, Ministers and Stewards simply for the Preaching of the Gospel and edifying of His Body. This saith, they are but Ambassadors in reference to such and such a people: and so consequently, could not by His warrand, close a treaty in His Name with any other. 3. A Minister by his commission, is absolutely set a part for the Work of the Ministry, so long as Christ hath Work for him, if he continue faithful; yea, by virtue of this his commission, he is to follow the same. Now by this, suppose a particular Congregation to be dissolved or destroyed; or, suppose them to reject him that he hath no access to exercise his Ministry amongst them, In such a case he ceaseth to be a Minister, and his commission expireth, according to these principles, so that he stands afterward in no other relation to Christ than any private person so qualified.
It doth also thwart with their practices, it being acknowledged and practiced almost by all ever since the days of the Apostles, that Ministers might and did administrate Word and Sacraments Authoritatively beyond the bounds of any particular Congregation. And although in the primitive times, there was strict interdiction, that no Bishop should exercise jurisdiction at his own hand, within the bounds of another; (which was necessary for preventing of confusion and keeping of order) yet was it never heard that a Minister might not Authoritatively Preach, and administrate the Sacrament by the key of order in any part, as he might be called: yea, it is not to be thought that the Ministers of particular Churches in their voyages to the Apostles, or scatterings and other ways, whereby they were necessarily withdrawn from their own particular charges, that they did, during that time, abstain all Ministerial exercises, because so it should prejudge the Church of their labors as Ministers, during that time: which is not likely, considering, that their help in the Ministry of the Gospel, is sometimes insinuated, and acknowledged by Paul ; and they counted his fellow-laborers, such as Aristarchus, Epaphras and others, companions and fellows, both in Paul's sufferings and labors. It is like therefore, that their Ministerial acting, cannot be confined to any particular place or Congregation.
Lastly, This opinion would infer many absurdities; As, 1. A Minister could administer no Ordinance as a Minister, and some, not at all, but in his own Congregation. 2. Nor in it, but to such as were of his own Flock. And, 3. If any other were present, he should be the Ambassador of Christ to one, and not to another; and that in the same message. 4. Suppose a Congregation to want a Minister; or, that he be, by sickness or other ways, incapacitated from exercising of his Office, By this ground they could have no Ministerial act administered amongst them, and so no Baptism, or Sacrament; nor yet have any benefit of a Ministry more than if there were no such Ordinance. 5. By this, no particular Church might have Ministerial communion (to say so) in Church-ordinances together, but such as private persons; yea, as heathens might have in the hearing of the Word. 6. There could be no Ministerial communion and help amongst Ministers: for so, no Minister could supply another, more than a private person, though Ministers, as joint workers in one Work, be called in a special manner to have communion together. 7. No Member, how ever gracious, being withdrawn from his own Congregation, could be under any Ministerial charge, or have access to the Preaching of the Word, as it is a treaty by an Ambassador; or, to any Sacrament for himself or his: which is hard, considering that it is the same Master, and the same house; and seeing often occasions may draw men abroad where the Ordinances are, this would make them in a great part to be strangers even within the Church whereof they are children. 8. No Minister might Authoritatively reprove any offending brother not of his own Congregation, nor censure such as did not willingly join, howsoever scandalous: which is contrary to the practice of Ephesus, as already hath been said. Neither would this bring in confusion, or the making of the particular privileges of a Congregation common, more than is allowable: because this pleadeth not for an arbitrarinesse in the exercise of this power; but that there may be a power to be exercised for edification, when it shall be called for.
Neither will it hence follow, that a Minister, Elder, or Deacon, may thrust himself in, to the exercise of Jurisdiction in every place, because they are Officers of the Catholic Church: because, 1. This only saith, that he, being called orderly by an opened door may exerce his power in one place and Congregation, as well as in another. 2. Because ruling belongeth to the power of Jurisdiction; which, beside instalment in an Office, doth require other things to concur with it, before it can be exercised: Preaching and administration of the Sacraments, are done by the power of order, and by virtue of the Office as such. Hence a Minister might Preach to Heathens without the Church, and Baptize in due order; because he doth that as a Minister: yet could he not censure one such, till he were a Church member, and until there were some orderly way of trying, judging, censuring, &c. by a Church Judicatory settled: because the exercise of this power doth require more than the being of an office. And therefore even the Apostles who did thus preach and administer the Sacraments; yet neither judged these that were without at all; nor these that were within (when they acted by ordinary rules) except in the way of orderly proceeding. Therefore, Acts 15. Paul found it meet to go to Jerusalem to a Synod for deciding of some things by this power of Jurisdiction, although still by his Doctrine he was Authoritatively condemning the Error: which showeth, that there is more required in the one than in the other. And in that practice, the Apostles gave a precedent to Ministers whereby to be directed in ordinary cases, because in it they did follow ordinary rules common with them to all Ministers, and did not act as extraordinary Apostles, for so one was equally sufficient for deciding of the matter as all were, but in this a copy is given how the Church is to walk in such cases ordinarily.
The last thing which we are to inquire into, is, If this relation betwixt a Minister and a particular Congregation be such, as the Church for a greater good to the whole body may not loose it, and call one, serving at one particular Church, to fix and serve elsewhere, upon supposition that it may more further the good of the Whole Church ?
Answ. What is already said, doth make way for the answering of this, which we shall comprehend in these three Assertions,
Asser. 1. No Minister ought to dispose of himself at his own private arbitrement, to the prejudice or dissolution of a tie betwixt him and a particular Congregation that is orderly and legally settled. For, first, no Minister being free of such a relation, ought to dispose of himself arbitrarily, (as was said in the close of the first Chapter) much more being under a tie and particular relation. 2. It's a general to all, 1 Cor. 7. Let every man abide in that calling wherein he is called ; but especially, Ministers are to walk by a singular call, even in reference to a particular Charge: so as it may be the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath set them: which must, at least, include his being set there in the mediate way of Church order; which is that that the Holy Ghost owns, as by comparing, Acts 13.3. and 4. and Acts 14.23. with Act. 20, 28. is clear. This therefore cannot be left to any private way of transacting betwixt a Minister and a People. 3. If it were so, then this particular relation were of no value, neither could properly a Minister be called the Minister of such a Church; or such a Church be his in a more peculiar manner than other Churches, if he might at his pleasure and of himself dissolve that Union. 4. Ministers being servants of Christ's House and Watchmen put to their Posts by Him, as being specially to count for that People committed to them, they ought not and cannot without His warrand remove: this would be found to be treachery and unfaithfulness in any other Servant or Watchman, much more must it be here. 5. Whereas Christ hath appointed these particular relations for the entertaining of order, the preventing of confusion and promoving of edification, This would destroy these ends and bring confusion into the Church: which is contrary to the order that He hath established in it. Lastly, It would beget despising of the Ministry in the hearts of the People, and lay them open to snares, if a Ministers settling in a place stood so upon his own Election (especially after a former tie) as is usually in men who are of other professions. And there are many strict acts of Councils in all times against this: as a most wretched abuse, if it should be admitted in the Church.
Assert. 2. Although this tie cannot be loosed by any private consent, so that no Minister can transport himself upon that account; yet may the Church for her own greater good transport a man from one particular place to another, and that warrantably, notwithstanding of the former particular tie and relation: yea, sometime it will be expedient for the good of the Church so to do. The application of the former grounds and the laying down of some others, will make way for the clearing and confirming of this. The first is, If there be an Union and Communion in the Catholic visible Church, and if Ministers be especially given to the edifying of it, and in a subordination thereto, to the edification of particular Churches, Then supposing that a Ministers transportation from one place to another may further more the good of the whole than where he is, in that case, it ought to be done. Because the whole is to be prefered to the part, the good of the Body to any particular member: and in that case, it is not the prejudice of that particular Church, that their Minister be set where he may more profit the Body, but (as the Learned Bowles in his Treatise of a Gospel Ministry, lib. 3. cap. 7. saith)
Conclus. 1. There is a diversity in the cases of particular Congregations; and there is diversity also in the gifts of Ministers. Some Congregations are more weighty, and much more of the good or hurt of the Church dependeth upon their plantation than others. Again, some are more intelligent, some are more uneasy and dangerous to deal withal, &c. as experience cleareth. Whereby it is apparent that the planting of some places, is of great consequence for the Gospels advancement, above the planting of others; and also that comparatively, one place will require Ministers otherwise qualified than another. Again, there are diversities of gifts among Ministers, some are fit for one People, and not for another, as is clear from, 1 Cor. 12. 14. 15. &c. There are diversity of gifts, but the same spirit, differences of administrations, &c.
Conclus. 2. Ministers ought so to be distributed and placed in particular Charges, as that there may be some proportionableness and suitableness betwixt the Minister and his Charge, that is, the ablest Minister should have the weightiest Charge; the weakest, the easiest burden: and as their gift is more eminent in learning, teaching, prudence in Government, &c. there likewise ought a proportion to be keeped in laying on their Charge, so as there may be a fit object for such qualifications, and as the good of the Body may be most advanced. This also we take for granted: for, that is the end of all gifts which are given to every man that he way profit withal, 1 Cor. 12.7. whether it be the word of knowledge, or, the word of wisdom, &c. they are all members of one body, verse. 12. and therefore are to concur for the good of the Body, according to their several qualifications, as different members of that one Body: and in this respect, a disproportionating of a Ministers Charge to his gift, it is as if we would put the foot to do the hands work, or the ear to supply the room of the eye: which were absurd; and would argue either such and such distinction and difference not to be necessary, and so all the members might be eye or head, or any one member; or, it will say, that we are not to walk according to that which the Lord hath distributed to everyone: both which are absurd, and expressly contrary to that which is said, 1 Cor. 12. Where expressly these three are held forth, 1. That the Church is one Body. 2. That there are different gifts, which are as different members of one Body, some more eminently for one use, and some more eminently for another. 3. That the Lord's intent by that difference, is, to have all these members concurring in their several places for the good of the whole Body: that so, as it is, verse. 25. by each members concurring in its own place, there may be no • chism in the Body: which cannot be eschewed, if this proportionating of public Charges and Gifts be not observed.
