THE
DUTY OF PASTORS AND PEOPLE DISTINGUISHED:
or,
a brief discourse touching the administration of things
commanded in religion;
especially concerning the means to be used by the people of
God (distinct from church officers) for the increasing of divine knowledge
in themselves and others:
wherein bounds are prescribed to their performances; their
liberty is enlarged to the utmost extent of the dictates of nature and
rules of charity; their duty laid down in directions drawn from Scripture
precepts and the practice of God’s people in all ages.
Together with
the several ways of extraordinary calling to the office of
public teaching,
with what assurance such teachers may have of their calling,
and what evidence they can give of it unto others.
By John Owen, M.A.,
of Q. Col. O.
M.DC.XLIV
Prefatory note.
The title-page of the following
treatise indicates that it was published in the year 1644; but in the
second chapter of “The Review of the True Nature of Schism,” in this
volume, it is stated that the date is a misprint for 1643. The work is
dedicated to Sir Edward Scot, in
whose family, it would appear, the author had for some time resided, and
who had offered him some “ecclesiastical preferment” when it was vacant.
Owen here declares himself to be in
sentiment a Presbyterian, in opposition to Prelacy and Independency. He
afterwards changed his views on church-government; but in the work on
schism, to which we have just referred, he declares that, on the subjects
under discussion in this treatise, his principles had undergone no
essential change: “When I compare what I then wrote with my present
judgment, I am scarce able to find the least difference between the one and
the other.”
Two chapters of the work are occupied with a statement of
the provision made for conducting religious instruction and worship under
the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations. An interesting chapter follows
on the spiritual priesthood of all believers, as destructive of the
superstitions tenet which invests the office of the ministry with esoteric
virtue and sanctity. The several ways under which men may be constrained,
under an extraordinary call, to impart religious instruction publicly to
others, are next considered. The treatise closes with an assertion of the
right and obligation of private Christians to conduct certain kinds of
divine worship, without interfering with the official functions of the
Christian ministry.
The tractate to which he alludes, “De Sacerdotio Christi, contra Armin. Socin. et
Papistas,” is described as not yet published, and seems never
to have been published. It may have supplied part of the long and valuable
exercitations on the priesthood of Christ prefixed to the Exposition of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, as, from the slight allusion to it in this
treatise, the same topics appear to have been handled in it. He refers,
also, in the close of this treatise, to an answer, drawn up for the
satisfaction of some private friends, to the arguments of the Remonstrants
for liberty of prophesying. Mr Orme
supposes this unpublished document to be identical with the “Tractatus de Christi Sacerdotio.” We are not
aware of any grounds for supposing such an identity. The subjects which
these unpublished tracts seem to have discussed are obviously different. —
Ed.
I have perused this Discourse
touching “The Administration of Things Commanded in Religion,” and conceive
it written with much clearness of judgment and moderation of spirit; and
therefore do approve of it to be published in print.
Joseph
Caryl
May 11, 1644.
To the truly noble and my ever honoured friend,
Sir Edward Scot,
of Scot’s Hall in Kent,
Knight
of the Honourable Order of the Bath.
Sir,
Having of late been deprived of the happiness to see you, I
make bold to send to visit you; and because that the times are troublesome,
I have made choice of this messenger, who, having obtained a license to
pass, fears no searching. He brings no news, at least to you, but that
which was from the beginning, and must continue unto the end, which you
have heard, and which (for some part thereof) you have practised out of the
word of God. He hath no secret messages prejudicial to the state of church
or commonwealth; neither, I hope, will he entertain any such comments by
the way, considering from whom he comes and to whom he goes; of whom the
one would disclaim him and the other punish him. Ambitious I am not of any
entertainment for these few sheets, neither care much what success they
find in their travel, setting them out merely in my own defence, to be
freed from the continued solicitations of some honest, judicious men, who
were acquainted with their contents, being nothing but an hour’s country
discourse, resolved from the ordinary pulpit method into its own
principles. When I first thought of sending it to you, I made full account
to use the benefit of the advantage in recounting of and returning thanks
for some of those many undeserved favours which I have received from you;
but addressing myself to the performance, I fainted in the very entrance,
finding their score so large that I know not where to begin, neither should
I know how to end. Only one I cannot suffer to lie hid in the crowd,
though other engagements hindered me from embracing it — namely, your free
proffer of an ecclesiastical preferment, then vacant and in your donation.
Yet, truly, all received courtesies have no power to oblige me unto you in
comparison of that abundant worth which, by experience, I have found to be
dwelling in you. Twice, by God’s providence, have I been with you when
your county hath been in great danger to be ruined, — once by the horrid
insurrection of a rude, godless multitude, and again by the invasion of a
potent enemy prevailing in the neighbour county; at both which times,
besides the general calamity justly feared, particular threatenings were
daily brought unto you: under which sad dispensations, I must crave leave
to say (only to put you in mind of yourself, if it should please God again
to reduce you to the like straits), that I never saw more resolved
constancy, more cheerful, unmoved Christian courage in any man. Such a
valiant heart in a weak body, such a directing head where the hand was but
feeble, such unwearied endeavours under the pressures of a painful
infirmity, so well advised resolves in the midst of imminent danger, did I
then behold, as I know not where to parallel. Neither can I say less, in
her kind, of your virtuous lady, whose known goodness to all, and
particular indulgences to me, make her, as she is in herself,
very precious in my thoughts and remembrance: whom having named, I desire
to take the advantage thankfully to mention her worthy son, my noble and
very dear friend C. Westrow; whose
judgment to discern the differences of these times, and his valour in
prosecuting what he is resolved to be just and lawful, place him among the
number of those very few to whom it is given to know aright the causes of
things, and vigorously to execute holy and laudable designs. But farther
of him I choose to say nothing, because if I would, I cannot but say too
little. Neither will I longer detain you from the ensuing discourse, which
I desire to commend to your favourable acceptance, and with my hearty
prayers that the Lord would meet you and yours in all those ways of mercy
and grace which are necessary to carry you along through all your
engagements, until you arrive at the haven of everlasting glory, where you
would be. I rest your most obliged servant in Jesus Christ, our common
Master,
John Owen.
Preface.
The glass of our lives seems to run
and keep pace with the extremity of time. The end of those “ends of the
world” which began with the gospel is doubtless coming
upon us. He that was instructed what should be till time should be no
more, said it was
ἐσχάτη ὥρα, the last hour, in his time. Much sand cannot be
behind, and Christ shakes the glass; many minutes of that hour cannot
remain; the next measure we are to expect is but “a moment, the twinkling
of an eye, wherein we shall all be changed.’’ Now, as if the horoscope of the
decaying age had some secret influence into the wills of men to comply with
the decrepit world, they generally delight to run into extremes. Not that
I would have the fate of the times to bear the faults of men, like him who
cried, Οὐκ ἐγὼ αἴτιός εἰμι ἀλλὰ Ζεὺς καὶ
μοῖρα, to free himself, entitling God and fate to his sins; but only
to show how the all-disposing providence of the Most High works such a
compliance of times and persons as may jointly drive at his glorious aims,
causing men to set out in such seasons as are fittest for their travel.
This epidemical disease of the aged world is the cause why, in that great
diversity of contrary opinions wherewith men’s heads and hearts are now
replenished, the truth pretended to be sought with so much earnestness may
be often gathered up quite neglected between the parties litigant. “Medio tutissimus” is a sure rule, but that
fiery spirits, —
“Pyroeis, Eous, et Æthon,
― Quartusque Phlegon,” —
will be mounting. In the matter concerning which I propose
my weak essay, some would have all Christians to be almost
ministers; others, none but ministers to be God’s
clergy. Those would give the people the keys, these use them to
lock them out of the church; the one ascribing to them primarily all
ecclesiastical power for the ruling of the congregation, the other
abridging them of the performance of spiritual duties for the building of
their own souls: as though there were no habitable earth between the valley
(I had almost said the pit) of democratical confusion and the
precipitous rock of hierarchical tyranny. When unskilful archers
shoot, the safest place to avoid the arrow is the white. Going as
near as God shall direct me to the truth of this matter, I hope to avoid
the strokes of the combatants on every side; and therefore will not handle
it ἐριστικῶς, with opposition to any
man or opinion, but δογματικῶς,
briefly proposing mine own required judgment: the summary result whereof
is, that the sacred calling may retain its ancient dignity, though the
people of God be not deprived of their Christian liberty. To clear which
proposal some things I shall briefly premise.
The
Duty of Pastors and People Distinguished.
Chapter I.
Of the administration of holy things among the patriarchs before
the law.
Concerning the ancient patriarchs:
From these, some, who would have Judaism to be but an intercision of
Christianity,
derive the pedigree of Christians, affirming the difference between us and
them to be solely in the name, and not the thing itself. Of this, thus
much at least is true, that “the law of commandments contained in
ordinances” did much more diversify the administration of the
covenant before and after Christ than those plain moralities wherewith in
their days it was clothed. Where the assertion is deficient, antiquity
hath given its authors sanctuary from farther pursuit. Their practice,
then, were it clear, can be no precedent for Christians. All light brought
to the gospel, in comparison of those full and glorious beams that shine in
itself, is but a candle set up in the sun; yet for their sakes who found
out the former unity, I will (not following the conceit of any, nor the
comments of many) give you such a bare narration, as the Scripture will
supply me withal, of their administration of the holy things and practice
of their religion (as it seems Christianity, though not so called). And
doubt you not of divine approbation and institution; for all prelacy, at
least until Nimrod hunted for preferment, was “de jure divino.”
I find, then, that before the giving of the law, the chief
men among the servants of the true God did, every one in their own
families, with their neighbours adjoining of the same persuasion, perform
those things which they knew to be required, by the law of nature,
tradition, or special revelation (the unwritten word of those
times), in the service of God; instructing their children and servants in
the knowledge of their creed concerning the nature and goodness of God, the
fall and sin of man, the use of sacrifices, and the promised seed (the sum
of their religion); and, moreover, performing τὰ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, things appertaining unto God. This
we have delivered concerning Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Lot,
Isaac, Jacob, Jethro, Job, and others. Now, whether they did this as any way
peculiarly designed unto it as an office, or rather in obedient duty to the
prime law of nature, in which and to whose performance many of them were
instructed and encouraged by divine revelation (as seems most probable), is
not necessary to be insisted on. To me, truly, it seems evident that there
were no determinate ministers of divine worship before the law; for where
find we any such office instituted? where the duties of those officers
prescribed? or were they of human invention? God would never allow
that in any regard the will of the creature should be the measure of his
honour and worship. “But the right and exercise of the priesthood,” say
some, “was in the first-born;” but a proof of this will be for ever
wanting. Abel was not Adam’s eldest son, yet, if any thing were peculiar
to such an office, it was by him performed. That both the brothers carried
their sacrifices to their father is a vain surmise. Who was priest, then, when Adam died? Neither can
any order of descent be handsomely contrived. Noah had three sons: grant
the eldest only a priest; were the eldest sons of his other sons priests,
or no? If not, how many men fearing God were scattered over the face of
the earth utterly deprived of the means of right worship! if so, there must
be a new rule produced beyond the prescript of nature, whereby a man may be
enabled by generation to convey that to others which he hath not in
himself. I speak not of Melchizedek and his extraordinary priesthood; why
should any speak where the Holy Ghost is silent? If we pretend to know
him, we overthrow the whole mystery, and run cross to the apostle,
affirming him to be ἀπάτορα ἀμήτορα,
Without father, mother, or genealogy. For so long time, then, as the
greatest combination of men was in distinct families (which sometimes were
very great), politics and economics being of the same
extent, all the way of instruction in the service and knowledge of God was
by the way of paternal admonition, — for the discharge of which
duty Abraham is commended, Gen. xviii.
19; whereunto the instructors had no particular engagement, but
only the general obligation of the law of nature. What rule they had for
their performances towards God doth not appear. All positive law, in every
kind, is ordained for the good of community. That then being not,
no such rule was assigned until God gathered a people, and lifted up the
standard of circumcision for his subjects to repair unto. The world in the
days of Abraham beginning generally to incline to idolatry and
polytheism, the first evident irreconcilable division was made between his people
and the malignants, which before lay hid in his decree. Visible signs and
prescript rules were necessary for such a gathered church. This before I
conceive to have been supplied by special revelation.
The law of nature a long time prevailed for the
worship of the one true God. The manner of this worship, the generality
had at first (as may be conceived) from the vocal instruction of Adam, full
of the knowledge of divine things; this afterward their children had from
them by tradition, helped forward by such who received
particular revelations in their generation, such as Noah, thence
called “A preacher of righteousness.” So knowledge of God’s will
increased,
until sin quite prevailed, and “all flesh had corrupted his way.” All
apostasy for the most part begins in the will, which is more bruised by the
fall than the understanding. Nature is more corrupted in respect of the
desire of good than the knowledge of truth. The knowledge of God would
have flourished longer in men’s minds had not sin banished the love of God
out of their hearts.
