22. The Fourth Dividing Practice: Gathering of Churches Disorderly
Chapter Twenty-Two The Fourth Dividing Practice:
Gathering of Churches Disorderly T his is cried out as the greatest dividing practice of all. You may speak of this or that being dividing amongst us, say some, but above all things, this gathering of churches is the great divider amongst us.
To this I shall speak in these six things.
First, it is not absolutely unlawful for a church to be gathered out of a church. Voetius, that learned professor of Utrecht, answering Jansenius pleading against us for separating from the Romish Church, which was the most ancient and famous Church: No, says he, it is not absolutely evil to separate from such a church; for then the Christians gathering themselves out of the Jewish Church were schismatics, which is false.
Doctor Jackson, a prelatical man, in the 14th chapter of his Treatise of the Church, gives two reasons which he says are just and necessary for which men (whether few or many) may and ought to separate themselves from any visible church. First, because they are urged or constrained to profess or believe some points of doctrine or to venture upon some practices which are contrary to the rule of faith or love of God. Second, in case they are utterly deprived of freedom of conscience in professing what they inwardly believe
or are bereft of some other means either altogether necessary or most expedient to salvation. For which latter he quotes 1 Cor. 7:23: "Ye are bought with a price; be not ye servants of men." Although (says he) we were persuaded that we could communicate with such a church without evident danger of damnation, yet inasmuch as we cannot communicate with it upon any better terms than legal servants or bondslaves do with their masters, we are bound in conscience and religious discretion when lawful occasions and opportunities are offered to use our liberty and seek our freedom rather than live in bondage.
This doctrine was allowed in the bishops' times. Now suppose upon these two grounds there be a withdrawing from a church; Christ does not require his people to live without ordinances all their days rather than they should join themselves together into another body.
Secondly, yet where these causes are not but men may communicate without sin, professing the truth and enjoying all ordinances as freemen of Christ. Men must not separate from a church though there be corruption in it to gather into a new church which may be more pure and in some respects more comfortable. First, because we never find the saints in Scripture separating or raising churches in such a case; and secondly, there would be no continuance in church fellowship if this were admitted: for what church is so pure and has all things so comfortable but within a while another church will be more pure and some things will be more comfortable there?
The general peace of the church should be more regarded by us than some comfortable accommodations for ourselves.
Thirdly, although you cannot for the present communicate with the church in which you are without sin or bondage, yet you are not presently to withdraw to gather into another or join with another. You are bound to give
so much respect to the church as to continue with much long-suffering to seek the good of that church to remove the sin that is upon it with all good means you can. You must bear much with a brother; much more with a church.
Fourthly, if things were in that ordered and settled way as they ought, there ought to be no gathering of any new churches without consulting and advising with neighboring churches. Christ would have all churches unite themselves and have conjunction one with another being all of the same body of Christ. If then there is to be raised a new sister church that expects and desires the benefit of communion with the rest, there is all the reason in the world that the help, advice, and assistance of the other churches should be made use of in raising and ordering this church that they are thus to own in the way of communion with them to whom they are to give the right hand of fellowship.
Fifthly, all believers who live in a place together ought, as far as they can, to join into one Church, even if they have different judgments and temperaments. Whatever differences they have, if they can coexist with grace, they have no encouragement from the examples of any of the Churches we read about in Scripture to divide themselves into small groups.
The way of Christ throughout Scripture is that all the Saints in such a place, who are not more than can join in one, should join together and form just one Church. Certainly, this is more for the honor of Christ's Body than the division of Saints in the same place into several small societies. Christ places great importance on the union of his Saints in one, in all ways, by all means possible.
Sixthly, as things currently stand with us, there is no substantial reason for the outcry against the gathering of Churches as a divisive practice, as many
seem to make it. How can this practice be so offensive when almost all of you think it lawful for a man to move from one Church to another for convenience, provided he relocates his dwelling? But these do not establish new Churches.
Answer: If a group of men with estates is not satisfied with the Ministry they are currently joined with and decides to buy land close by, build on it, and receive permission from the State to create a new Parish from those dwellings, who would blame them for gathering a Church in this manner?
Hence, it is apparent that withdrawing from our Churches and gathering others is not against any Church Principle according to our Brethren's judgments; the offense lies only against some Civil constitution.
Secondly, this practice has been commonly practiced before without any offense to the godly and is still practiced without complaint. Has it not been, and is it not still common for many not to communicate in the Parishes where they live? Nor commonly to hear there, but from all parts of the City to come to some Parishes where they perceive the best Ministers to be, and there to hear and communicate regularly, with allowance for the maintenance of such Ministers? Yes, and thus the husband goes one way and the wife another, yet none are offended; perhaps the gentleman is content with his Parish-Church, but his wife or lady is not satisfied and must go elsewhere.
If it is said that this was during a time of great confusion when things were not as reformed as they are now and may be further reformed:
Answer: 1. Then it is not inherently unlawful.2. It continues so still in many places of this City.3. When you have reformed further, perhaps men's consciences will be further satisfied; you may reform enough to prevent much of what you now complain about.
But though they came for their present relief, they did not bind themselves to one another by Covenant as men do now.
Answer: If those who came constantly to your Ministry and Sacraments had professed their willingness to join with you in all the Ordinances of Christ as far as they knew and to walk accordingly, you might have more comfortably administered ordinances to them; it could not have been offensive to you.
Objection: But their Covenant binds them so that they cannot return back again, regardless of any reformation.
Answer: Pray for and endeavor to advance Reformation to the utmost, and then see what they will do; they have not yet declared themselves as holding themselves so joined by any Covenant that they may not join with you. Whatever relief they have had for the present time or whatever agreement there has been among themselves should not hinder them from following that way consistently presented in Scripture; namely, for all the Saints that live together to join in one as far as possible.
But those who gather Churches in this way view all others who are not in that way as Heathens; what division must this cause?
Answer: If this were true, it would indeed be a sad dividing practice; wicked men cannot endure being judged this way or being cast out as unworthy of Church-fellowship. Much less can the Saints bear it; it must deeply affect their hearts. Aben Ezra says the Ammonites and Moabites burned the Books of the Law because of Deuteronomy 23:3: "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord, even to their tenth Generation." If an Ammonite or Moabite cannot bear being shut out of the Congregation of the Lord,* how can the Saints bear it?
But God knows, and our Brethren may know—I hope they shall know—
that this is not the case: O no, they view you as precious Saints of God, their dear Brethren in Jesus Christ. They bless God for the graces they see in you and rejoice in the hope of living eternally in Heaven with you.
But why then will they not admit them to their communion?
Answer: In all worship that belongs to Saints as Saints, they joyfully join with them; but they believe there is some worship that belongs to Saints gathered in a Society under officers, which cannot be performed orderly except in that way. They think it unreasonable for anyone to have the benefits of Church privileges while being under no power or discipline of any Church; that they should pick and choose Ordinances yet live at liberty so that if they walk disorderly, no Church has any power to call them to account. Suppose this is a reason why they do not admit some; this is different from judging them as Heathens.
Let me say further: I know none of these congregated Churches, either here or elsewhere, that ever refused anyone who appeared godly from communicating with them if they acknowledged themselves as members of any Church elsewhere, even if that Church was in a different way regarding government.
You will ask, what need is there for that?
Answer: If it is to prevent looseness in men who will be under no government or because they judge Sacramental communion as a ChurchOrdinance; or if it should be through a mistake—yet howsoever—this must not be judged as them considering all who do not join with them as Heathens; this is the most uncharitable interpretation possible.