Conclus. 3. There cannot be ordinarily such a discerning of the proportionablnesse of men's gifts to a particular station at the first entry, as to fit everyone sufficiently, and to place them in their right room. This we suppose, is also clear from experience, wherein it is seen that many, at first, are fixed in Congregations wherein afterward there proveth to be a disproportionablnesse. And it cannot be otherwise, upon these considerations, 1. Because it cannot then be known fully what will prove to be the peculiar gift of every man, till trial and experience evidence the same. 2. Because this proportionablnesse is not only to be tried by comparing a man and a particular Congregation simply; but it is to be taken by trying him comparatively, and that both in reference to other gifts and other Congregations: for, a man absolutely considered, may be fit for such a Congregation; yet when other Congregations and gifts are considered, it may possibly be seen that he is more fit for another Congregation than many other Ministers; and yet possibly some of these may be as fit for his Congregation. In that case, it cannot be denied, but it looketh liker the right proportionating of every member, that men be put to serve in these Congregations, for which according to their gifts they are best fitted. 3. Because at a Ministers first entry there is not occasion to try a man's proportionablnesse to any other Charge but one, or at most in reference to so many as shall at that present be vacant and give him a Call. Now, suppose some other Charge should thereafter vake, it's hard to say that they should be simply excluded from having any access to that person, if his gifts were more proportionable to them: Because, as we said, this proportionablnesse is to be looked to in reference to what is most fit for the whole Body: for although (if we may so compare it) it is not unfit that the foot should be guided by sight; yet with respect to the whole Body, it is more fit for the whole Body, that the eye should be placed in the head, than in the foot: because it is not to give light to one member only, but to the whole Body, So is it here, a Minister may suit a particular Congregation, giving light as it were to the foot, whereas if we consider his office, which is to be an eye to the whole Body, he is disproportionably placed: for so the Body is darker, when the foot hath more light: which is absurd.
Conclus. 4. Christ hath furnished His Church with Power in her Judicatories and Officers, to proportion Ministers Gifts suitably to the good of the Body. Hence is the trial of Spirits and Gifts appointed: and in that respect, the spirits of the Prophets, are to be subject to the Prophets, 1 Cor. 14. other ways the Church in her Government were defective in that order which is in other Societies: and it would not be adequate and proportionate to its end, if that were not: for so there might be an inconveniency and disproportionablnesse in the Church, and no remedy to cure the same. From which grounds put together, we may thus argue, 1. If God hath given diversity of Gifts to Ministers, and they be to be improven for the good of the whole Body, Then supposing that a Minister settled in some more private or lesser Congregation be more proportionably qualified to fill such a place as is more large and eminent, than any other who can be had without a charge. Then in this case he is to be transported: because other ways, that being denied and the Charge put upon a man of no competent ability, there would be a disproportionablnesse between the Gift and the Charge. For, that would join the able man and the light burden, and the weak man and the heavy burden: which were absurd; But the first is clear from the former conclusions. Therefore, &c. 2. If by a Ministers first plantation in a particular Charge there be a disproportionablnesse in the Body, which transporting of him to another Charge would remeed, Then is he to be transported: and transportation in that case must be allowable and expedient: because by it that due proportionablnesse is preserved among Ministers, and Members of the Body, which other ways would be defective, and so a Schism is prevented: For if the end, to wit, that proportionablnesse be necessary, Then transportation, which is a necessary mean whereby it is attained, cannot but be necessary also; But the first is true from the former grounds. Ergo, &c. 3. If transportation were unlawful, Then we behooved to say, that either no Minister could be at first misplaced to the prejudice of the Body: or, that there were no remeed for such a case, for the recovering thereof; But both these are absurd, as the former grounds do clear. 4. If Ministers were peremptorly fixed by their first tie to particular Congregations, Then could not their Gift come under cognition in reference to any other charge; which would infer these absurdities, 1. That the Church were bounded and limited in the use-making of her own Members for her own good: which is contrary to the nature of a body; for so she might have Members, fit for such and such stations; and yet could not make use of them. 2. In proportionating Gifts for places, there would be little place for Christian prudence and deliberation: because so the case would be determined necessarily by providence, that such vacant places behooved to call such men as were not under any former tie, and they behooved to accept these particular charges; or, must both necessarily forbear; and so such Churches be without Ministers, it may be for a long time, before any did occur whom with confidence they might Call: and it will be hard to fasten any of these necessities upon the way of Christ. 3. By this, the Church should have little or no access at all to cognosce of men's Gifts, so as to proportion them for her good, if she had no place for it after their first entry to the Ministry: because, then often there doth lie much of it upon the man's determining himself; or, at most a Presbyteries determining of him, and a particular Congregations pressing, who often are more swayed with respect to themselves, than to the Church in common. Beside, that there is no access to cognosce thereof upon other grounds given: if then the Church be any ways allowed to cognosce or dispose of Members according to their Gifts, and that be not left to particular inclinations, transportation must be allowed. And if it be singly done, we suppose, there is no such access to cognosce of a man's Gift, and to proportionate it for the good of the body, as may be done in transportation. 5. We may argue thus, If Ministers be lights planted in the Church for the good of the whole, Then ought they so to be placed, as they may most extensively give light to the whole. Now, these are certain, 1. That there are some Congregations where a Minister may more conspicuously hold forth the light of the Gospel than in others, some places being as Tables or Candlesticks from which light doth shine; other places again, being as corners. 2. Sometimes a light may be set in a corner, or under a bushel comparatively, and not be set on the place where the greatest light is called for. 3. When it's misplaced, it ought to be removed from the corner to be set on the Candlestick: and although it may be, that that corner become more dark; yet the house in general becometh more lightsome. And if these former grounds be true, Then transportation, when it proves the removing of a light from under a bed, to the Candlestick, for the greater good of the whole house, must be allowed and admitted: But these two considerations will make this appear, 1. Christ's express words, Matth. 5.14, 15. ye are the light of the world, &c. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that all in the house may see light, (compared with Luke 8.16.) which demonstrates there, that Ministers are so to be placed as they may most lighten the whole house: and if any place conduce more for that than another, they are accordingly to be placed. 2. The Apostles practice clears this: we will find them in their Preaching especially, to frequent most populous places, because there was most occasion of spreading the Gospel in those: Paul is marked, Acts 19.10. to have stayed two full years in Ephesus, and that all Asia, upon that occasion, heard the Word: which doth hold forth, 1. That there are some places (particularly populous and public places) of more concernment for the spreading of the Gospel, when they are well planted, than other places. And, 2. That the Apostles were in their abode and Preaching exceedingly swayed by that consideration: so that although in some respect they had equal interest in all persons and Churches, yet did the consideration of the good of the whole engage them to have particular respect to some places beyond others; and so, as it were, to transport themselves from private places to more public, that they might give light to the moe. 6. If the good of a particular Congregation, and necessity of a particular Minister, may warrand a transportation, much more may the public good of the Church do the same: this cannot be denied; But both the first are true, 1. The good of a particular Congregation may warrand it, as suppose they be utterly prejudged against a present Minister, who yet elsewhere may have access to be profitable; either transportation must be allowed, or he must be rendered unprofitable, contrary to the end for which Christ hath given Gifts, 1 Cor. 12. and they put in a worse condition by having, than by wanting: For the second, That a Ministers particular necessity may constrain this, as suppose there be no possibility to live and follow the Ministry in such a place, because of outward straits: thus, Nehemiah, 13.10. the Levites by the withdrawing of their maintenance, are made to fly everyone to his field: and Nehemi • h contends with the Rulers, and removes that obstruction, and doth not challenge the Levites, as Mr. Bowls doth observe. We find also in Church-story ( Socrates, lib. 7. cap. 36.) of one Sylvanus, who not being able to live in one place • because of his infirm health, which did disagree therewith, he was transported to another more wholesome and agreeable to his constitution. 7. If notwithstanding of that relation between a Minister and a people, any particular Member, or any other Officer, upon weighty consideration, may remove themselves, or be removed from that Congregation, Then may the Minister be removed also, upon supposition of the public good: because there is that same tie between the people and the Minister, and other Officers and the people, that is between the Minister and them: for, the relation is mutual; But that private Members, and Elders or Deacons may remove, or be removed orderly, hath never been questioned. Ergo, &c. 8. If a Minister, upon particular occasion, for public good, may perform Ministerial acts without his own Congregation for a time, Then supponing these grounds to be urgent, and Authority to interveen, why may he not be fully removed? for, the same ground that calleth to act for a time, to wit, the good of the body whereof he is a Minister, may call for it to be perpetual, and ought not to be rejected; But the first is true. Ergo, &c. 9. If we will consider the Word of God more nearly, we will find this to be conform thereto.
And, 1. If we consider the Old Testament, it is certain that the Levites had their own fixedness in the several Cities beside Jerusalem, seeing that was their Office to teach the People: and no question, it was done orderly: hence, Thou and the Levite within thy gates, is so frequently mentioned: and Act. 15.21. it is said, that of' old time Moses had them in every city that did preach him. It is certain also, that notwithstanding of that fixedness, Levites might be removed to more public service at Jerusalem, as is gathered from Deut. 18.6. and 7. If a Levite come from any of thy gates, out of all Israel, where he sojourned, and shall come with all his desire to the place which the Lord shall choose, then shall be minister, &c. where a Levite's removing from Ministring in one place to another, is clearly approven. Neither is it to be thought, that this removal was left arbitrary to the Levite himself: because so, confusion could not have been eschewed; but when it is so qualified, that he cometh with all his desire, it doth suppose a trial thereof, and an orderly way of disposing of him, for the attaining of that end, to have proceeded, as the learned Junius doth observe on the place.
2. If we come to the New Testament, there we will find our Lord Jesus himself going from City to City; He sendeth His Disciples to go through the Cities, Preaching the Gospel: the Apostles follow the same way in their practice: And we will find them sending Ministers sometime to one place, sometime to another; sometimes keeping particular Ministers with themselves, as from the History of the Acts, and from the beginning and close of several Epistles, may be gathered. And although these practices may seem, at first, to be extraordinary, yet considering the end thereof, which is the spreading of the Gospel, and the ground upon which it is built, to wit, the unity of the Church, the good whereof is to be sought by all the Ministers who are Christ's Servants, in reference thereunto; con • idering also that the Church, to the end of the world, is furnished with power for prosecuting of moral ends in an ordinary way; and that the Churches propagation, is the end now as then; seeing the removing of Ministers sometimes from one place to another, may conduce to that end now as then; and the ground, to wit, the good of the Church universal, is the same now as it was then, We conceive the practice itself must be moral, as the ground was, although then the manner and power was extraordinary, which is now to be performed in an ordinary way.