The sum is, that before the giving of the law, every one in
his own person served God according to that knowledge he had of his will.
Public performances were assigned to none, farther than the obligation of
the law of nature to their duty in their own families. I have purposely
omitted to speak of Melchizedek, as I said before, having spoken all that I
can or dare concerning him on another occasion. Only this I will add: they
who so confidently affirm him to be Shem, the son of Noah, and to have his
priesthood in an ordinary way, by virtue of his primogeniture, might have
done well to ask leave of the Holy Ghost for the revealing of that which he
purposely concealed to set forth no small mystery, by them quite
overthrown. And he who of late makes him look upon Abraham and the four
kings, all of his posterity, fighting for the inheritance of Canaan (of
which cause of their quarrel the Scripture is silent), robs him at least of
one of his titles, a “king of peace,” making him neither king nor
peaceable, but a bloody grandsire, that either could not or would not part
his fighting children, contending for that whose right was in him to bestow
on whom he would.
And thus was it with them in the administration of sacred
things: There was no divine determination of the priestly office on any
order of men. When things appertaining unto God were to be performed in
the name of a whole family (as afterward, 1 Sam. xx.
6), perhaps the honour of the performance was by consent given
to the first-born. Farther; the way of teaching others was by paternal
admonition (so Gen. xviii.
19); motives thereunto, and rules of their proceeding therein, being the law of nature and special revelation.
Prescription of positive law, ordained for the good of community, could
have no place when all society was domestical. To instruct others (upon
occasion) wanting instruction, for their good, is an undeniable dictate of
the first principles of nature, obedience to which was all the ordinary
warrant they had for preaching to any beyond their own families; observed
by Lot, Gen. xix. 7, though his sermon
contained a little false doctrine, verse 8.
Again; as special revelation leaves a great impression on the mind of him
to whom it is made, so an effectual obligation for the performance of what
it directeth unto: “The lion hath roared, who will not fear? the Lord God hath spoken, who can but prophesy?” Amos iii. 8. And this was Noah’s
warrant for those performances from whence he was called “A preacher of
righteousness,” 2 Pet. ii.
5. Thus, although I do not find any determinate order of
priesthood by divine institution, yet do I not thence conclude, with Aquin. 12. æ. quest. 3. a 1. (if I noted
right at the reading of it), that all the worship of God (I mean for the
manner of it) was of human invention, yea, sacrifices themselves; for this
will-worship, as I showed before, God always rejected. No doubt but
sacrifices and the manner of them were of divine institution, albeit their
particular original in regard of precept, though not of practice, be to us
unknown. For what in all this concerns us, we may observe that a
superinstitution of a new ordinance doth not overthrow any thing that went
before in the same kind, universally moral or extraordinary, nor at all
change it, unless by express exception; as, by the introduction of the
ceremonial law, the offering of sacrifices, which before was common to all,
was restrained to the posterity of Levi. Look, then, what performances in
the service of God that primitive household of faith was in the general
directed unto by the law of nature, the same, regulated by gospel light
(not particularly excepted), ought the generality of Christians to perform;
which what they were may be collected from what was fore-spoken.
Chapter II.
Of the same among the Jews, and of the duty of that people
distinct from their church officers.
Concerning the Jews after the
giving of Moses’ law: The people of God were then gathered in one, and a
standard was set up for all his to repair unto, and the church of God
became like a city upon a hill, conspicuous to all, and a certain rule set
down for every one to observe that would approach unto him.
As, then, before the law, we sought for the manner of God’s worship from
the practice of men, so now, since the change of the external
administration of the covenant, from the prescription of God.
Then we guessed at what was commanded by what was done;
now, at what was done by what was commanded. And this is all the
certainty we can have in either kind, though the consequence from the
precept to the performance, and on the contrary, in this corrupted state of
nature, be not of absolute necessity; only, the difference is, where things
are obscured, it is a safer way to prove the practice of men by God’s
precept, charitably supposing them to have been obedient, than to wrest the
divine rule to their observation, knowing how prone men are to deify
themselves by mixing their inventions with the worship of God. The
administration of God’s providence towards his church hath been various,
and the communication of himself unto it, at “sundry times,” hath been in
“divers manners;” especially, it pleased him not to bring it to perfection
but by degrees, as the earth bringeth forth fruit; “first the blade, then
the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.” Thus, the church, before the giving of Moses’
law, seems to have had two main defects, which the Lord at that
time supplied; — one in discipline or government, in that every
family exercised the public worship of God within itself or apart (though
some do otherwise conclude from Gen. iv.
26), which was first removed by establishing a consistory of
elders; the other in the doctrine, wanting the rule of the written
word, being directed by tradition, the manifold defects whereof were made
up by a special revelation. To neither of these defects was the church
since exposed. Whether there was any thing written before the giving of
the law is not worth contending about. Austin thought Enoch’s prophecy was written by him; and Josephus affirms that there were two pillars erected, one
of stone, the other of brick, before the flood, wherein divers things were
engraven; and Sixtus
Senensis, that the book of the wars of the Lord was a volume
ancienter than the books of Moses; — but the contrary opinion is most
received: so Chrysost. Hom. 1. in Mali.
After its giving, none ever doubted of the perfection of the written word
for the end to which it was ordained, until the Jews had broached their
Talmud to oppose Christ, and the Papists their traditions to advance
Antichrist; doubtless the sole aim of the work, whatever were the
intentions of the workmen.
The lights which God maketh are sufficient to rule the
seasons for which they are ordained. As, in creating of the world, God”
made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and
the lesser light to rule the night;” so, in the erection of the new world
of his church, he set up two great lights, the lesser light of the Old
Testament to guide the night, the dark space of time under the law, and the
greater light of the New Testament to rule the glorious day of the gospel.
And these two lights do sufficiently enlighten every man that cometh into
this new world. There is no need of the false fire of tradition where God
sets up such glorious lights. This be premised for the proneness of men to
deflect from the golden rule and heavenly pole-star in the investigation of
the truth, especially in things of this nature concerning which we treat,
wherein ordinary endeavours are far greater in searching after what men
have done than what they ought to have done; and when the fact is once
evidenced from the pen of a rabbi or a father, presently to conclude the
right. Amongst many, we may take a late treatise, for instance, entitled,
“Of Religious Assemblies and the Public Service of
God,” whose author would prescribe the manner of
God’s worship among Christians from the custom of the Jews; and their
observations he would prove from the rabbis, not at all taking notice that
from such observances they were long ago recalled to the “law and to the
testimony,” and afterward for them sharply rebuked by Truth itself. Doubtless it is a worthy knowledge to be able,
and a commendable diligence, to search into those coiners of curiosities;
but to embrace the fancies of those wild heads, which have nothing but
novelty to commend them, and to seek their imposition on others, is but an
abusing of their own leisure and others’ industry. The issue of such a
temper seems to be the greatest part of that treatise; which because I wait
only for some spare hours to demonstrate in a particular tract, I shall for
the present omit the handling of divers things there spoken of, though
otherwise they might very opportunely here be mentioned, — as the office
and duty of prophets, the manner of God’s worship in their synagogues, the
original and institution of their later teachers, scribes and Pharisees,
etc., and briefly only observe those things which are most immediately
conducing to my proposed subject.
The worship of God among them was either moral or
ceremonial and typical. The performances belonging unto the latter, with
all things thereunto conducing, were appropriated, to them whom God had
peculiarly set apart for that purpose. By ceremonial worship I
understand all sacrifices and offerings, the whole service of the
tabernacle, and afterward of the temple; all which were typical, and
established merely for the present dispensation, not without purpose of
their abrogation, when that which was to be more perfect should appear. Now, the several officers, with their distinct employments
in and about this service, were so punctually prescribed and limited by
Almighty God, that as none of them might ἀλλοτριοεπισκοπεῖν, without presumptuous impiety,
intrude into the function of others not allotted to them, as Num. xvi. 1–10; so none of their
brethren might presume to intrude into the least part of their office
without manifest sacrilege, Josh. xxii. 11–20. True it is,
that there is mention of divers in the Scripture that offered sacrifices,
or vowed so to do, who were strangers from the priest’s office, yea, from
the tribe of Levi: as Jephthah, Judges ix.;
Manoah, chap. xiii.; David, 2
Sam. vi., and again, chap.
xxiv.; Solomon, 1 Kings
iii., and again, chap. ix.
But following our former rule of interpreting the practice by the precept,
we may find, and that truly, that all the expressions of their offerings
signify no more but they brought those things to be offered, and caused the
priests to do what in their own persons they ought not to perform. Now,
hence, by the way, we may observe that the people of God under the New
Testament, contradistinct from their teachers, have a greater interest in
the performance of spiritual duties belonging to the worship of God, and
more in that regard is granted unto them and required of them than was of
the ancient people of the Jews, considered as distinguished from their
priests, because their duty is prescribed unto them under the notion of
these things which then were appropriate only to the priests, as of
offering incense, sacrifice, oblations, and the like; which, in their
original institution, were never permitted to the people of the Jews, but
yet tralatitiously and by analogy are enjoined to all Christians But of
these afterward.
The main question is about the duty of the people of God in
performances for their own edification, and the extent of their lawful
undertakings for others’ instruction. For the first, which is of nearest
concernment unto themselves, the sum of their duty in this kind may be
reduced to these two heads:— First, To hear the word and law of
God read attentively, especially when it was expounded;
secondly, To meditate therein themselves, to study it by
day and night, and to get their senses exercised in that rule of their
duty: concerning each of which we have both the precept and the practice,
God’s command and their performance. The one in that injunction given unto
the priest, Deut. xxxi. 11–13 “When all Israel
is come to appear before the Lord thy God, in the
place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in
their hearing. Gather the people together, men, and women, and children,
and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that
they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and
observe to do all the words of this law; and that their children, which
have not known, may hear and learn.” All which we find punctually
performed on both sides, Neh. viii.
1–8. Ezra the priest, standing on a pulpit of wood,
read the law and gave the meaning of it; and the “ears of all the people
were attentive to the book of the law.” Which course continued until there
was an end put to the observances of that law; as Acts xv.
21, “Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him,
being read in the synagogues every sabbath-day.” On which ground, not
receding from their ancient observations, the people assembled to hear our
Saviour teaching with authority, Luke xxi.
38; and St Paul divers times took advantage of their ordinary
assemblies to preach the gospel unto them. For the other, which concerns
their own searching into the law and studying of the word, we have a strict
command, Deut. vi.
6–9, “And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be
in thine heart: and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and
shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest
by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou
shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets
between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house,
and on thy gates.” Which strict charge is again repeated, chap. xi. 18, summarily
comprehending all ways whereby they might become exercised in the law.
Now, because this charge is in particular given to the king, chap. xvii. 18–20, the performance
of a king in obedience thereunto will give us light enough into the
practice of the people. And this we have in that most excellent psalm of
David, namely, cxix.; which for the most part is
spent in petitions for light, direction, and assistance in that study, in
expressions of the performance of this duty, and in spiritual glorying of
his success in his divine meditations; especially, verse
99, he ascribeth his proficiency in heavenly wisdom and
understanding above his teachers, not to any special revelation, not to
that prophetical light wherewith he was endued (which, indeed, consisting
in a transient irradiation of the mind, being a supernatural impulsion,
commensurate to such things as are connatural only unto God, doth of itself
give neither wisdom nor understanding), but unto his study in the
testimonies of God. The blessings pronounced upon and promises annexed to
the performance of this duty concern not the matter in hand; only, from the
words wherein the former command is delivered, two things may be observed:—
1. That the paternal teaching and instruction of families in things which
appertain to God being a duty of the law of nature, remained in its full
vigour, and was not at all impaired by the institution of a new order of
teachers for assemblies beyond domestical, then established. Neither,
without doubt, ought it to cease amongst Christians, there being no other
reason why now it should but that which then was not effectual.
Secondly, That the people of God were not only
permitted, but enjoined also, to read the Scriptures, and upon all
occasions, in their own houses and elsewhere, to talk of them, or
communicate their knowledge in them, unto others. There had been then no
council at Trent to forbid the one; nor, perhaps, was there any strict
canon to bring the other within the compass of a “conventicle.” But now,
for the solemn public teaching and instructing of others, it was otherwise
ordained; for this was committed to them, in regard of ordinary
performance, who were set apart by God; as for others before named, so also
for that purpose. The author of the treatise I before mentioned concludeth
that the people were not taught at the public assemblies by priests as
such, — that is, teaching the people was no part of their office or duty;
but, on the contrary, that seems to be a man’s duty in the service or
worship of God which God requires of him, and that appertains to his
office, whose performance is expressly enjoined unto him as such, and for
whose neglect he is rebuked or punished. Now, all this we find concerning
the priests’ public teaching of the people; for the proof of which the
recital of a few pertinent places shall suffice. Lev. x.
11, we have an injunction laid upon Aaron and his sons to “teach
the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord had spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.” And of
the Levites it is affirmed, Deut. xxxiii.
