Followeth now the particular Epistles to the seven Churches, wherein our Lord maketh them know how privie He is to their actions, ill or good, commending the one and reproving the other; with some promises and threatnings intermixted. There are some things common to all these Epistles; some things peculiar to the Churches He writes unto, as they are commended only, as Philadelphia and Smyrna; or discommended only, as Laodicea; or somewhat of both, as the other four.
It’s common to all, to have their Epistles agreeing in the form, though different in the matter: As, 1. to be divided in an inscription, comprehending the party to whom and from whom, 2. A narration; or body, comprehending the particular message Christ sends to them. 3. A conclusion, comprehending some promise to the over-comers; and an advertisment to all hearers to profit.
All are directed to the Angels, or the Ministers, of the Churches, and not to the Churches themselves immediatly, though the first direction, (Chap. 1 vers. 11) be to them. And in the close of every Epistle, it’s said, what the Spirit faith to the Churches. If any ask how the Churches and Angels, or Church-guides, are so indifferently and promiscuously named? Answ. For these reasons. 1. Because the Church and the collective body of Officers are so exceeding neer of kin each to other, and in their interests, so inter woven, that, in the Scripture phrase, to write unto the Church, and to write unto her Officers, are one; as to tell unto the Church, Mat. 18 and to tell unto the Church-officers, are one. 2. Because the Church is virtually comprehended (to speak so) under her Officers, who are not only the special members, but also the representers of that body: and as one, writing to an Incorporation, or Burgh, and directing his letters to the Magistrate thereof, may be said to write unto the Burgh; even so it’s here: for, though Ministers in respect of their Authority and Administration of the Ordinances, do not represent the Church, but Jesus Christ, whose Ambassadors they are; yet in respect of their united way of acting together, and their sympathizing with all the members, and their joynt interest in all the affairs belonging to the members, and the reciprocall sharing that is between them and the members, of all good or evil temperatures, they may well be said to represent the Church, whose servants they are for Christs sake: even as the Magistrate, acting in his duty, representeth God; yet in some sense also may be said to represent the people. 3. Because there is ordinarly a great sutablenesse and likenesse between the Minister and people of that Church whereof he is Minister; he lukewarm, and they are lukewarm; he lively, and readily it is so with them, as we will see in all the seven Epistles following: and therefore the writing unto and describing of one, doth by consequence include both, especially, considering that whether the Churches estate be good, or ill, the Minister hath much influence on it: and therefore, both in reproofs and commendations, the first word is directed to him. 4. Because the order Christ hath instituted in Church, doth so require; he reveals not his mind immediatly to the people; but first to his Ministers, and by them to the Church: for, our Lords way, is orderly, so as may prevent confusion in his Church: which is done, not by putting it in the hands of people; but by putting His Ministers to it in these things which concern their station, and these being such things as belong peculiarly to Ministers to be amended, in the Epistles therefore doth he particularly direct it to them.
All the tittles given to Christ, are for the most part taken out of the Vision, chap. 1 only they are chosen and pitched on as may best serve the scope of every Epistle; as the Lord is to discover their case, or, accordingly to threaten or promise, the tittle is wailed which is most suitable to that end: as here, Christs presence, care, and soveraignity over His Churches and Ministers, are laid down, when he is to discover a secret fault in them, and to threaten the un-churching of them for it, there being ordinarly in every Epistle two tittles, one respecting the case of the Church written unto, the other the promise or threatning which is annexed: and therefore are they, upon the matter, often in plain tearms resumed in the close of the Epistle, which may give some insight in the meaning of them.
It’s common to them all, to begin with this word, I know thy works: that so there may not only be an evidence of Christs Godhead, but also to remove all exception, which might be made against his testimony. We take it to look ordinarily, not so much to his approbation, as to his Omniscience, simply: because it is indefferently made the ground of reproof, as well as of the commendation: and therefore is used in the Epistle to Laodicea, where no commendation is given.
For more particular use-making of these Epistles, Consider. 1. the immediate scope of them, which is to stir up the seven Churches, according to their severall conditions, to hold fast what was right, and to amend what was wrong, having in them the discovery of the then estate of those Churches, and some warnings sutable to that end: and so they are not in a Prophetical way primarily to represent particular Churches in ages following: Yet, 2. Are they useful in a special manner to other Churches, being doctrinally applied to their case, as the Lord applieth the words of Isaiah 29:13, Matth. 15:7. Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophecie of you, &c. while as Isaia’s words do principally respect the people in his own time; yet may they be applied to all Hypocrites in such a case, as if it had been intentionally spoken of them; so may it be here in the application of them to particular Churches, in the like cases: yea, to particular persons, according to the common close, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear, &c. And the Epistles may be so much the more useful in application, than other Scriptures: because in one mapp they comprehend together the complex case of a Church, with the particular directions, reproofs, and encouragements, which befits the case. 3. The Epistles being directed to both, the Angels and Churches, to the one mediately, to the other immediately, as we shew, we would beware of confounding the directions and matter contained in them as equally agreeing to both, as also, of too rigide separating of them; as if what principally belonged to the Minister, did no way belong to the people, and contrarily: but to look what may agree to either, without confounding of stations or sexes. As in all other Scriptures we take directions in things belonging to Magistrates, to be given to them, and so to others in all several stations respectively; so here, what belongeth to Ministers, apply it to them: as for instance, preaching, and judical trial of corrupt men; that, so far as it is authoritative, belongs to Officers: yet so far as people have accesse in their stations to premove such ends (as many wayes they may, in so far it belongs to them, and so in other cases.
Vers. 2. Followeth the body of the Epistle (for, the inscription is opened, chap. 1 except what concerneth the application of it to the estate of this Church) and it hath severall steps in it, 1. A general word, which is the ground of our Lords pronouncing his censure, I know thy works, to holdout his Omniscience without approbation or commendation. The meaning is, I know all thy works inward and outward, thy form and way of Administration of all things in the Church, all thy outward carriage in things, the things themselves, and thy frame in going about them, the matter and manner of doing them, and the end thou hadst before thee in them; and I knew them perfectly; exactly, and throughly: a thing that in the entry to his service and every other thing, we would look to and bear in mind, that Christ is acquainted with all our carriage, and every thing that escapeth us. And this being often repeated, it faith, that Christ counts this a main part or his message, to have souls convinced of his perfect & through knowledge of their works.
He proceedeth to the commendation, ver. 2, 3. The commendation is, 1. shortly set down: And, 2. more particularly explained: primarily, it’s applicable to the Angel; but secundarily to others. It’s shortly set down in three steps in the words, thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them that are evil. Having told them in the general, that He knew all their works, good and evil, He tells the particular works he commends, 1. Their labor: the Word in the Original, is Κόπος, the labour which is properly applied to Ministers in their Ministerial work: It’s that word, 1 Tim. 5:17. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially these who labour in the word and Doctrine; And, 1 Thess. 5:12. Know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord; and it’s a word that sets out the great carefulnesse and painfulnesse of the Ministrie: and being spoken especially to the Angels, the meaning is, I know thy painfulnesse and care in the work of the Ministrie, committed to thee, especially thy painfulnesse in Preaching, although proportionably we are to look upon Christs taking notice of, and approving the carriage of the several members of this Church in reference to their duty. 2. Their patience: this respects their suffering: labour in duty, and submission in suffering, go well together. I know (saith He) very well all the perfection and suffering thou art under, all the ill-will of some within, all the malice of others without, against thee, and all the troubles thou hath met with from Satan and his instruments, and how patiently, submissively and constantly thou hath born them all. The 3. thing whereby they are commended (and it relates especially to the Ministers) is, their zeal in executing Discipline, They could not bear them which were evil; and therefore, for as patient as they were under crosses; yet they were stout, couragious, and zealous against corrupt men; by trying, censuring, and giving no toleration to them. And this He also points at, with a commendation.
Vers. 3. He explaineth their patience, and hast born, and hast patience: their bearing, looks to the sufferings they met with from the false Apostles, in the prosecuting of their trial: wherein they met with many afflictions; yet they endured to prosecute their duty as good Souldiers do. 2 Tim. 4:2, 3. And hast patience: which relateth to the quiet and patient manner of their suffering affliction. It is nothing to suffer, when folk cannot eschew it; but they suffered patiently in the doing of their duty and continued in patient suffering. 3. He commends and explains their labour; For my names sake, thou hast laboured and not fainted: which first words, for my names sake, will agree well to the word going before; and so is the ground or their submission and patience under crosses: or, it may look to the words following; and so the meaning is, for zeal to my glory thou hast endured all this pains; for my names sake, thou halt been at pains in doing, and haft overcome all rubs in the way. And hast not sainted: that is, thou haft not been wearied of, nor scared or boasted from thy duty; nor made to desert it for all the suffering thou hast met with, but respect to my Name, hath made thee persevere. So then, their labour, as it was spoken of before, points at their painfulnesse; and here it respects their singlenesse, that it was not in a way of self-seeking, but for His Names sake. 2. I hat it was constant and continuing: they were carried on without interruption in prosecuting their zealous intention.
If it be asked here, how such as call themselves Apostles, or do count themselves not subject to the Discipline of a particular Church (as these who pretended to be Apostles behoved to do) can be orderly proceeded against by Church triall and censure, especially of a particular Church?
Answ. 1. There is no Apostle nor Angel, in the preaching of the Gospel, that is altogether above triall: they are, as such, above erring in Doctrine; yet may and should their Doctrine be tried according to the Word, Act. 17:11, Gal. 1:8. Because, even Apostles are but Ambassadors, and are not Lords over the Faith of Gods People, but helpers of their joy, 2 Cor. 5:20, 1 Pet. 5:3 &c. Secondly, Apostles in the guiding of a constitute Church, oftentimes used not their extraordinary Authority, as acting by themselves by vertue of their infallibility; but joyntly with others, in an ordinary way, clearing and confirming their Doctrine and practices from Scripture, and Gods Call, warranting them in that particular, as appears by Peters apologie, Act. 11 and Paul with the rest of the Apostles their proceeding, Act. 15. In which two respects, it’s sutable for Believers, to try the Spirits, 1 Joh. 4:1. Thirdly, We say, that no presumptuous title assumed by ones self, nor any irregular walking, as belonging to no Church; or not to such and such a particular Church, can exempt any member of the Catholick Church from triall, & if need require, from censure of the particular Church, where such person, or persons, shall reside; which we shall confirme from these reasons. 1. Not from trial: because in so far the Doctrine and practices of the Apostles themselves (who were not fixed members of any particular Congregation for their Membership, and their Office behoved to be of equall extent) were subject to tryall, that it might be Known whether they were of God or not, as is said. Yea. 2. Neither from censure (suppossing it possible that they should erre, and them actually to have erred) as we may see by Pauls supposition, Gal. 1:8. If I preach another Gospel, &c. and also by Pauls open rebuking of Peter when he was to be blamed, Gal. 2:14. 3. The same practice may confirme it, the Church rulers of Ephesus were not seared by that title, nor yet by their not having Membership among them (as it seemes such could not have, being readily strangers, and thereby having the greater accesse to give out themselves for the thing they were not) yet they went on to try and censure which is particularly commended in them by Jesus Christ. 4. It may be confirmed from that power that Christ hath given to his Church-officers for edification, and for preserving the Church committed to them from infection, which would seem to be defective, if men had liberty (under the former pretexts) to vent errour and commit scandalous practices, for the ensnaring of others, in Churches whereof they were not properly members: and though it might be faid, that simply such persons were not under the triall and censure of such a Church; yet eatenus and in that respect, as it’s necessary, for the good of that Church, to have these persons tried and censured, they do fall under their authority; and warrantably it’s put forth for putting some note on them, for the preventing and removing of offences from the People. 5. It may be confirmed from the unity of the Catholick Church visible, by which any member thereof (if no particular thing impede) may claim the priviledges of a member by communion in publick Ordinances of Word and Sacraments in whatsoever Church, though he be no particular member thereof: and therefore a part he ought also to be liabe to the Discipline of Christ in any particular Church, where he shall fall to be: (seeing that claiming the priviledges of a Church, and submission to the Ordinances thereof, are in themselves reciprocall) and thought some profane wretch renounce his own priviledge; yet that makes not the Church to losse hers; but so long as he continues a member of the Catholick visible Church, as long as he is under censures of the Church, which are put forth in particular Congregations. 6. It may be confirmed from the absurdities, that otherwise would follow, As, 1. There might be a scandalous member of the Catholick visible Church, who could not be reached by Church-censure. 2. One Christian might offend and stumble another: and telling to the Church, would be no remedy to it, Mat. 18 if no particular Church had power over such a one, which is contrary to Christs scope. 3. A door would be opend to a loose liberty within Christs House: for, in such a case, men could neither be censured, nor cast out of the Church, nor in any Ecclesiasticall way, be compelled to take on Church-membership, or live regularly in the Church: by this, there might be some Christians sick and needing this cure of Discipline, to whom it could not be applyed; by this the ordinance of Discipline would not be of equall extent with the Sacrament of Baptism: All which are absurd.
Observe, 1. Christ would have us alwayes walking in the sense of his Omniscience, which makes him begin all these Epistle with this, I know thy works: aprofitable, but a difficult Truth to be believed by Christians.
Christ is an unprejudged witnesse, and should be esteemed so by his Church: he beareth testimony unto them, as he taketh notice of their good, as well as their evil.
