[335] Luke xxii. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 24; Acts ii. 37, 38; Matt. xxviii. 19, 20; 1 Cor. x. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 14; Acts viii. 13, 37, 38; 1 Cor. xi. 27-30.
Answ. 1. He that is sure of his unsoundness and hypocrisy should not come.[336]
2. He that upon trial is not sure, but yet as far as he can understand his own heart and life, doth judge himself an impenitent hypocrite, should use other means to know himself certainly, and fullier to repent before he cometh. And though some melancholy and timorous persons be falsely persuaded that they are impenitent, yet it is better that such forbear the sacrament, while they use other means for their better acquaintance with themselves, than that all the hypocrites, and wicked, impenitent people be told that it is their duty to come, if they can but make themselves uncertain whether they be impenitent or not.
3. But he that after the best endeavours he can use to know himself, can say, I am not certain that I truly repent, but as far as I can know my heart I do; is not to be hindered from the sacrament by that uncertainty. 1. For few of the best attain to a full certainty of their own sincerity. 2. And all that can be expected from us is, that we proceed according to the best of our understandings, and the best acquaintance with ourselves that we can get. 3. And otherwise it would keep us from all other duties proper to true christians; as from thanksgiving for our justification, sanctification, adoption, &c.
4. He that only erreth about the nature of true faith and repentance, and not about the reality of it in himself, should not be kept away by that error; as if he can say, As far as I know my heart, I am willing to part with every known sin, and to know every sin that I may part with it; but I am afraid this is not true repentance; or he that saith, I believe the gospel to be true, and I am willing to have Christ upon his covenant terms, and wholly to resign myself unto him; but I am afraid yet that I am not a true believer. This person is truly penitent, and is a true believer, and therefore ought to come.
5. The case de esse, whether a man be a true christian or not, is in order before the case de scire, whether he be certain of it, or not.[337] He that is a hypocrite is bound by God first to know that he is so, and then to repent, and then to communicate. He that is sincere, is bound by God to know that he is sincere, and to be thankful, and to communicate; and man's neglect of one duty will not make God change his laws, which still bind them to all this at once.
Answ. 1. There is no question but a christian must give up himself, soul and body, with all that he hath, to God for his service; and this oblation is christianity itself.[338]
2. It is undoubted that the Lord's day is a fit time for our depositing what we have to spare for charitable and pious uses, and this is partly of divine appointment, 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2.
3. No doubt but what we give to the poor, should be for God's sake, and from our love to God; and therefore must first be devoted or given up to God, and but secondarily to the poor.[339]
4. It is certain that the Lord's supper is as fit a season as any part of that day, for such oblations and collections. The ancient christians did therefore call it the communion, because in it they showed their love and communion, and feasted in common to that end. There are two several sorts of oblations which may lawfully be made (and fitly) at the communion. 1. The creatures of bread and wine should be offered or presented before God, as acknowledging him to be the Creator and Giver of all, and to desire his acceptance and benediction of them for that holy use. 2. Our alms or charitable contribution may be then fitly offered to God, that he may first accept it, and so it may be communicated to the church and poor. When we receive from God the most obliging benefits, when we return our greatest thanks, when we resign ourselves and all to God, it is then sure a seasonable time, to express all by the oblation of our benevolence: that hypocrites may not pretend that they are charitable in secret, but the church may have due notice of it, and the pastors be duly intrusted with it.[340]
Answ. The word sacrament hath so many significations, that it is not fit for the question till it be explained.[341] Passing all others now, we must take notice, 1. That our use of it is not so large as the Latin interpreter who putteth it for Mystery, but for A solemn dedication of man to God by a vow expressed by some sacred ceremony, signifying mutually our covenant to God, and God's reception of us and his covenant with us. And it is brought into the church from the Roman military oath called a sacrament, in which, as Tertul. "de Cor. Mil." showeth, the soldier sware fidelity and obedience to Cæsar, renouncing father, mother, &c. for his service, and swearing to prefer it, and its safety, before them all: see Martinius's reciting the oath out of divers authors. This is our sense of the word; let no man now that taketh it in other sense, pretend therefore that we differ in doctrine.