10, “They shall teach Jacob thy statutes, and Israel thy law.”
Now, though some restrain these places to the discerning of leprosies, and
between holy and unholy, with their determination of difficulty emergent
out of the law, yet this no way impairs the truth of that I intend to prove
by them; for even those things belonged to that kind of public teaching
which was necessary under that administration of the covenant. But instead
of many, I will name one not liable to exception: Mal. ii.
7, “The priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should
seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts;” — where both a recital of his own duty,
that he should be full of knowledge to instruct; the intimation to the
people, that they should seek unto him, or give heed to his teaching; with
the reason of them both, “For he is the Lord’s
messenger” (one of the highest titles of the ministers of the gospel,
performing the same office), — do abundantly confirm that instructing of
the people in the moral worship of God was a duty of the priestly office,
or of the priests as such, especially considering the effect of this
teaching, mentioned verse 6,
the “turning of many away from iniquity,” the proper end of teaching in
assemblies: all which we find exactly performed by an excellent priest,
preaching to the people on a pulpit of wood, Neh.
viii. 1–8. Farther; for a neglect of this, the priests are
threatened with the rejection from their office, Hos. iv.
6. Now, it doth not seem justice that a man should
be put out of his office for a neglect of that whose performance doth not
belong unto it. The fault of every neglect ariseth from the description of
a duty. Until something, then, of more force than any thing as yet I have
seen be objected to the contrary, we may take it for granted that the
teaching of the people under the law in public assemblies was performed
ordinarily by the priests, as belonging to their duty and office. Men
endued with gifts supernatural, extraordinarily called, and immediately
sent by God himself for the instruction of his people, the reformation of
his church, and foretelling things to come, — such as were the prophets,
who, whenever they met with opposition, stayed themselves upon their
extraordinary calling, — come not within the compass of my disquisition.
The institution, also, of the schools of the prophets, the employment of
the sons of the prophets, the original of the scribes, and those other
possessors of Moses’ chair in our Saviour’s time, wherein he conversed here
below, being necessarily to be handled in my observations on the fore-named
treatise, I shall omit until more leisure and an enjoyment of the small
remainder of my poor library shall better enable me. For the present,
because treating “in causâ facili,”
although writing without books, I hope I am not beside the truth. The book
of truth, praised be God, is easy to be obtained; and God is not tied to
means in discovering the truth of that book.
Come we, then, to the consideration of what duty in the
service of God, beyond those belonging unto several families, were
permitted to any of the people not peculiarly set apart for such a purpose.
The ceremonial part of God’s worship, as we saw before, was so
appropriated to the priests that God usually revenged the transgression of
that ordinance very severely. The examples of Uzzah and Uzziah
are dreadful testimonies of his wrath in that kind. It was an unalterable
law by virtue whereof the priests excommunicated that
presumptuous king. For that which we chiefly intend, the public teaching
of others, as to some it was enjoined as an act of their duty, so it might
at first seem that it was permitted to all who, having ability thereunto,
were called by charity or necessity. So the princes of Jehoshaphat taught
the people out of the law of God, as well as the priests and Levites,
2
Chron. xvii. 7–9. So also Nehemiah and others of the chiefs of
the people are reckoned among them who taught the people, Neh. viii. 9. And afterward, when St
Paul at any time entered into their synagogues, they never questioned any
thing but his abilities; if he had “any word of exhortation for the
people,” he might “say on.” And the scribes, questioning the authority of
our Saviour for his teaching, were moved to it, not because he
taught, but because he taught so and such
things, — with authority and against their traditions; otherwise, they
rather troubled themselves to think how he should become
able to teach, Mark vi. 2,
3, than him be cause he did. There are,
indeed, many sharp reproofs in the Old Testament of those who undertook to
be God’s messengers without his warrant; as Jer. xxii. 21, 22, “I have not sent
these prophets, yet they ran; I have not spoken to them, yet they
prophesied. But if they had stood in my counsel,” etc.; — to which, and
the like places, it may satisfactorily be answered, that howsoever, by the
way of analogy, they may be drawn into rule for these times of the gospel,
yet they were spoken only in reference to them who falsely pretended to
extraordinary revelations and a power of foretelling things to come, whom
the Lord forewarned his people of, and appointed punishments for them,
Deut. xiii. 1–6; with which sort of
pretenders that nation was ever replenished, for which the very heathen
often derided them. He who makes it his employment to counterfeit God’s
dispensations had then no more glorious work to imitate than that of
prophecy; wherein he was not idle. Yet, notwithstanding all this, I do not
conceive the former discourse to be punctually true in the latitude
thereof, as though it were permitted to all men, or any men, besides the
priests and prophets, to teach publicly at all times, and in all estates of
that church. Only, I conceive that the usual answers given to the
fore-cited places, when objected, are not sufficient. Take an instance in
one, 2
Chron. xvii. 7–9, of the princes of Jehoshaphat teaching with
the priests. The author of the book before intimated conceives that
neither priests nor princes taught at all in that way we now treat of, but
only that the priests rode circuit to administer judgment, and had the
princes with them to do execution. But this interpretation he borroweth
only to confirm his πρῶτον ψεῦδος,
that priests did not teach as such. The very circumstance of the
place enforces a contrary sense. And in chap. xix. 5–7, there is express
mention of appointing judges for the determination of civil causes in every
city; which evidently was a distinct work, distinguished from that
mentioned in this place. And, upon the like ground, I conceive it to be no
intimation of a movable sanhedrim; which, although of such a mixed
constitution, yet was not itinerant, and is mentioned in that other place.
Neither is that other ordinary gloss more probable, “They were sent to
teach, that is, to countenance the teaching of the law,” — a duty which
seldom implores the assistance of human countenance; and if for the present
it did, the king’s authority commanding it was of more value than the
presence of the princes. Besides, there is nothing in the text, nor the
circumstances thereof, which should hold out this sense unto us; neither do
we find any other rule, precept, or practice, whose analogy
might lead us to such an interpretation. That which to me seems to come
nearest the truth is, that they taught also, not in a ministerial way, like
the priests and Levites, but imperially and judicially, declaring the sense
of the law, the offences against it, and the punishments due to such
offences, especially inasmuch as they had reference to the peace of the
commonwealth; which differs not much from that which I rest upon, — to wit,
that in a collapsed and corrupted state of the church, when the ordinary
teachers are either utterly ignorant and cannot, or negligent and will not,
perform their duty, gifts in any one to be a teacher, and consent in others
by him to be taught, are a sufficient warrant for the performance of it;
and than this the places cited out of the Old Testament prove no more. For
the proceedings of St Paul in the synagogues, their great want of teaching
(being a people before forsaken of the Spirit, and then withering) might be
a warrant for them to desire it, and his apostolical mission for him to do
it. It doth not, then, at all from hence appear that there was then any
liberty of teaching in public assemblies granted unto or assumed by any, in
such an estate of the church as wherein it ought to be. When, indeed, it
is ruinously declining, every one of God’s servants hath a sufficient
warrant to help or prevent the fall; this latter being but a common duty of
zeal and charity, the former an authoritative act of the keys, the minister
whereof is only an instrumental agent, that from whence it hath its
efficacy residing in another, in whose stead, and under whose person it is
done, 2 Cor.
v. 19, 20. Now, whoever doth any thing in another’s stead, not
by express patent from him, is a plain impostor; and a grant of this nature
made unto all in general doth not appear. I am bold to speak of these
things under the notion of the “keys,” though in the time of the law; for I
cannot assent to those schoolmen who will not allow that the keys in any
sense were granted to the legal priests. Their power of teaching,
discerning, judging, receiving in and casting out, import the thing, though
the name (no more than that of “regnum
cœlorum,” as Jerome and Augustine observe) be not to be
found in the Old Testament; and, doubtless, God ratified the execution of
his own ordinances in heaven then as well as now. What the immediate
effect of their services was, how far by their own force they reached, and
what they typified, how in signification only, and not immediately, they
extended to an admission into and exclusion from the heavenly tabernacle,
and wherein lies the secret power of gospel commissions beyond theirs to
attain the ultimate end, I have declared elsewhere.
Thus much of what the ancient people of God, distinguished
from their priests, might not do; now briefly of what they
might, or rather of what they ought, and what their obedience and
profession declared that they thought themselves obliged unto. Private
exhortations, rebukings, and such dictates of the law of nature, being
presupposed, we find them farther “speaking often one to another” of those
things which concerned the fear and worship of the Lord, Mal. iii. 16; by their “lips feeding
many with wisdom,” Prov. x.
21; discoursing of God’s laws upon all occasions, Deut. vi. 6, 7; by multitudes
encouraging each other to the service of God, Zech. viii. 20, 21, Isa. ii. 2, 3; jointly praising God
with cheerful hearts, Ps. xlii.
4; giving and receiving mutual consolation, Ps. lv. 14; and all this, with much
more of the same nature, at their meetings, either occasional or for that
purpose indicted; — always provided that they abstained from fingering the
ark, or meddling with those things which were appropriated to the office of
the priests, and concerning them hitherto.
Chapter III.
Containing a digression concerning the name of “priests,” the
right of Christians thereunto by their interest in the priesthood of
Christ, with the presumption of any particularly appropriating it to
themselves.
And now the transaction of these
things in the Christian church presents itself to our consideration; in
handling whereof I shall not at all discourse concerning the several
church-officers instituted by Christ and his apostles for the edification
of his body, nor concerning the difference between them who were partakers
at first of an extraordinary vocation and those who since have been called
to the same work in an ordinary manner, divinely appointed for the
direction of the church. Neither yet doth that diversity of the
administration of government in the churches, then when they were
under the plenitude of apostolical power, and now when they follow rules
prescribed for their reiglement, come in my way.
Farther; who are the subject of the keys, in whom all that
secondary ecclesiastical power which is committed to men doth reside, after
the determinations of so many learned men by clear Scripture light, shall
not by me be called in question. All these, though conducing to the
business in hand, would require a large discussion; and such a scholastical
handling as would make it an inconsutilous piece
of this popular discourse; my intent being only to show, — seeing there
are, as all acknowledge, some under the New Testament, as well as the Old,
peculiarly set apart by God’s own appointment for the administration of
Christ’s ordinances, especially teaching of others by preaching of the
gospel, in the way of office and duty, — what remaineth for the rest of God’s people to do, for their own and others’
edification.
1. But here, before I enter directly upon the matter, I
must remove one stone of offence, concerning the common appellation of
those who are set apart for the preaching of the gospel. That which is
most frequently used for them in the New Testament is διάκονοι, so 1 Cor. iii.
5; 2
Cor. iii. 6, vi. 4, xi. 15, 23; 1 Tim. iv.
6, and in divers other places; to which add ὑπηρέται, 1 Cor. iv.
1, a word though of another original, yet of the same
signification with the former, and both rightly translated “ministers.”
The names of “ambassadors,” “stewards,” and the like, wherewith they are
often honoured, are figurative, and given unto them by allusion only. That
the former belonged unto them, and were proper for them, none ever denied
but some Rabshakehs of antichrist. Another name there is, which some have
assumed unto themselves as an honour, and others have imposed the same upon
them for a reproach, namely, that of “priest;” which, to the takers, seemed
to import a more mysterious employment, a greater advancement above the
rest of their brethren, a nearer approach unto God, in the performances of
their office, than that of “ministers;” wherefore they embraced it either
voluntarily, alluding to the service of God and the administration thereof
amongst his ancient people the Jews, or thought that they ought necessarily
to undergo it, as belonging properly to them who are to celebrate those
mysteries and offer those sacrifices which they imagined were to them
prescribed. The imposers, on the contrary, pretend divers reasons why now
that name can signify none but men rejected from God’s work, and given up
to superstitious vanities; attending, in their minds, the old priests of
Baal, and the now shavelings of Antichrist. It was a new etymology of this
name which that learned man cleaved unto, who, unhappily, was engaged into
the defence of such errors as he could not but see and did often
confess, — to which, also,
he had an entrance made by an archbishop, —
to wit, that it was but an abbreviation of “presbyters;” knowing full well,
not only that the signification of these words is diverse amongst them to
whom belong “jus et norma loquendi,”
but also that they are widely different in holy writ: yea, farther, that
those who first dignified themselves with this title never called
themselves presbyters by way of distinction from the people, but only to
have a note of distance among themselves, there being more than one sort of
them that were sacrificers, and which, “eo
nomine,” accounted themselves priests. Setting aside, then, all
such evasions and distinctions as the people of God are not bound to take
notice of, and taking the word in its ordinary acceptation, I shall briefly
declare what I conceive of the use thereof, in respect of them
who are ministers of the gospel; which I shall labour to clear by these
following observations:—
(1.) All faithful ministers of the gospel, inasmuch as they
are ingrafted into Christ and are true believers, may, as all
other true Christians, be called priests; but this inasmuch as
they are members of Christ, not ministers of the gospel. It respecteth
their persons, not their function, or not them as such. Now, I conceive it
may give some light to this discourse if we consider the grounds and
reasons of this metaphorical appellation, in divers places of the gospel
ascribed to the worshippers of Christ, and how the analogy which the present dispensation holds
with what was established under the administration of the Old Testament may
take place; for there we find the Lord thus bespeaking his people, “Ye
shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation,” Exod. xix. 6: so that it should seem
that there was then a twofold priesthood; — a ritual priesthood,
conferred upon the tribe of Levi; and a royal priesthood,
belonging to the whole people. The first is quite abrogated and swallowed
up in the priesthood of Christ; the other is put over unto us under the
gospel, being ascribed to them and us, and every one in covenant with God,
not directly and properly, as denoting the function peculiarly so
called, but comparatively, with reference had to them that are
without: for as those who were properly called priests had a nearer access
unto God than the rest of the people, especially in his solemn worship, so
all the people that are in covenant with God have such an approximation
Unto him by virtue thereof, in comparison of them that are without, that in
respect thereof they are said to be priests. Now, the outward covenant,
made with them who were the children of Abraham after the flesh, was
representative of the covenant of grace made with the children of promise,
and that whole people typified the hidden elect people of God; so that of
both there is the same reason. Thus, as “the priests the sons of Levi” are
said to “come near unto God,” Deut. xxi.
