Part 27
It was but upon hearing that John was cast into prison, no more; only rationally thinking his tura might be next.
2. In like manner we have an aceount, John iv. 1-8, ' When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus baptized not, but his disciples), he left
Judea, and departed again into Galilee.'
Here again, though Christ knew only that the pharisees had heard (which is remote enough from this) that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John; and although he had a | plea for himself that he baptized none, yet upon this occasion he left Judea, and departed again into Galilee.
It was that he knew that such a report of him would contract an envy upon himself, and an odium from the pharisees ; and so he avoided it, and breaks off, when he was in.the midst of an emPloyment, with as much success as any he had at any time elsewhere, afore or after.
8. We have another instance:: Mat. xii. 14, 15, ' Then the Pharisees went out and held a council against him, how they might destroy him; but when
Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence,' &.
4, There is another instance: Luke iv. 29-81, 'And they rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.
But he passing through the midst of them, went his way; and came down te Capernaum, acity of Galilee,' &e.; and not only went his way for the present, but removed to another place.
5. We have another instance: John viii. 59, 'Then taok they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.'
6. There is another instance: John x. 89, 40, ' They sought again to take him, but he escaped out of their hand, and went away again beyond Jordan, into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode.'
2. We have also instances of the apostles, 1. Who after Christ's death until his ascension met seeretly, with the doors | ahut, and in the night: John xx. 19, 'Then the same day at evening, being | the first day of the week, when the doers were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesua, and stood in the midet, and saith,
And again a second time, after eight days, ver. 26, the doors being shut:
' And after eight days, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors beingchat, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.'
2, After Christ's ascension, the church by flying avoided persecution: Acts viii. 1, 4 And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judah, except the apostles.'
And although the apostles stayed, because they were extraordinary officers, and had aot a commission yet from God to depart from Jerusalem, whieh afterwards they had, yet the church was so lessened by the disciples seattering abroad (for which the disciples had warrant by reason of perseeution), that the apostles might safelier etay. e Grotiug fn locum, Crap. TX.] THE CHURCHES OF OBRIST.
And we read that for praying and preaching in the like cases they met in the night, and by parts: Acts xii. 12, 'And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother ofJohn, whose surname was Mark, where many were gathered together praying ;' James and others of the brethren being in another place, ver. 17.
Two cases resolved: whether a person, who is not a church member, may be the subject of baptism ; whether a minister, who is not a pastor, may administer baptism.
T resolve the cases propounded into these two questions :
1. Whether one that is not a church member may be the subject of baptism ?
2. Whether one that is not a pastor, in a particular relation to persons that offer themselves to be baptized, may baptize them?
And if he administers it, under what consideration he doth it, whether as a minister, or otherwise as @ private person ?
Quest. 1. Unto the first question I say these two things:
1. The examples in Scripture do clearly hold forth that persons that were not in church fellowship were yet baptized.
1. The first instance is of the eunuch baptized by Philip, Acts viii.
If it be said that he was a proselyte, and so of the Jewish church, and upon that ground a subject capable of baptism, the reply is, that his being of the Jewish church did not make him capable of the gospel baptism, of the ordinance under . the gospel which we call baptism.
1. For when John Baptist baptized, he bid them 'say not, they had Abraham for their father,' which yet was a ground for circumcision as under the old covenant administered ; but he requires repentance and regeneration, which is the gospel initiation into the kingdom of heaven.
2. Again, Peter, Acts ii., being to baptize Jews, baptizeth them, not upon the account they were the seed of Abraham, but upon faith and repentance, which he calls them to.
He only tells them that if they would turn to God, then God would renew the promises unto them and their children, yet in a gospel way, namely, by virtue of their being called, as the 89th verse hath it.
So as the ground upon which men were members of the Jewish church, and circumcised, was not the ground upon which they were baptized; and therefore the eunuch was not baptized upon any such account.
The dispensation of the covenant was altered, and the application of the ordinances had accordingly an alteration.
So then if he were not baptized as a member of the Jewish church, and when he was baptized was a member of no gospel ,church instituted, then it necessarily follows that a person who is nota member of an instituted church, or a particular congregation, may be the subject of baptism.
2. The second instance (which algo is an answer to the former objection) is of the jailor and his household, and of those baptized by Paul, 1 Cor. i. 14.
They, to be sure, were not of the Jewish church; for the jailor was a perfeet heathen before, to the instant of his conversion, yet he and his household were baptized before morning.
If it be said that Philip and the apostles were persons extraordinary; I answer, that still the extraordinaries of their office did only enable them with an extraordinary power over all churches, and over all persons with an exTHE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox VII. traordinary authority, but could not convey a requisite qualification unto an ordinary person, which was still required, however, in the subject that was to be baptized.
They could not administer the Lord's supper out of a church, nor never did ; and although they had extraordinary power over all churches, yet that did not make all churches one church, but there remained churches distinct accordingto that ordinary capacity of them as Christ had instituted.
And so it must be supposed in this case, 2. The apparent difference that is between baptism and the Lord's supper in their several intentions, doth shew that the one is properly the ordinance of a particular church, and the other of the universal.
1. Because baptism is a baptizing of a single person into Christ, and consequently into the body of Christ, as 1 Cor. xii. 18 imports, and is but an act of a single person unto a single person (as the instance of Philip and the eunuch being alone shews) ; and it belonging not unto a particular chereh, as the former instances declared, it must necessarily belong unto the universal church, as Ephes. iv. 4 seems to hold forth, 'One Lord, one God, one baptism, one body.'
2. As for the Lord's supper, it is as evident that it was properly the ordinance of a particular church embodied together: 1 Cor. x., 'The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?'
It is the bread which we break, so that there must be a number of persons to celebrate it.
For these we must be many, for, says he, 'We being many are one bread, and one body,' ver. 17.
It doth not hold forth the union of single persons with Christ, or any engrafting into him, as baptism doth in the first initiation, but it holds forth a joint and a common participation.
It is the nature of the ordinance itself, for the institution is, ' Eat ye all of this, and drink ye all of this.'
Insomuch as the apostle says, ' Tarry one for another,' 1 Cor. xi. 88.
Insomuch also, as it had the denomination from the meeting or gathering together of many, and therefore was called Yivafi:.
Therefore, to come together into one place, and to eat the Lord's supper, are put, as it were, mutually one for the other.
Quest. 2. I come now to consider the second question, whether the child of a person traly godly, not in fellowship with you, may be baptized by one who is not a pastor, and under what notion, whether as a minister or no?