2. Seeing it is no Scripture word, it is not of necessity to the faith or peace of the church; but when disputers agree not of the sense of the word, they had best lay it by, and use such terms whose sense they can agree on.
3. The name sacrament is either taken from the covenant sworn to, or from the sign or ceremony of consent, by which we oblige ourselves, or from both together.
4. The covenant of christianity is different from a particular covenant of some office; and accordingly the sacrament is to be distinguished.
5. As civil, economical, and ecclesiastical offices are distinct, so are their several sacraments.
6. The solemn renewing of the sacred vow or covenant, without any instituted, obliging sign, is to be distinguished from the renewing it by such a sign of God's institution: and now I conclude,
1. As the word sacrament is taken improperly secundum quid, from the nobler part only, that is, the covenant, (as a man's soul is called the man,) so there are as many sacraments as covenants; and there is in specie but one covenant of christianity, and so but one sacrament of christianity, variously expressed.
2. As the word sacrament is taken properly and fully according to the aforesaid description; so there are properly two sacraments of christianity, or of the covenant of grace; that is, baptism, the sacrament of initiation, (most fully so called,) and the Lord's supper, or the sacrament of confirmation, exercise, and progress.
3. As the word sacrament is taken less properly, defectively, secundum quid, for the same covenant of grace or christianity renewed by any arbitrary sign of our own, without a solemn ceremony of divine institution, so there are divers sacraments of christianity or the covenant of grace, that is, divers solemn renewals of our covenant with God. As, 1. At our solemn transition from the state of infant membership unto that of the adult, when we solemnly own our baptismal covenant, which Calvin and many protestants (and the English rubric) call confirmation. 2. The solemn owning the christian faith and covenant, in our constant church assemblies, when we stand up at the creed or profession of our faith, and all renew our covenant with God, and dedication to him. 3. At solemn days of fasting or humiliation, and of thanksgiving when this should be solemnly done. Especially upon some public defection. 4. Upon the public repentance of a particular sinner before his absolution. 5. When a man is going out of the world, and recommending his soul to God by Christ; all these are solemn renewings of our covenant with God, in which we may use any lawful, natural, or arbitrary signs or expressions, to signify our own minds by, as speaking, subscribing, standing up, lifting up the hand, laying it upon a book, kissing the book, &c. These sacraments are improperly so called; and are divine as to the covenant renewed, but human as to the expressing signs.
4. Ordination is not improperly or unfitly called a sacrament, because it is the solemnizing of a mutual covenant between God and man, for our dedication to his special service, and his reception of us and blessing on us, though imposition of hands be not so solemn a ceremony by mere institution, as baptism and the Lord's supper. But then it must be noted, that this is not sacramentum christianitatis, a sacrament of the christian covenant; but sacramentum ordinis vel officii particularis, a sacrament of orders, or a particular office; but of divine institution.
5. The solemn celebration of marriage, is an economical sacrament; that is, a solemn obligation of man and woman by vow to one another, and of both to God in that relation, which may be arbitrarily expressed by lawful signs or ceremonies.
6. The solemn covenant of a master with his servant, is on the same account an economical sacrament.
7. The inauguration of a king, in which he is sworn to his subjects, and dedicated to God in that office, and his subjects sworn or consent to him, is a civil sacrament, whether unction be added or not. And so is a judge's entrance on his office, when it is done so solemnly by an obliging vow or covenant.
8. Confirmation in the papists' sense, as conferred by chrism on infants for giving them the Holy Ghost, is but an unwarrantable imitation of the old miraculous operation by the apostles, and neither a christian sacrament, nor a warrantable practice, but a presumption.
9. The same may be said of their sacrament of extreme unction.
10. Their sacrament of marriage is no otherwise a sacrament, than the inauguration of a king is; which is approved by God as well as marriage, and signifieth also an honourable collation of power from the universal King.