3. If we will particularly consider, Act. 13.1, 2, 3. we will find this, near almost in an example. For, 1. There are there several Prophets and Teachers in the Church of Antioch, as Barnabas, Lucius, Simeon, &c. 2. They are Ministring there in a collegiat way, and that for a long time. 3. Two of them are pitched on, to be sent elsewhere, for the spreading of the Gospel; it being in the wisdom of God thought fit, to call some from Antioch, where were many, that others might be helped, who had nothing: although no question, there was work for all of them in Antioch itself: And He might have thrust out moe immediately Himself, if this way had not been pleasing to Him; yet their sundering was thought fitter for the Churches universal good. 4. This is execute in a mediate way by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, and with fasting and prayer. Whence we may argue, If for the greater good of the Church, some Teachers were taken from Antioch and sent elsewhere, Then may a Minister, by Church-authority, for the end foresaid, be removed from one place to another; But the former is true. Ergo, &c. There is nothing can be objected against this, save to say that this was extraordinary, in that it was particularly commanded of God: And, 2. That they were extraordinary Officers that were sent; But this will not enervate the Argument: for, in these practices of extraordinary Officers in the Primitive times, we must observe some rules to difference what is ordinary, from what is extraordinary in them, and so know what is to be imitated, and what not: otherwise we may reject all the practices of Christ, and the Apostles upon that account, and so prejudge ourselves exceedingly of a great part of the Word that is written for our direction. Let us therefore observe these rules;
1. Where the ground and reason of a practice, is moral, although the Call thereto and manner of discharging thereof be extraordinary; yet must the practice itself be moral, although the manner in so far as is extraordinary be temporary: Thus, that the Kirk have Teachers (supposing that there must be a Church) it is moral; as also that her Teachers have a Call, This will follow from Christ's sending of Apostles, Disciples, and others: Because the same reason saith, that a Minister who is Christ's Ambassador, according to his station (as an Apostle was in his) should have his commission as an Apostle had: but that the Church should always have Apostles, or that her Teachers should be immediately called of God, That will not follow: because the reasons thereof are not moral. Now, if we may safely reason in the general, that a Church must have Officers with a lawful Call, because Christ's Apostles had such, though it was immediate, and also he that was called ought to obey: by proportion we may gather, that a Church-officer may be called from one place to another, upon a moral ground, although there be no immediate Call at his removal, more than at his first entry: because the ground whereupon this practice is founded, and which is the reason thereof, to wit, the greater good of the Church, is still binding now as then.
Rule 2. In these primitive practices, there is a proportionableness to be observed between the Officers who act, and their call and manner of proceeding, to wit, an extraordinary Officer, must have an extraordinary call, as such; and he may act extraordinarily in the prosecution thereof, by extraordinary Power, whereas an ordinary Officer must act, by an • ordinary call and Power, the same things, suppose in Preaching, Discipline, ordaining of Ministers, &c. and in so far, that laying on of hands was extraordinary, as being done upon an immediate Call. But Ministers may follow it in an ordinary way, that is, by a mediate Call, they may ordain Ministers to a particular Congregation, or transport from one to another by proportion: because the Apostles by an immediate Call did send out extraordinary Officers to any particular place.
Rule 3. We would in such practices difference such things as are temporary, that is, such as have special relation to that time and state of the Church (as extraordinary Officers and Gifts were) from such things as agree to the Church as a Church, and serve to the edification thereof at all times. And thus also transporting of a Minister, must be allowable in such case: because there can be no reason given why that practice should be peculiar or only agreeing to that time and case of the Church, or during the Apostles lifetime: but the grounds that infer the conveniency of it, are in a good measure common to us with them, to wit, the furtherance of the Churches good, which cannot other ways be so well done. And if it may be as well done without this, we acknowledge that this practice will not be binding. And certainly the Lord's putting of the Church to this, to send out some already called, when immediately he might have thrust out others, doth say, that he minded to teach what ordinarily should be done by the Church in the like case: for, his sending of them mediately by the Church, and not immediately by himself, as at other times, doth insinuate this.
Rule 4. We are to distinguish things wherein the Apostles acted extraordinarily, by reason of their infallible Gift, extraordinary Power, &c. from such things as were common to them with other Ministers, and wherein they acted in an ordinary way common to them with all Ministers: of the first sort were their immediate deciding of controversies, appointing of censures, sending of Ministers, &c. by virtue of their own alone power: this is not to be imitated: of the other sort are their admitting of Ministers upon a mediate Call to Congregations, as Acts 14. their debating and deciding of controversies, and making of Laws in a Synodical way, by reasoning from Scripture in an ordinary way, as Acts 15. These are imitable; and what they did in that manner may be followed: And their laying on of Hands (when the Call was intimate) their Praying and Fasting, which are mentioned in this place, were of the last kind; and so upon supposition of the intimation of a Call, this their practice for the substance is to be followed.
Now, to resume a little further the application, that we may know what is ordinary and what is extraordinary in this case; or, what is moral, and what perpetual, or what is temporary. 1. That there be a Call of God, that is moral and perpetual; and it may be concluded from this, that no Minister without God's Call, is to be transported; but that that Call is immediately revealed by God Himself, is temporary, and not to be pleaded for in ordinary cases. 2. This is moral, that he who is called of God to edify His Church, by leaving one place to serve Him in another, should obey the same. 3. It's moral, that this removal should not be at the man's own determination; but that it be done by Church Guides, and Church Judicatories. 4. It's a moral ground upon which this proceeds, to wit, the greater edification of the Church, whether by engaging and grafting in of Strangers, or building up of these that are brought in; this ground can no way be thought more peculiar to these times than to after time: and therefore it is laid down as the great end of Pastors and Teachers, as well as of Apostles, as may be gathered from, Ephes. 4.11, 12, 13, 14. This reason then must have weight to the end of the world. 5. It's an ordinary way by which they proceed, to wit, fasting and prayer, showing the necessity of a concurrence of God's orderly and external Call with his inward, for warranting of this practice; and also showing that when the removing of a Minister from one place to another may contribute to the good of the Body, they are in that heartily to concur who have most special interest. Now, these things being moral and of perpetual weight in the Church, although it will not plead that the Church may send out Apostles by an immediate Call, or that they may send out ind • finitely without respect to any place, or not knowing where; yet this will follow, upon the grounds laid down, that when God calleth a man for the edifying of the body of His Church from one place to another, there it ought to be obeyed; and that sometimes God may Call, for the greater good of His Church, to have men removed from one place to another. He is Master of the Harvest: and therefore may either thrust out Laborers of new to His Field, or may take from one part of the Field to set upon another. Only these things would be adverted here according to the former rules, 1. That by God's Call, is not to be understood any extraordinary thing, but His signifying of His mind in an ordinary way, that such a man's removal from such a place, to another, is upon consideration of his gifts, upon comparing of the places, and the respecting of the state of the Church, a hopeful mean through God's blessing for the further promoving of edification. 2. As an immediate and extraordinary Call was necessary for such officers in such a case; so proportionally is an ordinary Call by ordinary Officers, acting by ordinary Power, only necessary for ordinary cases, seeing in moral things ordinary Officers, are to do by their ordinary Power what extraordinary Officers did by their extraordinary Power. And if we will consider this practice, we will find it this far to be intended for imitation: For, 1. Although the Lord immediately reveal the Call; yet doth He follow His design in an ordinary way: not by thrusting out new Officers, which he might have done, if he had walked altogether absolutely and extraordinarly in this; but he doth it in a mediate way of providence, in the making use of some already called. 2. The circumstances seem so to be recorded, as if the Lord were giving the reason of calling some from Antioch, rather than from any other Church, to wit, because there was a considerable number in that place of fit qualified men; and that so in reason it were more agreeable for the good of the body, that some should be taken from them to supply the want of the other, rather than that others should be altogether destitute, or some removed from such places as might not so well spare: and there can be no reason of the mentioning of this, but to show the moral equity of this practice, that Ministers would be proportionated in the Church so as may be extensively for the good of the whole: and that where some places abound, and others have scarcity; the abundance of the one, should condescend to supply the other, and that not of the weakest or least able. 3. The Lord useth a mediate way of sending them by the Churches interposing of her Authority and Prayers, which He did not use in the sending of Apostles; nay, Matthias had no imposition of Hands; and this was because the election of Apostles was no way to fall within the compass of ordinary Church-power, nor to be followed. It would seem therefore, that it is made use of in this practice, to signify, that it is a thing to be continued in the Church, and to be performed by ordinary Church-judicatories, and imitated by them.
If we consider the times following, it hath ever been practiced in the Church. It's marked to have been the practice of the first two famous general Councils, as a mean useful exceedingly for the good of the Church. The Nicaen Council did transfer Eustachius from Berrhea to Antioch. Sozom. lib. 7. Cap. 2. And it's observed particularly of Gr • gorius Nazianzenus, that he was thrice transported: first, he was Bishop in Cappadocia, thereafter brought to Nazianz ••• ; and thereafter to Constantinople by the second famous general Council, and it's marked to have been of great use to the Church. Cent. 4.15. 300. and to have been their common practice in this time. Socrates, lib. 7. cap. 35. doth for this very end, give many instances of this in several persons. At the beginning of the Reformation, it was one of the great means that was made use of by God for propagating the Gospel in several places: the transporting, or removing of Ministers from one place to another was exceeding useful: and what cruelty had it been to have refused the desire of people, seeking Ministers from those that had them? And how else could they have been supplied? And proportionably the same weight lieth here in all times.
Asser. 3. Although in some cases this be for the good of the Church, and is to be practiced by Church Judicatories; yet it is to be done with great singleness, tenderness, prudence and caution, least that which of itself, being rightly managed, is a benefit to the Church, be turned to an abuse, and prove hurtful to her.
These Cautions and Rules must be regulated according to particular circumstantiate cases, which cannot be numbered. Yet these things may be said,
1. That no self respect ought to have place here, but the greater good of the Church and advantage of the Gospel, is the great 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whereby this is to be decided.
2. This general is to be found out, by comparing of places and qualifications with respect to the number of the hearers, their qualifications as they are strong or infirm, tractable or stubborn, pure or corrupt; In respect of their stations, as they have influence on public things or not, as they may have influence in communicating their light to other places; as the word in his mouth may be more readily and freely received without prejudice, and such other considerations of this kind: some whereof, are hinted in the close of the former Chapter concerning a Minister's Call at his first entry.
3 This comparison would not be considered between places, as if there were no tie standing between him and either of them: certainly there is more disproportionablenesse required to loose one from a charge, than would have cast the balance between places at his entry. Also other means of a proportionable settling and providing of such a place, would be first seriously essayed and followed if they occur.
4. This would be endeavored to be done by convincing reasons, so as (if possibly) they who have interest may be satisfied, if not in respect of their affection, yet in respect of their reason, to wit, that it is the more public good of the Church.