Such as Christ never called, may take on them highest titles in the Church, pretend confidently to a most immediate Call, carry fair, and gain respect, and have some gifts for that end, as it seemeth there had who called themselves Aposlles.
That diligence in duty, and difficulty in the performance of it, often go together: to do, and to bear, are often joyned: two things that in our resolution and practice we would not sunder; and if it were believed, we would not scare at the very shadow of suffering in, or following upon our duty as we do.
5, Patience in suffering, and impatience against corruptions and corrupt men, can well stand together This people is said to bear and suffer; and yet it’s said, they could not bear: the reason is, because their patient suffering, or bearing, in the one word, relates to their enduring of crosses: and there not bearing or suffering, in the other word, relates to corrupt men, and their zeal against them. It were a good thing to knit these two together, not to let our zeal wear away our patience, nor our patience prejuge our zeal. There is a kind of zeal that puts folks alway to do to the end they may shun suffering, that is not good: and there is a fort of patience and meeknesse that wants zeal and sharpnesse in reference to the purging of Christs House; a patience that can bear with ill men: and this is no more to be commended than the former. This Angel is commended that he eschewed both, and had both patience and zeal in exercise, running in there right channel, and put forth toward the right objects: and would God these were more seen and discernable in our practice: the one would make our zeal to shine, and the other would make our patience and humility praise-worthy: and if they be not joyned, our zeal shall be carnall, and our patience, luke warm; and neither of these will be commended of Christ.
There is no name, priviledge, or title, that should scare people, especially the Ministers of God, from searching or trying corrupt men, that bring corrupt Doctrine, pretending a Commission from Christ when they have none, though they should have the pretext of Ministers and Apostles, and had never so great gifts (for very like these men who took this name to themselves wanted not gifts) or so smooth a carriage to insinuate themselves on people, and to commend their presumption to them: for, it was commendable zeal in this Angel, to try them, and discover them.
If folks will put to proof and triall manythings and persons that have fair names, they will be found very unlike the names they take. It is a time wherein we had need not to take every thing on trust from all persons, though their gifts wore great, and they had big titles and names; but humbly and soberly to wait on God for light and direction, searching and trying both mens carriage and Doctrine, and the Commission they pretend to in carrying of it.
Where an immediate Call is pretended unto, and great titles assumed, ordinarily it is to carry on some strange Doctrine or designe, and is therefore to be suspected by the people of God, 2 Cor. 11 vers. 13.
The censuring of corrupt unsent Ministers, is a most difficult task, what from their nature, and sometimes from their parts; what from the addictednesse of many unto them. Yet it is a speciall duty: and although it be often difficult to follow, and be mistaken by many others; Yet that it’s acceptable before Jesus Christ, may appear from these considerations. 1. That the Scripture holdeth forth no kind of persons as more abominable in themselves, and more hatefull to Him; for which cause, they are called dogs, and dumb dogs that cannot bark, Isa. 56:10. Salt without favour, wolves, idol shepherds, such as feed themselves, and kill his flock, blind guids, &c. Hence it is that there are not more sad expostulations with complaints of, or threatnings pronounced against any, than against these: Our blessed Lord Jesus multiplies woes unto such in a more terrible manner than was usuall to Him, Mat. 23. 2. There is no kind of persons that prove more dishonourable to our Lord Jesus, and to His Gospel than such: these make the Law to be despised, Mal. 2 and the Sacrifices and Ordinances to be counted vile and contemptible, 1 Sam. 2. Such especially open the mouths of profane men against Religion, and the Author thereof, and exceedingly derogate from the authority of Him they pretend to have sent them, and to the Ambassage they are sent with, while as they look so unlike Him. And upon this account it is amongst others, that luch particular directions for the singular qualifying of Church-Officers, are given in Scripture: and the censuring of such, and that by Christs own Authority, vindicateth Him, which cannot be but honourable and acceptable to Him. 3. The scandalous miscarriages and unfaithfulnesse of Ministers bring a speciall blot upon all Religion, as if it were but meer hypocrisie and tended to the fostering of such ills: and profane men are exceedingly strengthened in such Atheisticall apprehensions, when these ills are not taken notice of, and censured by Church-Authority: Whereas by this severity in the exercise of Discipline, the faults are seen to be in persons and not in Religion, or the Ordinances thereof. 4. There is no such contempt done to our Lord Jesus, as for one to pretend to have Commission from Him; and yet to be running unsent by Him; or, having gotten Commission, to miscarry by unfaithfulnesse init: this is a betraying of trust, and cannot but be looked on as a high contempt against Him. 5. As there is a suitablenesse in the censuring of such Church-officers to Christs mind, so there doth appear in the same attenderness of, and zeal unto His Glory. Hence it is, that His most zealous. servants, as Elias, Paul, (yea, and Himself when on earth) did set themselves most against that generation. 6. There is no sort of men more hurtfull to the Church, by obstructing Christs end in His Ordinances, to wit, the edification of His People: for, such profit them not at all, Jer. 23 yea, they stand in the way of their profiting, sometimes by corrupt Doctrine; sometimes by example; sometimes by sadning and weakening of these who look more tenderly to the practice of Godlinesse: and if no other way; yet by filling the room, and so standing in the way of the peoples being provided with such as might be helpfull and faithful. Now, considering the great respect that our Lord Jesus hath to the edification of His People; and considering the weight that He hath placed upon this Ministery, as a mean for promoving of that end, and with all, the great obstruction that followes to that end, when this mean disappoints. It cannot but be accounted acceptable to Him to remove such an obstruction. Yea, 7. Considering that there is nothing He commends more than mutuall love to His Disciples, and there is nothing wherein love can appear more to them, than in seeking their spirituall edification, which was that wherein His own love eminently kythed; and there is nothing wherein this kind of love kythes more to Him or them, than that they be fed with knowledge and understanding by Pastors according to His own heart, according to His word to Peter, Peter, loves thou me? then feed my lambs: it cannot therefore but be looked on by Him as acceptable service. And indeed, if it be commendable to relive a neighbours beast from hazard, when there is a slothfull shepherd; or to relieve the bodily life from temporall hazard, how much more must it be commendable to prevent the eternall hazard of immortall souls, which by corrupt Ministers cannot but be in hazard? 8. There is nothing that more rejoyceth and hardneth corrupt men, than when they are like People, like Priest, and have Pastors according to their own heart; and there is nothing that they are more provoked and displeased with, than the censuring of such: yea, even men who have no respect almost to Religion at all, yet abhorr and oppose the censuring of such, as if it were a peece of Religion (or rather of opposition to Religion) to do so; which certainly sheweth that the following of this triall, must be a main furtherance to Godlinesse, and cometh near the Kingdom of Christ. 9. Not only if there an obstruction to Godlinesse by such, but they have a main influence upon the advancing of propnanity, and the kingdom of the devil, as if professedly they had confederated with him against Christ. Hence it’s said, that from them doth prophanity go out to the whole Land, Jer. 23. And they are called Ministers of Satan, 2 Cor. 11 as Ambassadors employed by him in his service And where it’s thus, not only are scandalous practices committed, but avowed, as it were in contempt of Godlinesse, and of faithfull Ministers, who seriously study the promoving of it. Hence it is, that often there is a kind of started enimity against faithfulnesse and faithfull men, not only amongst such Ministers themselves, but in their Congregations and Followers, which sheweth the prejudice that cometh by them, and so the necessity of removing them.
It may now look like cruelty (it may be) rigidly to pursue such, and like pity to spare them which may much be applauded unto by many: yet is we could consider what hazard may come to immortall souls in a short time by the want of a powerfull Ministery, much more by the having of corrupt men, either in Life or Doctrine in that station, and what thoughts souls will have of that cruel pity in the day of Judgement: we are perswaded borrour would affect the hearts of there who are concerned; considering how many are palpably in hazard through defect in this: Can it be thought that Christs ordaining of a Ministery was only to have men bearing such a name, and not to have such as effectually and seriously would promove His design? and can that be expected, whilst men unfit for it, or unworthy of that calling possesse the room? and if it be a deplorable condition to have Congregations desolate without the Ordinances, and living like Heathens, or as sheep without a Shepherd, or blind men without a Guide, is it any lesse, yea, is it not much more lamentable to have such as rather marr than further the man design? which breedeth confidence and security in some naturall men, occasioneth prophanity and loosnesse in others, and almost serveth to no end, but to keep such a Congregation from one that may guide them, and them from knowing their want, or hazard: and in sum to obstruct, and put in a non-entry, their edification, more than is none were there at all; for, Christs way appointed for edifying of His Church, is not only to have the form or Ordinances, by men supplying these places; but to have such as may by His approbation follow His way of attaining his end. We conceive that the regulating of the entry of Church-officers, so mat none but such as are thereby approven may be admitted, and of the tryall of these who are in, that such who carry themselves unworthily maybe removed, is one of the main ends why Church-authority is given by Jesus Christ for the edification of His Body, as the speciall directions to Timothy and Titus, which do regulate Church-officers, especially in the admission and accusation of Elders, do demonstrate; and is this main point be neglected by Church-officers, it may justly provoke God to weaken, if not to break that Authority to them, and to make them and it in their hands justly to become despiseable, which nothing furthers more than the admitting and permitting of corrupt and unmeet Officers to be in the Church. And if people delight to have it so, and fret at anything which may amend it, much more if they affect the continuance thereof, and concur to the supporting, of such, it may be that the Lord give them a fill of their own wayes; and by errour, contusion, or some other way, so bring it about in his just Judgement, that either they shall have no face of Ordinances at all, or have the carcasse of them as a snare and a curse unto them, who received not the love of the Truth, that they might be saved, but contented themselves to have the shape and form of Charts Ordinances only among them without respect to the end for which He appointed them. That zealous and pungent discourse, which Mr. Baxter hath to this purpose in the close of his Agreement, is most weighty and convincing; and the matter thereof, so far as concerns this, worthy to be considered. All which is still to be understood of such legall trialls as are followed on solide grounds, and in an orderly circumspect manner; for such was this triall of the false Apostles, by the Angel or Elders of the Church of Ephesus, which usually is cited by Divines to confirm the power of the Church in censuring her Officers.
OUr Lord Jesus is the faithful and true witnesse, who impartially testifieth, both of what is right, and what is wrong in his Church: we have heard His commendation, shewing what was right; He began at that, to make way for the other part of His testimonie, which is to discover what was wrong; and it is set down, ver. 4:1. More generally by a transition from the commendation, Neverthelesse, I have somewhat against thee, that is, though all these things be true, and thou be commendable in them, and I commend thee for them; yet there is a neverthelesse added; that is not all, there are somethings wrong which I also take notice of, and will quarrel for, though there be manythings right. This shews. 1. our Lord Jesus His impartiality in taking notice of all, good and ill. And, 2. It shews the extent of duty which consists in an universal respect to all His commands; and failing in somethings, may be as a dead flie in a box of ointment, to marr the favour of the rest. And, 3. That it’s meet for Believers to know their whole estate, their ill as well as their good both are useful to them to be known, and both are represented by our Lord Jesus unto them; His commending of them, alters not what is justly reprovable, his reproof prejudges them not in what is commendable: this way Believers ought to take in reference to themselves. 4. It shews, that even Believers should take a reproof, as well as a commendation, especially when it cometh from our Lord Jesus His mouth; yea, thought in manythings they be right, yet should a reproof, notwithstanding thereof, be digested in anything wherein they are wrong.
Vers. 5. Followeth the direction, which our Lord prescribeth as the duty suting their case, and the threatening wherewith He backs it. The direction hath three steps, every one of them making way for another. The 1 is, Remember from whence thou art fallen, that is, advert and consider how it is with thee, be it was at the beginning; that so by reflecting upon themselves, and comparing their present condition with what is part, they might be brought to take up their own condition. In sum, it implieth, that there had been in them an inadvertencie unto, and forgetfulnesse of their own condition for a time, which had made them without challenges slip into, and continue in that backslidden condition. Unto this, remembring is opposed, which taketh in, not only a simple act of memorie, but a sensible exercise of the conscience and affections also, following upon their reflecting on themselves, like the word, Ezek. 16:61. Thou shalt remember thy wayes, &c.
The second part of the direction is, repent: this is the fruit and end of the former, relating also to what was past, that not only they should look upon their own wayes, but that their eye should affect their heart, for the upstirring of them in the exercise of Repentance: which includeth these two, 1. A kindly indignation against their sin, and against themselves for their sin, so as in some part, they avenge God of themselves in the judging and censuring of themselves in the behalf of God, as it is in 2 Cor. 7:11. 2. It taketh in an inward and outward change of their way for the time to come, which is ever a fruit of true Repentances; when the party is brought not only to confesse, but co forsake their sin, as the words following clear in the third direction; which is, do the first works. This relateth unto the the time to come, that is, that what once they had been at in the performance of Worship to God, and in duties one to another in the manner, as well as in the matter, and were now fallen from (as we hinted at in the reproof) that they should by all means set themselves to recover the same, this being a native fruit and companion of Repentance carefully to abstain from the evils, and perform the duties which they have been most touched with in the challenge. These three go well together, and notably prescribe the remedie of a soul backslidden from livelinesse to deadneffe, and directs to the recovery of their former state, which will not be attained by lazie Prayers, and fainting complaints; but by serious up-stirring, and exercise of these three, self searching, repentance, and practice, and that in the native order as they lye.