11. Their sacrament of penance is no otherwise a sacrament than many other forementioned renewings of our covenant are.
12. Therefore the papists' seven sacraments, or septenary distribution, is confused, partly redundant, partly defective, and unworthy to be made a part of their faith or religion, or the matter of their peevish and ignorant contendings. And they that peremptorily say, without distinguishing, that there are but two sacraments in all, do but harden them by the unwarrantable narrowing of the word.
[341] Of which see Martinius fully in "Onom. de Sacram." Bellarmin himself reckoneth five.
Answ. 1. Not to the destroying of his body, life, or health, or the disabling or unfitting body or mind, for the service of God.
2. Not to be the expression of any sinful, inordinate dejection, despondency, sorrow, or despair.
3. Not so as may be an outward appearance of such inordinate passions, or as may be a scandal to others, and deter them from religion as a melancholy, hurtful thing.
4. Nor as if God would accept the mere external self-afflicting for itself, or as if he loved our hurt, or as if we merited of him by our unprofitable, voluntary troubles.
But, 1. It is a duty to express true godly sorrow by its proper exercise and signs, so far as either the acting of it, or the increase or continuance by the means of those expressions is profitable to ourselves.
2. And also so far as is needful to the profiting of others, by showing them the evil of sin, and drawing them to repentance.[342]
3. And so far as is necessary to the satisfying of the church of the truth of our repentance, in order to our absolution and communion.
4. Especially so far as is necessary to subdue our fleshly lusts, and tame our bodies, and bring them into a due subjection to our faith, and to avoid our sin for the time to come. And also by the exercise of sober mortification, prudently, to keep under all our worldly phantasies, and love of this present world, without unfitting ourselves for duty.
5. And so far as is needful by such mortification, to fit us for fervent prayer, especially by fasting on days of humiliation; and to help us in our meditations of death and judgment, and to further our heavenly contemplations and conversation.
6. The greatest difficulty is, Whether any self-revenge be lawful or due; which is answered by what is said already; none such as disableth us for God's service is lawful. But true repentance is an anger or great displeasure with ourselves for sin, and a hatred of sin, and loathing of ourselves for it; and to judge, condemn, and afflict our own souls by a voluntary self-punishing, is but that exercise of justice on ourselves, which is fit for pardoned sinners that are not to be condemned by the Lord, and indeed the just exercise of repentance and displeasure against ourselves.[343] On which accounts of sober self-revenge we may cherish such degrees of godly sorrow, fasting, coarse clothing, (as sackcloth,) and denying ourselves the pleasures of this world, as shall not be hurtful but helpful to our duty. And if great and heinous sinners have of old on these terms, exceeded other men in their austerities, and self-afflictings, we cannot condemn them of superstition, unless we more particularly knew more cause for it. But popishly to think that self-afflicting without respect to such causes or necessities is a meritorious perfection, fit for others, is superstition indeed.[344] And to think, as many of the melancholy do, that self-murder is a lawful self-revenge, is a heinous sin, and leadeth to that which is more heinous and dangerous.
[342] Isa. lviii. 3, 5-8, &c.; Mark ix. 13; xii. 7; Matt. vi. 1, 3, 5, 6, 17; Zech. viii. 19; 2 Cor. ii. 7; Col. ii. 22-24; Joel i. 14; ii. 15; Dan. ix. 3; Acts x. 13; 1 Cor. vii. 5; Luke ii. 37; Matt. iv. 2; 2 Sam. xii. 22; Luke xviii. 12; 2 Cor. vii. 9-11; 1 Cor. ix. 27; Col. i. 5, 6; Rom. xiii. 13, 14.
[343] Psal. lxix. 10; Lev. xvi. 29, 31; xxiii. 27, 32; Numb. xxix. 7; xxx. 13; Ezra viii. 21.
[344] Isa. lviii. 5.