1. I suppose that infant baptism, of parents godly, is warrantably in itaelf required.
2. I suppose that the judgment, whether the person is godly, yea or no, whose child is baptized, properly belongs to him who baptizes it.
There is this difference between baptism and the administration of the Lord's supper, that it is a single act of him that baptizeth to the person baptized; but the act of blessing the bread and wine,—' which we bless,'—it is a joint act together with the church, and the minister doth give it to the whole as Christ did.
And therefore the judgment of the church, that a man is godly, may satisfy the minister's conscience for his administering the Lord's supper among them, he not applying it to this or that person; but in the point of baptism it is otherwise, as is clear.
8. If it be (as by raviewing the first question it appears) the right of men out of church fellowship, as well as in church fellowship, to be baptized, this must be done by somebody, and the judgment that is to be passed concerning the person, is not incumbent upon a whole church only or chiefly, but upon the single person that is to baptize.
So as for a warrant of his jndging such a person to be godly, and the child to be godly, it is not absolutely necessary that he have the judgment of a church for it.
And if there Were not a lawfal way or means by which, after the apostles' times, those Crap. X.J THE CHURCHES OF OBRIST.
| out of church fellowship, which were converted, might be baptized, then Jesus Christ had not made provision for all times of the gospel as well as for the first, in so great an ordinance.
If, therefore, it does lie upon some, those must either be ministers or others; if it lies upon others, you know the inconveniency that will follow upon that; if it lies on the minister, the question is, whether as a minister or no? To that I shall give this clear answer,
That a man that is set apart by his own vow to God, professed by his acceptance of that calling, when he was called to be a minister in a church (and it hath the nature of a vow on his part, and is so accepted of him by God), by virtue of that public consecration and dedication of himself unto the service of Christ as a minister, he is to be looked upon as a minister, not only unto them of his own charch, but occasionally also as he shall be called to such an act of the ministry as he singly may perform, as to preach or to baptize, which, when he does, he does it as a minister, and with the blessing of a minister, and with the promise made to a minister.
If one come to him with a case of conscience, as to a minister of Christ, he hath the blessing of a minister, and the promise of a minister, and the guidance of a minister to resolve it; and by like reason, if any one come to him and call him to baptize, he hath authority to do it.
And this does no way prejudice our congregational principles ; for it is a single act of the ministry, and but occasionally put forth, as he shall be called thereto.
But the matter of ordination, and of governing the church or ruling, it is not a single act, but is to be performed with others, for it is an act of authority or power over others, but it is not an act of power above others, or which others have not.
Our presbyterian brethren fail in their practice and in their argument, in that they, because they are ministers, therefore associate themselves together, and take power over the churches, to rule them and govern them, whether the churches do call them or no.
And call them to it as churches they cannot, unless they give away thereby and prejudice that power which is seated within themselves, as in a body, and ought to be exercised among themselves, and not without themselves in a judicature that is without them.
| IfI were seated in a parish that had a church in it, gathered out of it, and the rest of the parish came to hear me, I should not look upon myself to preach as a private man to all these that are not in my church, and as a minister only to them that are of the church, but as one set apart to the work of the ministry ; to preach as a minister to both, as to the matter of preaching ; and that (as I take it) by virtue of what is said, Ephes. iv. 12,
'He gave pastors and teachers as well, xpd¢ riv xaraprioudy civ cyiwy, for the jointing in of the saints,' which is conversion, as wall as for the edifying of the body of Christ.
Whether a church may depose an officer for a crime which deserves not ex communication.
That a church may not disclaim an officer for an offence which is not worthy of excommunication, appears to mo evident from this reason, because
| you are to exercise the same patience towards an officer, as an officer, in matter of crime, that you are to use to a private member; and so you are not to disclaim him from being an officer on a lesser account than you would excommunicate him; according to that rule (which nature dictates) to en- | treat an elder as a father (and this in case of censure). This is amain duty
'THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boor VII. of a church to a minister, and by a rule of equity grounded on nature, in the duty of children to a father, not to renounce him for that fault for which they would not renounce a brother.
Obj. All this runs upona false supposition, viz. that an officer may not be _ displaced for a crime cleaving to the administration of his office.
1. Because what crime may be cured by a lesser censure, needs not a greater; but crimes that cleave to the administration of an office, may be cured by the displacing of the officer, which is a lesser censure; therefore there is no need of excommunication, which is a greater.
2. As an officer cannot be chosen out of the body, being guilty of some crimes, so the same crimes may be just matter of his displacing after his being chosen.
Ans. The objection seems to intimate a distinction between sins cleaving to the administration of his office, and such as are otherwise common to him as a brother, and that for such he may be disclaimed as an officer, when he could not have been so as a brother.
But, 1, I do not see that the Scripture putteth any such distinction between these two sorts of sins, that for the one an officer should be displaced, when not for the other.
Iam sure that other sins than such as cleave to the administration of his office, are promiscuously put together with the other, and alike forbidden in him:* 1 Tim. iii. 2, 'A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.'
And so Titus ii. 2, 'That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.'
So as the case of any such crimes is all one with those cleaving to the administration of his office.
2. This your distinction doth ran upon a false supposition ; as if the subject to be considered in your treating with an officer in matter of crime were not the person, and that as he is a saint and brother, as well in sins of his office as in other sins; for though he is invested with a relation of office (by virtue of his gifts and your choice), yet the discharge of his office faithfully is from his grace; and the neglect of it (for which in such a case you would disclaim him) is but a fruit of his sin from contrary corruption, and a failing as he is a saint, so as in matter of sin you cannot distinguish his being a saint and his being an officer.
Surely it is in this as in other relations : a brother being a husband as well as a brother, a brother being a master as well as a brother, and he being an officer as well as a brother, all these relations do oblige them to several duties, which, if they fail to discharge, you are to deal with them all as saints failing in duty, seeing they are defects of grace; and you have not in church-fellowship one way of dealing with a husand if he sins against his relations, another with a master of a family if against his, and so neither a peculiar one for an officer if he sin against his.
All the duties of the dispensation and of his office are but the duties of his particular calling and relation, wherein, if he fail (through corruption) he is to be dealt with as another brother who fails in his relation, or neglects the duties of his calling, and no other than the same officer should be if he sina in any other state.
And though it be a sin against the church more immediately, yet it being but a sin, God's ordinance is to have it reclaimed the same way that all sins are, Mat. xviii. 15-17.