More particularly, from the severall directions, Observe, 1. That as forgetfulnesse of our own condition, and not rejecting on our selves, is the great cause of much declining and backsliding in heart, and of continuing therein; so upon the contrary, self examination, and remembering of our own way, and reflecting on our selves, is a notable mean to prevent decay, and to entertain a good frame; as also to further the exercise of repentance, and to recover a frame when it’s lost. 2. Believers may fall into that neglect. 3. When Believers become negligent, they decline in part, though not wholly. 4. When Believers fall, they are to take the same way for their recovery. 5. Believers may be under great decay, and yet not take great notice of it, nor from, whence they are fallen; yea, it implyeth further, that where the decay is within, and the carriage fair without, (as here,) it’s hard to get them convinced of it.
From the second step of the direction, Repent, &c. Obs. 1. That Repentance is a duty incumbent even to Believers, 1 Joh. 1:8. 2. That it is called for, whereever there is sin, even of omissions, as here. But, 3. Especially where there is declining. 4. Change of practice, where there hath been sin, will not be sufficient, if repentance for what is past do not accompany it.
From the third step, Do the first works, Obs. 1. That Believers first works, are often more commendable, than these which come after. 2. There may be great difference in the same works on the matter, even of the same person, in Christs account. 3. Works & works livelily gone about, are called for from Beievers: Christ Jesus was no legall Preacher; yet doth he require both Repentance & Works from these Ephesians.
The third thing in this Epistle, is the threatning, or certification, wherewith this directions is pressed, (which doth the more confirm the former Doctrine) or else I will come unto thee quickly, and remove thy Candlestick out of its place, except thou repent: in which words, we are to consider the thing threatned. 2. The persons threatned. 3. The certification, upon which it’s pronounced. 4. The person threatning. And lastly, The speedinesse or suddainnesse of His performing what he threatned. The thing threatned, is the removing of the Candlestick out of its place. By Candlestick, Chap. 1 vers. 20 is understood the Church: Therefore by the removing thereof must be understood the un-Churching of them; So that Ephesus now a Church & Candlestick, should have that removed, and not be continued a Church; this is in effect like that, Zach. 11 of the Lords breaking the two slaves, and refusing to feed that people any more. This is a sad, though a just threatning, which may put us to enquire wherefore the Lord thus threatneth this Angel, and Church, beside any other? especially considering they were not the worst, (as was seen in the commendation,) why then is the threatned? and how usually the Lord doth execute this, shall be spoken unto, when the words are opened.
The person threatned, is most especially and immediately the Angel, as is clear by using of the singular number, thy Candlestick, and I will come to thee, &c. And with him, we conceive, that the threatning respects most these who were really Believers in that Church: because especially, the charge of falling from the first love, and direction of doing the first works agree to them. The threatning also of removing the Candlestick, would be most laid to heart by them. Thus Christ usually threatned: Yea. correcteth His own, when He lets others slip, Amos 3:2 Neither doth He hereto particularly charge and threaten the Heathens for refusing the Gospel, nor yet the false Apostles, or Nicolaitans, for open abusing it, as He doth this zealous Angel: the reason is nor, because He loves them lesse; but because their sins come nearer His honour, & he is more affected with them; and because He mindeth their good, He judgeth and chasteneth them, lest they should be condemned with the world, 1 Corinth, 11:32 whereas He suspendeth His judging of the rest, & bestoweth not a reproof upon them, untill judgement altogether surprise them.
The certification upon which this great judgement (which is greater than either Sword, Famine, or Pestilence) is threatned, is, except they repent: by which we may gather, the necessity of Repentance in it self, and it’s acceptation by Jesus Christ, not as if there were any merit in it to deserve, or any moving impulsive vertue in it to perswade Him to pity (as humiliations use to perswade men) He is not capable of such motives: nor yet as if He had any delight in the sadning, and exercising of his People; but that He may shew the peremptory connexion between Repentance and Pardon; which in the order of Salvation He hath laid down, thereby to make the sinner know something of the ill of sin, and worth of grace: which is the reason why the preaching of the Gospel ordinarily begins with this. By Repentance here, we do not understand strictly the grace or Repentance, as it is contradistinguished from Faith, much lesse any natural or worldly sorrow, which may be in a hypocrite; but we take it as it comprehended the whole work of Conversion and Faith in Jesus Christ, as sometimes it’s taken, Math. 4:17 compared with Mark. 1:15 because it is proposed there, as the way to prevent wrath which is due for sin, which cannot be done without faith.
The fourth thing to be considered, is, the person threatning, I will come, I Jesus Christ who walks among the golden Candlesticks, 1 the Lord of the Vineyard, Math. 21:40, 41. This is mentioned, First, To let us see Christ absolutenesse and soveraignity over his Churches, to dispose of them as he pleaseth; that Ministers and People may learn to hold their Church-being of Him: Secondly, To hold forth Christs peculiar Authority, in Churching and un-churching; and that peculiarly, this belongeth to Him: there is no Man, nor Enemy, nor Persecution, &c. can loose the relation of a Church in its being, out Christ Jesus, or they, as ordered by Him.
The fifth is, I will come quickly, yea, and unexpectedly, as the word imports. This is added to shew that Christs threatnings are in earnest, and that Hearers would not dally with them. It sheweth also, how easily He can overturn a Church, and make no Church of it: He hath often gathered Churches quickly, and can He not dissolve them when they look to be in their prime? Who, having read the commendation of Ephesus in the former verses, would have expected such a threatning in the close?
The words now being opened, we may enquire, 1. How this threatning of un churching a Church useth to be executed?
Answer, We conceive it doth not necessarily imply the overrunning, washing and destroying of such a City or Land, that it should be no City, but that it should be no Church. Sometimes indeed God will even by such a mean bring about this thing threatned; But here we take it to hold out some other thing, than if He had threatned Sword or Pestilence upon then: It is the same upon the matter with that, Math. 21:43. The kingdom of God shall be taken from them, &c. which was Christs word to the Jews, and is especially there wayes brought to passe. The first, is sinfull, that is, when a Church sell themselves to false Doctrine, which overturneth the foundation: in which sense, Hos. 2 the Lord denies Ephraim to be his Wife; because of her spirituall whoredoms whereby she had broken her tye: thus a people may be said to un-Church themselves by their unbelief, confusions and errours (unconsistent with the foundation) according to that, Isai. 50:1. And Rom. 11 the fews are said to have broken themselves off by their unbelief. The second way is penall, that is, when the Gospel hath not fruits among a people, the Lord removeth the Light, and His Ordinances from them, taketh down his hedge from about them, and (as it were) sendeth them a bill of divorce, refusing to own them afterwards as a Church: not by giving them up to outward enemies oppression (which for a time they may be free of) but by ratisfying their own sentence of rejecting of the Gospel, as it is, Act. 13:46 and thus the Kingdom of God was translated from the Jews; and they became no Church, when the Gospel was taken from them and sent unto the Gentiles. A third way may be mixed, partly sinfull, partly penall, a people upon the one side not receiving the love of the Truth; and therefore upon the other side, God gives them up to strong delusion, where upon they proceed from evill to worse in the believing of lies, as it is, 2 Thess. 2:10. However, this is certain, this flourishing Church of Ephesus, hath now long since been a proof of this Truth, for errour growing to an hight, and delusion and ignorance following upon the back of despising the Gospel, hath brought that Church into the estate that it is now into.
For the second Question, Why the Lord peculiarly threatens the Churches of Ephesus with these punishments?
Answ. It is not because His discontentment was more with her than with other Churches; But 1. It’s like they thought outward honesty and reformation enough for their Church, estate, and that there was no cause of fear of un-Churching, so long as they continued pure in profession, and zealous in purging, &c. And therefore to beat down this conceit and to shew the necessity of power, as well as of form, for continuing of a Church-estate, He doth subjoyn this threatning of un-Churching, especially to this Church. 2. Because these here threatned, would lay more weight on this threatning, and be more affected with shoring to be un-Churched, than with either Sword or Pestilence, &c. The Lord therefore applieth wisely that which He thinks most conduceable to this end, 3. It’s like, their outward Church-estate was something thought of by them, and the externall frame of Ordinances in purity, and that of Discipline in vigour, might be rested on, and too much esteemed of, especially by the Ministers (it being too ordinary for men to think too much of external forms) The Lord therefore in this threatning toucheth the fault that might stick secretly to them, even in their zealous prosecuting of externall reformation. 4. Because He would have all men knowing the respect He hath to sincerity, and the influence which the exercise or not exercise of grace hath upon keeping, or loosing of externall Priviledges. Therefore doth he so threaten this Church when no outward cause of such controversie seemeth to be before men.
If it be asked further, Why this Church is called the Angels, For, They, both reference to the Angel, and by the Candlestick, is meant the Church itself. Or, 2. How this becomes a threatning to the Minister, it being liker a plague upon the People? Or, 3. How the People can be plagued for a sin in their Minister? We shall consider the first by it self, after we have gone through this Epistle. And now to the second question, we say, This threatning becomes his plague. 1. Because of his interest in them, and affection on to them: nothing can come on a People, but it affects the Minister; their stroak is his: yea often it’s sorer which is on them, then what is on himself. 2 Cor. 11:29–30. Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is offended, and I burn not? was Pauls touch of the infirmities of the People. 2. It’s the nearest stroak can be on a Minister, to be stricken in his Charge, or blasted in his Ministery, &c. in this he is smitten as a Minister, in things peculiar to a Minister: other stroaks are common to all men: yea, thus to be smitten in the un-Churching of his Flock, is striking at his Crown, and his Joy 1 Thess. 2 ult. for a faithfull Minister will so account it. 3. It’s probable, it was some contentment to him to see things go right in his outward Ministery, Censures to be weighty, Discipline vigorous, the People to give him credit and countenance, &c. without reflecting on his own spirituall condition, or aiming at the inward warming of love in the hearts of his People, but thought all well, and who but he, that had such a well ordered Church? The Lord therefore threatneth to take that ground of boasting, or self-pleasing from him. It’s a sad thing when a Minister cannot carry even, when things go well, and cannot look to himself and the people also, and be humble when he is countenanced want of this, spilleth many hopefull beginnings in Ministers hands. And this relation, thy, is particularly mentioned here, to make the threatning touch him the more; it is not the Candlestick, but thy Candlestick, which was to be removed. For there be two things that make a thing to be in esteem with men, and the losse thereof to affect them. The first is, That it be in itself Τὸ αγάπητον that is a thing lovely and desireable. The second, That it be Τὸ ἵδιον, that is, a thing which is a mans own; These two going together, That it is both an excellent thing in the self, and withall a mans own; when once evill befalls that thing, it doth exceedingly presse a man. Now both there are here, a golden Candlestick, there is its excellency in it self, and thy Candlestick, these is the Angels intrest and propriety in it; Both are set down to affect him the more. And indeed a Church being in its blossoming and rising condition, and all things seeming to go well therein, even then, to be threatned thus, cannot but greatly affect the heart of a faithfull Minister.
To the third, How can People be punished for Ministers faults?
Answ. If they were altogether innocent, it might seem hard: but when they also are guilty; yea, and it’s like here under the same guilt, there is no wrong, but it’s the correcting of two by one whip, both Minister and People, for their formality and resting in outward forms, without power. 2. Though People in one particular be innocent; yet a Ministers fault may occasion a plague on the people, who are guilty by other sins, even as the fault of a Magistrate, as we may see in Davids numbering the People, and Gods plaguing him in the People for it; thought they were in much, free from that particular sin, and as sheep, what had they done? So, when a Peoples outward profession, or observance to the Ministery and Ordinances, become the ground of a Ministers pride, or boast, they may by some confusion be put through other, and so his pride and glory is stained, and their hypocrisie and formality punished; even as on the other side, a Peoples vanity of their Minister, may have influence on the Lords blasting of him, that it may be seen, all flesh is grasse. Which consideration ought to make Ministers and People walk respectively one to each other, yet soberly; left the Lord be provoked against both.
From this threatning, Observe, 1. That no Church or Minister hath a lease of a Church-state and the Gospel, if they abuse it. Ephesus is now no Church; yea, Israel was broken off. 2. It’s one of the greatest threatnings that can be, to be un-Churched; Sword and Pestilence are not like it. 3. It may surprise a Church in a very flourishing outward condition, if love be wanting. 4, Nothing hath more influence in procuring of judgement, than coldnesse in love to God and others. 5. The estate, good or ill of Gods own People, hath most influence on the continuing or removing of the Gospel. It’s not for the guilt of Nicolaitans, or false Prophets, that this is threatned; but for their sin who once had love. 6. Repentance and diligence hath great influence to prevent such a threatning. 7. Ministers and People may have much influence on one anothers good or ill condition; and sometimes we may read our own distemper and scourge, in the distemper of one another.
THe sixth verse containeth the last thing that is comprehended in the body of the Epistle of Ephesus, and it’s a kind of mitigation of the sharp reproof and threatning going before: as he began with, a word of commendation, so he will close with it, and will let them see, that thought He had marked their sin, and reproved them for it; yet He was the same in his love, and had the same thoughts. He began with towards them: and it is in sum, this, for as much wrong as is in you, and for as much. as ye are fallen from your first love, yet there is some sparkle of zeal in you, ye have this good thing, that the corrupt doctrine of the Nicolaitans (which began soon to corrupt the simplicity and purity of the Doctrine, of Christ) is hated and abominated by you, even as it is by Me.
To clear this a little more, we shall speak to these three things. 1. What these Nicolaitans were 2. What this hatred was. 3. How it was commendable; or, what is the ground on which it is commended.