Answ. Remember that I here meddle not with the question, how far is it lawful for rulers to impose such fasts on others? save only to say, 1. That it is undoubtedly fit for kings to do it by precepts, and churches by consent, in extraordinary cases of defection, sin, or judgments.[345] 2. That it is undoubtedly sinful usurpation, for either pope or any pretended ecclesiastical, universal rulers, to impose such on the universal church (because there are no universal rulers). Or for a neighbour bishop by usurpation to impose it on a neighbour church. 3. And that it is sinful in all or many churches, to make by their agreements such things to be necessary to their union or communion with their neighbour churches, so that they will take all those for schismatics that differ from them in such indifferent things. But as to the using of such fasts (omitting the imposing) I say,
I. 1. That so great and extraordinary a duty as holy fasting, must not be turned into a mere formality or ceremony.[346]
2. No particular man must be so observant of a public, commanded, anniversary fast, as for it to neglect any duty commanded him by God which is inconsistent with it. As to rejoice or keep a thanksgiving in Lent, upon an extraordinary obliging cause; to keep the Lord's day in Lent, as a day of thanksgiving and rejoicing; to preserve our own health, &c. It is not lawful in obedience to man, to fast so much, or use such diet, as is like to destroy our lives or health; these being not so far put into the power of man; nor can man dispense with us as to the duty of self-preservation. If God himself require us not to offer him our lives and health needlessly, as an acceptable sacrifice, nor ever maketh self-destruction our duty, no nor any thing that is not for man's own good; then we are not to believe without very clear proof that either prince or prelates have more power than ever God doth use himself.
3. Such an anniversary fast as is meet for the remembrance of some great sin or judgment, if commanded, is to be kept, both for the reason of it, and for the authority of the commander. For, 1. It is not unlawful as anniversary. (For, (1.) It is not forbidden, and, (2.) There may be just occasion. Some arbitrarily keep an anniversary fast on the day of their nativity (as I have long done); and some on the day that they fell into some great sin; and some on the day of the death of a friend, or of some personal, domestic, or national calamity; and none of this is forbidden.) 2. And that which is not unlawful in itself, is not therefore unlawful to be done because it is commanded; seeing obedience to superiors is our duty and not our sin, unless in sinful things.
4. Whether it be lawful or meet to commemorate Christ's sufferings by anniversary fasts, is next to be considered.
II. As for Lent in particular, we must distinguish, 1. Between the ancient Lent, and the later Lent. 2. Between keeping it on a civil account, and on a religious. 3. Between true fasting, and change of diet. 4. Between the imitation of Christ's forty days' fasting, and the mere commemoration of it. Which premised I conclude,
1. The keeping a true fast or abstinence from food, for forty days, on what account soever, being impossible, or self-murder, is not to be attempted.
2. The imitation of Christ in his forty days' fasting is not to be attempted or pretended to; because his miraculous works were not done for our imitation. And it is presumption for us to pretend to such a power as is necessary to miracles; or yet to make any essays at such an imitation, any more than at the raising of the dead.
3. The pretending of a fast when men do but change their diet, flesh for fish, fruit, sweetmeats, &c. is but hypocritical and ridiculous; most poor labourers, and temperate ministers, do live all the year on a more flesh-denying diet, and in greater abstinence, than many papists do in Lent, or on their fasting days. And what a ridiculous dispute is it to hear, e. g. a Calvin that never eateth but one small meal a day for many years, to plead against the keeping of the popish fasts, and their clergy call him voracious, and carnal, and an epicure, and plead for fasting as holy mortification, who eat as many meals and as much meat on a Lent day or fasting day, as Calvin did in three feasting days; and drink as much wine in a Lent, as he in twenty years! Sure I am I know many such on both sides; some that eat but a small meal a day, and never drink wine at all, and others that drink wine daily, and eat of many dishes at a meal, and that to the full, and of the sweetest, as fish, fruits, &c. yet rail at the former for not fasting as they do. So delusory are the outward appearances, and so false the pretensions of the carnal sort!