You cannot shew a warrant that God hath given this peculiar power in this case over an officer, to disclaim him as an officer, in way of an ordinance, till he grow so hardened as he deserves excommunication.
* Ubi Scriptura non distinguit, ibi nec nos distinguere debemus.
Crap. X.] THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST.
Your first reason for it is, because such crimes may be cured by this as a lesser censure, and so needs not @ greater.
In this your reason, if you view the expression, you will find that you again speak upon a false supposition, as if we had affirmed that crimesin the dispensation of his office did always need the excommunication of the officer.
Bat our exception lies in this, that when his crime needed not excommunication in your own judgment, but you thought that to be too great a censure, you should disclaim him as an officer, whenas on an officer there is no such censure to be inflicted for matter of crime in his office until it comes to that height as it deserves excommunication; and that therefore it was violence in you to be so hasty to proceed so severely till he had
1. It is true that simply disclaiming an officer (if for insufficiency) is less than excommunication;. but then it is not a.censure, for that respects crime; but to disclaim an officer in case of crime and sin is interpretative as much as excommunication; for if dispensed according to the word, it should not be done till he were past cure, and so should be joined, or rather included, in excommunication.
2. The fault we find lies in this,.that you-make this invention of disclaiming an officer a church censure, and so an ordinance of God coming between admonition and excommunication to cure a man, which we affirm you have no warrant for; so that though it be a less punishment than excommunication (if he had deserved it) would be,.that being a delivering up to Satan, yet you must take on you to invent other punishments, as you are a church, than God hath ordained.
You have your power, your honour, your lives from Christ, and your punishment (es 2 Cor. ii. 6, excommunication is called) from him also.
In a college, you might invent twenty leas punishments than expaision, but in a church, you must invent none that God hath not ordained..
And you have not the power that men's courts have of varying their punishments, who, having law to warrant them, use less violence under that eonsideration than you who have neither God's law nor man's to justify your proceeding herein.
And whereas you think, because it is a less punishment, it may cure him, and so he should net need excommunieation, I answer, 1. That which must cure must have God's blessing and promise of blessing annexed, and so be his institution; but that this is such we desire a ' warrant.
It may cure him as a cross (as an injustice done in a civil court may, and an unlawful suspension may do the man much good), but that is an accident, and no warrant for you to inflict it.
Yea, 2, what is it in him you would cure?
'Would you cure him as an officer, or cure him ag a saint and brother?
If as an officer (as would seem by inflicting punishment answerable to his sin, he sinning in his office you would punish him in his office to cure him),how improper a remedy is this for his cure, which easts him off, destroys him as an officer, lames him for use and exercise of his office, puts him ont of it for ever!
Doth that surgeon cure a hand, that in goimg about to make it sound, makes it as a hand for ever unuseful, though he leaves it a member still?
Doth any man punish his members so for failing in their office?
Wilh they cut off till there be no hope?
Would you cure him as a saint or brother?
Then you must forego that distinction of punishing him as an officer for crimes in his office, when not as a brother, seeing he is considered by you as a brother in the time of his office.
And therefore you are to proceed with him for sing in his office as witha i brother, if he have committed sins, and use the same means for his cure
THE GOVERNMENT OF (Boox VII. that you would do to a brother for his sins; you must use admonition and patience, till his sin comes to that height that it deserves casting off as a brother by excommunicating of bim ; yea, you ought to treat him with more patience in this kind than you would do a brother, for he is more; entreat him as a father.
Reason 2. Your second reason, drawn from the instance of Abiathar, who remained a member of the Jewish church when put from his priesthood, the only warrant from Scripture you allege, how remote is it from the case in hand!
For, 1, it was not an act of ecclesiastical, but civil power.
The text says, Solomon thrust out Abiathar from the priesthood; it was the king did it, And, 2, not for a sin in the dispensation of his office, but for high treason.
So it serves not your purpose at all.
8. For which treason he was 'a man of death,' ver. 26; and that he remained alive, and se in their Jewieh church, was from the king's pardon;
'I will not at this time put thee to death,' ver. 26.
He only thrust him from the priesthood, which he forfeited in forfeiting his life, and so was part of the punishment included in that other death.
Yea, 4, itevas done to fulfil a particular word of prophecy, and no way as a standing ordinance to cure him; so ver. 27, 'That he might falfil the word of the Lord, which he spake concerning the house of Eli.'
And, 5, in respect to his office, Solomon was so far from heightening his punishment more than to another brother, that he thereforé spared his life,
'because he had borne the ark of the Lord,' whereas he put Adonijah and Joab to death, being in the same treason with him.
Obj. 2. As an officer cennot be chosen out of the bedy, being guilty of some crimes, so the same crimes may be just matter of displacing after his choosing.
Ans. 1. If you have those crimes mentioned, 1 Tim. iii., in your eye, take them but as eminent infirmities, that stand with sincerity, as there the apostle speaks of them, yet if eminent, such an one (if other supply may be had) is not to be chosen; yet consider, :
1. That those sins and infirmities there mentioned are not only such as are found in the dispensation of his office, but others also, as was said afore.
So that you must say, that not only for sins cleaving to his administration, but of any other kind, he is to be disclaimed.
| And, 2, those infirmities are mentioned as rules for the choice of officers, not of casting out one chosen, as also to shew what an one a bishop ought to be after choice: so, ver. 1, 'Ifa man desires the office ofa bishop,' and 80 is to be chosen, 'let him be blameless,' and it respects choice.
So of a deacon, ver. 10, ' Let him first be proved, then let him use the office of a deacon.'
The rule, therefore, respects choice : chap. v. 9, ' Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years,' &e. ; still those rales were
| intended to direct choice.
But if, after choice, these as infirmities were found in them, he says not they are to be cast out unless obstinate, and 20 i proves more than infirmity ; so as those places will no way afford aground
And for your inference thence, that if he may not be chosen, being guilty of such crimes as are there mentioned, that therefore, after choice, when guilty, they are just matter to cast him out.
The answer, is, 1, we grant it, if obstinacy be joined to them, and so he deserve excommunication; but simply, the guilt of them as infirmities (and | Cuar. X.] THE OHUROHES OF CHRIST. they are no more till obstinacy and impenitency be added to them), is not . just matter to cast out after choice and ordination.
+ 2. If you mean otherwise, that the sole guilt of them should require it, there is not the same reason for not choosing at first and disclaiming afterwards ; there is a vast difference to be put.