5. No people ought to oppose the removal of their most faithful and beloved Ministers, when it's done upon convincing reasons. These people are content to yield to the removing even of Paul and Barnabas, who, no question, were most dear unto them. And certainly were there endeavors to convince on the one side, and an acquiescing to conviction on the other, it would look much more Christian-like, and prove much more useful. And if this be a called-for duty, to wit, that a Church • judicatory remove one from a settled Congregation, upon such grounds, it must be a sin and an opposing of duty, willfully to obstruct the same; and if it may be a Call of God, there is more need of conscience and submission here, to try if it be so or not, than absolutely to resolve a peremptory and pertinacious opposition to the same without any respect to the grounds thereof. And we conceive that the keeping of a right mean in this practice, and eschewing of extremes, might conduce exceedingly to the advantage of the Church: and it would be exceeding suitable to the unity of the Cathol • ck Church and that communion that ought to be in her, and well becoming that Authority and care that is committed to Church-judicatories, that the several particular Ministers were upon just grounds proportioned with respect to the edification of the whole. And so we have done with this particular relation.
3. Concerning the nature and difference of saving and common Grace.
IN this Epistle, there is a large commendation of this Angel's practice: which is not only given to him in respect of the matter of his actions; but in respect of the qualifications of them: as, first, that he did not only suffer for, and have patience in, that which was materially right; but that he suffered for Christ's Name sake : and that he did not only hate thee deeds of the Nicolaitans ; but did it with a respect to Christ: which is here added, to difference the sincerity of these actions from others that are materially good also: for, no question, there may be much suffering, which is not commendable before Christ. And certainly many others, even among heathens, did hate these Nicolaitans, who yet cannot be thought to be alike comprehended under this commendation. This therefore that is added, for my Names sake, must be to show the sincerity and graciousness thereof, as that which did put a difference, between their sufferings and patience, and the sufferings of others. And it doth imply, that this qualification, was that mainly, which made the Lord take notice thereof. It is therefore the same on the matter with that, Matth. 5.11. of being persecuted for Christ's sake, to which the promise is made, verse. 12. and the same, with that 1 Pet. 4.13. of being made partakers of Christ's sufferings, and of being reproached for his Name : which being an evidence, and part of blessedness in these places, cannot be conceived but to imply sincerity; without which, suffering itself, even where the cause is good, would be of no weight as to that end. We do therefore conceive these words undoubtedly to be added, to point out that wherein their sincerity consisted, and wherewith the Lord was especially well pleased: from which we may gather these Doctrines.
First, That there is a great difference between an action morally or materially good, and that which is gracious, and as such acceptable to God. It is not simply suffering and hatred, which the Lord commends here; but suffering and hatred so and so qualified. Hence we will find frequently in the Scripture, difference made between these, to do that which is good upon the matter, and to do it with a perfect heart. In actions therefore, there are these three to be distinctly considered, 1. The act itself, as it is natural, suppose an act of hatred, love, grief, &c. 2. As the act is moral, and is directed toward an object that is agreeable to the Law, that is, to love that which is good, and to hate that which is evil, and so forth: both which, in many respects, may be in hypocrites, who may do that which is materially good. 3. We are to consider an act as gracious, that is, when not only the thing for the matter is agreeable to the will of God, as suppose, one were acting, or suffering for a truth; but also when that is done in the manner that the Law requireth, and with a suitablnesse thereunto: and so one suffers not only for a truth; but as a Christian he carrieth himself in his suffering for the same: it is this last which makes the difference, and which the Lord doth especially take notice of, and commend by this qualification, that it is done for his Names sake.
Secondly, We gather, that this difference, wherein the graciousness of the act doth consist, is not to be inquired for in any incense degree of the act itself, whether positive or comparative (at least only) but it is to be inquired for in the nature and kind thereof, to wit, in respect of positive qualifications concurring therewith, and having influence thereon: For, this commendation, is not given upon the degree; but from the nature of these acts: it is not commendable hatred, because it is in such an intense degree positively: nor comparatively, because it hateth these errors more than it doth hate truth; but because in their hatred of these errors, they conform themselves to Christ's hatred of them. And likewise by that commendation for Christ's Name sake, is not holden forth any degree either of their labor, or patience simply, nor yet comparatively, that they labored more, or did suffer more for that which is materially good, than they did for any other thing; or, because their patience was for degree more than their impatience; but, that there was a peculiar respect to the Lord's Name both in their labor and patience.
If it be asked, What this is, which beside the moral rectitude of the act, must concur for the making of it to be accounted gracious ?
It may be answered in these four. First, There is a different spiritual principle in the person acting, which must actually have influence upon the act, and from which the act, as gracious, proceedeth. This in Scripture is called the Spirit, Inner-man, New-creature, &c. and is different in its acting from the Old-man and Flesh ; yea, and from the faculties of the soul, considered merely as natural: for, if we consider an act, suppose of love, submission under sufferings, or such like; it is the natural act of the soul as formally elicited by it: but if we consider them as gracious acts, they do proceed from the Spirit influencing them (to say so) with a suitableness to itself, by the co-operation of the Grace of God. Secondly, There is a difference in respect of the end; there is a gracious and spiritual end proposed in performing of such a lawful thing: this is implied here in this, that they had the glory of the Name of Jesus before them in their suffering and patience, as seeking to pursue that, and not to gain credit to themselves. Thirdly, There concurreth to qualify a gracious action, a spiritual motive inclining the spiritual principle to follow this end, which can never be separated from the former, and here is clear in the two instances that are in the Text; where, as respect to Christ's Name, is the end, so, love to Christ, and zeal to His Glory moveth them, and swayeth them to pursue this end, by such means, as Labouring, Patience, hating of the Nicolaitans, &c. and thus to have patience for Christ's Names sake, is out of respect to Christ's Glory, to be swayed thereunto. Fourthly, There is a difference in respect of the formality of the act, when not only the thing that is good is yielded unto, upon a good motive; but as such, it's yielded unto or acted, that is, when the object, as so considered, is acted upon: and so not only is one swayed to patience in suffering from respect to Christ's Name; but upon this formal consideration, they yield themselves to it, and do it as such. So that still there is a reduplication in the act, suitable to the end and motive proposed: and as the person in the act hath another principle to act by, another end proposed to himself, and another motive persuading him to it; so hath he a different uptaking of the act or object in the act, not only as considered in itself as good; but as considered in reference to such an end, and as such he acts on it. As for instance, it is laudable and commendable to give to one that is in misery, and more laudable to love one that is gracious, and to supply his wants; yet both these are not sufficient to make the act to be accounted gracious, even though the love to them should be most intense, and the beneficence large; but there must be a concurrence of these four formerly mentioned, to wit, 1. An inward gracious principle acting: otherwise, one may be renewed, and carry love to another that is gracious; and yet if it proceed not from this principle, it is not to be accounted sincere gracious love. 2. There must be a spiritual single end in their loving of them, and giving to them, to wit, the honoring of Christ in them, and their good. 3. A spiritual motive, to wit, the considering of them not only as in strait, or as lovely in themselves; but as gracious and beloved of Jesus Christ, whose command calls for love to them. And lastly, this is done to them as such, when the heart in it's affection, closeth with them upon this account, that they are beloved of Christ, and, as being themselves called of God to that duty. Thus, Mat. 10. To give to a disciple, is one thing; but to give to him in the name of a Disciple, is another, that is, to give him upon that account that he is such; or, as it is, Mark 9.41. Because they belong to Christ : the former may be often in many natural men, and hath no such promise; this cannot be in any but a Believer, who only may expect the promised reward. This as, is to be understood, as 1 Cor. 8.7. where some men not only did eat that which was sacrificed; but as such a thing, and under that formal consideration, that is, with some conscience of the Idol, as the words before carry it: and this as maketh it quite another thing. So is it to be understood here, when we say the object is to be considered as such. And in this reduplication, we conceive, that a main piece of singleness and sincerity doth lie, when not only we do what is commanded, or suffer for what is truth; but when we do it as a thing commanded, and suffer for it as for His names sake: and in some respect, it may take-in the two former last differences; and so if any shall make the number fewer, we shall not debate, providing that under any name these be taken-in.