4. The ancient Lent consisted first of one day (Good Friday) alone; and after that of three days, and then of six, and at last it came up to forty. (Of which read Dallæus ubi supra at large.)
5. None can question the lawfulness of and obedient keeping of such a civil Lent fast as our statutes command, for the vending of fish, and for the breed of cattle; so be it no bodily necessity or greater duty be against it.
6. It is not unlawful for those that cannot totally fast, yet to use more abstinence and a more mortifying sort of diet than ordinary, for the exercises of repentance and mortification, in due time.
7. If authority shall appoint such a mortifying, abstemious course upon lawful or tolerable grounds and ends, I will obey them, if they peremptorily require it, when my health or some greater duty forbiddeth it not.
8. As for the commanding such an abstinence, as in Lent, not in imitation, but bare commemoration of Christ's forty days' fast, I would not command it if it were in my power; but being peremptorily commanded, I cannot prove it unlawful to obey, with the afore-mentioned exceptions.
9. It was anciently held a crime to fast on the Lord's day, even in Lent; and I take that day to be separated by Christ and the Holy Ghost for a church festival or day of thanksgiving; therefore I will not keep it as a fast, though I were commanded, unless in such an extraordinary necessity, as aforesaid.
Of pilgrimages, saints, relics, and shrines, temples, of their miracles, of praying to angels, to saints, for the dead, purgatory, of the pope's pardons, indulgences, dispensations; of the power of true pastors to forgive sins, with a multitude of such cases, which are commonly handled in our controversial writers against the papists, I must thither refer the reader for a solution, because the handling of all such particular cases would swell my book to a magnitude beyond my intention, and make this part unsuitable to the rest.
[345] 2 Chron. xx. 3; Ezra viii. 21; Jonah iii. 5; Zech. viii. 19; Joel ii. 15. Read Dallæus's "Treatise de Jejuniis."
[346] Isa. lviii. 3, 5-8.
Answ. Distinguish, 1. Of ordinances. 2. Of a stated want, and a temporary want. 3. Of one that may have better, and one that cannot.
1. Teaching, prayer, and praise, are ordinances of such necessity that church assemblies have not their proper use without them.
2. The Lord's supper is of a secondary need, and must be used when it may, but a church assembly may attain its ends sometimes without it, in a good degree.
3. Discipline is implicitly exercised when none but the baptized are communicants, and when professed christians voluntarily assemble, and the preaching of the word doth distinguish the precious from the vile; much more when notorious, scandalous sinners are by the laws kept from the sacrament (as our rubric and canons do require).
4. But for the fuller, explicit, and exacter exercise of discipline, it is very desirable for the well-being of the churches; but it is but a stronger fence or hedge, and preservative of sacred order; and both the being of a church, and the profitable use of holy assemblies, may subsist without it; as in Helvetia and other countries it is found.
I conclude then, 1. That he that, consideratis considerandis, is a free man, should choose that place where he hath the fullest opportunities of worshipping God, and edifying his soul.
2. He is not to be accounted a free man that cannot remove, without a greater hurt than the good, either to the church or country, or to his family, his neighbours, or himself.
3. Without teaching, prayer, and divine praises we are not to reckon that we have proper church assemblies and communion.
4. We must do all that is in our power to procure the right use of sacraments and discipline.
5. When we cannot procure it, it is lawful and a duty to join in those assemblies that are without it, and rather to enjoy the rest than none. Few churches have the Lord's supper above once a month, which in the primitive church was used every Lord's day and ofter; and yet they meet on other days.[347]
6. It is possible that preaching, prayer, and praise, may be so excellently performed in some churches that want both discipline and the Lord's supper, and all so coldly and ignorantly managed in another church that hath all the ordinances, that men's souls may much more flourish and prosper under the former than the latter.