For, 1, in and before choice there is an arbitrariness and freedom, and no obligation to choose this or that man ; but after he is chosen and ordained, there is an obligation by a solemn covenant, the covenant of God; and by ordination, the separation of him unto the service of Christ in that ehurch.
Hence, therefore, because their choice is an act, wherein they are free, and wherein they give go great a testimony to the man, to be qualified according to the apostle's rules, they become partakers of his sins, if they choose him with those infirmities, and so ought not to choose him, because it is a sin.
But when he is once chosen, and so great a covenant passed, and so great an ordinance as separation passed upon him, then those his infirmities, though sins in him, are not approved of by you, though you disclaim him not; if you use the means God hath appointed for the cure of him, which is admonition with patience, yea, and by virtue of your covenant, you are to bear with them, if they be but infirmities, though in the administration of his office, because that covenant cannot be so arbitrarily broken as it was made, as your rale would make it, but binds, as all other covenants do, till some other rule warrante a disclaim.
The same rale for choosing and disclaiming is not commensurable each to other.
Which, 2, appears in this, that not only those crimes here mentioned, but some circumstances also, though no crimes, are given as rules to divert from a choice, which yet, by reason of the covenant passed, ought not to procure a disclaiming after choice.
For, ver. 6, he is not be one newly come to the faith, though never so well gifted (for that he supposeth, and so in those days it sometimes fell out, through the effusion of the Holy Ghost at first), lest he fall into pride; but if chosen once, should that have put him out?
Or if he is one against whom efter he was chosen, those without had raised ill reports, should this necessitate a disclaiming, because this, if it had fallen out afore, should have diverted his choice? ver. 7.
8. See this in other covenants that pass.
Marriage is a covenant of God, which, until made, many infirmities, and circumstances, &c., may and ought to divert one from choosing such or such a person, which after cannot be a warrant for a divorce, for it is the covenant of God.
You must divorce in no case, but such as God in his word gives power and warrant for.
4. See it in another instance more near the case.
A private Christian that seeks admission, being found guilty of any crime, without repentance, the rule for his admission is, that he must testify repentance, and so satisfy the church of the truth of his grace and repentance of those sins. But if he be once admitted, and in covenant with you, you ought not presently to disclaim him as a brother till he doth repent, buttoadmonish him as a brother,
2 Thea. iii. 15, and with patience bear with him, using not only one admonition, but a second also, ere you reject him, Titus iii. 10; and this in case of heresy, the most dangerous of sins to church fellowship, and not indeed to reject till it comes to obstinacy, because now he is in covenant with you.
Now the proportion as strongly holds between the choice of an officer, and his casting out as a officer ; and the admission of a brother, and his casting out as & brother; the covenant that binds to the officer being as strong as that which binds unto a brother.
5. Upon commission of such crimes, he is made uncapable for the present of choice, until repentance, but not so for the same sins after choice, unless
THX GOVERNMENT OF [Boor VII. you would make him fall in his office, ¢psofacto, and make him uncapable of admonition, &.
Therefore there is no way par ratio, before and after choosing.
Again, 6, ifa man had been guilty of such crimes, yet if he had repented, he might be chosen ; then, especially after choice, if he be guilty of them, upon repentance be might be eontinued in his place; why otherwise would you have received him in again?
And for his repentanee, why should not all the same means and patience be first used, as is used fora brother's, and 80 not a casting off, as there is not the casting off a brother ?
Yea, 7, if an officer should be thus disclaimed, he would not be under all those ordinances that a brother asa brother is under, but in a worse case far; for towards a brother, Christ hath appointed admonition upon admonition with patience, till such obstinacy be added, as it justly calls for excommunication, which, as it were, they unwillingly pronounce upon him, as means to reclaim him ere he be renounced as a brother
; and should it not be thus to an officer?
An officer is capable of sin in his office as well as a brother; for he that is most spiritual may be tempted, Gal. vi. 1, 2, and 80 is capable of reproef in his office : Col. iv. 1%, 'Say to Archippus, Fulfil thy ministry ;' and also of public rebuke for sins proved by two or three witnesses that are public, 1 Tim. v. 19, 20.
For,as appears by the eoherence, those rules concern elders, yet se as in these proceedings they are to exercise not only the same, but more respect and patience than to a brother.
For, ver. 1, they are gentle unto him as @ father ; and, ver. 19, they are so far from eensuring him hastily, that they are not to reeeive an accusation, or listen to it, but upon the testimony of two er three approved ones ; surely then, the ease is evident, they are, as ver. 20, to rebuke them openly, but no more.
Till it comes to exeommunication, you find not a tittle for disclaiming.
Obj. That less admonition ripens an officer's sin sooner than a brother's, for displacing him as an officer.
Ans. 1. The rules by which you must judge of the ripeness of his sin, must be in the word ; now, shew that the limits ef preceeding against an officer are more strict than against a brother.
2. It is true, his sin is aggravated more, but still net ripe for rejection, until such impenitency and obstinacy be added to it as would procure excommunieation.
Last of all, we add this, that if he were obstinate and impenitent in his sin, and deserved exeommunication, yet it doth net appear that thereby he fell from all future right to his office, so as that you are free instantly to send for another.
From the Scripture we have not learned that the relation is utterly broken and made void, as that of a brother is not by excommunication ; but if upon that ordinance he repented, as you are bound to receive him as a brother, so as your officer again, for you cannot shew a ground that the one relation should be more evacuated than the other. Excommunication is not a casting off but in order te repentance, which restores him ad pristinum statum, to his former state.
CHAPTER XL Of anointing with owl.
Is any sick among you! let himcall for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the Cuap. XI] THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST. prayer offaith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall beforgiven him.—James V. 14, 15.
The anointing spoken of in this text, is not the anointing spoken of, Mark vi. 18, by which the apostles healed those that were sick through a miracolous gift; but it is a standing ordinance to confirm the promise of healing unto church members, as will appear from the following arguments.
The first argument is taken from what anointing with oil is here joined with, viz., the elders' prayers, which are a standing ordinance to this purpose, even for the cure of the sick.
2. All the precepts besides in this epistle, are about things which concern the church for ever.
And that which this anointing is joined with, namely, the prayer of the elders, is such also ; it were strange, therefore, if this alone should be extraordiaary.
The second argument may be taken from the persons that are to be sent - for, who have the power to administer it, namely, the elders of the church.