5, and God tells them that “him whom he hath chosen, he will
cause to come near unto him,” Num. xvi.
5, — chosen by a particular calling “ad munus,” to the office of the ritual priesthood;
so in regard of that other kind, comparatively so called, it is said of the
whole people, “What nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto
them, as the Lord our God is in all things that we
call upon him for?” Deut. iv.
7. Their approaching nigh unto God made them all a nation of
priests, in comparison of those “dogs” and unclean Gentiles that were out
of the covenant. Now, this prerogative is often appropriated to the
faithful in the New Testament: for “through Christ we have access by one
Spirit unto the Father,” Eph. ii.
18; and chap. iii.
12, “We have boldness and access with confidence;” so James iv. 8, “Draw nigh to God, and he
will draw nigh to you;” — which access and approximation unto God seemed,
as before was spoken, to be uttered in allusion to the priests of the old
law, who had this privilege above others in the public worship, in which
respect only things then were typical; since, because we enjoy that
prerogative in the truth of the thing itself, which they had only in type,
we also are called priests. And as they were said to “draw nigh” in
reference to the rest of the people, so we in respect of them who are
“strangers from the covenants,” that now are said to be “afar off;”
Eph. ii. 17, and hereafter shall be
“without;” for “without are dogs,” etc., Rev. xxii.
15. Thus, this metaphorical appellation of priests is, in the
first place an intimation of that transcendent privilege of grace and
favour which Jesus Christ hath purchased for every one that is sanctified
with the blood of the covenant.
(2.) We have an interest in this appellation of priests
by virtue of our union with Christ. Being one with our high
priest, we also are priests. There is a twofold union between Christ and
us; — the one, by his taking upon him our nature; the other, by bestowing
on us his Spirit: for as in his incarnation he took upon him our flesh and
blood by the work of the Spirit, so in our regeneration he bestoweth on us
his flesh and blood by the operation of the same Spirit. Yea, so strict is
this latter union which we have with Christ, that as the former is truly
said to be a union of two natures into one person, so this of many persons
into one nature; for by it we are “made partakers of the divine nature,”
2 Pet. i. 4, becoming “members of his
body, of his flesh, and of his bones,” Eph. v.
30. We are so parts of him, of his mystical body, that we and
he become thereby, as it were, one Christ: “For as the body is one, and
hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are
one body: so also is Christ, 1 Cor. xii.
12. And the ground of this is, because the same Spirit is in
him and us. In him, indeed, dwelleth the fulness of it, when it
is bestowed upon us only by measure; but yet it is still the
same Spirit, and so makes us, according to his own prayer, one
with him, as the soul of man, being one, makes the whole body with it to be
but one man. Two men cannot be one, because they have two souls; no more
could we be one with Christ were it not the same Spirit in him and us.
Now, let a man be never so big or tall, so that his feet rest upon the
earth and his head reach to heaven, yet, having but one soul, he is still
but one man. Now, though Christ for the present, in respect of our nature
assumed, be never so far remote and distant from us in heaven, yet, by the
effectual energy and inhabitation of the same Spirit, he is still the head
of that one body whereof we are members, still but one with us. Hence
ariseth to us a twofold right to the title of priests:—
[1.] Because being in him, and members of him,
we are accounted to have done, in him and with him,
whatsoever he hath done for us: We are “dead with him,”
Rom. vi. 8; “buried with him,”
verse 4; “quickened together with him,”
Eph. ii. 5; “risen with him,” Col. iii. 1; being “raised up,” we “sit
together with him in heavenly places,” Eph. ii. 6.
Now, all these in Christ were in some sense sacerdotal; wherefore we,
having an interest in their performance, by reason of that heavenly
participation derived from them unto us, and being united unto him that in
them was so properly, are therefore called priests.
[2.] By virtue of this union there is such an analogy
between that which Christ hath done for us as a priest and
what he worketh in us by his Holy Spirit, that those acts of ours
come to be called by the same name with his, and we for them to be termed
priests. Thus, because Christ’s death and shedding of his blood, so
offering up himself by the eternal Spirit, was a true, proper sacrifice for
sin, even our spiritual death unto sin is described to be such, both in the
nature of it, to be an offering or sacrifice (for, “I beseech you,
brethren,” saith St Paul, “by the mercies of God, that ye present your
bodies a living sacrifice,” etc., Rom. xii.
1), and for the manner of it; our “old man is crucified with
him, that the body of sin might be destroyed,’’ Rom. vi.
6.
(3.) We are priests as we are Christians, or partakers
of a holy unction, whereby we are anointed to the participation of all
Christ’s glorious offices. We are not called Christians for nothing. If
truly we are so, then have we an “unction from the Holy One,” whereby we
“know all things,” 1 John ii.
20. And thus also were all God’s people under the old covenant,
when God gave that caution concerning them, “Touch not my Christians, and do my prophets no harm,” Ps. cv. 15. The unction, then, of
the Holy Spirit implies a participation of all those endowments which were
typified by the anointing with oil in the Old Testament, and invests us
with the privileges, in a spiritual acceptation, of all the sorts of men
which then were so anointed, — to wit, of kings, priests, and prophets: so
that by being made Christians (every one is not so that bears that name),
we are ingrafted into Christ, and do attain to a kind of holy and intimate
communion with him in all his glorious offices; and in that regard are
called priests.
(4.) The sacrifices we are enjoined to offer give
ground to this appellation. Now, they are of divers sorts, though all in
general eucharistical; — as, first, Of prayers and
thanksgivings: Ps. cxvi.
17, “I will offer unto thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and
will call upon the name of the Lord;” and again,
“Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense, and the
lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.” Ps. cxli.
2: so Heb. xiii.
15, “Let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God,” — that is,
the “fruit of our lips.” Secondly, Of good works: Heb. xiii. 16, “To do good and to
communicate forget not; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.”
Thirdly, Αὐτοθυσίας, or self
slaughter, crucifying the old man, killing sin, and offering up our
souls and bodies an acceptable sacrifice unto God, Rom. xii.
1. Fourthly, The sweet incense of martyrdom: “Yea, and if I be
offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, etc., Phil. ii. 17. Now, these and sundry
other services acceptable to God, receiving this appellation in the
Scripture, denominate the performers of them priests. Now, here it must be
observed, that these aforenamed holy duties are called “sacrifices,” not
properly, but metaphorically only, — not in regard of the external acts, as
were those under the law, but in regard of the internal purity of heart
from whence they proceed. And because pure sacrifices, by his own
appointment, were heretofore the most acceptable service of Almighty God,
therefore now, when he would declare himself to be very much delighted with
the spiritual acts of our duty, he calls them “oblations,” “incense,”
“sacrifices,” “offerings,” etc.; to intimate, also, a participation with
Him in his offices who properly and directly is the only priest of his
church, and by the communication of the virtue of whose sacrifice we are
made priests, not having authority in our own names to go unto God for
others, but having liberty, through him, and in his name, to go
unto God for ourselves.
Not to lose myself and reader in this digression, the sum
is, — The unspeakable blessings which the priesthood of Christ hath
obtained for us are a strong obligation for the duty of praise and
thanksgiving; of which that in some measure we may discharge ourselves, he
hath furnished us with sacrifices of that kind to be offered unto God. For
our own parts, we are poor, and blind, and lame, and naked; neither in the
field nor in the fold, in our hearts nor among our actions, can we find any
thing worth the presenting unto him: wherefore, he himself provides them
for us; especially for that purpose sanctifying and consecrating our souls
and bodies with the sprinkling of his blood and the unction of the Holy
Spirit. Farther; he hath erected an altar (to sanctify our gifts) in
heaven, before the throne of grace, which, being spread over with his
blood, is consecrated unto God, that the sacrifices of his servants may for
ever appear thereon. Add to this, what he also hath added, the eternal and
never-expiring fire of the favour of God, which kindleth and consumes the
sacrifices laid on that altar. And to the end that all this may be rightly
accomplished, he hath consecrated us with his blood to be kings and priests
to God for evermore. So that the close of this discourse will be, that all true believers, by virtue of their interest in Jesus
Christ, are in the holy Scripture, by reason of divers allusions called
priests; which name, in the sense before related, belonging unto them as
such, cannot, on this ground, be ascribed to any part of them distinguished
any ways from the rest by virtue of such distinction.
2. The second thing I observe concerning the business in
hand is, that the offering up unto God of some metaphorical sacrifices, in
a peculiar manner, is appropriate unto men set apart for the work of
the ministry; as the slaying of men’s lusts, and the offering up of
them, being converted by the preaching of the gospel, unto God. So St Paul
of his ministry, Rom. xv.
16, “That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ unto the
Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the
Gentiles might be acceptable,” etc. Ministers preaching the gospel to the
conversion of souls are said to kill men’s lusts, and offer them up unto
God as the fruit of their calling, as Abel brought unto him an acceptable
sacrifice of the fruit of his flock; and so also in respect of divers other
acts of their duty, which they perform in the name of their congregations.
Now, these sacrifices are appropriated to the ministers of the gospel, not
in regard of the matter, — for others also may convert souls unto God, and
offer up prayers and praises in the name of their companions, — but in
respect of the manner: they do it publicly and ordinarily; others,
privately or in extraordinary cases. Now, if the ministers, who are thus
God’s instruments for the conversion of souls, be themselves ingrafted into
Christ, all the acts they perform in that great work are but parts of their
own duty, of the same nature in that regard with the rest of our spiritual
sacrifices; so that they have not by them any farther, peculiar interest in
the office of the priesthood more than others. But if these preachers
themselves do not belong unto the covenant of grace, as God oftentimes, out
of his care for his flock, bestows gifts upon some for the good of others,
on whom he will bestow no graces for the benefit of their own souls, men
may administer that consolation out of the word unto their flock which
themselves never tasted, — preach to others, and be themselves cast-aways.
St Paul tells us that some preach Christ out of envy and contention, not
sincerely, but on purpose to add to his affliction; and yet, saith he,
“whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do
rejoice, yea, and will rejoice, Phil.
i. 16–18. Surely, had there been no good effected by such
preaching, St Paul would not have rejoiced in it; and yet, doubtless, it
was no evidence of sanctification to preach Christ merely out of
contention, and on purpose to add to the affliction of his servants. But,
I say, if the Lord shall be pleased at any time to make use of such as
instruments in his glorious work of converting souls, shall we think that
it is looked upon as their sacrifice unto God? No, surely.
The soul of the Lord is delighted with the repentance of sinners; but all
the sacrifices of these wicked men are an abomination unto him, and
therefore they have no interest in it. Neither can they from hence be said
to be priests of God, seeing they continue “dogs” and “unclean beasts,”
etc. So that all the right unto this priestly office seems to be resolved
into, and to be the same with, the common interest of all believers in
Christ, whereby they have a participation of his office. Whence I affirm,
—
3. That the name of priests is nowhere in the Scripture
attributed peculiarly and distinctively to the ministers of the gospel
as such. Let any produce an instance to the contrary, and this
controversy is at an end. Yea, that which puts a difference between them
and the rest of the people of God’s holiness seems to be a more immediate
participation of Christ’s prophetical office, to teach, instruct, and
declare the will of God unto men; and not of his sacerdotal, to offer
sacrifices for men unto God. Now, I could never observe that any of those
who were so forward of late to style themselves priests were at all greedy
of the appellation of prophets. No; this they were content to let go, name
and thing. And yet, when Christ ascended on high, he gave some to be
prophets, for the edification of his body, Eph. iv.
11; none, as we find, to be priests. Priests, then (like
prelates), are a sort of church-officers whom Christ never appointed.