For the 1. We shall consider first what the Nicolaitans, were. 2. what was the occasion and rise of their error, or erroneous Doctrine.
For the first, what they were. There is not much recorded of them in Scripture; yet it seemeth from all, that is written of them (being compared with what is written of then in this Chapter) that they were such a fort of Schismatical Hereticks, as had corrupt Doctrine in their mouths, and corrupt and licentious practices in their conversations. Therefore their deeds are spoken of in this verse, & their Doctrine, vers. 15 both which are said to be hated of Christ, there being a suitablnesse between their Doctrine and their deeds.
For the particulars of their Doctrine and deeds, many are asserted by the Ancients, but two things mainly are pitched on. 1. In their Doctrine they opened a door to licentiousness, and maintained, that fornication and adultery were no sin, and they cried down Matrimoniall chastity, though called for and approven of God. 2. In their practice, without all respect to offence & scandal, they lived as they listed, eating things Sacrificed to Idols (a thing much Humbled at in those dayes) abusing their Christian liberty to licentiousnesse and lousnesse, taking advantage of, and abusing the decree of the Apostles, Acts 15:20 that Christians would abstain from pollutions of Idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood, as if all these things had been of one and the same nature, as indeed at that time they were, all necessarily to be abstained from, as if they had been of one nature. These are granted by all to be the two main things that these Nicolaitans were guilty of: though there be that add many moe, as Epiphanius doth: and if we look to the 14 and 15 vers. of this chapter, it is not unlike, that the Lord points at these two faults: for in the 14 verse, He tells Pergamos, that she had them that held the Doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things Sacrificed unto Idols, and to commit fornication: and in the 15 verse, So hast thou also them that hold the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Where they that maintained the Doctrine of Balaam, and the Nicolaitans are the same; and He meaneth, as Balaam taught Balac to ensnare the Israelites, by drawing them to their Idol feasts, and commit fornication with the daughters of Moab; So saith the Lord, ye have the Nicolaitans that follow the same footsteps, &c teach the same Doctrine.
There is more difference concerning the occasion and rise of this Heresie. It is commonly and by the most part (if not by all) attributed to that Nicolas, that (Acts 6) is mentioned among the seven Deacons that were chosen to wait upon the tables, and who gets there a testimonie, that he was a man full of the holy Ghost: but there being various opinions about the occasion and rise of it, I shall name two that are special and choose which of the two we think safest.
Some write of him, that having fallen from his integrity, and become dissolute in his practice, he strove to maintain it in his Doctrine (a thing too common to draw our Doctrine to maintain our practice) & formally taught this error, and begat many profane followers. Neither (say they) is it like, that such a vile sin would have been fathered in Scripture on such a man, is he had been innocent. Others set it down with more mitigation and charity to Nicolas, thus, That this Nicolas having a beautifull wife, was suspected to entertain jealousie of her, it’s like from someothers, Members of the Church; and being too inadvertant and rash in the way which he took for removing that suspicion, to make it be seen that he had none; he brought his wife in publick, and holding her forth, said, he cared not who conversed with her, so far was he from being suspicious of her honestie.
This rash fact, though flowing from a good intention (say they) was abused by some to patronize the errors formerly mentioned beyond his intention: And they were called Nicolaitans on this occasion: not because he taught so; but that they concluded so from that his practice, and fathered what they maintained on that worthy man; as it is ordinary for corrupt men to father their corrupt opinions upon, and to shelter themselves under grave and Godly mens names. This last, in the doubtfulnesse of this case, it being afferred by the most ancient (to wit, Clemens Alexand) we rather embrace, partly, because of that mans commendation, Acts 6 where it is said, he was a man full of the holy Ghost; and partly, because it is most charitable; and therefore is safest, especially, where such a testimony is given to the man in Scripture And for as abominable as this was, it was for many centuries of years, revived and continued with many additions in the Church, by Gnosticks, Basilides, &c. by those, called the Satumians, Carpocratians, and many others, who made a pretext of Nicolus for their patron. A thing to be wondered at, that so soon aster Christ, while John the beloved Disciple was living, Satan should assault and set upon the Church with such errors: and yet as wonderfull, that after those errors were refuted by an extraordinary Apostle, speaking from Christs own mouth, they were vented and maintained by those Hereticks, a symptom of that peartnesse and impudencie that corrupt men are led with, when so soon; at such a time, contrarie to so clear reproofs, men durst vent and abide by such grosse things: O what force and efficacie hath the spirit of delusion when it’s letten loose and what a hight may it come to! Tremble at the beginnings of it: it’s hard to conceive, with what audacity and boldnesse it will bear it self out, that though our Lord would write an Epistle from Heaven, delusion will so blind folks, that they will not question their errors.
The second thing to be spoken unto in this commendation, is, that they hated the deeds of the Nicolaitans: not their persons simply, but their deeds, and them as promoving these deeds: though the Church had these men among them, and was severe in her Discipline; yet the Lord taketh notice of this especially, that she kept a secret, sincere abhorrencie of them in her heart: not only did not the Angel and Church countenance them, nor only forbear their company; but they had such an abhorrencie of their deeds and of themselves, in carrying on these deeds, that the thinking of them was abominable: as saith David, Psal. 139:21, 22. Do not I hate them that hate thee? I hate them with a perfect hatred. And Ps. 119:104. I hate every false way. So this hatred in reference to these Nicolaitans, was not carnal, or in reference to their persons simply; but in these three respects especially, 1. In respect of their deeds and Doctrine, it struck at their deeds as here, and at their Doctrine, as vers. 15. And, 2. Looking upon them as instruments and Ministers of Satan, made use of by him for corrupting and poisoning of souls, and shaming of the Gospel, they abhorred them considered as such, what ever pity to their persons, or desire to their Salvation they had. 3. As they conceived them to be hateful to Christ and hated by him, so did they hate them; squaring their hatred, as they did conceive Christ to hate.
Observe 1. That there are some things and persons, especially at some times, that it is not enough for the people of God to abstain from them in their practice, if there be not an abhorrencie of them in their hearts. The way of error and corrupt practices that follow on it, should be abhorred, as any other sin, how grosse and scandalous soever; Heresie as murther, and Schism as witchcraft, Gal. 5:19 and there is good reason for it: for is folk be not serious in hatred of, and so out of love with the thing, they may soon fall in the practice of it: and simple abstinence will never be counted sincerity before God, whole trial is how it stands with the heart and affections, how the heart is affected or dis-affected toward the thing?
The third thing in this mitigation, is the ground on which their hatred is commended, It is conformity with Christ, which I also hate. I hate them: therefore it’s commendable in thee to hate them; It’s a sure ground of commendation, to hate what He hates, and love what He loves. This ground of commendation, implyeth two things: 1. That it’s well done to hate what Christ hates. Observe, Gods People should love and hate one thing with Jesus Christ; they should study to be conform to Him in the exercise of all their passions and affections. 2. It implyeth a likenesse to Christs hatred in the nature thereof, that they hated them as they were hated by Christ, and not as they were enemies to them. Obs. It’s a good way to square folks hatred and zeal so, as it degener not into passion: to look to the matter that it be such as is hated by Christ, and to the manner that it be such as His is, single, and zealous; and that it be on that account, because hatefull to Him: otherwise, men may carnally and selfishly hate, but without commendation. 3. It implyeth also, that corrupt Doctrine is most hatefull to Christ Jesus, and should be to his People.
Vers. 7. Followeth the conclusion: wherein we have two things, 1. A general advertisement, or exhortation common to, and repeated in, all the Epistles, Let him that hath an ear hear. 2. A particular promise for upstirring of them to wrestle and overcome, To him that overcometh, will I give, &c.
For the exhortation, it’s shortly the Lords giving this watchword and warning to all that are in Ephesus, and all that should hear this Epistle, to observe what the Spirit saith to them. 1. Because, it’s of Ephesus concernment as well as the Angel’s. 2. Because it is of particular Believers concernment as well as the Churches: therefore. He would have all hearers looking on it as particularly spoken to them. 3. Because usually all hear not. 4. Yet these that have ears should hear.
The scope implyeth these three Notes. 1. The Lord supponeth here, that every one this Word cometh unto, will not have hearing ears; they will not hear this Word so as to lay weight on it, and give themselves up to it. 2. It implyeth that folk that have any conviction, wakening, or life, sitting them for hearing, should especially be basie in improving the Word heard; To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given, &c. It would become Believers (what ever others do) to be basie laying up so me promises, directions, reproofs, threatnings, &c. it’s mainly for their use written and taught, to make the man of God perfect. 3. It implyeth that hearers would labour so to make use of the Word spoken (to whomsoever it be first spoken,) as if it were particularly & especially spoken to them: this being the excellency of the Word, that it contains in it many conditions, and suits many Generations, and some in this place, as well as in Ephesus.
From this promise, Obs. That our Lord Jesus would have His followers cheerfull in their services: therefore He setteth a recompence in their view: not to make them mercenary and servile; but hearty and cheerfull in their obedience, because they serve such a good Matter. It’s a great mistake in some, to say that looking to the reward maketh a soul servile; upon the contrary, it maketh a soul free and willing: and this is the ground of Gods giving promises of rewards; and the use which the Saints make of them, Heb. 11. Moses had respect to the recompence of reward, and it sweetned his crosse, & made him cheerfull in obedience.
From the particular promise He maketh, Obs. That there cannot be a greater promise nor encouragement for duty, than the happinesse that God hath provided for His People in Heaven, when it’s rightly eyed: and the frequent laying down of this promise, is for this end, to make Believers bear difficulties patiently, &c wade through them willingly: a broader fight of Heaven, and Faith and Hope strengthened, in expectation of it would make folks fight stoutly.
The thing He promises for their present sustaining, is, Heaven, as that which they might hope for after this life. Obs. 1. That Christs followers would suspend their full life, till after this life; they would not expect an other life or heaven here. 2. The hope of heaven, should comfort wrestlers before it come. Believers, take your wrestling life here, and expect and look for a quiet life hereafter; and look not for it till then. Christ speaketh of the wrestling, as here, To him that overcometh; and of the victory; as in heaven, I will give him to eat of the tree of life. The not thinking rightly on this, maketh us so often grumble when we want satisfaction in the things of a world. We propose to our selves a quiet life, whereas the Word of God never promises quietnesse, and a compleat victory and triumph here; yet the time cometh, when wrestlers shall be conquerours over crosses and corruptions: and carnall men, who live now as Kings, without any sight, shall lye under wrath: there is no such promise made to them.
Before we proceed to any other of the Epistles, there are some things insinuated in this, the clearing where of may be usefull in many of the rest: we shall therefore take occasion to speak somewhat now, once for all, to these three. 1. To Church-government and Discipline in generall. 2. To that relation which is betwixt a particular Minister and his Flock. And, 3. To the nature of the difference that is betwixt saving and common grace. All which will be usefull for the understanding of manythings in these Epistles.
THe matter of Discipline, is much insisted upon in these Epistles; and often the great weight of the commendations or reproofs that are given in them, is laid on this, as they were faithfull or defective in the administration thereof; which doth certainly show, not only the lawfulnesse of a Church-government and Discipline; but also the usefulnesse and necessity thereof to the Church of Christ when faithfully exercised, as being a speciall mean and ordinance appointed by Jesus Christ for the edification thereof, and a thing that is not indifferent to her Officers to exerce or forbear at their pleasure, but lyeth on them, to be discharged, as they would have Christs commendation on the one side, and as they would eschew His sharp reproof on the other, and as they would prevent the offence and destruction, and promove the edification of the People over whom they watch, as they that must give account. It is therefore no wonder that the devil hath in all ages either sought to oppose, or corrupt so excellent a mean of the Churches edification: he began even under heathen Einperours to traduce this Government, as inconsistent with civil Authority; and did provoke persecutors by nothing more than this, that Christ was accounted a King by Christians, and that accordingly they did keep distinct Courts under Him, which the Politicians of the world did account inconsistent with Governments, as may appear from the History of Primitive times, and the Apologies of Christians, particularly of Origen against Celsus, wherein he doth particularly and fully insist upon this. When the Lord hid vindicated his Ordinance of Government. (with all His other Ordinances,) the devil set himself to corrupt the same, and to pervert it in its nature, and divert it in its exercise from the appointed end of edifying the Church, to be an occasion of offence to her, and tyranny over her, by the many debates concerning precedency, which he stirred up after the Churches freedom from heathenish persecution, till at last he brought Antichrist to tyrannize over the face of the visible Church, that thereby he might either make the Government hurtfull or odious unto the members thereof and others. Even as in reference to the Doctrine of Christ, he did endeavour the corrupting thereof by errour, when he could not altogether suppresse the same. Again, when the Lord brought the light of the Gospel to publick, at the time of Reformation, and Antichrist tyranny is by many casten off, he seeketh by all means to effectuate one of these two, to wit, that either the Church should have no distinct Government at all, or that, at least, it should be of another form, and of another nature than is appointed in the Word. Hence it is, that there have ever been such debates in the Church concerning the Government & Discipline thereof, and even whether there be such a thing or not: And although the opposers thereof, do not professedly oppose the truth of the Gospel, nor intend confusion in the Church; yet hath it with it no little advantage to the Kingdom of Satan and prejudice to Christs.