1. It is not said, send for men who have healing gifts, but for elders.
2. Who were standing officers, and that of a church, whieh was to continue.
_8. The elders in every ehurch had not then such miraculous healing 4. The gifts of healing, and those of prophecy, by wisdom and knowledge, which enable men for eldership, were in those times variously dispensed ; and not both to the same persons, excepting extraordinary officers, as apostles and evangelists, but to one was given the gift of healing, to others a word of wisdom and knowledge, that enabled them to be elders,
1 Cor. xii. 8, 9, 11.
The third argument is drawn from the persons to whom it was to be administered.
1. They were sick persons, or infirm.
If it had been extraordinary healing, it would havo extended farther, even to the blind, the deaf, and the dumb; but this healing reacheth only to those who were sick of diseases curable, it being no miraculous ordinance.
2. They were members of the church, not unbelievers; for the expression is, 'If any be sick among you:' and therefore the elders of that church are to be sent for.
Now miraculous healing did, 1. Extend to all sorts, unbelievers as well as believers.
Yea, 2, to them chiefly, as all miracles did, as, 1 Cor. xiv. 22, it is said of tongues.
Therefore, 8, the apostles themselves, who had gifts of healing, seldom wrought any cure upon believers that were sick ; so Paul did not heal Epaphroditus, Philem. 1, 2.
The fourth argument may be taken from the generality of the extent of this ordinance, even to all persons in a ehurch.
'If any among you be sick,' which argues it not to be extraordinary; for when any was healed by an extraordinary gift, it was by a faith of miracles concurring, which was never general to heal any, or all, but particular, reaching only to such a person as God would heal, and who was presented, and his faith stirred up.
There was no universal rule given for extraordinary healings.
The fifth argumentis taken from the means commanded upon all such occasions, which generally is oil.
Now, the extraordinary gift of healing was not confined to oil, but might be applied without means.
It had been enough to have said, ' Rise and walk.'
So likewise some were extraordinarily healed by other means, as napkins, the apostles' shadow, é&c.
THE GOVERNMENT OF (Boox VII.
6. Another argument may be taken from the generality of the command, which enjoins every one that is sick to send and seek out for this care.
Now, if extraordinary gifts were meant, then in those times men should not have died; for extraordinary gifts of healing failed not to effect the cure where there was a warrant to apply them, as here there is unto any.
Every one is to send, and they are to come and anoint every one.
It is therefore intended as an ordinance to confirm the promise of health unto church members, for the words of the text are, 'They shall be healed.'
And because his promise to dispense this outward mercy is not absolute, bat indefinite, therefore the seal is to be taken as such also.
For this seal is to confirm faith, and faith is to be answerable to the promise, and the seal to both.
And yet it is of use; for though this seal assures not the party unto whom it is applied, that he shall be healed, yet it gives a more certain evidence of God's seriousness and faithful care over the bodies of his saints, to preserve them in sickness, than to confer on them any other outward mercy: their bodies being most dear to him, next their souls, and their lives precious in his sight, and it being one of his attributes to be the God that heals them, he therefore hath shewn and confirmed that this is so by a seal annexed to the promise of healing, when he hath annexed a seal to no other outward mercy: so that it seals up to our faith the certainty and faithfulness of that promise itself in its indefiniteness, though not of the infallible falfilling it unto this or that party, yet so as to raise the heart of every one.
1. This is to make more sacraments than two.
Ans. There are no more than two seals of the covenant of grace ; but for other ends, and to seal other promises, there may be more.
As that of the rainbow is in force unto this day to confirm the not destroying the world by water.
Oj. 2. But this seal is for remission of sins, as it was then used; for it follows in the text, 'If they have committed sins, they shall be forgiven :' and so there was an extraordinary healing, at which their souls were often converted.
Ans. The remission of sins there spoken of is not that general and eternal forgiveness of all sins promised in the covenant of grace; nor is this the sacrament of such a remission, but of the remission and taking off of that temporary guilt which might be in any particular sins committed by the persons provoking God to lay that sickness upon them ; which is evident from the apostle's speaking hypothetically, 'If he have committed gins,' which argues it not meant of the general forgiveness; for then there were no tf to come in, it being certain that all sick persons whatever have in that sense sinned.
' All have sinned ;' and 'he that says he hath no sin, deceiveth himself.'
The meaning therefore is, that if there be any special sin, the temporal guilt whereof hath in a particular manner provoked God to lay this sickness on him, it shall be remitted.
And so forgiveness here is but the removal of that guilt considered as in order to this punishment.
And thus it is taken: Ps. Ixxviii. 88, ' He forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not.'
And so, that it should be a seal of such forgiveness, and of the promise of being restored, is but to be a seal of an outward temporary merey, and so not at all of the covenant of grace.
Obj. 8. But all sacraments, being seals, are annexed to absolute promises; and, when rightly used in faith, have certainly their effect: but so this hath not, for then none should die that in faith do use it.
Ans. True, all sacraments of the covenant of grace are such, and the promises to which they are annexed are such; and God hath annexed a seal to assure our faith and hope of the fulfilling of spiritual promises, rather than
Cuap. XI.J THE CHURCHES OF CHEIST. of any other outward mercy ; but yet he may have appointed a seal for the confirmation of our faith as to the performance of them too.
And of this nature is that other ordinance, namely, imposition of hands for increase of gifts ; not that always, when rightly used in faith, it hath its effect infallibly, but it is a means appointed to convey the blessing, and confirms the promise of giving gifts to men, which yet is but indefinitely performed, as being of God's good pleasure.
Yea, one end of this ordinance of anointing with oil (whenever in use) is here made but indefinite, and with a supposition, 'If he hath committed sins,' that is, in case he hath.
And so it may be administered to this or that person with a supposition, if he be one of those (as he may be) unto whom the promise belongs.
Obj. 4. That anointing, Mark vi., and so healing, was extraordinary : and how can this here be then an ordinary ordinance, unless the same gift were continued now ?
Ans. 80 imposition of hands did in the primitive times serve extraordinarily to convey extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost: yet was it ordained to serve as an ordinance of increasing gifts unto the world's end.
And why maynot this be so turned to a like use also?
Obj. 6. This gives countenance unto the papists' extreme unction, and condemns the reformed churches for rejecting it.
Ans. 1. The church of Rome retains almost all ordinances, only she hath perverted them.