Hence, thirdly, We gather also, That what ever act is so qualified (as in the former is expressed) it is a sincere gracious act in whatsoever degree it be, so that it be an act of Patience, Love, Hatred, &c. proceeding from an inward renewed principle, tending to a spiritual end, swayed by a supernatural motive; and upon that account acting, it cannot be but accounted an act of sincere Patience, Love, Hatred, &c. although as to the degree of it, it be but like the grain of mustard seed. For although the acts themselves, even toward such objects, may be distinguished from gracious acts; yet they cannot be conceived to be so and so qualified in any degree, but hoc ipso they must be conceived to be gracious; because in so far they are agreeable to the Law, and that not only in the matter, but in the manner of them. And this agreeablnesse to the Law, being a proof that one is Sanctified, without which no such act could be performed, it may be also an evidence of Justification, although it be not considered as a condition thereof, which is accepted by the Covenant of Grace. And although these acts be imperfect in respect of degree; yet they cannot be denied to be sincere, or perfect, in respect of their kind. Every act of the new nature in whatsoever degree being like itself, and conform to the principle from which it proceedeth; even as on the contrary, the least motion of the old man is sinful according to the root from which it flows: for, these two cannot be separated, which the Lord hath put together; a good tree must have good fruit, and cannot bring forth evil fruit, Mat. 7.17.18. &c. Now, acts in the least degree so qualified, as before is said, are in so far, at least, fruits of a good tree; yea, of a gracious principle within: and therefore they cannot but be such also. And if it were not thus, that this Angel had patience for Christ's Names sake, it could be no ground of commendation for differencing his patience, from the patience of hypocrites, if it did not sufficiently prove his carriage to be sincere. And hence,
Fourthly, Ariseth also this, that no natural man or hypocrite, though coming the greatest length in the state of hypocrisy, can in the least degree perform an act so and so qualified, as is before said, more than they can act from a principle which they have not: for, if they might in any measure have patience for Christ's Names sake, in respect of the end, motive, and account upon which the heart yieldeth to suffering, it could be no ground of a peculiar commendation to this Angel, which is yet contrary to the scope. And if the former be true, that every act so and so qualified, is a sincere act, this must necessarily then follow thereupon. And so more particularily we say, that no hypocrite can thus formally do anything that is good, as, to give instances, 1. In the duty of love to God; an hypocrite cannot love God as God, and to suffer for Christ's Names sake, as is formerly expressed. Because, 1. That is given here as the evidence of this Angel's gracious practice, that it was so qualified; and the promises that are annexed to this of suffering for his Names sake (whereat formerly we hinted) do confirm it. 2. This being true of all natural men, that they are real haters of God; and it being true also, that natural men and hypocrites may go a great length in loving God, and in expressing the evidences thereof in some respect; It must either be said then, that they hate God in respect of the materiality of their actions, or in respect of the want of the qualifications formerly mentioned, that is, because they love not him, and what he loves as such, and upon such an account: now, it cannot be said that they love not God in the former respect; Nay, not only in respect of their being defective alanerly in the degree or intenseness of the act, as may be shown afterward. It must be true therefore in the last respect. And so it will follow, that no man in nature can be said to love God, or perform any act in things materially good, according as it is formerly qualified. 3. This may be added, that if respect to good, could sway the natural man so as to make him act according to the former qualifications in any one act, then might he perform all other acts upon that same account also: for, à qua • enus ad omno, vales cons • quentia. Now, if it be absurd to say, that one can be a hypocrite, and yet in all his performances and actions be so swayed (which is the clear evidence of a sincere Professor which needeth not to be ashamed, Psal. 119.6.) Then it must also be absurd to say, that a hypocrite may perform any commanded thing upon that account as such, and is formerly qualified. 4. The doing of acts so qualified, doth necessarily presuppose a gracious principle, or habitual change in the person that acts it: for, it being a fruit, (In so far as it is so qualified) that is good, and agreeable to the Law of God in the spiritual meaning thereof, it must be supposed to proceed from a tree that is good, seeing grapes are not gathered from Brambles, &c. It cannot therefore be consistent with the state of hypocrisy, for one to perform acts so qualified, who in practice is still a stranger to the spiritual meaning of the Law in the kind of the act. 2. It may be instanced in hatred: for, though one in nature or an hypocrite may hate that which is sin; yet from this we may gather that he cannot hate it as sin, and as it is hateful to God: Because, 1. This hating of the Nicolaitans deeds, is given here as a proof of this Angels sincerity: and if it were a thing common, there could be no such peculiarnesse in it; and there can be no peculiarnesse here, but that they hated them upon that account as hateful to God, and out of zeal to him they did it: otherwise, no question, heathens and natural men might have hatred at them in greater vehemency for the degree thereof, than these who are commended. The difference then must be in the qualifications, as is said. 2. The reasons for the former instance will confirm this also: for, if one might hate sin as sin, and as hateful to God, then might he hate all sin, and what is hateful to God, according to the axiom formerly laid down, à quatenus ad omne, &c. and so he might hate his loving of anything more than God, and his being defective in the degree and manner of any duty: and consequently, he could not be said to love anything more than God, seeing no man can actually love a thing, and, upon that same account and consideration, hate that act of their love, at the same very time, in the same very degree: It must then follow, that what hatred they bear to sin, is for some other ends, and not upon this account. Again, if one might hate sin as sin, one might love grace as grace, it being equally approvable by God to hate sin as sin, and to love good as good. Now, this being disproved in the former instance, must also fall in this. Lastly, The hating of sin as sin, must suppose a different principle, whence that act doth proceed, beside what is in itself sinful: for, it cannot be conceived that a sinful principle, as such, can hate itself: and in Scripture, lusting against the flesh, or fighting against the law in our members, which must be a warring against sin as sin, and as proceeding from such a root as the flesh or the old man, is ever attributed to the Spirit, Gal. 5.17. or the inner man, and law of the mind, Rom. 7. which doth necessarily infer a change of the root in these who do hate sin as sin: and therefore this can be within the compass of no hypocrite. Neither will it infringe this, that by experience we find drunkards, swearers, and other unrenewed persons, hating not only these acts in themselves; but even in their children; or, that we may find it to have been in ourselves before regeneration: This indeed will prove that a natural man, may hate that which is sin; but will not prove that he hates it as sin, but as that which is hurtful or shameful to him, or proves disquieting to the peace of his natural conscience, as from the same experience may be gathered; for, these sins in others will never affect them; and there will still be many delightsome sins continued in, which, it may be, they will know to be sins, and yet carry no such hatred to them. And though natural men in their judgment may be convinced that sin as sin is hateful, and evil in itself; yet it will not follow that they will actually hate it as such upon that consideration: because there is no particular sin, that from the Word may be gathered to be sin, but a natural man's judgment may be convinced, that as such it is evil; and yet oftentimes do they continue drunk with the love of many of them'r because men do not consider and hate ill simply as ill, but as evil to them; even as they desire not that which is good simply, but that which they conceive good to them: and experience daily will make this appear, that the heart loveth not, or hateth not things as they appear simply in themselves, but as it conceives them to be in reference to its present condition. Now, considering sin as sin simply, without reference to any other thing, there is nothing upon that account can be conceived in it that can be hateful to a natural man, who is dead in his sinful condition. It must be therefore for some other respect that he hates any particularl ill, as these whom God afterward renews will find in their own experience.
Fifthly, This also will follow, that then there is a difference between the acts of saving Grace and the acts of common Grace, beside any consideration of the degree thereof: so that this difference may well be said to be in kind, or ipso genere. We need not be curious in the terms of Physical, or moral differences, this must be a Physical and real difference, as Grace is a Physical and real thing, and doth not only differ from common gifts in respect of the Covenants accepting of such a degree, and not of another; but also in respect of concurring qualifications formerly mentioned: for, an act performed with these qualifications, must either be of the same kind that an act is without them, or it must differ from it because of these qualifications. And if it differ because of these, then is that difference real, flowing from the kind of the act, and not from the consideration of the degree alone; and so not gradual only.
Lastly, It will follow, that one in the search and trial of the sincerity and savingnesse of his Grace, is not only to consider it in the degree thereof, either positive or comparative; but may also look to the nature and kind thereof, and cannot conclude the sincerity of it, except they consider the qualifications formerly mentioned: for, that must be the only sure way to find out the sincerity of an act, which our Lord Jesus proposeth as the ground of the commendation thereof: but here we see that the grounds upon which He commends both their patience for Him, their respect to Him, and their hating of what was evil, is, not (only at least) because of any degree, that is considered in these acts; but because of their kind, or qualifications wherewith they are qualified, as it is not patience (that is, patience as it is a Grace) because it suffers so much, or suffers more for Truth, than for any other cause, considered upon the matter; but because their suffering in a good cause was so qualified, as is said: we will see this same to be clear in all other instances, as, it is true saving Repentance, not that which hath the deepest sorrow positively, nor that which hath more sorrow for sin comparatively than pleasure in it, but it is according as the principle and motive are, from which the sorrow proceeds, and by, and according to which it acts: other ways, no question, Judas his sorrow might have been said to have been true Repentance: which was certainly not only an intense grief; but also comparatively, it affected him more than any worldly loss could affect him, or any pleasure or advantage, which by his sin accreased to him, as the story of the Gospel doth clear. The like may be said of fear, There is no positive or comparative degree can prove it to be saving, this being certain, that for degree some natural men may fear and tremble, and that with anxiety, so as the Lord may be more feared in this manner by them than any other thing else: trial then must especially be, by considering the principle whereby the person is acted in this fear, the motive that sways him to it, and the account upon which he acteth on God in it, whereby filial fear is differenced from servile: and this can be by no consideration of the degree, however considered; but must be in respect of the qualifications of the act.
If it should be said, That it's single respect to God swaying one to sorrow for sin or fear more than any other motive doth; & so in that respect, it may be said to consist in the degree.
Answ. 1. This supposeth the concurring of positive qualifications. 2. It supposeth the concurring of the same qualifications mentioned. 3. This placeth not the difference in the intenseness of the act only, but in the qualifications that have influence on it; and so it doth confirm what we said, to wit, that more respect is to be had to the nature of the act, and the qualification thereof in our trial, than to the degree thereof.
Here it is to be adverted,
1. That in all this discourse of the positive qualifications of sincerity, they are still to be considered with respect to Christ and the Covenant of Grace, so that singleness in the end, taketh in the glorifying and worshipping of God in Christ, and in the motive, the consideration of God's worth and love, as considered in Him, comes in (as the words, out of the apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, put in the definition of Repentance, do import) and in the reduplication, it acts on Him considered as such, that is, it loves God, fears him, and believs in Him as considered in Christ: and this hath an universal approbation of the way of the dispensation of Grace, and that as proceeding from a principle of life communicate to them by Christ Jesus: whereby they become not only obliged to God for it; but obliged to Him in Christ Jesus. And thus we may see, that this single respect to God and His own goodness for Himself, doth not shut out simply all respect to our own good: for, the considering of Him in Christ, cannot but include that; but it derives all our good from that Fountain, and by that Channel Christ ; and subordinateth all the thoughts thereof to the praise of God's Grace in Him. And this is to be remembered throughout: because this doth fully difference true Gospel-sincerity from the moral flashes of love, fear, faith, &c. which by some legal work may proceed from natural men, who yet can never act anything for kind the same with these qualifications: because the considering of God, and acting on Him so by love, fear, faith, &c. is really to call Him and count Him Father in whatsoever degree they be, which hath the promise of acceptation, and is a fruit of the Spirit of Adoption: for, God's Covenant runs not to him who believes at such a degree; but simply, to him that doth believe, thus qualified, whether his faith or unbelief be more or less: and so the marks run not, these that have Grace or fruits at such a bigness only; but these that have good fruits in any measure, have them from Christ; and may conclude that the tree is good: and therefore cannot but be accounted living branches, that will never be broken off: which of no hypocrite can be said, who do never bring forth their fruits in Him. And it is hard to say, that fruit brought forth by virtue and communication of life from Christ, doth not differ but in degree from fruit brought forth from, and to ourselves. Especially considering, that the Scripture doth contradistinguish them on that account, without this respect to their degree, as we may gather from Hos. 14.8. being compared with John. 15. v. 2.4.5.
2. We would advert, that this reduplication consisteth not only in the proposing of such an end, or being acted by such a motive, to wit, a command, &c. but it takes in a singleness in both, and gives such an end and motive the chief consideration in the act, whereby in the practice of duty the heart not only purposeth the pleasing of God in the giving of obedience to a command, but goes about it as a thing pleasing to God and honorable to Him, and as such doth approve of it: for, a servant may desire to please his Master, and do what he hath commanded, and yet possibly not to be single in it, as it is pleasing to him: which, as we said, is the thing wherein the great pinch of discerning these differencing qualifications will lie.