For, 1. By this means Satan obscures the beauty and excellency of the Church of Christ, and draweth men to undervalue the same; as being at best but a refined peece of civil policy, as but subservient to politick ends, and the upholding of temporall greatnesse of men in place. Hence it is, that we will finde the most worldly-wife and politick men (that are least zealous ordinarily in things of God) to be the greatest favourers and abettors of this: and it is no wonder, seing Christs way of Government, even as his Doctrine, is foolishnesse to the wisdom of men: It’s observeable also, that where this opinion hath place, there is little account of any other ordinance; the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is prostituted promiscuously to all; the Ministery, is either accounted a thing indifferent, or Ministers made the servants of men, and arbitrarily to be put out or in, as they are pleasing or displeasing to them; and it is specially intended to curb free faithful speaking, and to be a snare to make them flatter Magistrates and Powers. All which shew the undervaluing principle that this opinion doth proceed from.
Although such Magistrates might be found, as would take notice of every thing exactly; yet their medling with it furthers not spirituall edification, so as the way of Church-government doth: for at best, it would make men but civill, and make Religion look like the way of ancient Philosophers, who pressed the rectifying of nature; whereas a Church reproof, or censure, hath both more edification to others, and more convincing shame to the parties themselves, in respect of the sin thereof, as slowing more immediately from Jesus Christ, and more directly representing to them his Authority, and their reckoning to Him, who more singularily binds in heaven, what by his Officers is bound on earth. And we conceive, that even the prophanest, in experience will finde this true, that a verball Church-censure (which considered of it self, is but light) will yet have more impression (as to the ends afore said) than sentences of a civill Magistrate, that in themselves may be heavier; and this will be, even when the parties in their outward carriage will seem to reverence the Magistrate, and to contemn the Church.
Although it should be yet said, that Magistrates could make things more effectuall, as in censuring of corrupt Ministers, and such like, which indeed is a benefit in it self to the Church; yet, considering this manner of performing it, especially being compared with the performing thereof by the Churches own Authority, it proveth more disparaging unto the Church of Christ: because if Ministers and Church-members should be apt to fall in scandalous offences, and yet the Church have no Authority, but what is extrinsick for the remeding thereof, then is the apt to be looked upon as a sufferer of profanity, and as a nest to unclean persons of her felt, it by the Magistrate, course were not taken with her: and although by his means such should be purged out; yet in the opinions of natural men this imputation sticks to the Church, as if such things and persons were well consistent with her profession, and liked of by her special Officers and Members. Now censuring of these by her own Authority, doth fully and only vindicate her and them from these aspersions, which are frequent upon the out-breakings of such scandals in the mouths of many profane men. And this revenging of disobedience, and vindicating of the Church of Christ, is none of the least ends of this Church-authority, which by no other power can be attained. And no question, the devil loves to have scandals breaking out in the Church, especially in her Officers, which do once put a blot upon her. And is it be to be taken notice of at all, he had rather that some other did it than the Church her self: because so the commendation becometh theirs, and the blot sticks to her: and thus (as it were) he proclames to all, what sort of persons would these Church-Officers, and Church-members be, for all their profession, is they were not even as other men by some other hand restrained? And thus the wisdom and holinesse of our Lord Jesus, is reflected on, as if He had approven corrupt mens designs, who love to have a blot on the Church; but not to have her vindicated from it: because by this, the Church is capable to give offences; but, in a incapacity, to remove them, or to vindicate her felt from them: which standeth not with that zeal, which our Lord hath to His own glory in the Church. And certainly, it’s not the punishing of faults simply, that vindicateth the Churches holinesse; but it is the censuring of them in such a way as evidenceth the Churches abhorrencie thereof, that doth it: otherwise, Christians and heathens living under one Commonwealth, might be supposed to have the same indignation at scandalous ills. And so the denying of the Churches Authority, if it doth not permit faults to be unpunished (at least all) yet it secludeth such away of censuring them, as may vindicate the Church and Christ Jesus the King thereof in an singular manner: and (if we may so say) puts her; yea, the Lord Himself in their reverence, whether she shall be free of corrupt. Teachers and Members or not? or whether she shall lye under that blot or not?
By the denying of this Ordinance, the other Ordinances which are acknowledged, are made weak & obstructed in their exercise. Concerning the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, it is clear: for, by this the rail whereby it is in a singular manner separated, is broken downs; many offices of the Church, as these of Elders and Deacons, are made void; and that of Preaching, made contemptible or maimed. For, publick authoritative rebuking of all, and sometimes of some in particular, is a special part thereof. Now, where Church-government is denyed, either the Minister must do it arbitrarily by himself, and so he is more liable to a snare, and the party reproved to be stumbled, as having only to do with the Minister, who may partially proceed therein; or, it must be for born, and so his Ministrie be made obnoxious to despising, which by his rebuking, with all Authority, is to be prevented, and every way plainnesse and freedom, even in Preaching, especially towards these in place, is so far as can be, restrained.
By this, the devil aimeth still either to make Religion to suffer as a thing that men may carve on according to their interests, as in other matters of policie (therefore he mixeth all together) or, he doth continually lay grounds of jealusie and difference between Magistrates and Ministers; thereby to make, that Ministers and these who will be faithful, should either sinfully conceive at what may prejudge the Kingdom of Christ, or by their testifying against the same, make themselves more odiors to the Rulers: for, lay this once for a ground, that there is no Church-government but what the Magistrate hath, then either the Minister must say, that none ought to be admitted to Civil-government, but such as both for skill and conscience are fit to mannage the matters of Religion (which Civil States will not alwayes be content with, neither often is it possible) or, they must account any man, who may be fit to mannage Civil things, fit also to mannage the Affairs of Christs House, which in conscience cannot alwayes be done, whereby necessarily, they must be brought in tops with Magistrates, except we say that either unskilfull Magistrates use not to be in place, or that such may yet be tender and dexterous in the mannaging of every Church matter that comes before them. And on the by, we may say, that seing qualifications, fitting one for any place & Government, are simply called for in these who should supplie the same (though sometime defacto they be not so qualified) and seing special qualifications, are required for governing of the Church of Christ, which are not required in these that govern a Civil State, and will not be accounted simplie necessary to them: It must therefore follow, that by the Lords Ordinance, these two Governments are not conjoyned in one person, seing he hath not alwayes conjonyed the qualifications that are requisite for both. We shall insist no more in this: the reading of these Epistles will sufficently show how concerning this truth is: and although this controversie be abundantly cleared by the writings of many worthy men, that there needeth no more be said therein; yea, having such occasion from these Epistles, we shall, once for all, touch some things concerning Church-government, as it is holden forth therein: whereby we will find it clear. 1. That there is such a thing as Church-government, distinct and independent from the Civill. 2. Wherein it consisteth. And 3. Who are the Subjects thereof. And, 4. We shall lay down some conclusions or observations concerning the same, as they may be gathered from the Text.
The Church of Christ is furnished with a Government and Authority within her self, for the ordering of her own affairs, trying and censuring of her own Members, and that immediatly from Jesus Christ, distinct and independent from any Civil Government on earth. That there is such a thing as Government and Authority in her, is clear by these, 1. The practice of the Angel of Ephesus in the trying and censuring of false Apostles, which cannot be done without Authority and Government. 2. This practice of theirs, is commended by our Lord Jesus: it can therefore be no usurpation in them. 3. In the Church of Pergamos, we will find the Angel reproved, that they had them that held the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans, &c. which doth suppose Authority in them, even to have censured and cut off these from their society: for, if they had not had Authority to it, it was not their duty to have done by it; and if it had not been their duty to do it, our Lord Jesus had not reproved them for ommitting it, 4. The Church of Thyatira, is reproved also for suffering the woman Jezebel to teach and seduce His Serva its: which doth imply an Authority and Government, fitting them to whom he writeth, to have marred and hindered her Preaching, and somewhat to have been in their power to have done, which was not done by them: otherwise our Lord Jesus would not have so reproved them. The making out of these three will confirm this. 1. That the thing commended in Ephesus, and desiderated in the other two Churches, doth imply Authority & Power. 2. That this is in the Church as distinct and independent from any Civil Government. 3. That this is a thing perpetually belonging unto the visible Church, and was not temporary, as peculiar to that time.
That there is an Authority implyed here, the considering of these three will make out. 1. If we consider what is commended in Ephesus and desiderated in the other two: the very expressions and acts do bear forth an Authority. As, 1. That is commended in Ephesus, That they cannot bear them which are evil, but have tried false Apostles, and have found them liars. All which hold forth a judicial way of proceeding and trying, which implieth a citing of such a party and witnesses, for the discovering of such and such things, according to the rule given to Timothie, 1 Tim. 5:19. Against an Elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses: for, there can be no trial without witnesses, there can be no witnesses without Power to call them, and exact an oath of them, that being the end of all strife, which cannot be done without Authority. The word added, and hast found them liars, doth confirm, that it is a judicial finding after trial, whereby they decide.
In the general, that such and such things are evidences of false Apostles: and then in particular, that such and such things are sound to be in them: and therefore that they are false Apostles, which presupponeth this trial before they judicially pronounce; than which, nothing doth look more Judicature-like. Which will be the more clear, if we consider, 1. That this trial and finding, proceedeth from their zeal, and not bearing with evil men; and therefore cannot be a trial for private information. 2. It’s a trial, tending to the edification of the Church, and the preventing of that snare amongst the people, which no personal or private thing could effectuate. 3. It’s a trial and finding, opposite to what is reproved in Pergamos and Thyatira, and so such a processe and sentence as rid that Church of them, which no private or personal act could do. 4. It’s a proceeding and tryall, which relates to these directions, which Paul giveth to Timothy and Titus, as the co-incidency of the matter, scope and other circumstances do demonstrate such, as, 1. Receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses: which is the ground of that which followeth, vers. 20. Them that sin, rebuke before all. Now is that rebuke be an authoritative act (as cannot be denied, which yet is but the execution of the sentence that followeth the former triall (then the triall it self must be judiciall and authoritative also; and therefore so must this triall be here understood. To say that this is a Ministeriall act, and that that triall preceding is only the Ministers private act, for his own clearing, cannot be admitted: for, that tryall belongeth to many, as after will appear. 2. To whomsoever it be supposed to belong, it inferreth an authority to try, and so to conveen and examine: otherwise that triall might be made ineffectuall; and so the party wanting authority, not to be chargeable with short-coming therein. Or 3. This trial must be commended to Church-officers without Authority to effectuate it, and so it will not be a mean suitable to the end. 4. Ministerial trial and reproof, will not be enough to gain the end, and to make a corrupt Member to be no Member of such a Church, which is the thing desiderated in Pergamos and Thyatira. And considering the commendation of these Angels and Churches, it is not like that they were defective in their personal aversnesse from and rebuking of these Errors, and yet they are reproved as being defective: which much infer that they came short in respect of that judicial trial and censure, which is here commended in Ephesus, as the considering of them will clear.
Pergamos reproof (vers. 14 and 15) is Thou hast there them that hold the Doctrine of Balaam, and them that hold the Doctrine of the Nicolatitans: the fault is, not that they approved that Doctrine or connived at it; for, they denied not the Faith; and Antipas is commended as a faithful Martyre amongst them: nor is it their fault, that such lived in the Town; or, as other Heathens might did sometimes enter the Congregations: nor is His quarrel only against these Nicolaitans themselves, but against the Angel of the Church, because they had them in their society as Members with them, and had not cut them off: and seeing this cutting off, is such a thing as made them cease to be Members of that body, and relateth to that which Paul wisheth to the troublers of the Church, Gal. 5 and commends to Titus, Chap. 3. Him that is an Heretick, reject &c. it must imply an Authority and Power, without which this cannot be done, this un-Membering or un-churching of a Person being a censure of highest concernment, and that same which we call excommunication; It followeth then, that this Church had that Power, and ought to have executed it against these corrupt Members, seing her failing therein doth make her reprovable.
If it be said here that this doth imply no Authority and Power, but what is common to all Societies by the Law of Nations and Nature, such at companies of Chirurgians, Wrights, and such like, have in excluding men from their own Society: which yet is no distinct Authority, but subordinate to, and derived from the Magistrate?
We answer, 1. That even these Societies in these things act by Authority, however it be derived: and so the Argument holds, that the exclusion of Members from Church-communion, doth imply an Authority: and what is said of the necessity of such a thing by the Law of Nature, and Nations, doth confirm the same: for, if every Society be furnished for the maintaining of it self by the Law of Nature, so must also the Church be; except we say that it is more defective than other Societies. Beside, even such Societies could not do such a thing, were not priviledges granted them by Authority for that end. 2. We answer, That although the argument hold in the general, that their is an Authority necessary; yet will it not prove it to be dependent in the Church, as in these Societies it is. For, 1. The derivation or Authority from the Magistrate to these Societies, is clear: for, such and such Societies have that Power, because it is granted to them by the superiour Magistrate; and others want it, because it, is not granted them: but I suppose none will plead for a derived Power to the Church from the Magistrate in this place: yea, the greatest opposers of Church-government, do acknowledge that It is not derived from him as Lod. Mol. Pag. 654. There is no reason therefore that Church-government sould be subordinate to Magistracie as other Societies are, which the exerces (as they speak) by a proper right and divine without delegation, Jure proprio & divino, non delegato. 2. The Magistrate may enter by his Authority such and such persons to the rights and priviledges of such Societies and exclude others from them (though possibly it may be done unjustly) yet, was it ever heard of, that a Magistrate might priviledge any with the priviledges of Church-membership, or by his Authority un-Church any? The paralel therefore cannot be universall in these. 3. All other Societies as such, are parts of a Commonwealth, and together make up the body: and therefore in reason ought to be subordinate to the common Government; but the Church as a Church, is no essentiall or integrall part of a Commonwealth: there is therefore not the like reason for their subordination.