As she hath perverted this from being an ordinance of restoring health, and forgiving the temporary guilt of particular sins provoking God to that judgment, to become a sacrament of justification and forgiveness of all sins, and so a seal of the covenant of grace; and that not for the sick, but for all dying persons when past recovery, in which case it should not be used.
Now, 2, the reformed churches, seeing that such a sacrament could not be, and that this must needs be a perversion of it, did justly reject it as they used it; only in rejecting it (as in some other things) they went too far, even denying it to have that use of restoring the sick as a seal of the promise, and an indefinite means to convey that blessing, which God in mercy hath appointed itto be.
~ Use 1. We see here God's care over our bodies, as well as over our souls, in instituting an ordinance for sickness and restoring to health; and his fall provision by ordinances for everything, and every condition.
Use 2. See also God's especial hand in that mercy of restoring his children unto health, and of blessing physic and means unto them, rather than to unbelievers, though it be but a common mercy ; and therefore believers should exercise a special faith and dependence in the use of the means for recovery, beyond what ordinarily they use in other means for other outward mercies.
Use 8. We should raise our faith up to God, with more hope as to this mercy, than about any other outward mercies; for the promise of this hath a special seal.
Use 4. We may infer, that God doth afflict with sickness for particular sins.
Use 6. We may infer, that yet he doth not always do so, therefore an + is put in, 'If ye have committed sins.'
Use 6. From hence a proof may be fetched, that elders only should administer sacraments, as here they only are to anoint.
And if the lesser sacrament be appropriated to them, then the greater much more.
Use 7. It should be one ground of further honouring elders, that God hath made them means ofconveying health as well to our bodies asour souls.
THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boor VII.
So that if physicians be to be honoured (as you have it in Ecclesiasticus), then they much more, even with a double honour.
Use8. We may infer that it is not necessary that all the church should be present. The elders only are to be sent for, since such rales are given by the apostle as may suit all churches and all circumstances; but now the church may consist of so many that all the members eannot meet without inconvenience to the sick party, and the persons siek may be so many that the church cannot meet so often.
The elders therefore are set apart for the purpose, and may, and ought, to attend all such oceasions.
Use 9. Yet the elders must be sent for by the parties, and that whilst there is hope of reeovery, and not when they are a-dying.
Use 10. Take notice here of the privilege of church members above other believers.
' If any among you,' that is, of a church ; and therefore it follows, "send for the elders of the church.'
If thou beest out of church fellowship and fallest sick, thou wantest one ordinance of recovery which a eharch member hath, and unto whieh there is both a promise and a seal annexed.The toleration and liberty of conscience whieh we desire is, that we may not be foreed to communicate as members in these parishes where we dwell, but may have liberty to have congregations of such persons who give good testimony of their godliness and peaeeableness, and yet out of tenderness of conscience cannot communicate in their parishes, bat do voluntarily offer themselves to join in such congregations, whieh how it may best stand with the peace of the kingdom, we humbly leave to the consideration of the magistrate.
This is our request, the first part whereof, viz., that we may not be forced to communicate as members in those parishes where we dwell, was in effect granted by the sub-committee of divines, and therefore we dispute it not.
The other part, that we may have liberty to have congregations, being denied us, a8 unlawful for the magistrate to grant, we humbly offer the considerations which follow.
Of the laufulness of gathering churches out of other churches. —How +frightly stated it ts not a separation.—That the Christian magistrate may lawfully tolerate such churches.
That the lawfulness of this our desire to be indulged us by the State may appear, we humbly present these two things.
1. The principles upon which ourselves do go in this desire.
2. The reagons upon which the State may indulge it unto us.
1. It is not a separation as from no churches, but a secession as from such charches as we cannot, as our judgment stands, with a good conscience continue members in, and wherein by reason thereof we should want the enjoyment of the Lord's supper and other ordinances.
And we desire that this profession of ours not to continue members may be but as charitably interpreted, as our presbyteriar brethren would degjre that their profession in one of their petitions should be, wherein they profess:that they cannot with a good conscience continue to officiate in the administration of the Lord's supper as pastors in their congregations, whilst no farther power for suspension of persons who appear unto them scandalous from the sacrament is given them, and that they shall in conscience be enforced to lay down their ministries, and many of them in private and in public have said that they must turn independents.
Now as to them and their consciences as ministers, such .
Cuar. XII.) THE OHURCHES OF CHRIST. an evil doth arise as would make them lay down their ministries; so to us ag | members there ariseth so much as causeth us not to renounce, but to withj draw from present communion.
The same kind of principle that they now go upon did we go upon, im withdrawing from our parishes, which principle they now held forth to persuade a yielding by this state unto that rule they
| have presented to them.
2. It is net a gathering of churches out of churekes as it hath been inter- | preted, which imports, 1, an activeness to persuade men from their churches,
| and to gain proselytes by all ways of industry, whieh the state may put restraint upon.
2. It imports a rending them from those ehurches whilst | there yet remains an obligation to continue in them, and to remain members j of those ehurches, but such a rending we acknowledge to be unlawful.
But | we desire in the behalf of those that are scrupled in eommunion with their | ehurches, and whose consciences their ministers cannot satisfy, and whom | in that ease they ought not for ever to retain among them without ordinances,
| nor upon whom in sueh a case an indissoluble obligation lieth; we desire | that these, rather than they should remain out of ordinanees, may be gathered into new ehurches, and sueh ehurehes wherein they may enjoy for substance
. the same ordinances and the same means of edification as will save them and build them up to life eternal, as well as in the parish churches others of the saints of God who ean and do communicate therein do enjoy them.
We | may as well build up such congregational churehes as the reformed churches | have built up their several members amongst thera, though differing each
; | from other, as in England under episcopacy, and without power given to ministers to east out the seandalons, and as those in Scotland, or Holland, or the Lutheran churches.
8. This is not to set up one church against another, altare versus altare, | altar against altar, but one sister ehurch by another, as the Duteh and French
| churches in England are and have been unto the churehes of England and the parishes thereof ; and this for the common edification of all sorts of saints, and the whole mystical body of Christ, who otherwise are kept divided from Christ in his greatest ordinanees, and exasperated more one against another.
Now that, this forbearance or indulgence of liberty from the eommon | rule established, and hitherto continued in this church of England, may,
| without sin by the magistrate, of whom we humbly seek it, be granted to us, we hambly present this general reason.