Learned Baxter, in his excellent Treatise of the Saints everlasting rest, part. 3. doth otherwise express the Doctrine of the difference and trial of saving and common Grace, than what hath been usually rested in among practical Divines, which doth necessitate us someway to insist a little further in the clearing thereof. He hath these Assertions, 1. That it is not the Law but the Covenant, that can clear the sincerity of Grace as saving, to wit, as it is accepted by the Covenant as the fulfilling of the condition thereof, pag. 205. and 206. 2. He saith that God hath not in the Covenant promised Justification upon any mere act, or acts considered without their degree and suitableness to their object, &c. pag. 210. 3. There is no act, considered in its mere nature and kind, which a true Christian may perform, but one that is unsound may perform it also, pag. 211. From which he draweth, That wicked men may really rely on Christ, have recumbencie on him, love God, &c. pag. 211. and 231. and that they may hate sin as sin, and as displeasing to God, Ibid. 4. He asserts, That the sincerity of saving Grace as saving, lieth materially, not in the bare nature thereof but in the degree; not in the degree considered absolutely in itself, but comparatively as it is prevalent against its contrary, that is, when love adhereth more to God than any other thing, and such like, pag. 222. which he endeavoreth to show both in the infused habits, and in the acts of saving Grace: and pag. 235. doth assert, That in loving God and Christ as Mediator, there is no more than a gradual difference between the regenerate and unregenerate; and in the end, he doth load the common opinion with many dangerous consequents.
These assertions do seem, at the first, to be expressly contradictory to what hath been said; yet if we will consider the explication thereof, we will not find so great difference in the matter itself as to be the rise of a new debate and controversy in the Church, wherein there are, alas I too many already; nor any just cause to reject the former received opinion for any prejudice that follows upon it: to which two we shall speak a little.
1. We conceive that the difference will not be found so great as the expressions at first seem to carry, and were it not that this opinion of his, is expressly laid down in opposition to what is commonly received, there might be not so great ground to suspect it: For. 1. the infusing of habits as necessary and antecedaneous to gracious acts, is acknowledged by both: and expressly, part. 1. pag. 158. and 159. he doth condemn the contrary in Grevinchovius, at least as an error. And, part. 3. pag. 224. he hath somewhat to the same purpose. 2. It is not questioned whether true acts of saving Grace have a rational and deliberate prevalency over the opposite lusts, as he asserts, part. 3. pag. 212, 213. that will be also granted by all Divines, that though where true Grace is, it may be captivated and not always actually prevail against the opposite suggestions of the flesh; yet in a sober and deliberate frame, the interest of God and spiritual things will have more room in the heart of one that is renewed (as he is such at least) than sinful lusts unto which the flesh doth entice.
3. It is granted also, that beside the act there is necessary for the constituting of it to be saving, a suitableness and adequatnesse to the object, which we will find in the explication thereof to be almost the same with the positive qualifications, which formerly we did lay down, as pag. 211. and 212. he doth thus express it, The sincerity of the act, as saving, consisteth in its being suited to its adequat object (considered in its respects which are essential to it as such an object) and so to believe in, and love God as God, and Christ as Christ, is the sincerity of these acts; but this lieth in believing, accepting and loving God, as the only supreme God, &c. where expressly the act is considered as acting upon its object under the reduplication formerly mentioned, and seems to be by him accounted the same with accepting and loving God above all. And again, pag. 229. to will God and Christ above all (saith he) this is to will savingly, which he explains thus, to will God and God, the chief good, and Christ as Christ the only Savior : and pag. 230. he saith, that a man may will God and Christ, who by the understanding are apprehended as the chief good (as the devils do) and yet by not willing Him as so considered, that willing is not saving, and wherefore? It must be because it wants that reduplication: which reduplication in the term as, must be indeed extended to the will, as well as to the understanding, as he there asserts; but is not to be restricted to the degree of its act, to speak so, but is to be extended also to the nature of it. Further, we will find the same learned Author elsewhere (to wit, in the Appendix to his Aphorisms, m. lib. pag. 242. In answer to the 4. objection) giving the difference between sincere Covenanting with God and that which is not sincere, where he doth lay down six concurring qualifications, and so concludes thus; Ye see that there is a great difference between covenanting sincerely and covenanting in hypocrisy, and so between faith and faith, and yet the difference will be found no other thing but what almost is usually asserted by Divines in the like case.
4. We will find him also come near in expressions, as pag. 226. a specific difference is acknowledged: and although he call it a moral specific difference ; yet doth he express the same, thus, that is proceedeth from the agreement and conformity of our actions and dispositions to the Law (which determineth of their duenesse) or their disconformitie thereunto : again, pag. 229. he instances love and delight, &c. as these things wherein sincerity may be tried, (for certainly delighting in God, is a Grace and a commanded duty, as loving of Him is) compare it with pag 213. and 214. he doth assert that hypocrites may have delight in the same objects (to wit, the knowledge of God and His Works) which are objects also of the delight of the Regenerate; but (saith he)
1. That the infused habits of Grace which are called the new nature, seed of God, the unction, and spirit, &c. do differ from the habits and dispositions that are in unrenewed men and hypocrites, and that by a real and Physical difference even in kind, may thus be made out, 1. If the Flesh and Spirit, &c. be different in kind, having different originals, and different effects, &c. Then Grace, thus considered in a renewed person, must be different in kind from what is, or can be in any hypocrite: because the one is Spirit, the other is still Flesh : and there is no mids between a natural and a renewed man, and what proceedeth from them as such: for, what is born of the one, is Spirit ; and what is born of the other, at what ever length it be, it's Flesh : But the former is true; Flesh and Spirit are most opposite in all the former respects: this, to wit, the Spirit, is an immediate effect of a Physical operation of the Grace of God working a change upon the heart; and so must have some suitable Physical thing in the nature of it, different from anything which is not produced by the same cause, or by the same manner of causality; such as common dispositions are: and in the effects, there is contrariety, the one lusteth against the other, for the one is contrary to the other, Gal. 5.17. and therefore there must be some real, Physical difference between these, whose causes and effects are so different. 2. If they do not differ in kind, then it is either because they are both fruits of the Spirit, and that equally, or, because neither of them is so, or, because that which is of the Spirit savingly, doth not differ from that which is not saving. Now, none of these can be affirmed. Concerning the last, this only can be said for answer, that although nature and saving Grace may differ so, yet common Grace cannot be said to make such a difference, it being also a fruit of the Spirit. And to this we reply, If these common gifts can be consistent with a dominion of sin, and complete deadness therein, and saving Grace cannot be consistent with these, Then there must be a real difference, seeing saving Grace not only importeth a relative change of a man, to wit, that he is justified, but also a real and Physical change, to wit, that he is a new, or renewed creature, which by no common Gifts or Graces can be: But the former is true. And therefore again, 3. If saving Grace be somewhat Physical, (to speak so) and constituteth a Physical difference between a man that hath it and others; yea, between a man and that which formerly he himself was; and if common Grace cannot do that, but the man that hath it and no more, is the old man still, and in nature, Then there must be a Physical difference between them: But the former is true. Ergo. For, this is ever certain, a man is either renewed or unrenewed and in nature, there is no mids: Now if there be any difference that is Physical between these two (which must be, as there is between a good tree and an evil, a new creature and an old, and not as between a little creature, and one that is more big: for, new and old respect the kind) Then habitual Grace must differ from all other common works Physically: because it is that which constituteth this difference. Add, 4. These common dispositions may evanish or never be so through, but the person which hath had them may perish: which cannot be said of saving Grace, called the Seed of God, immortal, and inccorruptible, that remaineth in them that once had it, &c. especially, considering that it is called immortal, in respect of the nature of it: and that, that continuance is one of the properties thereof. For although nothing of itself be eternal, and immortal but God; yet it cannot be denied but what the Lord mindeth to make immortal, He doth otherwise fit and qualify it for that end than other things, as we see in the difference that is between Angels and other creatures, and the souls and bodies of men, and of that glorious conformity that shall be put on the glorified Members of Christ unto their head. And though (as he saith) that all, both Philosophers and Divines do say more; yet this is enough: which also the forementioned Author acknowledgeth in the Appendix to his Aphorisms, pag. 240. And saving Grace being of the same nature with Glory, it were hard to say, that a man in nature, did for kind partake of the Divine nature, and of the first fruits of the Spirit and Glory, who, yet may be tormented in hell forever. Lastly, The multiplying of these common gifts, could never alter the tree and make it good; so as if it were possible that they might grow to the greatest hight and bigness, they would be still but common gifts, seeing they grow from that root: therefore the tree must first be good, ere the fruit be good. Now common gifts never being able to alter the tree, as is said, there must therefore be a difference between them and saving Grace in some other thing than in the degree. And indeed if these dispositions be of the same kind with gracious habits then the root of common and saving Grace would be one; which the Scripture doth still difference: and in this respect the habit hath not its sincerity from the acts, as if it were gracious, because the acts thereof are thus comparatively prevalent; but the acts, are gracious and prevalent, and cannot but be so, because they proceed from such an habit; and the habit is first gracious, before the acts thereof be sincere: and therefore there must be a real and Physical difference in the habit itself from common dispositions, as it is considered (at least) in order of nature, before the acts: and so, the difference doth not only lie in the acts themselves. Neither can it be said here, that habits and dispositions do not differ in kind: therefore that difference is not to be sought here: for, beside that this Assertion will find opposition among Philosophers, it can no ways be acknowledged here, where the habit is not natural, nor acquired. And certainly the names and titles, whereby the Scripture doth set forth this habitual Grace, (as the New-nature, Spirit, New-man, Newcreature, God's Workmanship, His Seed, the Heart of Flesh, &c. whereby it is not only contradistinguished in its kind from nature and flesh, taken in their most gross acception; but from all common gifts of the Spirit also) do hold forth a real difference to be between them.
2. Concerning gracious acts, that are fruits of this Spirit and grow upon this tree of habitual Grace, mainly the question is here, If that act of love, whereby a Believer loveth God, doth differ any other way than gradually, from that act of love whereby an unrenewed person loveth Him, or which he while unrenewed had unto Him, that is, that the one loveth Him above all and the other doth not, though both love Him really and in the same kind for the nature of the act? And so if this be not the only mark by which the sincerity of all Graces are to be tried? whereof this is a particular instance.