Whence I conclude, —
4. That whosoever maintaineth any priests of the New
Testament as properly so called, in relation to any altar or sacrifice by
them to be offered, doth as much as in him lieth disannul the covenant
of grace, and is blasphemously injurious to the priesthood of Christ.
The priest and the sacrifice under the New Testament are one and the same;
and therefore, they who make themselves priests must also make themselves
Christs, or get another sacrifice of their own. As there is but “one God,”
so there is but “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,”
1 Tim. ii. 5. Now, he became the
mediator of the New Testament chiefly by his priesthood, because “through
the eternal Spirit he offered himself to God,” Heb. ix. 14, 15. Neither is any now
called of God to be a priest, as was Aaron; and without such divine
vocation to this office none ought to undertake it, as the apostle argues,
Heb. v. 4. Now, the end of any such
vocation and office is quite ceased, being nothing but to “offer gifts and
sacrifices” unto God, Heb. viii.
3: for Christ hath offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, and
is “set down at the right hand of God,” chap. x.
12; yea, “by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that
are sanctified,” verse
14; and if that did procure remission of sins, there must be “no
more offering for sin,” verse
18; and the surrogation of another makes the blood of Christ to
be no better than that of bulls and goats. Now, one of these
they must do who make themselves priests (in that sense concerning which we
now treat), — either get them a new sacrifice of their own, or
pretend to offer Christ again. The first seems to have been the fault of
those of ours who made a sacrifice of the sacrament, yet pretended
not to believe the real presence of Christ in or under the outward elements
or species of them; the other of the Romanists, whose priests in their mass
blasphemously make themselves mediators between God and his Son, and
offering up Christ Jesus for a sacrifice, desire God to accept him, — so
charging that sacrifice with imperfection which he offered on the altar of
the cross, and making it necessary not only that he should annually, but
daily, yea hourly, suffer afresh, so recrucifying unto themselves the Lord
of glory. Farther; themselves confessing that, to be a true sacrifice, it
is required that that which is offered unto God be destroyed, and cease to
be what it was, they do confess by what lies in them to destroy the Son of
God; and by their mass have transubstantiated their altars into crosses,
their temples into Golgothas, their prelates into Pilates, their priests
into hangmen, tormentors of Jesus Christ! Concerning them and ours, we may
shut up this discourse with what the apostle intimates to the Hebrews, —
namely, that all priests are ceased who were mortal. Now, small cause have
we to believe them to be immaterial spirits, among whom we find the works
of the flesh to have been so frequent.
And this may give us some light into the iniquity of those
times whereinto we were lately fallen; in which lord bishops and priests
had almost quite oppressed the bishops of the Lord and ministers of the
gospel. How unthankful men were we for the light of the gospel! — men that
loved darkness rather than light. “A wonderful and horrible thing was
committed in the land; the prophets prophesied falsely, the priests bare
rule by their means;” almost the whole “people loved to have it so: and
what will we now do in the end thereof?” Jer.
v. 30, 31. Such a hasty apostasy was growing on us as we might
justly wonder at, because unparalleled in any church, of any age. But our
revolters were profound hasty men, and eager in their master’s service.
So, what a height of impiety and opposition to Christ the Roman apostasy in
a thousand years attained unto! and yet I dare aver that never so many
errors and suspicions in a hundred years crept into that church as did into
ours of England in sixteen. And yet I cannot herein give the commendation
of so much as industry to our innovators (I accuse not the whole church,
but particulars in it, and that had seized themselves of its authority),
because they had a platform before them, and materials provided
to their hand, and therefore it was an easy thing for them to erect a Babel
of antichristian confusion, when the workmen in the Roman apostasy were
forced to build in the plain of Christianity without any pre-existent
materials, but were fain to use brick and slime of their own provision.
Besides, they were unacquainted with the main design of Satan, who set them
on work, and therefore it is no wonder if those Nimrods ofttimes hunted
counter, and disturbed each other in their progress. Yea, the first mover
in church apostasy knows that now his time is but short, and therefore it
behoves him to make speedy work in seducing, lest he be prevented by the
coming of Christ.
Then, having himself a long tract of time granted
unto him, he allowed his agents to take leisure also; but what he doth
now must be done quickly, or his whole design will be quashed: and
this made him inspire the present business with so much life and vigour.
Moreover, he was compelled then to sow his tares in the dark, “while men
slept,” — taking advantage of the ignorance and embroilment of the times.
If any man had leisure enough to search, and learning enough to see and
find him at it, he commonly filled the world with clamours against him, and
scarce any but his avowed champions durst be his advocates. In our time he
was grown bold and impudent, working at noonday; yea, he openly accused and
condemned all that durst accuse him for sowing any thing but good wheat,
that durst say that the tares of his Arminianism and Popery were any thing
but true doctrine. Let us give so much way to indignation. We know
Satan’s trade what it is, — to accuse the brethren: as men are called after
their professions, one a lawyer, another a physician, so is he “The accuser
of the brethren.” Now surely, if ever he set up a shop on earth to
practice his trade in, it was our High Commission Court, as of late
employed; but ἀπέχεσθε.
Chapter IV.
Of the duty of God’s people in cases extraordinary concerning his
worship.
This being thus determined, I
return again to the main ζητούμενον,
concerning the duty and privilege of the common people of Christianity in
sacred things; and, first, in cases extraordinary, in which, perhaps, it
may be affirmed that every one (of those, I mean, before named) is so far a
minister of the gospel as to teach and declare the faith to others,
although he have no outward calling thereunto. And yet, in this case,
every one for such an undertaking must have a warrant by an
immediate call from God. And when God calls there must be no opposition;
the thing itself he sends us upon becomes lawful by his mission: “What God
hath cleansed, that call not thou common,” Acts x.
15. Never fear the equity of what God sets thee upon. No
excuses of disability or any other impediment ought to take place; the Lord
can and will supply all such defects. This was Moses’ case, Exod. iv. 10, 11: “O my Lord,” saith
he,” I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto
thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue. And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man’s mouth? have not I
the Lord?” So also was it with the prophet
Jeremiah. When God told him that he had ordained him a prophet unto the
nations, he replies, “Ah, Lord God! behold, I
cannot speak: for I am a child. But the Lord,”
saith he, “said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all
that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak,”
Jer. i. 6, 7. Nothing can excuse any
from going on His message who can perfect his praise out of the mouths of
babes and sucklings. This the prophet Amos rested upon when he was
questioned, although he were unfit for that heavenly employment either by
education or course of life: “I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s
son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore fruit: and the Lord took me as I followed the flock, and said unto me,
Go, prophesy unto my people Israel,” Amos
vii. 14, 15. So, on the contrary, St Paul, a man of strong
parts, great learning, and endowments, of indefatigable industry and large
abilities, yet affirms of himself that when God called him to preach his
word, he “conferred not with flesh and blood,” but went on presently with
his work, Gal. i.
15–17.
Chapter V.
Of the several ways of extraordinary calling to the teaching of
others — The first way.
Now, three ways may a man receive,
and be assured that he hath received, this divine mission, or know that he
is called of God to the preaching of the word; I mean not that persuasion
of divine concurrence which is necessary also for them that are partakers
of an ordinary vocation, but that which is required in extraordinary cases
to them in whom all outward calling is wanting:— 1. By immediate
revelation; 2. By a concurrence of Scripture rules
directory for such occasions; 3. By some outward acts of
Providence, necessitating him thereunto.
For the first, — not to speak of
light prophetical, whether it consists in a habit, or rather in
a transient irradiating motion, nor to discourse of the species whereby
supernatural things are conveyed to the natural faculty, with the several
ways of divine revelation (for St Paul affirmeth it to have been πολυτρόπως as well as πολυμερῶς), with the sundry appellations it received
from the manner whereby it came, — I shall only show what assurance such a
one as is thus called may have in himself that he is so called, and how he
may manifest it unto others. That men receiving any revelation from God
had always an assurance that such it was, to me seems most certain: neither
could I ever approve the note of Gregory on Ezek. i.., — namely, “That prophets, being accustomed to
prophesying, did oftentimes speak of their own spirit, supposing that it
proceeded from the Spirit of prophecy.” What is this but to question the truth of all
prophetical revelations, and to shake the faith that is built upon it?
Surely the prophet Jeremiah had an infallible assurance of the author of
his message, when he pleaded for himself before the princes, “Of a truth
the Lord hath sent me unto you to speak all these
words in your ears,” chap. xxvi.
15. And Abraham certainly had need of a good assurance whence
that motion did proceed which made him address himself to the sacrificing
the son of promise. And that all other prophets had the like evidence of
knowledge concerning the divine verity of their revelations is
unquestionable. Hence are those allusions in the Scripture, whereby it is
compared unto things whereof we may be most certain by the assurance of
sense. So Amos iii. 8, “The lion hath roared,
who will not fear? the Lord God hath spoken, who
can but prophesy?” and Jer. xx.
9, “His word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my
bones;” — things sensible enough. Haply Satan may so far delude false
prophets as to make them suppose their lying vanities are from above;
whence they are said to be “prophets of the deceit of their own heart,”
Jer. xxiii. 26, being deceived as
well as deceivers, thinking in themselves as well as speaking unto others,
“He saith,” verse
31. But that any true prophets should not know a true
revelation from a motion of their own hearts wants not much of blasphemy.
The Lord surely supposes that assurance of discerning when he gives that
command, “The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that
hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the
wheat?” Jer. xxiii. 28. He must be both
blind and mad that shall mistake wheat for chaff, and on the contrary.
What some men speak of a hidden instinct from God moving the minds of men,
yet so as they know not whether it be from him or no, may better serve to illustrate Plutarch’s discourse of
Socrates’ demon than any passage in holy
writ. St Austin says his
mother would affirm, that though she could not express it, yet she could
discern the difference between God’s revelation and her own dreams; in which relation I doubt not but
the learned father took advantage, from the good old woman’s words of what
she could do, to declare what might be done of every one that had
such immediate revelations. Briefly, then; the Spirit of God never so
extraordinarily moveth the mind of man to apprehend any thing of this kind
whereof we speak, but it also illustrateth it with a knowledge and
assurance that it is divinely moved to this apprehension. Now, because it
is agreed on all sides that light prophetical is no permanent habit in the
minds of the prophets, but a transient impression, of itself not apt to
give any such assurance, it may be questioned from what other principle it
doth proceed. But, not to pry into things perhaps not fully revealed, and
seeing St Paul shows us that, in such heavenly raptures, there are some
things unutterable of them and incomprehensible of us, we may let this rest
amongst those ἄῤῥητα. It appeareth,
then, from the preceding discourse, that a man pretending to extraordinary
vocation by immediate revelation, in respect of self-persuasion of the
truth of his call, must be as ascertained of it as he could be of a burning
fire in his bones, if there shut up.
Chapter VI.
What assurance men extraordinarily called can give to others that
they are so called in the former way.
The next thing to be considered is,
what assurance he can give to others, and by what means, that he is so
called. Now, the matter or subject of their employment may give us some
light to this consideration; and this is, either the inchoation of
some divine work to be established amongst men, by virtue of a new and
never-before-heard-of revelation of God’s will, or a restoration
of the same, when collapsed and corrupted by the sin of men. To the first
of these: God never sendeth any but whom he doth so extraordinarily and
immediately call and ordain for that purpose; and that this may be
manifested unto others, he always accompanieth them with his own almighty
power, in the working of such miracles as may make them be believed, for
the very works’ sake which God by them doth effect. This we may see in
Moses and (after Jesus Christ, anointed with the oil of
gladness above his fellows to preach the gospel) the apostles. But this
may pass, for nothing in such a way shall ever again take place, God having
ultimately revealed his mind concerning his worship and our salvation, a
curse being denounced to man or angel that shall pretend to revelation for
the altering or changing one jot or tittle of the gospel. For the other,
the work of reformation, there being, ever since the writing of his word,
an infallible rule for the performance of it, making it fall within the
duty and ability of men partaking of an ordinary vocation, and instructed
with ordinary gifts, God doth not always immediately call men unto it; but
yet, because oftentimes he hath so done, we may inquire what assurance they
could give of this their calling to that employment. Our Saviour Christ
informs us that a prophet is often without honour in his own country. The
honour of a prophet is to have credence given to his message (of which, it
should seem, Jonah was above measure zealous); yet such is the cursed
infidelity and hardness of men’s hearts, that though they cried, “Thus
saith the Lord,” yet they would reply, “The Lord hath not spoken.” Hence are those pleadings betwixt
the prophet Jeremiah and his enemies; the prophet averring, “Of a truth the
Lord hath sent me unto you,” and they contesting
that the Lord had not sent him, but that he lied in
the name of the Lord. Now, to leave them
inexcusable, and, whether they would hear or whether they would forbear, to
convince them that there hath been a prophet amongst them, as also to give
the greater credibility to their extraordinary message to them that were to
believe their report, it is necessary that “the arm of the Lord should be revealed,” working in and by them in some
extraordinary manner. It is certain enough that God never sent any one
extraordinarily, instructed only with ordinary gifts and for an ordinary
end. The aim of their employment I showed before was extraordinary, even
the reparation of something instituted by God and collapsed by the sin of
man. That it may be credible, or appear of a truth that God had sent them
for this purpose, they were always furnished with such gifts and abilities
as the utmost reach of human endeavours, with the assistance of common
grace, cannot possibly attain. The general opinion is, that God always
supplies such with the gift of miracles. Take the word in a large sense,
for every supernatural product, beyond the ordinary activity of that
secondary cause whereby it is effected, and I easily grant it; but in the
usual restrained acceptation of it, for outward wonderful works, the power
of whose production consists in operation, I something doubt the universal
truth of the assertion. We do not read of any such miracles wrought by the
prophet Amos, and yet he stands upon his extraordinary immediate vocation,
“I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son, but the Lord took me,” etc. It sufficeth, then, that
they be furnished with a supernatural power, either in, — 1.