If any should yet except and say, that an Authority may be immediately from God, and not derived; and yet be by Him appointed to be subordinate to the civill Magistrate, as is instanced in that Power, that a Husband hath over the Wife; or a Parent over his Children.
We Answer, 1. That it may be questioned, if a Parent, as a Parent, be subordinated to the Magistrate, althought, as a man and member of the Commonwealth, he be: for, he may command his Children with out any Authority from him: yea contrary to the commands of Magistrates (and in some cases warrantably, suppose in their Marrying, adhering to the truth of God, &c.) neither can the Magistrate increase or diminish their power, althought they may Strengthen them, or marr them actually in the exercise thereof; yea, suppose a Parent to incline to match Son or Daughter in a way that is not sinfull or inconvenient; and for this end, to command them to give obedience: and again, suppose the Magistrate to command them otherwayes to match: The Magistrat’s command here, will not loose the Child from the Parents Authority: because, although both Parent and Child be the Magistrat’s subjects; yet their obedience is called for in reference to these things that belong to a Magistrate only. Hence that case of a Magistrat’s requiring one, thing and a Parents commanding of another to the same Child, is by Divines solved by this distinction, That in things belonging to the Magistrat’s command, the Child ought to be obedient to him in what concerns the duty of a subject; but in things that concern the duty of a Son properly, he is to be obedient to the Father, whatever the Magistrate command: which sheweth, that simply the commands of a Father, as a Father, are not subordinate to the Magistrate: and so that in reference to some persons, there may be two supream Powers, upon divers considerations, who may command without subordination one to another; and yet their Authority be no way inconsistent together.
We Answer, That although the Authority of Fathers and Husbands were subject to the civill Magistrate as such; yet can it not weaken this consequence, (If the Authority of the Church be not derived from the Magistrate, Then can it not be subordinate to him) for, the Authority of Parent, Husband, &c. is personall and naturall, that is, founded in nature: and therefore is derived by nature to Parents, Husbands, &c. And such, do not make a body of themselves, but are members of another greater body; whereas a Church, is a Society and Incorporation, compleat in it self: and as such, is not founded on nature; but by Gods positive grant and foundation is such: and therefore Authority must be immediatly derived to the Church by the same mean, (to wit, of a positive grant) by which its being as a Church is derived. And can it be instanced that there is any such, to wit, a compleat Incorporation, having immediate power from Christ for the governing of it self and shutting out of corrupt members without any derived power from the civil magistrate, who yet, are suburdinated to his power in the exercise of theirs. We grant indeed, that the Church, considered as subjects and members of the commonwealth, are subject to him; but it will no way follow, that the Authority or Government wherewith she is furnished, as a Church is to be subjected to him. Neither can this be thought strange; that a Church Judicatory, considered, as such, should be accounted independent, as to the civil Magistrate, seing we must either say, that a Minister; in his Ministeriall and Pastorall duty, acteth by an Authority immediately from Christ, without any dependency on the civil Magistrate (which yet readily cannot be admitted in any other case, to wit, that a person should command without dependance on the Magistrate) Or, we must say, that the Minister preacheth and acteth in his Ministery, in the Magistrate’s name mediately, and by this Authority, or by none at all: which I suppose, none will affirm. And what greater inconsistency is it with civil power, to have distinct Authoritative Courts, than to have Rulers distinctly and Authoritatively commanding persons, especially themselves?
If we consider the Epistle to Thyatira, where much is commended; yet there is a notwithstanding, and reproof cast in upon this account, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, that calleth her self a Prophetesse, to teach and seduce my servants. This suffering, can be no defect in respect of civil Authority: for, that was not in their power, or is it any defect of any personall or private dutie: because none such can imped other persons teaching, is willfully they will set themselves to it; nor can they be thought defective in that, that are so commended for Faith, Charity, Works, &c. and that even in respect of their thriving and growing in theire reprivate conditions: it must therefore be a suffering of her in so far as by Church Authority the was not censured and restrained, that thereby the seducing of Christs servants, might be prevented, whose edification is the end of this as of all other Ordinances: and so consequently, the Church of Christ is furnished with power and authority in reference to her own affairs and members.
This will also be clear by considering these who are primarily in this respect commended and reproved in these Epistles: it is not the body of private Christians; but the Church-officers, as peculiarly distinguished from them: so that these threatnings and reproofs, do otherwise belong to them, than to the Church as we will find in the progresse And there can be no other reason given of this, but because these faults were the faults of these that had authority to right them, and did it not: which will be more clear afterward, when we consider the subject of this power.
The second thing to make out the Argument, is, that this Authority and Power in the Church, is distinct and independent from any civil Government; which from the Text, may thus appear 1. The subject is distinct, to wit, Church-officers. 2. The object is distinct, to wit, the Church and the members thereof alone, and as such: it is not the inhabitants of Pergamos and Thyatira; but the Church-members that are under the same. 3. The matter falling under that cognition, is distinct, to wit, that which is hurtfull to souls, as the seducing of Christs servants, and scandals, considered as such. 4. The censures inflicted, are different to wit, no civil mulct upon estates, nor punishment upon bodies, nor cancelling of the freedom of their Burgeships in Towns or such like; but seclusion from Church-priviledges and membership. 5. The end is distinct, to wit, the reclaiming of the party offending, and the bringing of them to Repentance, and the preventing of soul-hurt toothers, and the vindication of Christs name. 6. The manner is different, there is no externall Pomp nor Power or force in the mannaging thereof, such as is in civil Governments: for, that is not here conceiveable, considering the afflicted and persecuted condition of these Churches, but the sword of the mouth, and triall, and censures. And 7. They differ in their rise, civil Power being derived from Superiors to Inferiors; but this hath no rise or derivation from any civil Power, although for the time these Cities and Nations wanted it not; but did arise from that intrinsick œconomie and power, which accompanies the very being of a Church, and which by Christs appointment doth reside in such a number of persons, considered as a Church, which did not reside in other inhabitants of the same Towns, nor did in these before this their Church-state. 8. The account, upon which, this Government doth consider persons and actions, is distinct from the civil: men are not considered as men, nor as in dwellers in such and such Places onely; but as Christs servants; and actions, are not considered, either as profitable or hurtfull to men simply; but as profitable or hurtfull to their spirituall estate. And therefore, it is seducing of Christs Servants, and as such, the deeds of the Nicolaitans and Jezebel, are to be taken notice of by it.
For, 1. There is no derivation of this Church-power, from that civil power, as is said. Therefore it cannot be dependent on it, seing it neither did, nor could derive it. And although some except (as was hinted) that there may be a power in Fathers, Husbands, and other such naturall relations, over Children, Wives, &c. which yet is dependent on the Magistrate; yet suppose that by the law of nature, Parents did combine in one Society and Government among themselves, as a Church doth, and in that case had a distinct Government, could that Authority and Government be accounted dependent, Seing no superior Authority could marr them in the exercise of their power without injustice, more than a Magistrate can marr a Father in the exercise of His Authority towards his Children when he doth it justly? So this Church-power, not being a personall priviledge, but belonging to her as a body and Society of many members combining together, having that by the law of nature, as is granted (and we adde, if Jesus Christ allowed them) she cannot therefore be marred by any Authority in the exercising of that Government, what ever injust violence may do.
It appeareth to be independent in this, that there is a Church-government among Christians, even when Magistrates were setting themselves to undo the same: If then Government be necessary to the Church, and yet it be so ordered in the Lords providence that civil Government may be for hundreds of years enemies to the Church, as was in these Primitive times. Then it will follow, that the Church-government and Authority is not placed in the Magistrate, or civil Governours: because, in that case either she should have no Government at all (which by these Epistles will be found false) or she must have a Government & Authority destructive to her, which is contrary to the end thereof; or, in the last place, her Authority must be independent, save of Jesus Christ alone: and if it were not so, considering now that these to whom Christ writeth, were not civil Magistrates, there had been no such accesse to expostulate with them for their ommission, if they might not have acted independently on them.
It may appear thus, that if the civil Magistrate cannot repeal by his Authority any of their sentences, then is their Authority independent as to him. Now, suppose a Church justly to degrade, or depose a false Teacher, or to cut off a rotton member, could any Magistrate by his Authority continue that man to be a Minister, or that member to be a Church-member, (what ever violence might do) Suppose some Emperour (as in some cases Julian did) had taken the recognition of Ephesus sentence against these false Apostles, and had declared it null? would not still their sentence have stood in force notwithstanding? Or suppose Pergamos, or Thyatira, had cut off Jezebel or the Nicolaitans from their Society, could any civil Magistrate, Heathen or Christian, have enacted them to be continued Church-members? And this doth not only flow from the injustice of the matter: for, suppose a Proconsul had justly degraded some Judges of Ephesus; and the Town of Ephesus, had justly casten out some members from their Society; yet, by the Emperours interposing his Authority, as the supream Magistrate, both might have been fully restored (though injustly) so as they might have been really again Magistrates and Burgesses of such a City: which cannot be said in this case. No Emperours Authority could have constitute such (though unjustly) to have been Officers, or members, at all of these Churches. The difference then, (I say) cannot consist in the injustice of the matter alone; (for both are injust) but it must consist in this, that civil sentences are subordinate to the supream Magistrate, but Church-sentences are not: although by violence they might have countenanced such and such persons, and have made the effects of the sentence in manythings void; yet could their Authority have never reached to the formal removing of them, as in civil cases was hinted.
Thirdly, To make out the Argument, we say, that this distinct independent Power here mentioned, is a thing that agreeth to the Church in all Ages and conditions, and is not peculiar to any one time: as suppose, because the Church wanted Christian Magistrates at this time, it had been lawful to exercise Authority independent from them: which in other cases, where the Magistrate is Christian, is not to be granted. Therefore we say, 1. That which is attributed to these Churches here, agrees to them as Churches: and therefore to all Churches at all times: for, the duties are common, and the hazards are common, to Churches at all times. Therefore this remedy of Church-discipline, must be perpetuall also, it being the cure that is appointed for such a disease. And, that often repeated word, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit faith unto the Churches, doth speak in all ages to the end of the World, alswell as then. 2. If all other directions, exhortations, &c in these Epistles, be perpetuall and binding to the Church, to the end of the World, then this must be so also: and there can be no reason given why this is to be accounted temporary, more than the other: especially, considering that Christs sending of this Revelation, is for the good of His Servants unto the end of the World: and that especially, is aimed at in these Epistles, as the forcited close doth confirm. It must then be injurious to Christs mind, to scrape out so much as concerneth Government, as not belonging to His Church for so many ages. 3. If the grounds, requiring the exercise of this power in the Churches, during this time, be perpetuall, agreeing to all ages, Then it is not to be astricted to the time of the Churches being under heathen Magistrates alone; But the grounds are perpetuall: for, that is not because the Magistrate is a heathen; but that the person offending may be brought to repentance; and the seducing of others may be prevented: Now these ends are perpetuall, which the Church is to study in all times: and seing Church Authority and Government, is here holden forth, as a mean appointed by Jesus Christ for attaining of these ends, It must therefore be of perpetuall use to the Church also.
Although these Truths be clear from the Word; yet there are some things, which are partly exceptions; partly objections, insisted on by Adversaries, which we shall speak a little to, as the nature of our intended purpose will permit.
A forcited Author, pag. 545 doth confidently undervalue all Arguments to this purpose; and denieth all distinctnesse of Government in the Church by any Power distinct from that of the Magistrates; &c to maintain it, doth, 1. assert, That all sort of Power whatsoever, is supreamly in the Magistrate, whether Heathen or Christian, by that place, Rom. 13:2 he heaps up with many bigg words several absurdities that accompany (as he alledgeth) that opinion of a distinct Church-government, which he calleth invidiously the building of an Empire within an Empire. Yet, 3. He granteth, that where the Civil Magistrate taketh not on him the care of the Church, and maintaineth it not: in that case, by the Law of Nature and Nations, the Church cometh to have an Authority, or somewhat equivalent in the place of that, whereby she is qualified for the ordering of what concerneth her Members, during that case of such a Magistracie allanerly; and denyeth any other Authority to have been in the Church, during the time that these Epistles were written, but what was by voluntary confederacie, and association of Members amongst themselves: and therefore faith, That they had and exercised no lesse Authority, during that time, in Civil things: for which end, he maketh use of that place, 1 Corinth. 6:1, 2. &c.