7. If forbearing or wanting some ordinances for a time, be but in order to a probable procurement of them, we may the better forbear.[348]
8. The time is not to be judged of only by length, but by the probability of success. For sometimes God's providence, and the disturbances of the times, or the craft of men in power, may keep men so long in the dark, that a long expectation or waiting may become our duty.
[347] Acts xxviii. 31; xi. 26; xx. 7, 20, &c.; 1 Cor. xiv.; Acts ii. 42; 1 Tim. iv. 13, 14; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 2; 2 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. x. 25, 26; Col. iv. 16; Acts xiii. 27; xv. 21; 1 Thess. v. 27; 1 Cor. v. 34, &c.
[348] Matt. xxvi. 31; Acts viii. 1.
Answ. As in man's soul, the intellectual guidance, the will, and the executive power do concur, so in church cases of this nature, the potestative government of the magistrate, the directive guidance of the senior pastors, and the attractive love of the people (who are the chief inferior, final cause) should all concur; and when they do not, it is confusion: and when God's order is broken which commandeth their concurrence, it is hard to know what to do, in such a division which God alloweth not; as it is to know whether I should take part with the heart against the head, or with the head against the stomach and liver, on suppositions of cross inclinations or interests; whenas nature supposeth either a concord of inclination and interest, or else the ruin, sickness, or death of the person; and the cure must be by reconciling them, rather than by knowing which to side with against the rest.
But seeing we must suppose such diseases frequently to happen, they that cannot cure them must know how to behave themselves, and to do their own duty. For my own part, in such cases I would do thus:
1. I would look at my ultimate end, God's glory, and at the next end, the good of souls and welfare of the church; and so at the people's interest as it is the end of the order of magistracy and ministry: and I would take myself to be so obliged to that end, as that no point of mere order could disoblige me, the end being better than the means as such; therefore I would do all things to edification, supposing that all power of man is as Paul's was, for edification and not for destruction.[349]
2. But in judging of what is best for the church, I must take in every accident and circumstance, and look to many, more than to a few, and to distant parts as well as to those near me, and to the time and ages to come, as well as to the present, and not go upon mistaken suppositions of the church's good; he that doth not see all things that are to be weighed in such a case, may err by leaving out some one.
3. I would obey the magistrate formally for conscience sake in all things which belong to his office; and particularly in this case, if it were but a removal from place to place, in respect to the temple, or tithes, or for the civil peace, or for the preservation of church order in cases where it is not grossly injurious to the church and gospel.
4. In cases which by God's appointment belong to the conduct of bishops, or pastors, or the concord of consociate churches, I would formaliter follow them. And in particular, if they satisfy me that the removal of me is an apparent injury to the church, (as in the Arian's times, when the emperors removed the orthodox from all the great churches to put in Arians,) I would not obedientially and voluntarily remove.
5. If magistrates and bishops should concur in commanding my remove in a case notoriously injurious and pernicious to the church, (as in the aforesaid case, to bring in an Arian,) I would not obey formally for conscience sake; supposing that God never gave them such a power against men's souls and the gospel of Christ; and there is no power but of God.
6. But I would prefer both the command of the magistrate, and the direction of the pastors, before the mere will and humour of the people, when their safety and welfare were not concerned in the case.
7. And when the magistrate is peremptory, usually I must obey him materially, when I do it not formally (in conscience to his mere command). Because though in some cases he may do that which belongeth not to his office, but to the pastor's, yet his violence may make it become the church's interest, that I yield and give place to his wrath; for as I must not resist him by force, so if I depart not at his command, it may bring a greater suffering on the churches: and so for preventing a greater evil he is to be submitted to in many cases, where he goeth against God and without authority; though not to be formally obeyed.
8. Particular churches have no such interest in their ministers or pastors, as to keep them against their wills and the magistrate's, and against the interest of the universal church, as shall be next asserted.
I have spoken to this instance as it taketh in all other cases of difference between the power of the magistrate, the pastor's and the people's interest, when they disagree, and not as to this case alone.