Discerning; 2. Speaking; or 3. Working. First,
The power of discerning, according to the things by it
discernible, may be said to be of two sorts: for it is either of things
present, beyond the power of human investigation, as to know the thoughts
of other men’s hearts, or their words not ordinarily to be known, — as
Elisha discovered the bed-chamber discourse of the king of Syria (not that
by virtue of their calling they come to be καρδιογνώσται, “knowers of the heart,” which is God’s
property alone, but that God doth sometimes reveal such things unto them;
for otherwise no such power is included in the nature of the gift, which is
perfective of their knowledge, not by the way of habit, but actual motion
in respect of some particulars; and when this was absent, the same Elisha
affirmeth that he knew not why the Shunammitish woman was troubled); or,
secondly, of things future and contingent in respect of their secondary
causes, not precisely necessitated by their own internal principle of
operation for the effecting of the things so foreknown; and, therefore, the
truth of the foreknowledge consists in a commensuration to God’s purpose.
Now, effects of this power are all those predictions of such things which
we find in the Old and New Testament, and divers also since. Secondly, The
supernatural gift in speaking I intimate is that of tongues,
proper to the times of the gospel, when the worship of God was no longer to
be confined to the people of one nation. The third, working, is
that which strictly and properly is called the gift of miracles, which are
hard, rare, and strange effects, exceeding the whole order of created
nature, for whose production God sometimes useth his servants
instrumentally, moving and enabling them thereunto by a transient
impression of his powerful grace; of which sort the holy Scripture hath
innumerable relations. Now, with one of those extraordinary gifts at
least, sometimes with all, doth the Lord furnish those his messengers of
whom we treat; which makes their message a sufficient revelation of God’s
will, and gives it credibility enough to stir up faith in some, and leave
others inexcusable. All the difficulty is, that there have been Simon
Maguses, and there are Antichrists, falsely pretending to have in
themselves this mighty power of God, in one or other of the forenamed
kinds. Hence were those many false prophets, dreamers, and wizards
mentioned in the Old Testament, which the Lord himself forewarns us of; as
also those agents of that man of sin, “whose coming is after the working of
Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders,” 2
Thess. ii. 9. I mean the juggling priests and Jesuits,
pretending falsely by their impostures to the power of miracle-working,
though their employment be not to reform, but professedly to corrupt the
worship of God. Now, in such a case as this, we have, — 1. The
mercy of God to rely upon, whereby he will guide his into the way
of truth; and the purpose or decree of God, making it impossible that his
elect should be deceived by them. 2. Human diligence, accompanied
with God’s blessing, may help us wonderfully in a discovery whether the
pretended miracles be of God or no, for there is nothing more certain than
that a true and real miracle is beyond the activity of all created power
(for if it be not, it is not a miracle); so that the devil and all his
emissaries are not able to effect any one act truly miraculous, but in all
their pretences there is a defect discernible, either in respect of the
thing itself pretended to be done, or of the manner of its doing, not truly
exceeding the power of art or nature, though the apprehension of it, by
reason of some hell-conceived circumstances, be above our capacity.
Briefly: either the thing is a lie, and so it is easy to feign miracles; or
the performance of it is pure juggling, and so it is easy to delude poor
mortals. Innumerable of this sort, at the beginning of the Reformation,
were discovered among the agents of that wonder-working “man of sin,” by
the blessing of God upon human endeavours. Now, from such discoveries a
good conclusion may be drawn against the doctrine they desire by such means
to confirm; for as God never worketh true miracles but for the confirmation
of the truth, so will not men pretend such as are false, but to persuade
that to others for a truth which themselves have just reason to be
persuaded is a lie. Now, if this means fail, — 3. God himself hath set
down a rule of direction for us in the time of such difficulty:
Deut. xiii. 1–5, “If there arise
among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a
wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto
thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and
let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet,
or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God
proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your
God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the
Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his
commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto
him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death.”
The sum is, that seeing such men pretend that their revelations and
miracles are from heaven, let us search whether the doctrine they seek to
confirm by them be from heaven or no. If it be not, let them be stoned or
accursed, for they seek to draw us from our God; if it be, let not the
curse of a stony heart, to refuse them, be upon us. Where the miracles are
true, the doctrine cannot be false; and if the doctrine be true, in all
probability the miracles confining it are not false. And so much of them
who are immediately called of God from heaven, [as to] what assurance they may have in themselves of such a call, and what assurance they
can make of it to others. Now, such are not to expect any ordinary
vocation from men below, God calling them aside to his work from the midst
of their brethren. The Lord of the harvest may send labourers into his
field without asking his steward’s consent, and they shall speak whatever
he saith unto them.
Chapter VII.
The second way whereby a man may be called
extraordinarily.
Secondly, A man may be
extraordinarily called to the preaching and publishing of God’s word by
a concurrence of Scripture rules, directory for such occasions,
occurrences, and opportunities of time, place, and persons, as he liveth in
and under. Rules in this kind may be drawn either from express precept or
approved practice. Some of these I shall intimate, and leave it to the
indifferent reader to judge whether or no they hold in the application; and
all that in this kind I shall propose, I do with submission to better
judgments.
1. Consider, then, that of our Saviour to St Peter,
Luke xxii. 32, “When thou art
converted, strengthen thy brethren;” which containing nothing but an
application of one of the prime dictates of the law of nature, cannot,
ought not, to be restrained unto men of any peculiar calling as such. Not
to multiply many of this kind (whereof in the Scripture is plenty), add
only that of St James, James v.
19, 20, “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one
convert him, let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the
error of his way shall save a soul from death,” etc. From these and the
like places it appears to me, that, —
There is a general obligation on all Christians to promote
the conversion and instruction of sinners, and men erring from the right
way.
2. Again, consider that of our Saviour, Matt. v. 15, “Men do not light a
candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light
unto all that are in the house;” to which add that of the apostle, “If any
thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his
peace,” 1 Cor. xiv. 30: which words,
although primarily they intend extraordinary immediate revelations, yet I
see no reason why in their equity and extent they may not be directory for
the use of things revealed unto us by Scripture light. At least, we may
deduce from them, by the way of analogy, that, —
Whatsoever necessary truth is revealed to any
out of the word of God, not before known, he ought to have an
uncontradicted liberty of declaring that truth, provided that he use such
regulated ways for that his declaration as the church wherein he liveth (if
a right church) cloth allow.
3. Farther, see Amos iii.
8, “The lion hath roared, who will not fear? the Lord God hath spoken, who can but prophesy?” and Jer. xx. 9, “Then I said, I will not
make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name. But his word was in
mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones; and I was weary with
forbearing, and I could not stay;” with the answer of Peter and John to the
rulers of the Jews, Acts
iv. 19, 20, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken
unto you more than unto God, judge ye; for we cannot but speak the things
which we have seen and heard.” Whence it appears, that, —
Truth revealed unto any carries along with it an unmovable
persuasion of conscience (which is powerfully obligatory) that it ought to
be published and spoken to others.
That none may take advantage of this to introduce confusion
into our congregations, I gave a sufficient caution in the second rule.
Many other observations giving light to the business in
hand might be taken from the common dictates of nature, concurring with
many general precepts we have in the Scripture, but, omitting them, the
next thing I propose is the practice, etc., —
1. Of our Saviour Christ himself, who did not only pose the
doctors when he was but twelve years old, Luke ii.
46, but also afterward preached in the synagogue of Nazareth,
chap. iv. 16–22, being neither
doctor, nor scribe, nor Levite, but of the tribe of Judah (concerning which
tribe it is evident that Moses spake nothing concerning the
priesthood).
2. Again, in the eighth of the
Acts, great persecution arising against the church after the
death of Stephen, “they were all scattered abroad from Jerusalem,”
verse 1, — that is, all the faithful
members of the church, — who being thus dispersed, “went everywhere
preaching the word,” verse 4;
and to this their publishing of the gospel (having no warrant but the
general engagement of all Christians to further the propagation of Christ’s
kingdom), occasioned by their own persecution, the Lord gave such a
blessing, that they were thereby the first planters of a settled
congregation among the Gentiles, they and their converts being the first
that were honoured by the name of Christians, Acts xi. 21,
26.
3. Neither is the example of St Paul altogether
impertinent, who with his companions repaired unto the synagogues of the
Jews, and taught them publicly, yea, upon their own request,
Acts xiii. 15. Apollos also spake
boldly and preached fervently when he knew only the baptism of John, and
needed himself farther instruction. Acts xviii. 24–26. It should
seem, then, in that juncture of time, he that was instructed in any truth
not ordinarily known might publicly acquaint others with it, though he
himself were ignorant in other points of high concernment; yet, perhaps,
now it is not possible that any occurrences should require a precise
imitation of what was not only lawful but also expedient in that dawning
towards the clear day of the last unchangeable revelation of God’s will.
Now, in these and the like there is so much variety, such several grounds
and circumstances, that no direct rule can from them be drawn; only, they
may give strength to what from the former shall be concluded.
For a farther light to this discourse, consider what
desolate estate the church of God hath been, may be, and at this present in
divers places is, reduced to. Her silver may become dross, and her wine be
mixed with water, the faithful city becoming a harlot; her shepherds may be
turned into dumb, sleeping dogs, and devouring wolves; the watchmen may be
turned smiters, her prophets to prophesy falsely, and her priests to bear
rule by lies; the commandments of God being made void by the traditions of
men, superstition, human inventions, will-worship, may defile and
contaminate the service of God; yea, and greater abominations may men
possessing Moses’ chair by succession do. Now, that the temple of God hath been thus made
a den of thieves, that the abomination of desolation hath been set up in
the holy place, is evident from the Jewish and Christian church; for in the
one it was clearly so when the government of it was devolved to the scribes
and Pharisees, and in the other when the man of sin had exalted himself in
the midst thereof. Now, suppose a man living in the midst and height of
such a sad apostasy, when a universal darkness had spread itself over the
face of the church; if the Lord be pleased to reveal unto him out of his
word some points of faith, then either not at all known or generally
disbelieved, yet a right belief whereof is necessary to salvation; and,
farther, out of the same word shall discover unto him the wickedness of
that apostasy, and the means to remove it, — I demand whether that man,
without expecting any call from the fomenters and maintainers of those
errors with which the church at that time is only not destroyed, may not
preach, publish, and publicly declare the said truths to others (the
knowledge of them being so necessary for the good of their souls), and
conclude himself thereunto called of God, by virtue of the fore-named and
other the like rules? Truly, for my part (under correction), I
conceive he may, nay, he ought; neither is any other outward call requisite
to constitute him a preacher of the gospel than the consent of God’s people
to be instructed by him. For instance: suppose that God should reveal the
truth of the gospel to “a mere layman” (as they say) in Italy, so that he
be fully convinced thereof, what shall he now do? abstain from publishing
it, though he be persuaded in conscience that a great door of utterance
might be granted unto him, only because some heretical, simoniacal, wicked,
antichristian prelate hath not ordained him minister, who yet would not do
it unless he will subscribe to those errors and heresies which he is
persuaded to be such? Truly, I think by so abstaining he should sin
against the law of charity, in seeing, not the ox or ass of his
brother falling into the pit, but their precious souls sinking to
everlasting damnation, and not preventing it when he might; and were he
indeed truly angry with his whole nation, he might have the advantage of an
Italian revenge.
Moreover, he should sin against the precept of
Christ, by hiding his light under a bushel, and napkening up his talent, an
increase whereof will be required of him at the last day. Now, with this I
was always so well satisfied, that I ever deemed all curious disquisition
after the outward vocation of our first reformers, Luther, Calvin, etc.,
altogether needless, the case in their days being exactly that which I have
laid down.
Come we now to the third and last
way whereby men, not partakers of any outward ordinary vocation, may yet
receive a sufficient warrant for the preaching and publishing of the
gospel, and that by some outward act of Providence guiding them thereunto.