In reference to all which, we say, 1. That Authority cannot be denied here (however it be derived) seing it is a Power to Excommunicate and Exauthorate Officers and Members which they assume, as he speaks, Pag. 654. Yea, a Power equivalent to that of the Magistrates, because it’s a Power adequate for the time to this end of governing the Church, pag. 545. And therefore, we say, if this confederating, or up-making of this Government, be a thing jure called for, and necessary to be done, for this end; it is the thing which we assert also, and, in respect of the particular circumstances, that is, what places or persons are to associate together, is to be regulated by Christian prudence; but if it meaned of a voluntary association and confederacie, such as trades and crafts use in their Societies, as that alone which is the ground of this Power, This we altogether deny: Because, 1. If that consederating be called for, by the Law of Nature, then it is not voluntary and free. And this Authority, is not grounded meerly upon voluntary consederating; because as it is not arbitrary to a converted Christian to be Baptized or not; so, being Baptized, it is not arbitrary to him whether to joyn with the Church or not. And being joyned, submitting to its Government, is a necessary duty to him. And it becometh not Authority to him: because he submits to it; but he is to submit to it, because it is Authority: and therefore supposing that these false Apostles, or Jezebel, or the Nicolaitans, had never consented to subject themselves to the Discipline of these Churches (as, by their taking such names of Apostles and Prophets to themselves, it’s like they did never) yet notwithstanding had these Churches Authority over them, and it was their duty to submit unto them. 2. Its granted that the Authority that the Church hath in such a case, is equivalent to what the Magistrate hath and might exercise: and if it be not equivalent to this, then the Church of Christ under such Magistrates would not be so perfect as to their Church-state and wel-being, as otherwayes: which cannot be said without wronging the wisdom of God, as if he had left His Church destitute of inward Power when she had least outward Protection; but if it be such a Power, it cannot be arbitrary and meerly grounded upon the confederacy; but must be authoritative upon an other account, and may authoritatively enjoyn one to confederate: And so confederating, is not the ground that constituteth the power; but a mean, making way for the exercise thereof. 3. If it were asked, What evidence or proof could be given of such voluntary confederating in the Churches for that time? It would be hard to show, that universally in all the Churches, there was such formall compacting actually agreed upon; and yet, that there was Government and Authority in them all, is evident. 4. Suppose confederacies to have been; yet could they never have constituted an Authority and Government distinct, and independent from the civil supream Power, especially while the supream Power opposed the same; as supposing (to keep the similitudes proponed) that many Chirurgians and Tradsemen of any kind, did live under a Magistrate and Laws, which would admit no such, by their Authority to live and confederate under them, will any say that in that case, by voluntary confederating, they could assume an Authority to themselves; and censure any Person (especially against their will) without wronging and encroaching upon that Authority, under which they live? Yet it cannot be denyed to a Church, and that without any prejudice to the Magistrate: because it in nothing lessens his Authority or withdraweth anything from his cognition, which formerly used to belong unto him: but as the arising of a new Church within a Nation, hath with it new cases, actions, and considerations of persons, and deeds; so it is reason that it should have with it a new Authority to govern the same. 5. If the Church had another kind of interest, in reference to spiritual offences, than in reference to civil debates, then this confederacie cannot be the ground of such an Authority: this will not be denied according to the former principles, which do paralel both these in the primitive Church, and make this the proof of the former; But it’s clear, that the Church-authority did far otherwayes reach Church-members in spiritual offences, than in civil things: which may thus be made out, 1. They might Excommunicate and un-Church for spiritual offences & for disobedience in these, if a brother did not hear the Church, and oft times they did so; But it cannot be said, that if a brother had been disobedient to an arbitrary decree in civil things, that upon that account, they would have proceeded against him to Excommunication, and constrained him to have submitted: sure we are, it was never put in practice, at the least till Antichrist arose. 2. In that Chapter, 1 Cor. 6:7, and 8 the Apostle reasoneth for submission to this; and exhorteth Christians, so wronged, to suffer the wrong rather than to pursue it before Infidels: which doth suppose, that the Church was not furnished with Authority to redresse civil wrongs, as she was to redresse scandals. And therefore, Matth. 18 our Lord giveth order to proceed, in case of non-satisfaction, to the highest degree. And on the by, we may say, it is an odd thing to expound that place of Matthew, by this place of Paul. As if the Lord did only there warrand a man to pursue injuries before heathen Judges, when he would not submit to the advice of Church-members, seing expresly Paul enjoyneth them rather to suffer wrong, than to make the Gospel contemptible before Infidels by the contentions of Christians: which yet that exposition of Matth. 18 will approve of: which sheweth, that it must be understood to speak of Church-offences: in respect of which, suffering and bearing with them, is condemnable, as we see in these Epistles. 3. If what the Church did in civil things be common to any person or persons in any rank or condition whatsoever, and to Christians in any time and case, that is, that they may and should submit their differences to some; and these to whom they are submitted, may decide: And upon the other side, if what the Church exerced in reference to Ecclesiastick offences and censures, be not common, but so that no submission to others but such as are in power could warrand one to draw forth such censures as are here mentioned, (yea according to the principles which we oppose; it were not lawfull for Christians to do so now in civil things; for, they say it’s not lawfull to do now in Church-things, as these did at that time) Then the Churches Authority was not equal in civil things, as in spirituall things: And so consequently, no confederacy can warrantably ground this Church-Authority; But the former, we conceive, is clear: Therefore, &c. 4. It may be clear by this, that the Church did never exact civil mulcts or inflict bodily punishments: which sheweth abundantly, that she did not exerce Authority in civil things equally as in spirituall: and yet had her Authority been only grounded on the voluntary confederacy, she might have inflicted the one, as well as the other. 5. Suppose a Church-member had wronged an Heathen by his miscarriage; No question, Church-discipline would have reached him: which is not the intent of that, 1 Cor. 6. Therefore that cannot be the ground of their Power alone. 6. That direction, Matth. 18. Tell the Church, was given, before this was written: seing then, this is the foundation of civil association, as is pretended, that of Matth. 18 must be of another kind. 7. This opinion will infer the setting up of a civil Power in civil things, where the Magistrate is not Christian; yet, that was never asserted by any. 8. The Adversaries themselves grant, that in such cases, the Church may do much more in Church-matters, than in civil: because that the Magistrate doth allow his power to rectifie civil things; and yet, this doth make both equally law full. 9. Suppose the Magistrate had repealed a sentence, past in civil things; no question, it had bound them, though it had been unjust; Yet supposing he had repealed one of their Church censures, and declared excommunication void, It had not done so, nor had been acknowledged: yea, had he inhibited them to decide a particular in civil things, they would not have proceeded; but when he did inhibit censures, notwithstanding, they did proceed, and actually did suffer Martyrdom upon that account: which, in a civil action, I suppose they would not have done. 10. That, 1 Cor. 6 admitted any to be Judge that men submitted unto, or had wisdom; But Church-things were governed only by these who by office were Rulers. All which do shew the vanity of that assertion that they equally meedled with both kinds; and yet, this one thing, is the ground of all that is said to evert this Authority. Add that, 1 Cor. 6 the parties offending are reproved for going to him; here, the Church-officers, for not censuring these that offended: which supposeth a power to be in them. And it cannot be thought, that the Angels had been so censurable, had they not decided civil businesses, as for this.
Beside (pag. 548.) He denies that there was a necessity of obedience in civil things; which yet clearly, is here asserted in these Church censures. Whereas it is said, as a further evidence, that the Churches Authority during this time was only built upon this voluntary confederacy, that after supream Magistrates became Christian, they did intermeddle with all Church power without any contradiction (pag. 544.) It is either a meer mistake or an untruth: a mistake in this, that it accounteth their meddling in a civil way with manythings, which the Church still meddled-with as formerly, and adding of their civil sanction thereto, for strengthening, not for diminishing the Churches power; to be an assuming of Church Power and Authority, which are things most distinct; even as a Christian Magistrate, doth command the Son of a Christian Parent to do the same things, which his Parent doth command him in reference to the Christian Religion, which a heathen Magistrate did not; yet is the Parent’s power and authority over his Son no lesse than when the Magistrate was heathen, because the Magistrates command is not privative; but cumulative to the Parents Authority: even so is it here. And there can be no greater reason to say that Church-Power and Authority over Christians, did cease in spirituall things after Constantine became a Christian, than to say that the Power and Authority of a Christian Parent and a Christian Master did expire at that time. And seing it is granted, that Church power, and Parentall power, are both immediately from God, without any mediate derivation by the Magistrate, it is reason that they should be of equal duration and continuance also. And in matter of fact it is clear, that the Church continued to exercise the same power, which formerly she did; and also that the Magistrate concurred in his station for the strengthening thereof: and there is not the least shadow for any delegation after that, more than formerly; But, that now by the approbation of civil authority, the Church had accesse to do that, for which before that time she was persecuted, even as there was full liberty given to Preach the Gospel, which formerly was inhibited: yet, none will say, that that power of the key of Doctrine, was derived from the Magistrate. For, what is alledged of the Emperours calling of Councels, That will prove him to have put them to the exercise of their power; but not that it was derived from him, more than when before that time Provincial Councels were called by some eminent Bishops, it will prove that their call did authorize them, But rather both these calls do suppose Authority to be before in these that are called. And therefore there is no question, that if Constantine had called others than Church-officers, to judge and censure in reference to these differences Ecclesiastically, he could not have derived Authority to them, so as to have made them equally Rulers, and with the same Authority as if they had been Church-members and Officers: which yet might have been done, if their authority had resided in him alone. Beside, he commanded the preaching of the Gospel also, as is said.
Whence we may see that Christian Magistrates, did not meddle with that Power and Authority, which formerly resided in the Church: neither ever was it heard of, that a Magistrate did excommunicate, authorize or ordain a Minister, and such like, wherein Church-power is exercised. And though it be said that he doth these things mediately, by putting the Church to it, and by calling Church-officers to consult in Ecclesiastick things, which he doth confirm by his Authority, even as he doth govern other Societies, as Physicians, Lawyers, &c. by Authorizing some of their own number to mannage what concerneth such callings & Functions (in which respect, say some, the Function is different from the Magistrate,) Yet he is not the Lawyer, nor the Physician, more than he is the Minister; but the Authority is on him alone. To this we say, 1. That the paralel, is most unequal: because although a Magistrate be not by his station a Physician, or Lawyer; yet supposing him to have skill, he might lawfully do any act incumbent to these Stations: which doth indeed show, that the same Authority, whereby they act, doth reside in him: but suppose he had the Theorie of Ecclesiastick things, and skill in them; yet he might not step to himself, to act the acts of a Ministerial Function; nor as a Magistrate, to sentence with Church sentences, administer Sacraments, as he might do in the sentences of inferior Magistrates & Courts: which doth shew, that that Authority doth not reside in him. 2. We grant that he may be said to govern mediately, as he may be said to teach & preach mediately (for, he ought to provide for that) But that will not infer that the Authority of preaching is derived from him: yet, no way doth the weight of this controversie so muchly on matters of fact, what Churches or Magistrates did since the Apostles dayes, as by what right and warrand they did what they did.
This last assertion therefore although made out, could prove nothing without the former; nor will the instancing of exorbitances in Church-governours, infer any nullity of that Power, more than the enumerating of miscarriages of men in civil place, will enervate that ordinance of God: yea, we are sure much ill hath come by Magistrates intrusion in this Church Power, and many have miscarried in it; much lesse will heaps of slanders against most faithful men do it, whom God eminently countenanced, and who singularly by suffering were honoured to testifie for Him, such as Mr. Welsh, Mr. Melvil, Mr. Davidson and others, who, we are perswaded, in the great Day, will be as bold in reference to their being approven in their stations, as any of their opposers or traducers on this account. This way, of writing, will not be found to proceed from zeal for the Lord, which hath so little respect to such who eminently adhered to him: and let these traducers of His Ordinances and Servants, prepare for giving account for both to Him, to which we leave them.
For the absurdities wherewith he doth load this truth, they being for substance the same which often have been fully wiped away, we shall only say these two, 1. That either they are no absurdities: Or, 2. Not such as the grounds acknowledged by him will infer: For, 1. It is no absurdity simply, that a man in diverse considerations should be subject to diverse co-ordinate powers, as a son is to the Magistrate as a Member of the Commonwealth, to his parent as a child and member of the family: and in some things (as formerly hinted at) he is so obliged to be subject to the parent, that no command of a Superiour can loose him from it; and in other things, so subordinated to the Magistrate, that therein the parents authority hath no place. And the same may be seen in wives, who, in some things, are subject to their husbands commands, and no Authority can warrant them to do otherwise. 2. We say, that this same absurdity might have been instanced in these Churches, that the Lord writes to, suppose (as he doth in the other case) that the Magistrate had appointed some, whom the Church had called to her Synods (as for example, to that mentioned, Acts 15) to some other civil imployment, as they were subjects; would not the same absurdity of the interfereing of the two Authorities have followed? he must either then say that such a case was not conceivable in these times, or he must say the absurdity must be evicted, or it will be fastened upon the way approven by the holy Ghost, as the Churches governing of her self distinctly is granted to be at least during such a case: and when he loses and vindicates his own concession, it will be easie to answer his objection. 3. It cannot be denied but that a Minister may independently command a Magistrate in the Name of Christ according to the Word, and that not only by reason of the matter, as an other private subject may do; but by vertue of his Office and Authority: in which respect he is not only a reporter, to tell what is Truth, but a Messenger and Herauld authorized to charge all hearers to the obedience thereof, as John the Baptist did Herod, who in some respect might be subject to Herod, as in other respects Herod was to him: and if this be no absutdity in reference to particular Governours, why should it be thought absurd in reference to the Powers by which these govern? Supream Church-Power then, and Supream Civil-power in distinct persons, cannot be absurd. And we suppose there can be no Authoritative Officer, that upon any civil account can so independently command the Civil Magistrate: Church-power therefore is not to be regulated in every thing, as the Civil is. It’s strange to say that it’s lawfull to a Magistrate to receive Ministeriall in junctions, or not as he pleaseth, or at least no more than a sick person is subject to the Physician, can it be said that a sent Minister can have no more Authority in prescribing duty in the name of Christ, than a Physician in giving directions for health? Or, will it be thought equally sinfull or lawfull, to disobey the directions of the one as of the other, even laying aside the matter? or, shall every one, skilfull in Divinity, be counted of equall Authority with a Minister, as the counsel of one that is skilfull in Medicine, is to be counted of the same weight, as if he were a graduat Physician, if his reasons be as weighty? or, is there any exception of some, more than others from Ministeriall power, because of any outward place or grandour? These things can hardly be conceived without wronging the Ordinances of Christ. 4. It’s thought absurd to say that a Magistrate is not blindly to act according to Church conclusions and determinations but deliberately to try his own act, and yet not to be the proper Judge thereof. It cannot be denied, that a Minister is to try and judge of what commands the Magistrate shall lay on him in reference to his duty: if therefore the Magistrate’s subsequent judgement, did demonstrate him to be supream in Ecclesiastick things, the same will prove the Magistrate’s judgement in the case foresaid to be subordinate to the Ministers: that therefore is no absurdity. 5. An Ambassadour from one King to another, or to some inferiour Magistrate, is in his personall carriage subject to the Authority within whose bounds he is; but as an Ambassadour in the following of his Commission and instructions, and as such, he is only countable to these that sent him: and never was it heard that one subjected his Ambassadour to the Authority of those to whom he was sent, even amongst men, But that was reserved at least, for some others appointed for that end by him: neither doth a Magistrate account an Ambassadours independency on him to be inconsistent with his Authority. Now Ministers being Ambassadours sent by Christ to Magistrates as to others, we must either say these to whom they are sent, must judge when they faithfully exerce their Commission or not, in their Masters name: which is absurd amongst men, and could not but look partiall like; or we must say, they are not countable or censurable on earth; or, that Christ hath intrusted His Ambassadours and Church-officers with this power of censuring men, who shall walk unworthy of their Trust.