[349] Eph. iv. 12, 14; 2 Cor. x. 8; xiii. 10; Rom. xiv. 19; Rom. xv. 2; 1 Cor. x. 23; 1 Cor. xiv. 5, 12, 26; 2 Cor. xii. 19.
These four questions I put together for brevity, and shall answer them distinctly.
I. 1. A minister is obliged to Christ and the universal church for life, (durante vita,) with this exception, if God disable him not. 2. But as a pastor he is not obliged to this or that flock for life. There is no such command or example in God's word.
II. To the second: 1. It is lawful to oblige ourselves to a people for life in some cases, conditionally; that is, if God do not apparently call us away. 2. But it is never lawful to do it absolutely: 1. Because we shall engage ourselves against God; against his power over us, and interest in us, and his wisdom that must guide us. God may call us whither he please; and though now he speak not by supernatural revelation, yet he may do it by providential alterations. 2. And we shall else oblige ourselves against the universal church, to which we are more strictly bound, than to any particular church, and whose good may oblige us to remove. 3. Yea, we may bind ourselves to the hurt of that church itself; seeing it may become its interest to part with us. 4. And we should so oblige ourselves against our duty to authority, which may remove us.
III. To the third question I answer, 1. A pastor may not causelessly remove, nor for his own worldly commodity when it is to the hurt of the church and hinderance of the gospel. 2. When he hath just cause, he must acquaint the people with it, and seek their satisfaction and consent. 3. But if he cannot procure it, he may remove without it: as, 1. When he is sure that the interest of the gospel and universal church require it: 2. Or that just authority doth oblige him to it.
The reasons are plain from what is said; and also, 1. He is no more bound to the people, than they are to him; but they are not so bound to him, but they may remove on just occasion. 2. If he may not remove, it is either because God forbids it, or because his own contract with them hath obliged him against it. But, 1. God no where forbids it: 2. Such a contract is supposed not made, nor lawful to be made.
IV. As to the people's case, it needs no other answer; 1. No member may remove without cause. 2. Nor abruptly and uncharitably to the church's dissatisfaction, when he may avoid it. But, 3. He may remove upon many just causes, (private or public,) whether the church and pastors consent or not, so the manner be as becometh a christian.
Answ. This case is mostly answered before in Quest. LXXXII. &c. I need only to add these rules of caution. 1. Do not upon any pretence accept of a heretic, or one that is utterly unfit for the office.
2. Do not easily take a dividing course or person, but keep as much as may be in a way of concord with the united, faithful pastors and churches in your proximity or country.
3. Look to the public good and interest of religion, more than to your particular congregation.
4. Neglect not the greatest advantages for your own edification; but rather take them by a removal of your dwelling, though you suffer by it in your estates, than by any division, disturbance of the church's peace, or common detriment.
5. Do not easily go against the magistrate's commands; unless they be apparently unlawful, and to the church's detriment or ruin, in the reception of your pastors.
6. Do not easily forsake him that hath been justly received by the church, and hath possession, that is, till necessity require it.
Answ. A church is reformed three several ways: 1. By the personal reformation of every member: 2. By doctrinal direction: and, 3. By public, forcible execution, and constraint of others.
1. Every member, whether magistrates, pastors, or people, must reform themselves, by forsaking all their own sins, and doing their own duties. If a ruler command a private person to go to mass, to own any falsehood, or to do any sin, he is not to be obeyed, because God is to be first obeyed.
2. The bishops or pastors are to reform the church by doctrine, reproof, and just exhortations, and nunciative commands in the name of Christ to rulers and people to do their several duties; and by the actual doing of his own.[350]
3. The king and magistrates under him, only, must reform by the sword, that is, by outward force, and civil laws and corporal penalties: as forcibly to break down images, to cast out idolaters, or the instruments of idolatry from the temples, to put true ministers in possession of the temples, or the legal public maintenance; to destroy, punish, or hurt idolaters, &c. Supposing still the power of parents and masters in their several families.