For example: put case a Christian man should, by any chance of providence,
be cast, by shipwreck, or otherwise upon the country of some barbarous
people that never heard of the name of Christ, and there, by His goodness
that brought him thither, be received amongst them into civil human
society, may he not, nay, ought he not, to preach Christ unto them? and if
God give a blessing to his endeavours, may he not become a pastor to the
converted souls? None, I hope, makes any doubt of it; and in the primitive
times nothing was more frequent than such examples. Thus were the Indians
and the Moors turned to the faith, as you may see in Eusebius; yea, great was the liberty which in the first
church was used in this kind, presently after the supernatural gift of
tongues ceased amongst men.
Chapter VIII.
Of the liberty and duty of gifted uncalled Christians in the
exercise of divers acts of God’s worship.
And thus have I declared what I
conceive concerning extraordinary calling to the public teaching of the
word, in what cases only it useth to take place; whence I conclude, that
whosoever pretends unto it, not warranted by an evidence of one of those
three ways that God taketh in such proceedings, is but a pretender, an
impostor, and ought, accordingly, to be rejected of all God’s people. In
other cases, not to disuse what outward ordinary occasion, from them who
are intrusted by commission from God with that power, doth confer upon
persons so called, we must needs grant it a negative voice in the admission
of any to the public preaching of the gospel. If they come not in at that
door, they do climb over the wall, if they make any entrance at all. It
remains, then, to shut up all, that it be declared what private Christians,
living in a pure, orthodox, well-ordered church, may do, and how far they
may interest themselves in holy, soul-concerning affairs, both in respect
of their own particular and of their brethren in the midst of whom they
live; in which determination, because it concerneth men of low degree, and
those that comparatively may be said to be unlearned, I shall labour to
express the conceivings of my mind in as familiar, plain observations as I
can. Only, thus much I desire may be premised, that the principles and
rules of that church government from which, in the following assertions, I
desire not to wander are of that kind (to which I do, and always, in my
poor judgment, have adhered, since, by God’s assistance, I had engaged
myself to the study of his word) which commonly are called presbyterial or
synodical, in opposition to prelatical or diocesan on the one side, and
that which is commonly called independent or congregational on the
other.
First, then, a diligent searching of the
Scriptures, with fervent prayers to Almighty God for the taking away that
veil of ignorance which by nature is before their eyes, that they may come
to a saving knowledge in and a right understanding of them, is not only
lawful and convenient for all men professing the name of
Christ, but also absolutely necessary; because commanded,
yea indeed commanded, because the end so to be attained is absolutely
necessary to salvation. To confirm this I need not multiply precepts out
of the Old or New Testament, (such as that of Isa. viii.
20, “To the law and to the testimony;” and that of John v. 39, “Search the Scriptures,”)
which are innumerable; nor yet heap up motives unto it, such as are the description of the heavenly country whither we are going, in
them contained, John xiv.
2; 2 Cor. v. 1; Rev. xxii.
1, etc.; the way by which we are to travel, laid down John v. 39, xiv. 5,
6; Jesus Christ, whom we must labour to be like, painted out,
Gal. iii. 1; and the back parts of God
discovered, Deut. xxix.
29. By them only true spiritual wisdom is conveyed to our
souls, Jer. viii. 9, whereby we may become
even wiser than our teachers, Ps. cxix.
99; in them all comfort and consolation is to be had in the time
of danger and trouble, Ps. cxix. 54, 71,
72; in brief, the knowledge of Christ, which is “life eternal,”
John xvii. 3; yea, all that can be
said in this kind comes infinitely short of those treasures of wisdom,
riches, and goodness which are contained in them: “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of
the Lord is sure, making wise the simple,”
Ps. xix. 7. But this duty of the
people is clear and confessed, the objections of the Papists against it
being, for the most part, so many blasphemies against the holy word of God.
They accuse it of difficulty, which God affirms to “make wise the simple;”
of obscurity, which “openeth the eyes of the blind;” to be a dead letter, a
nose of wax, which is “quick and powerful, piercing to the dividing asunder
of the soul and spirit;” to be weak and insufficient, which “is able to
make the man of God perfect” and “wise unto salvation.” Yea, that word
which the apostle affirmeth to be “profitable for reproof” is not in any
thing more full than in reproving of this blasphemy.
Secondly, They may not only (as before) search the
Scriptures, but also examine and try by them the doctrine that publicly
is taught unto them. The people of God must not be like “children,
tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the
sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to
deceive,” Eph. iv. 14. All is not presently
gospel that is spoken in the pulpit; it is not long since that
altar-worship, Arminianism, Popery, superstition, etc., were freely
preached in this kingdom. Now, what shall the people of God do in such a
case? Yield to every breath, to every puff of false doctrine? or rather
try it by the word of God, and if it be not agreeable thereunto, cast it
out like salt that hath lost its savour? Must not the people take care
that they be not seduced? Must they not “beware of false prophets, which
come unto them in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves?” And
how shall they do this? what way remains but a trying their doctrine by the
rule? In these evil days wherein we live, I hear many daily complaining
that there is such difference and contrariety among preachers, they know
not what to do nor scarce what to believe. My answer is, Do but your own
duty, and this trouble is at an end. Is there any contrariety in the book
of God? Pin not your faith upon men’s opinions; the Bible is
the touchstone. That there is such diversity amongst teachers is their
fault, who should think all the same thing; but that this is so troublesome
to you is your own fault, for neglecting your duty of trying all things by
the word. Alas! you are in a miserable condition, if you have all this
while relied on the authority of men in heavenly things. He that builds
his faith upon preachers, though they preach nothing but truth, and he
pretend to believe it, hath indeed no faith at all, but a wavering opinion,
built upon a rotten foundation. Whatever, then, is taught you, you must go
with it “to the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to
this word, it is because there is no light in them,” Isa. viii. 20. Yea, the Bereans are
highly extolled for searching whether the doctrine concerning our Saviour
preached by St Paul were so or no, Acts xvii.
11; agreeably to the precept of the same preacher, 1 Thess. v. 21, “Prove all things,
hold fast that which is good;” as also to that of St John, 1 Epist. iv. 1, “Beloved, believe not
every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God; because many
false prophets are gone out into the world.” Prophets, then, must be tried
before they be trusted. Now, the reason of this holds still. There are
many false teachers abroad in the world; wherefore try every one, try his
spirit, his spiritual gift of teaching, and that by the word of God. And
here you have a clear rule laid down how you may extricate yourselves from
the former perplexity. Nay, St Paul himself, speaking to understanding
Christians, requires them to judge of it: 1 Cor. x.
15, “I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.” Hence are
those cautions that the people should look that none do seduce them,
Matt. xxiv. 4; to which end they must
have their souls “exercised” in the word of God, “to discern both good and
evil,” Heb. v. 14. Thus, also, in one place
Christ biddeth his followers hear the Pharisees, and do what they should
command, because they sat in Moses’ chair, Matt. xxiii. 2, 3; and yet in
another place gives them a caution to beware of the doctrine of the
Pharisees, Matt. xvi. 12. It remaineth, then,
that the people are bound to hear those who possess the place of teaching
in the church, but withal they must beware that it contain nothing of the
old leaven; to which end they must try it by the word of God; when, as St
Paul prayeth for the Philippians, “their love may abound yet more and more
in knowledge, and all judgment, that they may approve things that are
excellent,” Phil. i.
9, 10. Unless ministers will answer for all those souls they
shall mislead, and excuse them before God at the day of trial, they ought
not to debar them from trying their doctrine. Now this they cannot do; for
“if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit” of destruction. And
here I might have just occasion of complaint:— 1. Of the superstitious
pride of the late clergy of this land, who could not endure to
have their doctrine tried by their auditors, crying to poor men, with the
Pharisees, John ix. 34, “‘Ye were altogether
born in sins, and do ye teach us?’ A pretty world it is like to be, when
the sheep will needs teach their pastors!” Nothing would serve them but a
blind submission to the loose dictates of their cobweb homilies. He saw
farther, sure, in the darkness of Popery, who contended that a whole
general council ought to give place to a simple layman urging Scripture or
speaking reason. Now, surely this is very far from that gentleness,
meekness, and aptness to teach, which St Paul requireth in a man of God, a
minister of the gospel. 2. The negligence of the people, also, might here
come under a just reproof, who have not laboured to discern the voice of
the hireling from that of the true shepherd, but have promiscuously
followed the new-fangledness and heretical errors of every time-serving
starver of souls. Whence proceedeth all that misery the land now groaneth
under, but that we have had a people willing to be led by a corrupted
clergy, freely drinking in the poison wherewith they are tainted? “The
prophets prophesied falsely, the priests bare rule by their means, the
people loved to have it so; but what shall we now do in the end thereof?”
Who could ever have thought that the people of England would have yielded a
willing ear to so many popish errors, and an obedient shoulder to such a
heavy burden of superstitions, as in a few years were instilled into them,
and laid upon them voluntarily, by their own sinful neglect, ensnaring
their consciences by the omission of this duty we insist upon, of examining
by the word what is taught unto them? But this is no place
for complaints. And this is a second thing which the people, distinct from
their pastors, may do for their own edification. Now, whether they do this
privately, every one apart, or by assembling more together, is altogether
indifferent. And that this was observed by private Christians in the
primitive times is very apparent.
Come we, in the third place, to what either their duty
binds them to, or otherwise by the word they are allowed to do, in sacred
performances having reference to others. Look, then, in general upon those
things we find them tied unto by virtue of special precept, such as are, to
warn the unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak, 1 Thess. v. 14; to admonish and
reprove offending brethren, Matt. xviii.
15; to instruct the ignorant, John iv.
29, Acts xviii.
26; to exhort the negligent, Heb. iii. 13, x. 24,
25; to comfort the afflicted, 1 Thess. v.
11; to restore him that falleth, Gal. vi. 1;
to visit the sick, Matt. xxv. 36,
40; to reconcile those that are at variance, Matt. v. 9; to contend for the faith,
Jude 3, 1 Pet. iii.
15; to pray for the sinner not unto death,1 John v. 16; to edify one another
in their most holy faith, Jude
20; to speak to themselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual
songs, Eph. v. 19; to be ready to answer
every man in giving account of their faith, Col. iv. 6;
to mark them that make divisions, Rom. xvi.
17; with innumerable others to the like purpose. It remaineth
for them to consider, secondly, in particular, what course they may take,
beyond private conference between man and man, by indiction of time or
place for the fulfilling of what, by these precepts and the like, is of
them required. To which I answer, —
First, lawful things must be done
lawfully. If any unlawful circumstance attend the performance of
a lawful action, it vitiates the whole work; for “bonum oritur ex integris.” For instance, to reprove
an offender is a Christian duty, but for a private man to do it in the
public congregation whilst the minister is preaching, were, instead of a
good act, a foul crime, being a notorious disturbance of church decency and
order.
Secondly, That for a public, formal, ministerial
teaching, two things are required in the teacher:— first,
Gifts from God; secondly, Authority from the
church (I speak now of ordinary cases). He that wants either is no true
pastor. For the first, God sends none upon an employment but whom he fits
with gifts for it, 1. Not one command in the Scripture made to teachers; 2.
Not one rule for their direction; 3. Not one promise to their endeavours;
4. Not any end of their employment; 5. Not one encouragement to their duty;
6. Not one reproof for their negligence; 7. Not the least intimation of
their reward, — but cuts off ungifted, idle pastors from any true interest
in the calling. And for the others, that want authority from the church,
neither ought they to undertake any formal act properly belonging to the
ministry, such as is solemn teaching of the word; for, — 1. They are none
of Christ’s officers, Eph. iv.
11. 2. They are expressly forbidden it, Jer.
xxiii. 21; Heb. v. 4.
3. The blessing on the word is promised only to sent teachers, Rom. x. 14, 15. 4. If to be gifted
be to be called, then, — (1.) Every one might undertake so much in sacred
duties as he fancies himself to be able to perform; (2.) Children (as they
report of Athanasius) might baptize; (3.) Every common
Christian might administer the communion. But endless are the arguments
that might be multiplied against this fancy. In a word, if our Saviour
Christ be the God of order, he hath left his church to no such
confusion.
Thirdly, That to appoint time and place for the
doing of that which God hath appointed indefinitely to be done in time and
place, rather commends than vitiates the duty. So did Job’s friends in the
duty of comforting the afflicted; they made an appointment
together to come and comfort him, Job ii.
11; and so did they, Zech. viii.
21; and so did David, Ps. cxix.
62.
Fourthly, There is much difference between
opening or interpreting the word, and applying the word
upon the advantage of such an approved interpretation; as also between an
authoritative act, or doing a thing by virtue of special office, and a
charitable act, or doing a thing out of a motion of Christian love.
Fifthly, It may be observed concerning gifts, —
1. That the gifts and graces of God’s Spirit are of two
sorts, some being bestowed for the sanctification of God’s people, some for
the edification of his church; some of a private allay, looking primarily
inwards to the saving of his soul on whom they are bestowed (though in
their fruits also they have a relation and habitude to others), other some
aiming at the commonwealth or profit of the whole church as such. Of the
first sort are those mentioned Gal. v.