To say somewhat to this, we conceive, that the truth and reality of sincere saving Grace in its acts is otherwise to be inquired for, than in such a degree only: for, true love loveth God above all, because that is the nature of true Grace as such, to have such acts: and so it is rather a consequent following on, or a concomitant of true Grace where it is sincere, than that which constitutes the truth and sincerity thereof: although it may well (being rightly understood) evidence that: even as a Woman that loveth her Husband chastely, cannot but love him beyond any other; yet doth not that constitute the sincerity of her love; because an Adulteress may do so to an Adulterer; But especially, it is in loving him as her Husband, and according to that relation: otherwise we suppose it is not impossible for a Wife to love her Husband, beyond any other man, and yet not to do it with true conjugal love, but possibly upon some worldly (and it may be sinful) principle: which if contradicted, would soon discover that love not to be sound, as not loving him as her Husband, but for some other advantage or satisfaction, as often experience doth clear: and must not that differ from the love of another, who cleaveth to the Husband out of conscience and affection, from that conjugal relation that they stand in, and because he is her Head, even when many crosses and discontentments occur to her in her adhering to him? So it may be in other cases, a Servant may fear his Master more than any man, as a Son may do his Father; yet that there is difference in that fear (although both agree in the comparative degree, and neither of them dare offend him) none will deny. This difference then, must be in the formality of it, (to speak so) as the same person is distinctly or differently considered by the one, and the other; and as they are differently swayed, and acted in the same thing, as in the instance of filial and servile fear, is ordinarily illustrated: much more may this be conceived in the acting of grace on God, there being so many relations under which we may consider Him, and act on Him. And may it not be supposed that a Woman may at first love a Man above all others, and yet not love him for himself conjugally, who afterward being Married to him, may come to love him on other principles, and from other grounds? and though there be no difference in the comparative degree, and the first possibly seemed to be most vehement; yet is there a difference really betwixt what it was, and what it is. And if this may be in moral and natural acts, may it not be much more in spiritual saving acts, when compared with those that are not so? It's upon this ground that the acute Divine Cameron doth expressly assert, that the love whereby a Wife loveth her Husband, doth differ specie from that whereby she may warrantably love another, so that if she loved any other in the least degree with that kind of love wherewith she loveth her Husband, she were really an Adulteress. And this is when he is speaking of that question, Num Christus Mediator sit adorandus? intending thereby to show, that that kind of love, adoration, &c. which is due to God, can be given to none other in any degree, without manifest impiety. And will it look well▪ to say that warrantably we may give love and fear, &c. of the same kind to men and creatures, which we are called to give to God? and that only the degree to Him, is comparatively to be supreme; yet upon the former assertion, this will necessarily follow: for, if a Believers love, fear, &c. differ no otherwise from the love, fear, &c. of hypocrites, Then that act of love which he hath to God, must be of the same kind with what he hath to Wife, Children, &c. except in the degree: yet I suppose he would be mightily affected within himself, to approve himself to do so in the least degree. We say then, that the sincerity of Grace is not to be inquired alanerly in this prevalent and predominant comparative degree thereof; but there must be some other things concurring, at least, that constitute the difference betwixt saving acts of spiritual Grace, and these common acts which may be in hypocrites. For, if these two may be separated, that is, if there may be this comparative degree, in the common gifts or graces which an hypocrite may have, Then that which constitutes the difference of the sincerity of Grace, cannot consist in that only: for, that must be proper to saving Grace quarto modo, which doth difference it from all other things: but we may see in instances, that if we consider this degree without respect to any other thing, it may be found where saving Grace or sincerity is not; and contrarily, saving Grace may be (at least in respect of particular acts) where that degree is not. Therefore it is not that alone wherein properly, and essentially the difference doth consist.
Before we give any instances, we would premit some advertisements, especially concerning the first, which may possibly look strange-like to some, to wit, that there may be such a comparative degree of love, fear, sorrow &c. in hypocrites, who yet have nothing of sincere Grace; and that therefore sincerity is not to be tried by that comparative degree alone. Concerning which it's to be adverted,
First, That when we say, there may be in an hypocrite such a degree of love, fear, &c. that may be comparatively prevalent, that is not to be understood, as if there were love, fear, &c. in sincerity in the least degree in any hypocrite; but only this, that seeing it's certain (and this Learned Author asserteth it) that hypocrites upon carnal considerations may love and fear God in some respects, which yet is out of no true respect to God: so it may be supposed, that upon the same considerations they may come to love Him, or fear Him above any other object comparatively. Certainly upon this supposition, that it were at that degree upon these carnal considerations, it would still be but of the same kind of which it was, to wit, carnal, and hypocritical love, and servile fear. Neither can this supposition be thought strange, Seeing. 1. No hypocrite can fear God sincerely more than love Him; yet that such an one may, upon apprehensions of God's terror, fear His wrath more than all the world beside, cannot be denied. 2. Seeing also it's but some carnal motive that leadeth natural men to love anything most, why should it be thought impossible, that upon such motives and considerations, they may be swayed to love God most? Especially considering what flashes of joy may be in temporary Believers (although they continue not) and what may be supposed to have been in Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. 4. and Darius, cap. 6. and possibly in many hypocrites amongst the Jews and others, upon some signal manifestations of God's goodness to them; yet, even the supposition of the being of such a thing, although it actually had never been, Even that were enough for confirming of what we say. 3. It cannot be denied but hypocrites may have a zeal of God, which may bear great sway with them and more than any mere temporal thing, as in the instance of the Jews, Rom. 10. Yet there cannot be zeal of any kind without love of that same kind; yea, zeal presupposeth love, and that in an high and intense degree. But we shall offer some instances afterward.
Secondly, It would be adverted, that we do not assert that hypocrites may thus love or fear God habitually, and (to say so) in their ordinary strain: nay, we think it extraordinary to them to attain even to this; and that it followeth upon the back of some extraordinary manifestation, either of God's love, wrath, terror, &c. If it be said, that this meeteth not the question. Answ. Indeed that Reverend Author, stateth it upon habitual and deliberate acting; yet, considering that the thing inquired in here, is the sincerity of particular gracious acts: if there can be any particular act which hath that comparative degree, and yet is not sincere, nor will prove the person to be gracious, Then it will follow that the sincerity of particular gracious acts, is not alone, nor mainly to be inquired for in that.
Thirdly, It would be remembered, that when we speak of this prevalency in the comparative degree, that we take not the phrase largely, as including the motive, end, &c. or God's interest swaying to such an act, by such a spiritual motive, &c. but strictly, according as we held it forth in two distinctions, mentioned before this. God's interest then in this act, is not to be considered, as it respecteth motives, and compareth all these, amongst which respect to Him doth sway; but it's to be understood, as it respects the act only, without respect to the motive, what ever inducement it be that persuadeth thereto. Otherwise, as we said, the difference is but in expressions: and it's not our purpose to contend for words. And therefore in such an explication, we shall acquiesce, as to this, and we profess not to dispute against that.
If it be said, that the loving of God so comparatively above anything, is not to love Him above all: because that for which we love Him, is more beloved by us, even though thereupon we should be induced to give our lives for His Cause, &c. Answ. 1. It's true, this proveth it not to be sincere love, or to proceed from right principles and motives, as is said; and this is not intended: for even such a person hates God really, as was formerly asserted. Yet, secondly, it's such love as hypocrites use to have to other things, to wit, that love wherewith they love the world, their Patrons and Idols of any sort, which is certainly still from some selfish principle or motive: and therefore indeed still they love themselves best; yet are they said to have such things to be their Idols, and comparatively to love them above all other things, even above the Lord Himself, although it be such a motive as prevaileth with them for that end: and may not the same be acknowledged here, supposing that the Lord may for a time get that from a man upon carnal considerations which some Idol useth to have? Thirdly, We conceive it will be, in this case, argumentum ad hominem: for, this Reverend Author instanceth the prevalency of love to God and the Brethren, not in the motives that swayeth to love them most, but in the acts, being compared with other objects, that is, if God be loved above His temporal good things, if the Saints be loved more than our estate, place, &c. so as we can quite all these for them, as the former instances do clear. Now supposing it may be made out, that as to the effects, hypocrites may so love God and the Saints, as to abandon all their temporal satisfactions for them, and possibly even their life (which is the only thing that that Reverend Author saith was desiderated in the love of some in Queen Mary's days, pag. 237.238.239.) though still upon carnal principles and motives: Then it will follow that the assertion as formerly understood, will be sufficient to oppose that proposition, that the difference betwixt saving and common grace is only gradual, and that in respect of such a degree as is explained. Now we come to instances.
1. We may find it in love : one that is an hypocrite, may in some respect (as is qualified) love God above all: For, 1. May it not be said from the zeal that many Jews had, that they loved God above all; and out of their blind zeal would have preferred Him to their lives, or what else was dear to them? Yea, 2. Was not that in Paul while yet a Pharisee before his Conversion, who in some respect had that testimony from his Conscience, that zeal and love to God put him to all that he did, so that it is like he could have suffered the loss of all things in that quarrel? yet, it cannot be said, but that his love to God after his Conversion was exceedingly different from what it was before, although in this comparative degree it might be some way the same, to wit, he loved God above all before; and he continued to do so thereafter, but with love, far otherwise qualified, than formerly he did. If it be said, that although the Jews and Paul had a zeal of, and did love God above all; yet, was it not according to knowledge, as is said, Rom. 10. and so could not be accepted by the Covenant as sincere love. Answ. This is truth, and doth confirm our assertion: for, wherefore was it not accounted sincere, and as such accepted? It cannot be said simply, because they loved some other thing better: for, the degree of their zeal and love, is not controverted; but it is in respect of the qualifications thereof, it was not according to knowledge, that is, in a word, not regulated and qualified in respect of the principle, end, motive, and account thereof, according to the rule whereby true love should vent, which in their ignorance they could not do; and therefore still there is something beside this degree necessary to the constituting of the sincerity of love, that it may be acceptable: and so in other acts, this must ever be presupposed, that they be according to knowledge, that is, 1. That the matter of it be right in itself. 2. That the manner be according to the rule prescribed, that is, not only God's glory for the end, but the glorifying of Him according as He requireth and prescribeth. 3. That both these be known to the person. And, 4. That as such he perform them; and upon that account, act in them, as they agree to His will: otherwise it can never be accounted to be an act according to knowledge, as in the former instance is clear: whereby it appeareth, that the sincerity of an act, and this prevalent comparative degree thereof, may be separated.