[350] 1 Cor. xi. 28, 29, 31, 33, 34; 1 Cor. v. 11; Dan. iii.; vi. 1 Cor. v. 3-5; 1 Pet. v. 2, 3; Luke xxii. 24-27.
Answ. 1. There are several ways of calling synods: 1. By force and civil mandates; 2. By pastoral persuasion and counsel; and, 3. By humble entreaty and petition.
1. Magistrates only (that is, the supreme by his own power, and the inferior by power derived from him) may call synods by laws and mandates, enforced by the sword or corporal penalties, or mulcts.
2. Bishops or pastors in due circumstances may call synods by counsel and persuasive invitation.
3. The people in due circumstances and necessity, may call synods by way of petition and entreaty.
But what are the due circumstances?
Answ. 1. The magistrate may call them by command at his discretion, for his own counsel, or for the civil peace, or the church's good.
2. The pastors and people may not call them, nor meet when the magistrate forbiddeth it, except when the necessity of the church requireth it: synods may profitably be stated for order, when it may be lawfully obtained (both as to limits of place, numbers, and time). But these prudential orders are not of stated necessity, but must give place to weightier reasons on the contrary.
3. Synods themselves are not ordinarily necessary, by nature or institution; (let him that affirmeth it, prove it;) but that which is statedly necessary is, The concord of the churches as the end, and a necessary correspondency of the churches as the means, and synods when they may well be had, as a convenient sort of means.
4. When synods cannot be had, or are needless, messengers and letters from church to church may keep up the correspondency and concord.
5. In cases of real necessity, (which are very rare, though usefulness be more frequent,) the bishops and people should first petition the king for his consent: and if that cannot be had, they may meet secretly and in small numbers, for mutual consultation and advice about the work of God; and not by keeping up the formality of their set numbers, times, places, and orders, provoke the king against them.
6. The contempt of synods by the separatists, and the placing more power in synods than ever God gave them by others, yea, and the insisting on their circumstantial orders, making them like a civil senate or court, have been the two extremes which have greatly injured and divided the churches, throughout the world.
Answ. The answer of the last question may serve for this. 1. The magistrate only may do it by way of laws, or civil mandate enforced by the sword.
2. The pastors may do it in case of necessity, by pastoral advice and exhortation, and nunciative command in the name of Christ.
3. The people may do it by petition.
4. As ordinary church assemblies must be held if the magistrate forbid them, (of which next,) so must extraordinary ones, when extraordinary causes make it a duty.
5. When the magistrate forcibly hindereth them, natural impossibility resolveth the question about our duty.
Answ. 1. It is one thing to forbid them for a time, upon some special cause, (as infection by pestilence, fire, war, &c.) and another to forbid them statedly or profanely.
2. It is one thing to omit them for a time, and another to do it ordinarily.
3. It is one thing to omit them in formal obedience to the law; and another thing to omit them in prudence, or for necessity, because we cannot keep them.
4. The assembly and the circumstances of the assembly must be distinguished.
(1.) If the magistrate for a greater good, (as the common safety,) forbid church assemblies in a time of pestilence, assault of enemies, or fire, or the like necessity, it is a duty to obey him. 1. Because positive duties give place to those great natural duties which are their end: so Christ justified himself and his disciples' violation of the external rest of the sabbath. "For the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." 2. Because affirmatives bind not ad semper, and out-of-season duties become sins. 3. Because one Lord's day or assembly is not to be preferred before many, which by the omission of that one are like to be obtained.
(2.) If princes profanely forbid holy assemblies and public worship, either statedly, or as a renunciation of Christ and our religion; it is not lawful formally to obey them.
(3.) But it is lawful prudently to do that secretly for the present necessity, which we cannot do publicly, and to do that with smaller numbers, which we cannot do with greater assemblies, yea, and to omit some assemblies for a time, that we may thereby have opportunity for more: which is not formal but only material obedience.
(4.) But if it be only some circumstances of assembling that are forbidden us, that is the next case to be resolved.