22, 23, “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,” etc.,
with all other graces that are necessary to make the man of God perfect in
all holiness and the fear of the Lord; the other are those χαρίσματα πνευματικά, spiritual gifts of teaching,
praying, prophesying, mentioned 1 Cor.
xiv., and in other places.
2. That all these gifts, coming down from the Father of
lights, are given by the same Spirit, “dividing to every man severally as
he will,” 1 Cor. xii. 11. He is not tied, in
the bestowing of his gifts, to any sort, estate, calling, or condition of
men; but worketh them freely, as it pleaseth him, in whom he will. The
Spirit them mentioned is that God which “worketh all things after the
counsel of his own will,” Eph. i.
11; they are neither deserved by our goodness nor obtained by
our endeavours.
3. That the end why God bestoweth these gifts on any is
merely that, within the bounds of their own calling (in which they are
circumscribed, 1 Cor. i.
26), they should use them to his glory and the edification of
his church; for “the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to
profit withal,” 1 Cor. xii.
7. Christ gives none of his talents to be bound up in napkins,
but expects his own with increase.
And from these considerations it is easily discernible both
what the people of God, distinct from their pastors, in a well-ordered
church, may do in this kind whereof we treat, and how. In general, then, I
assert, —
That, for the improving of knowledge, the increasing of
Christian charity, for the furtherance of a strict and holy communion of
that spiritual love and amity which ought to be amongst the brethren, they
may of their own accord assemble together, to consider one another, to provoke unto love and good works, to stir up the gifts
that are in them, yielding and receiving mutual consolation by the fruits
of their most holy faith.
Now, because there be many Uzzahs amongst us, who have an
itching desire to be fingering of the ark, thinking more highly of
themselves than they ought to think, and, like the ambitious sons of Levi,
taking too much upon them, it will not be amiss to give two cautions,
deducted from the former rules:—
First, That they do not, under a pretence of Christian
liberty and freedom of conscience, cast away all brotherly amity, and cut
themselves off from the communion of the church. Christ hath not purchased
a liberty for any to rend his body. They will prove at length to be no
duties of piety which break the sacred bonds of charity.
Men ought not, under a pretence of congregating themselves
to serve their God, separate from their brethren, neglecting the public
assemblies; as was the manner of some rebuked by the apostle, Heb. x. 25. There be peculiar
blessings and transcendant privileges annexed to public assemblies, which
accompany not private men to their recesses. The sharp-edged sword becomes
more keen when set on by a skillful master of the assemblies; and when the
water of the word flows there, the Spirit of God moves upon the face
thereof, to make it effectual in our hearts. “What! despise ye the church
of God?” 1 Cor. xi. 22.
Secondly, As the ministry, so also ought the ministers to
have that regard, respect, and obedience, which is due to their labours in
that sacred calling. Would we could not too frequently see more puffed up
with the conceit of their own gifts, into a contempt of the most learned
and pious pastors! — these are “spots in your feasts of charity, clouds
without water, carried about of winds.” It must, doubtless, be an evil
root that bringeth forth such bitter fruit. Wherefore, let not our
brethren fall into this condemnation, lest there be an evil report raised
by them that are without; but “remember them which have the rule over you,
who have spoken unto you the word of God,” Heb. xiii.
7. There is no greater evidence of the heavenly improvement you
make by your recesses than that you obey them that are guides unto you, and
submit yourselves: for “they watch for your souls, as they that must give
an account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is
unprofitable for you,” verse
17. Let not them who despise a faithful, painful minister in
public, flatter themselves with hope of a blessing on their endeavours in
private. Let them pretend what they will, they have not an equal respect
unto all God’s ordinances. Wherefore, that the coming together in this
sort may be for the better, and not for the worse, observe these
things:—
Now, for what gifts (that are, as before, freely bestowed)
whose exercise is permitted unto such men so assembled; I mean
in a private family, or two or three met ὁμοθυμαδόν, in one.
And first we may name the gift of prayer, whose
exercise must not be exempted from such assemblies, if any be granted.
These are the times wherein the Spirit of grace and of supplications is
promised to be poured out upon the Jerusalem of God, Zech. xii. 10. Now, God having
bestowed the gift and requiring the duty, his people ought not to be
hindered in the performance of it. Are all those precepts to pray, in the
Scriptures, only for our closets? When the church was in distress for the
imprisonment of Peter, there was a meeting at the house of Mary, the mother
of John, Acts xii. 12. “Many were gathered
together praying,” saith the text; — a sufficient warrant for the people of
God in like cases. The churches are in no less distress now than at that
time; and in some congregations the ministers are so oppressed that
publicly they dare not, in others so corrupted that they will not, pray for
the prosperity of Jerusalem. Now, truly, it were a disconsolate thing for
any one of God’s servants to say, “During all these straits, I never joined
with any of God’s children in the pouring out of my prayer in the behalf of
his church:” neither can I see how this can possibly be prevented but by
the former means; to which add the counsel of St Paul, “Speaking to
themselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making
melody in their hearts unto the Lord,” Eph. v.
19.
Secondly, They may exercise the gifts of wisdom,
knowledge, and understanding in the ways of the Lord;
comforting, strengthening, and encouraging each other with the same
consolations and promises which, by the benefit of the public ministry,
they have received from the word. Thus, in time of distress, the prophet
Malachi tells us that “they that feared the Lord
spake often one to another, and the Lord hearkened,
and heard,” etc., chap. iii.
16; — comforting, as it appears, one another in the promises of
God made unto his church, against the flourishing of the wicked and
overflowing of ungodliness, the persecution of tyrants and impurity of
transgressors.
Thirdly, They may make use of “the tongue of the
learned” (if given unto them) to “speak a word in season to him that
is weary,” Isa. l. 4; for being commanded to
“confess their faults one to another,” James v.
16, they have power also to apply to them that are penitent the
promises of mercy. We should never be commanded to open our wounds to them
who have no balm to pour into them; he shall have cold comfort who seeks
for counsel from a dumb man. So that in this, and the like cases, they may
apply unto and instruct one another in the word of God; doing it as a
charitable duty, and not as out of necessary function, even as Aquila and
Priscilla expounded unto Apollos the word of God more perfectly than he
knew it before, Acts xviii. 24–26. In sum, and
not to enlarge this discourse with any more particulars, the people of God
are allowed all quiet and peaceable means, whereby they may help each other
forward in the knowledge of godliness and the way towards heaven.
Now, for the close of this discourse, I will remove some
objections that I have heard godly men, and men not unlearned, lay against
it, out of a zeal (not unlike that of Joshua for Moses’ sake) [for] the
constitute pastor’s sake; to whom, though I might briefly answer, with
Moses, “‘Would God all the Lord’s people were
prophets!’ — I heartily wish that every one of them had such a plentiful
measure of spiritual endowments that they might become wise unto salvation,
above many of their teachers;” in which vote I make no doubt but every one
will concur with me who has the least experimental knowledge what a burden
upon the shoulders, what a grief unto the soul of a minister knowing and
desiring to discharge his duty, is an ignorant congregation (of which,
thanks to our prelates, pluralists, non-residents, homilies, service-book,
and ceremonies, we have too many in this kingdom; the many, also, of our
ministers in this church taking for their directory the laws and penalties
of men, informing what they should not do if they would avoid their
punishment, and not the precepts of God, what they should as their duty do
if they meant to please him, and knowing there was no statute whereon they
might be sued for (pardon the expression) the dilapidation of souls: so
their own houses were ceiled, they cared not at all though the church of
God lay waste); — I say, though I might thus answer, with opening my desire
for the increasing of knowledge among the people, of which I take this to
be an effectual means, yet I will give brief answers to the several
objections:—
Objection 1. “Then this seems to favour all
allowance of licentious conventicles, which in all places the laws
have condemned, and learned men in all ages have abhorred, as the
seminaries of faction and schism in the church of God.”
Ans. That (under correction) I conceive the law
layeth hold of none, as peccant in such a kind, but only those who have
pre-declared themselves to be opposers of the worship of God in the public
assemblies of that church wherein they live. Now, the patronage of any
such I before rejected. Neither do I conceive that they ought at all to be
allowed the benefit of private meetings who wilfully abstain from the
public congregations, so long as the true worship of God is held forth in
them. Yea, how averse I have ever been from that kind of confused
licentiousness in any church, I have some while since declared, in an
answer (drawn up for my own and private friends’ satisfaction) to the
arguments of the Remonstrants in their Apology, and replies to
Vedelius, with other treatises, for
such a “liberty of prophesying,” as they term it, If, then, the
law account only such assemblies to be conventicles wherein the assemblers
contemn and despise the service of God in public, I have not spoken one
word in favour of them. And for that canon which was mounted against them,
whether intentionally, in the first institution of it, it was moulded and
framed against Anabaptists or no, I cannot tell; but this I am sure, that
in the discharge of it, it did execution oftentimes upon such as had
Christ’s precept and promise to warrant their assembling, Matt. xviii. 19, 20. Not to
contend about words, would to God that which is good might not be
persecuted under odious appellations, and called evil when it is otherwise;
so to expose it to the tyrannical oppression of the enemies of the gospel!
The thing itself, rightly understood, can scarce be condemned of any who
envies not the salvation of souls. They that would banish the gospel from
our houses would not much care if it were gone from our
hearts; from our houses, I say, for it is all one whether these
duties be performed in one family or a collection of more. Some one is
bigger than ten others; shall their assembling to perform what is lawful
for that one be condemned for a conventicle? Where is the law for that? or
what is there in all this more than God required of his ancient people, as
I showed before? Or must a master of a family cease praying in his family,
and instructing his children and servants in the ways of the Lord, for fear
of being counted a preacher in a tub? Things were scarcely carried with an
equal hand for the kingdom of Christ, when orders came forth on the one
side to give liberty to the profane multitude to assemble themselves at
heathenish sports, with bestial exclamations, on the Lord’s own day; and on
the other, to punish them who durst gather themselves together for prayer
or the singing of psalms But I hope, through God’s blessing, we shall be
for ever quit of all such ecclesiastical discipline as must be exercised
according to the interest of idle drones, whom it concerneth to see that
there be none to try or examine their doctrine, or of superstitious
innovators, who desire to obtrude their fancies upon the unwary people.
Whence comes it that we have such an innumerable multitude of ignorant,
stupid souls, unacquainted with the very principles of religion,
but from the discountenancing of these means of increasing knowledge by men
who would not labour to do it themselves? O that we could see the many
swearers, and drunkards, and Sabbath-breakers, etc., in this nation, guilty
only of this crime! Would the kingdom were so happy, the church so
holy!
Obj. 2. “Men are apt to pride themselves in
their gifts, and flatter themselves in their performances, so that let
them approach as nigh as the tabernacle, and you shall quickly have them
encroaching upon the priest’s office also, and, by an
overweening of their own endeavours, create themselves pastors in separate
congregations.
Ans. It cannot be but offences will come, so long as
there is malice in Satan and corruption in men. There is no doubt but
there is danger of some such thing; but hereof the liberty mentioned is not
the cause, but an accidental occasion only, no way blamable. Gifts must
not be condemned because they may be abused. God-fearing men will remember
Korah, knowing, as one says well, that “Uzzah had better ventured the
falling than the fingering of the ark.” They that truly love their souls
will not suffer themselves to be carried away by false conceit, so far as
to help to overthrow the very constitution of any church by confusion, or
the flourishing of it by ignorance; both which would certainly follow such
courses. Knowledge if alone puffeth up, but joined to charity it
edifieth.
Obj. 3. “But may not this be a means for men to
vent and broach their own private fancies unto others? to foment
and cherish errors in one another? to give false interpretations of the
word, there being no way to prevent it?”
Ans. For interpreting of the word I speak not, but
applying of it, being rightly interpreted. And for the rest, would to God
the complaints were not true of those things that have for divers years in
this church been done publicly and outwardly according to order! But, that
no inconvenience arise from hence, the care rests on them to whom the
dispensation of the word is committed, whose sedulous endeavour to reprove
and convince all unsound doctrine, not agreeing to the form of wholesome
words, is the sovereign and only remedy to cure, or means to prevent, this
evil. For the close of all, we may observe that those who are most
offended and afraid lest others should encroach upon their callings are,
for the most part, such as have almost deserted it themselves, neglecting
their own employment, when they are the busiest of mortals in things of
this world. To conclude, then, for what I have delivered in this
particular, I conceive that I have the judgment and practice of the whole
church of Scotland, agreeable to the word of God, for my warrant. Witness
the act of their assembly at Edinburgh, anno 1641, wherewith the learned Rutherford
concludes his defence of their discipline, with whose words I will shut up
this discourse: “Our assembly, also, commandeth godly conference at all
occasional meetings, or as God’s providence shall dispose, as the word of
God commandeth, providing none invade the pastor’s office, to preach the
word, who are not called thereunto by God and his church.”
Τῷ Θεῷ ἀριστομεγίστῳ
δόξα.