Thirdly, That men may love their Idols above all, cannot be denied, seeing men are naturally mad upon their Idols, so Turks love their Mahomet, Baal's Prophets their Baal, even beyond their own lives. Now, may not one love God and Christ, as one may love Mahomet or their Idols? This Argument is also made use of by the forcited Author, to prove that a natural man may love Christ really for kind, pag. 236, 237. And will not this • ame hold in respect of the degree also? Considering that there is as good ground, and more, even in a human respect, for Historical faith to believe the truth of the being and worth of God, and Jesus Christ, and as much proof and experience of the advantages and benefits that come from him, as there are for any to be assured of the being and worth of Mahomet, Jupiter, Apollo, &c. Now suppose one that formerly loved Mahomet, or Jupiter, above all, should by the force of Historical faith, or some extraordinary deliverance be brought to account of, and love the only true God, as he did formerly love Mahomet or his Idols, could that be accounted to be sincere love, because the object were changed? Supposing still no change to be in the man, nor intrinsickly in the act itself in respect of its kind? and yet upon the supposition foresaid, this act would not be defective in respect of the comparative degree, supposing him to love God now, as formerly he did his Idol: It must therefore be in kind. And may not such acts as have proceeded from Nebuchadnezzar and other hypocrites, upon special and singular appearances of God, be accounted such, wherein there was some kind of reality as to their actual esteeming of God above all; yet still being without sincerity, as the zeal of the Jews was, because God was not esteemed of according to knowledge, that is, as in Christ Jesus: in which respect He hath manifested Himself in His Word, and without which, there can be no degree of love acceptable to Him.
Fourthly, Might not one have loved Christ above all, while He was upon earth, from the convictions of the worth that was evidently seen in Him, and from particular favors, received from Him, suppose of health, freedom from the rage of the devil, &c. as one man may love another, especially His benefactor above all things, so that He may become his Idol? Now, suppose it had been so (which was not impossible) that men had known and loved Christ thus after the flesh (as the Apostle speaketh, 2 Corinth. 5.17.) could that have proven that love to be sincere? And yet the fault, is not in respect of that degree.
Again, we may instance it in faith : for, that one may trust Christ in some respect above all, is clear by the many examples of the faith of miracles, and that both active, and passive; yet is it also clear that saving faith is of another nature, and hath other qualifications concurring in it's acting as such: the first acteth on Him, as powerful to bring forth such an act, and in respect of some particular manifestation of His Will for the bringing forth thereof; the other considereth Him as a Savior offered to us by God's faithfulness in the Word; and for that end, to wit, Salvation; and upon that account, to wit, as offered, and as such, it receiveth Him and resteth on Him, being moved thereunto by its giving credit to the faithfulness of God in respect of His Covenant and offer of special Grace. So, to be willing to have Christ, is a main act of Faith; and that one in nature may in some respect be willing to have Christ and Heaven above all, cannot be denied, especially by this Author. Neither can it be said, that this respect to God and Christ, is inferior to their love to earthly blessings, which they prefer to Him, as is insinuated, pag. 237. for certainly they may esteem Him beyond temporal blessings: therefore they will suffer the loss of these, and their life itself upon this presumptuous ground of gaining Him by the abandoning of these; yet cannot that be accounted sincere willing, because they will Him not as such, and according to the terms of His Covenant.
Further it may be instanced in fear, repentance, love to the brethren, &c. as was formerly hinted: wherein we will find that natural men may come to this comparative degree in respect of the external object, to wit, to fear God more than to fear men, or any other thing; to sorrow for sin in such a degree, that it may prevail over delight in it, and love to it: wherein the comparative degree that constituteth the sincerity thereof, is instanced, pag. 231, 232. and they may love the brethren so as to relive, clothe, visit them, &c. and for this end to part with their own case and estate, which is the degree that is only marked as wanting to such as loved the Saints; but yet could not part with temporal things for them, pag. 239. and upon this ground it is, we conceive, that pag. 232. this necessary advertisement is given, That these graces which are expressed by the passion, as fear, love, joy, &c. are not so certainly to be tried by the passion that is in them, as by the will that is contained in them or supposed to them : which must either be to show, that sometimes the vehemency of the passion may seem more towards one object, suppose in fear of men, or love to creatures; when yet the will rationally feareth and loveth God more: or, it is added to show that something must be respected in the trial beside the degree simply; so that this degree is not to be accounted the alone mark of trial: otherwise this advertisement were needless. And what is spoken of the will its acting rationally in its act, as contradistinguished from the passion, or act of the sensitive part, must infer some concurring qualifications to be necessary in the act of the will, which cannot be in the sensitive part, which doth necessarily infer a racite acknowledging of the necessity of observing something in the nature of the act, beside this degree alone, for the evidencing of the sincerity thereof.
On the other side, may not habits for a time be without acts, at least, without acts prevalent in respect of this degree? Now then, what shall be judged of such acts, suppose of love, fear, faith, &c. which for a time are prevailed over, and the heart is led captive by the opposites? They cannot be denied to be sincere acts of Grace; nor can it be said, that there are none such at all: for, in that one place, Rom. 7. we will find the Apostle speaking of such motions of the Spirit or Inner-man, which yet prevail not as to the effect, but the heart is led captive over them, so that what he would, that he doth not; and he is led captive to the law of sin, over the law of his mind; yet, even then doth he acknowledge these acts of the Inner-man to be sincere acts of Grace: and therefore doth comfort himself in them; and doth oppose them to the law of sin in his members, which otherwise he could not do. And this sincerity cannot flow from this degree, which then is not: it must therefore flow from the kind thereof, and so be contradistinguished in that respect from any common work of a hypocrite. If it be said here, that it is true love, faith, &c. that in its sober, composed and deliberate rational actings doth prefer God, although at fits and times it may be overpowered; and that in this respect Paul did in his deliberate actings, prevail over the Law of his members, though by its surprizals it did captivate him. Answ. Although this be granted to be truth; yet it will not infringe the Argument: because we ask not only what Paul was in respect of his state, or of his deliberate acting, but what these motions and stirrings of the Spirit in him were, that were overpowered, whether even these were gracious and sincere, or not? For, if these stirrings be acts, as is acknowledeged, pag. 224. they must either be sincere, or not; it cannot be said, not, upon the grounds formerly given; they must be then sincere: and if sincere, then they must be sincere, not in respect of the prevalency of the degree; but in respect of the nature of the act itself, as is said. For although we say that such a person did in his ••• ionallacting of love, &c. prefer God above all; yet that would only prove that the person were habitually gracious, and a true lover of God; or, prove that once he hath had acts truly sincere; but that could never be the ground upon which the sincerity of these present acts could be founded. And so as the close of all, seeing this prevalent degree may be separated from sincere acts, and may be in acts that are not sincere in the manner qualified & contrà : Therefore the formal reason of sincerity, is not to be inquired in it alone. If it be said, that even in such acts wherein corruption prevaileth in the affection or passions; yet Grace is still prevalent in the will. Answ. Then whether can it be said that there is no true Grace in the affections, or, whether the actings thereof in them be not sincere, although not prevalent? If they be gracious, even as such, Then the Argument doth still hold, that Grace may be sincere where it prevaileth not as to the effect: if it be denied that they are sincere as such, Then it will follow that true Grace is not universal as to the subject thereof; or, that it may be sincere in the will and not in the affections: which yet are acts of the same Grace and soul, in so far as renewed, striving with itself in so far as unrenewed. Beside, prevalency is but in the will as renewed, so that it is only as such induced to dissent or consent; whereas that same will, as unrenewed, yieldeth over that dissent of the renewed will: whereby it cometh to pass that acts are elicited thereby, which the renewed part did oppose; and so indeed, as to the effect, the renewed will is not prevalent: because that is not acted, which it would be at; yea, acts are elicited by the will, as is said, which, had the renewed part been prevalent, had not been at all, which showeth that in such a case there is a prevalency, even in the will.
If it be said further, That the love wherewith natural men love God, as it is formerly described, is but still self-love: because they love not God as God; but upon some other self-account: and therefore do still love themselves more; and so do not love God above all sovereignly: because they love Him not for the goodness that is in Himself; whereas if God's interest were main and chief in that love, it were to be accounted sincere: and this presupposing the habits to be infused, this sovereign interest of God in the act will take in the end, motive, and that which we called the reduplication of the act. Answ. If that Assertion, that sincerity doth lie in the comparative prevalent degree, be thus explained, as to take in God's interest as sovereign in the end, motive, and formal consideration of the act, Then it cometh indeed to be one: and if so, then there were no reason to fall out with the Doctrine that ordinarily is delivered concerning this: and, for the expressions we will not contend, as we formely said: but when we consider the explication of the Author, especially as it is opposed to the common Doctrine, it seemeth that he meaneth the sovereignty of God's interest in respect of objects, compared together, that is, God more sovereignly loved, feared, and trusted, than any other; and doth not take in the consideration of God in the motive, end, and formal consideration of the act, which hath influence on the person for bringing forth of such an act; and so on the act itself, that is brought forth: for, the comparison runneth thus, betwixt the objects, flesh and spirit, who doth preva • l most on the heart, but is not in comparing the motive and other qualifications of that act, which materially is spiritual: and therefore still in that respect, the former Argument will hold, and the ordinary expressions will suit better to the thing.
It may be further argued against the placing of the nature of sincerity in the prevalent degree alone, Thus, if the acts of saving grace be sincere, before they be in this degree prevalent, Then this prevalency of the degree, cannot be the thing that constitutes the sincerity thereof, much less alone be it; But the former is truth, That act of love, faith, &c. is saving, which is wrestling against its opposites, so as to win the heart to love God more than all other objects, even before it attain it: For, we are to suppose this method, 1. Gracious habits are supposed as infused, whereby the tree is made good. Then 2. That these habits have their inclinations and acts, that lust against the flesh, and fight with the flesh for winning of the heart to the following of its motions: and as fighting goeth before the Victory; so in this spiritual combat, do these lustings and actings go before the prevalent degree, and by these the heart is engaged to love God above all; whereupon followeth that prevalency as a degree of Victory. And yet we suppose, that were the least sparkle of grace kindled in the heart, so that it were but smoking in desires of love to God and faith in Him, it cannot be denied to be sincere; although it hath not broken out in a flame. For, if this prevalent degree be in some respect an effect of these stirrings, these stirrings must be sincere before they come this length, as to prevail: for, they were acts before, and if not gracious acts, then how could acts that are of themselves unsound, produce an effect that is sincere, seeing the cause must be of the same nature, and as noble as the effect? And so consequently its sincerity doth not flow from this degree; but on the contrary rather, this degree is attained by these stirrings, because such stirrings, are acts of sincere love and grace: whereas they are extinguished in another, and come not up that length (at least in the former respects) because these stirrings were for their kind unsound: and so natively the actings and stirrings of grace of any kind, must go before, either the prevalency or repulse thereof. For, supposing creatures once to have the heart of man, there is first an eslaying (as it were) by some inward motions to gain the heart from these, before actually it be gai