That whieh is not unlawfal, nor contrary to the word ef God for the magistrates of this kingdom, who have ' put this case to us, to allow, nor destructive to the peace of the kingdom, this the magistrates of this kingdom may allow to us without sin.
But this request of ours is sueh.
The proposition in itself is clear, and the parliament's willingness to do it, they have expressed in their own ordinance.
1. I shall prove that it is not unlawful, nor contrary to the word of God, for the magistrates of this kingdom to allow the liberty which we request.
The contrariety to the word of God for the magistrate to grant this, must necessarily lie in one of these two things, or both; either that it is so as to the magstrate's judgment, who hath established the rule of communion, or else that in the verity and truth of the thing itself, the nature of the rule by him established, is such as is immutably eommanded by God in his word, and a command also of that high nature, as that it is not lawful for him to grant this indulgence of swerving from it.
That in either of these oases, it would be unlawful to him, we do acknowledge.
And look by how many degrees this request of ours falls short of such an height of contrariety as this is, either in the magistrate's conscience, or in the thing itself, so many
THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boox Vi. grounds and degrees of safety, as well as simple lawfulness, there is as to the magistrate's conscience herein to grant it.
1. If to the magistrate's conscience and judgment the rule should, in that wherein we desire a liberty, be prudential and humani jurés, of human right, though about spiritual things, which himself may vary and alter as may suit best for the subjects of the kingdom, then he may lawfully grant us this liberty; for quicunque potest legem condere, potest etiam privilegium concedere,
| whoever may make a law may also grant a privilege; whereof this reason { is given, privilegium est lex privata quedam, ergo ab eo mazxime dari potest, qui potest legem universalem condere, a privilege is a certain private law, and. therefore it may chieflybe given by him who can make the universal law.
| This (as becomes us) we humbly leave to the judgment and eonsecience of the | magistrate himself, yet withal humbly propound these considerations.
The unlawfulness of granting this (as to the magistrate's conscience) must be either in respect to the terminus a quo or ad quem, that is, either in regard of the | leaving the parish churches wherein men scrupled to live, or in the setting
| up distinct churches from them ; for of these two parts only is what we desire | 1. As to the first, the obligation for men that dwell in the precincts of a parish cannot be such as that it should be unlawful for the magistrate to give allowance for men dwelling in parishes to be of another church than that \ in that parish ; for the bounding of parishes in this kingdom, after the manner that now they are, was by a prudential law; and therefore, being the magistrate's own ordinance, it may be by him dispensed with.
And although that now de facto, and through long continuance, churches by this ordinance have been formed up in parishes, and that those men that desire this liberty may have been members of some chureh therein, yet it is not unlawful for the magistrate to give them leave to cease to be members of those churches, and retain their dwellings, and to become members of some distinet church collected out of many parishes.
For, 1, the magistrate might permit the people of this kingdom to be cast generally into churches otherwise bounded, without sin, and therefore may allow and permit particular members who are scrupled to cease to be members of the parish churches they are and were in ; for otherwise this form of parishes, now there is a church state in them, is by reason of that state, as it were, consecrated, and so exempted from all alteration by the magistrate or themselves.
2. The late ordinance seems to permit as much as we have said to the servants and retinue of the king, his children, and noblemen.
| 8. Nor is this unlawfal to the magistrates'. conscience in respect of the \ terminus ad quem, viz., to permit setting up new churches of men having left the churches they were in ; for, 1, if it were so, then they cannot erect by their authority in this kingdom any new church ; but this they have done, a8, for instance, Covent Garden, and the Inns of Court, authorising them for all ordinances of worship and government, though the most or many of the members came up out of several other parishes throughout the whole kingdom.
And such is the case likewise of the king's household and noblemen's families, instanced in before.
Besides, might not the magistrate give leave to any company of true worshippers of God to set up a new church, if they removed their dwellings, and made a new parish, even as lawfally as to grant a new corporation ?
Obj. 1. But it may be objected, that the sin lies in neither of these, but 'in permitting them to set up churches of another constitution and government from what is established by the rule.
Ans. 1. We reply, that we do not set up churches of another constitution, Cuap. XII} THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST. having the same ordinances for substance as the churches have which we leave, and not taking in any members but whom our brethren may or will acknowledge meet to be members of churches, such as are saints and truly godly, though' of differing judgment from them.
And as for presbyterial government, there are none, nay, not those that hold it to be by divine right, who jadge that it is of the essence and constitution of a church, though a ! necessary ordinance therein, for the preserving of it pure.
Ans. 2. But, 2, if you will suppose that differences in the framing of churches should make them of another constitution, yet the magistrate might permit them ; for, 1, this state did permit the Dutch and French churches, when of a differing, if not of as differing, a constitution (in these respects) from the churches amongst us then, as these of ours, which we desire, are now, who yet in continuance of time were become as natives, and understood our tongue.
The bishops, when they would have reduced them unto their government, urged this very thing, and yet prevailed not in it in the worst times.
Again, 2, if a company of Scotchmen, inhabiting among us, scrupling kneeling, and the government by bishops, &c., had then petitioned our state, as was in consultation, to have churches according to their order and constitution, might not our state then have permitted them ?
Obj. 2. It may be objected, that though it were lawful for the magistrate to permit leaving or removing from these churches, and to set up new and distinct churches simply considered, yet the ground and principle upon which we do it is unlawful, because we leave those churches upon an error, Viz., that we cannot without sin communicate in them, &c., and so to permit them, upon this error, is unlawful for the magistrate to do.
Ans. 1. We reply, 1, the magistrate's conscience need not be scrupled to permit what is in itself in the outward act warrantable, to them that yet do it out of an erring conscience.
We have all in the assembly professed, that if we could agree in the same practices, though upon differing principles, which were openly professed (whereof the one or the other must be an error), yet we would not only permit this, but rejoice in it.
Magistrates, in such cases when the outward act is lawful, and disturbs not the outward peace, inquire not into principles.
The apostles themselves rejoiced in Christ preached, though they allowed not the principles of all that preached him:
"If Christ be preached out of envy, yet I will rejoice,' says the apostle ; yea, perhaps it will appear, if it shaJl come to be debated, that the magistrate may tolerate an outward act, which is evil as to his conscienco, as well as an act which outwardly may be good, only the principle being erroneous.
And that he may do this, when there is not only an erroneous principle, but an hardness of heart, in men that desire it of the magistrate ; for so Moses did in the case of polygamy, and that for the hardness of the Jews' hearts.
2. This ground would utterly make void the ordinance of parliament concerning us in that last part of it; for when the honourable houses did put it to our consideration how far tender consciences, that come not up to the rule, may be borne withal, they, judging their own rule to be lawful, must needs suppose all those tender consciences that could not come up to it to be in an error, and so far judge their practice to be unlawful, and yet are willing to indulge some practices to them, notwithstanding this erring conscience.
And therefore the magistrate in conscience may indulge this to us, unless it can be demonstrated by our brethren that there is such a peculiar sinfulness in this principle, in its contrariety to the rule, as the magistrate cannot indulge it of all other.
8. This ground will put an impossibility upon the magistrate (if differing VOL. Xt. ag THE GOVERNMENT OF [Boor VII. in judgment about church government, &c., from our brethren's principles)
| ever to grant them by way of indulgence, much less to establish by a law ' what they have so earnestly sought.
Nor indeed can our brethren (if they be of this opinion) petition the magistrate for this.
For instance, our brethren have desired power ofjudging of scandal for suspension, to be lodged in the elderships, as that which belongs to them jure divino ; if the honourable houses be never convinced in their consciences, but do judge those that request it upon this ground to be in an error, then they can never so much as indulge this to them, much less by an authoritative law give forth this jurisdiction to them over the subjects of this kingdom.
This principle, besides what other reasons the honourable houses have had, will teach them to deny it; and then because some, or perhaps most of our brethren, hold national and provincial assemblies to be divino jure, and thereby do. challenge a power of judicature and jurisdiction over all men's consciences, yea, over that of the supreme magistrates, in matters which they shall discern to be scandalous and unchristian, and the magistrate withal thinks this principle to be, not only an error, but of as much danger to his authority, as what this of ours can be pretended to be in the church, the magistrate hereby will be constrained to undo, upon the discovery of this principle, what he hath set up.
Yea, and further, it is a principle of many of our brethren, that the church universal is a politic body in the whole, and the parts of it jure divino, and that every elder is an elder of the church universal, and so may and ought to unite into general councils, with the same right ofjurisdiction that national or congregational assemblies have.
The supreme magistrates of Europe, judging this an error, as they well may (and yet these are the principles of many of our presbyterian brethren, if not of the most), they are taught hereby, not to grant the presbyterial government, the principles whereof tend to this, even the setting up a body of elders, invested with ecclesiastical jurisdiction, unto which, dsvino jure, all churches, and Christian subjects and kingdoms must be subject; and so a foreign power ecclesi- ' astical is set over all kingdoms, in an aristocratical way of government, as was the pope in a monarchical way, though with this difference, that there is a renouncing of infallibity in the one, but a requiring subjection, upon pain of excommunication, in both.
This may suffice, touching the magistrate's conscience, in relation to what maybe supposed his principles and practices.
Next we come to the nature of the rule of institution itself, which Christ hath laid upon members of churches, in respect of departing from other churches, and setting up new.
The obligation, say we, laid by Christ in this respect, is not such, but that the magistrate may permit it with a good conscience.
The lawfulness or unlawfulness hereof, if it be said to lie in respect to Christ's rule of institution, must accordingly be measured by what in the rule given by Christ is by institution, and also by considering what sort of institution and obligation it is, whether it be such as the magistrate cannot dispense withal without sin.
Let us therefore consider the nature of the rule.
1. It may be taken for granted by the magistrates (as it is acknowledged by us), that church-fellowship is by the institution of Christ; so as both every believer is obliged to be of some church, where he may enjoy ordinances; a8 also that the churches themselves, the seat of ordinances, are settled by a divine right authorising of them ; and, further, that whilst any one doth continue a member of any particular church, he is so long obliged to the duties to be performed by members therein.
Yet, 2, the unlawfulness of leaving this or that church, and gathering new (which is the thing controverted), depends upon a former thing, namely,
THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST. what, and how great (and that by institution), the obligation of members is to particular churches, whereof they are members; as if the question were, whether it were lawful for the magistrate to tolerate divorces, and a marriage with another ? The measure and proportion of the unlawfulness or lawfulness hereof to him must be fetched from the nature of the obligation and tie, which, in marriages, God hath made tovarise not simply from this, that marriage is God's ordinance (for so the relation of servant and master, of subject and magistrate, algo is, and the duties, whilst that relation continues, are by God's ordinance, such or such) ; but further, it is from the strictness of the obligation or bond of the relation by God's special institution; for though the relation of master and servant, or servant and family, be (as was said)
God's ordinance, yet there is not that obligation upon men for not leaving it, and entering into a new.
Let, therefore, the obligation of churches and members (go far as from Christ's special command and Christ's institation it may any way be made appear) be impartially weighed
; for thereupon do the proportions and degrees of unlawfulness depend; both how far it is lawful or unlawful to the persons that leave the churches, or to the churches that permit them so to do, or to the magistrate in whose dominions they are.
For a right estimating of the firmness or looseness of this knot, in which the strength of this controversy lies, we propound these things to consideration.
1. The obligation of members to this or that individual church under the gospel, is far less than, under the Old Testament, the obligation of members was to that national church.
§q that, to take a jadgment of it, or an argument from the Jewish church, against removing from churches now, and gathering new, would (as it hath done many) much deceive us.
And the difference herein is manifest, and also the ground of it; for the church under the Old Testament was but one by God's institution, and so one, as there were to be no more set up; and therefore (though it proved idolatrous) there
: was no setting up a new one.
It was Jeroboam's sin, and the sin of the ten tribes, to set up aliare versus altare, altar against altar, as they did.
But \ now, everywhere pure hands are, and may be lift up to God, and spiritual sacrifices be offered everywhere as well as in the holy mount; only we are now bound unto church-followship, and the enjoyment of public ordinances, as well as they, and so if we cannot have it in one church, we are to seek it in another.
( 2. Hence it will be (we suppose) granted by our brethren, that it is a matter of much liberty (so it be done with peaceableness and sobriety), to remove from one church to another for eivil conveniences; yea, out of many churches, to set up a new church for civil conveniences' sake (as for trade and the like, when a place is not well inhabited), mach more for spiritual advantages.
8. Take the outward matter of fact (in this thing controverted), namely, to remove and leave our membership with these individual churches now extant, and to gather new, if you take the fact barely out of some supposed erroneous principle as the ground of it, or scandal and disturbance annexed thereto, it is a matter of liberty; at least it is such as needs not a warrant by a new institution or example which is called for.