If it be said that an Ambassadour is no Magistrate, and hath but an instructed power?
Answ. Yet is it a power, and in that respect such as Church-officers have: and suppose there were a plurality of Ambassadours for a King or State within the Dominions of another, instructed to act joyntly for his affairs, and to censure any of their own number, or retinue, that should walk unworthy of their place; would any Magistrate think that these wronged his power; if they shut some from their fellowship without his warrand; or could he claim to recognoice their deed; although in a criminall case, he only might have accesse to punish even their members in that place?
For that qualification of his concession, which is to allow this confederate Authority only to the Church that lived under such a Magistrate, as doth not undertake the care thereof: we suppose it will not be easie to free it of absurdities, is this distinct Government be nor acknowledged to be perpetuall.
For, 1. Do not the same Scriptures (that place all Authority in the Christian Magistrate; and require absolute obedience from his Subjects to him) in the same manner belong to any Magistrate, as a Magistrate, and his Subjects under him, and particularly that place, Rom. 13. And suppose the Magistrate should not assume that power, and put it in exercise; yet is Ecclesiastick power be in that same gift committed to the Magistrate with the civil power, no private persons could upon any pretext meddle therewith. For suppose the Magistrate should abstain to punish some kind of Murthers, Witchcrafts, &c. no private persons could confederate themselves to assume a power of punishing these: because civil power to punish these things, is not committed to them; but to the Magistrate. If then the Church might censure scandals, without incroaching upon these Scriptures at that time, Why may it not do so even when the Magistrate is Christian? This Church power then cannot be understood to be comprehended under the Magistrates Commission, seing Paul is exercising it, even while he is extending to the utmost the Magistrates Commission in all things, and quarrelling Christians for encroaching upon anything due to him; & no question he knew best the extent of these directions.
Yea, 3. According to his grounds, they may not only assume power in Ecclesiastick things; but equally in civil things also. And will he say, that the Church of Frame may take power in civil things, as they do in Ecclesiastick, and not wrong the Magistrate? Or, can it be said that this is a priviledge to the Magistrate, which makes him so to depend both in things Ecclesiastick and Civil upon a Peoples estimation of him?
By these grounds, either a Church should never assume power under any Magistrate however careleslie and profane, and so as is granted, wrong her self, contrary to the law of nature; or by assuming power, they declare that they account the Magistrate a Heathen, Erroneous or Atheisticall, &c. and is not that a greater irritation, and probable occasion of division betwixt the Magistrate and Church, than to continue this power distinct under all Magistrates equally? And truly it looketh not like Gods Ordinance, that putteth His Church oftentimes in this Strait, that it must either suffer prejudice, or disclame and provoke the Magistrate so as to account him an Atheist unworthy of Government; but to have forfeited so much of his Power, &c. And suppose a profane son succeed in the Magistracie to a gracious father, or profane men be chosen to succeed others who bare rule before them even in Church-affairs, (which case is often incident) what strait would it be to the Church either to continue to be governed by the Magistrate as formerly? or, with so much disadvantage upon personall considerations, to assume a power which formerly they did not?
Either the Church assumeth that power contrary to the Magistrate’s command; and so there is clear ground of a Persecution and War; or, it is with his good will, or, at least, permission; and that must presuppose this, that he doth account himself Heathen, Erroneous or profane, which cannot easily be expected, especially from a man not so denied and mortified, as such a Magistrate is supposed to be: for, delegated it cannot be, seing in that case this assuming of Authority is not called for.
It may be asked, what degree of erroneousnesse, profanity, or carelesnesse in a Magistrate, may warrand a Church to assume this power; seing even amongst heathens there are degrees? and if so, then how shall that be judged? Suppose a Christian Magistrate should neglect Church-affairs, otherwise than as they fall within the compasse or civil Government: in which respect Heathens did own them? or suppose he should own some sentences, punish some scandals, which, it seemeth Aurelian did in expelling Samosatenus and Severus, in commanding to give again to the Church a place where they used to meet, that some Rogues had violently put them from, saying, that it was fitter that God should be worshipped there, than that it should be imployed for such an use. Now, what is called for in such a case, might be a debate; whether might not such Heathens be accounted to take care of the Church, and so it became not these Primitive Christians to have retained power during their reigns? or, what may be thought of Christian Magistrates that do no more, and, it may be, lesse than these? whether are these to be retained or not?
It may be asked in such cases, whether is explicit confederating for that end necessary or not? &c suppose some would not submit willingly, How could they be compelled? Or, if so, were they lyable to no censure, because of their obstinacy? It were good that these things were cleared, if it be supposed that this be a practicable thing, and often to be practised.
It is further said, That the Churches greatest hazard, is from the great power of Church-men, and not of the civil Magistrate, as experience sheweth: therefore it’s dangerous to give them power. Answ. So the greatest danger of Errour, is from Church-Teachers: shall they therefore have no Teachers? So the greatest hazard of tyrannie to a State in civil things, is from a civil Government: is it not therefore to be allowed? Yea, this is the reason of it, that corrupt Church-officers wrong the Church most, and that both in Government and Doctrine: because in both they come nearest Her heart; and therefore when they miscarry, it cannot be but worse than when an Authority more extrinsick doth miscarry: and by their Power, they had ever greatest accesse to do her good or evill: and this rather confirmeth what was said, That properly the Power doth belong to her, and had need to be well mannaged, because corruptio optimi est pessima. But was it ever heard of, that Church-Authority, well mannaged, did hurt to the Church or State either, under what ever Magistrate? It followeth only that the abuse of Church Power is ill; But no more.
We come now in the second place to consider wherein this Authority is exercised: which, we shall speak to only in so far as these Epistles give ground, & we will find it to be in these four.
There is a Triall, thou hast tried them that call themselves Apostles, &c. which triall inferreth Authority to cite and warn parties, to call and examine witnesses, 1 Tim. 5:19 to take Oaths; which is requisite to triall and witnessing, as that alone which putteth an end to strife amongst men, Heb. 6. Therefore, Mat. 18 the Lord giveth the same rule concerning procedor by witnessing in the Church, which Moses gave in reference to all Courts, That out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, &c. shall every matter be established. This showeth also, that they may receive the complaints of offended Brethren, (as is in Mat. 18) keep meetings for that end, lead inquiry upon the crying same of offences (as is like they did in this case of Ephesus) and, in a word, do every thing that is needfull for compleating triall: for where the end is approven, the means that are necessary to the attaining thereof, must be approven also.
There is a Power here to judge and determine, thou hast found them liars: which doth respect these two, 1. The nature of offences: they must judge what is truth and what error; otherwayes they can not tell who is a false Apostle and who a liar: and they must judge what is scandalous in practice, and so what is lawful or not; otherwayes they can make no progresse in trial or censure: for, they must find such a thing to be an error or scandal, and so not to be suffered in the Church. 2. It hath reference to persons; there is a Power in judging such and such persons to be guilty, whereby they pronounce not only such Doctrine to be erroneous, but such a Minister or person to be guilty thereof, as is clear from the Text, and so must judge what is proven or not, and every thing tending to that, as citing witnesses and parties, hearing exceptions and answers, &c.
There is a Power of censuring a person found guilty. These words, thou canst not bear them, &c. thou hast them, and sufferest them, do import that, as is cleared: this having of them, implying a fault, which was, that by their Authority such were not cut off from the Church: which is the highest degree of ordinary censures: for if it be a priviledge and benefit to be admitted to the visible Church, and the Ordinances of Jesus Christ therein, it cannot but be a high degree of censure to be cut off from both: and yet this is implied here to be in the Power of these Churches, and they cannot be conceived to have cutted off such from their society so as not to have had them or suffered them to remain therein, but by this which we call Excommunication. From which necessarily this followeth, that not only the Church hath a Power of censuring; but particularly of censuring thus, by cutting off one from Church-membership, and from the priviledges of the external Ordinances thereof: this is called by our Lord Jesus, Matth. 18 an accounting of one a heathen and a publicane, 1 Corinth. 5:13 a putting away of the wicked person from among them; a cutting off of troublers, Gal. 5:12 and (Titus 3:10) a rejecting of them. There is nothing almost more frequently and clearly held forth in Scripture than this, both in Doctrine and practice. The Lord hath furnished His Church with this Power to censure, that He may preserve a Majestie in His Ordinances, which appear to the most part but foolishnesse and weaknesse; and that He may have weapons of His own kind, to batter down the proud imaginations of Church-Members, and revenge all disobedience, as the Apostle speaketh, 2 Corinth. 10:6 for which cause, he calleth it a rod, 1 Corinth. 4:21 and a punishment, 2 Corinth. 2:6.
There is here a Power of ordering and making Laws of what concerneth the affairs of the Church, as may be gathered, 1. From this, that they try Officers: whereby it is apparent, that the Church had her Laws in reference to the admission of Ministers, before they could be accounted such; and that these who were found by their trial, to be liars, should not be accounted Apostles, or Church-officers: otherwise Authority, in the former respects, would be maimed and defective. 2. It may be gathered from this, that they might conclude what was offensive, and what not, who was to be tried, and upon what grounds, when the trial was to proceed; who and what was to be suffered in the Church, and what not; who might Preach, and what might be preached; and in every thing that concerneth Doctrine, Worship, and Order, according to the Rule of the Word, and the great end of the Ordinances, to wit, the edification of the People: beside which, there is no Church Authority any where, it being a Power indeed, but a Power given for edification, and not to destruction, 2 Cor. 10:8 and 13:10. This Power being exercised, maketh decrees: therefore such acts are called, (Act. 16:4.) The decrees that were ordained of the Apostles and Elders; and by paul, a setting of things in order, 1 Cor. 11:34. And (1 Cor. 16) such were contributions for the poor, orderlinesse for preventing of confusions in Preaching and Hearing; calling of the people to Fatts, as Act. 12:5 and 13:3 and Chap. 14:23, &c. trying, proving, admitting, or censuring of Officers, and such like, as in the Epistles of Paul to Timothy and Titus, are clear.
The third thing we are to enquire form these words, is, who are the proper and first subject of this Authority and Power? And we Answer, 1. negatively.
The civil Magistrate, is not the subject of this Power: for they to whom Christ writteth these Epistles, are the subject of this Power; But the civil Magistrate is not the party to whom Christ writeth these Epistles, as is clear, and it can be alleadged by none: Therefore it is clear, that the civil Magistrate is not the subject of this Church-Power. Yet, no question, our Lord Jesus knew belt to whom it belonged: neither is it like, when he accounts them to have Authority, that he doth account them to have it from voluntary confederating for the time: for, he accounts their neglect of the practice of it, to be a sin, against the breach of their duty; even as He quarrelleth with the Angel of Sardis for being defective in the Doctrinall part of his Ministery; and He commendeth the Angel of Ephesus for his labour in Doctrine, zeal, and Discipline, as duties equally belonging to the Ministery upon one and the same account. And it must either be said that a Magistrate, in his Election to be a Magistrate over a Church, is necessarily to be qualified in reference to these affairs; or, that the Government thereof, doth not belong unto him; Or, that one may be called of God warrantably to a Government over a Society, and that in respect of things and persons of no lesse concernment than the civil State; and yet it not be necessary that he should be qualified in reference thereunto: which is absurd.
We say, that it is not the body and community of the Church and People to whom this Power is committed: which appeareth thus, 1. By the same Argument, these are the subject of this Power to whom Christ principally directeth His Epistles, whom He commendeth for the exercising of this Power, and reproveth for the ommitting thereof; But these are Church-officers, contradistinguished from the rest of the Church, as appeareth not only by the common Inscription, unto the Angel of the Church, &c. whereby they are distinctly considered, but also Chap. 2 Vers. 5 where the Church is distinguished from the Angel in the threatning, I will remove thy Candlestick, &c. which saith, that what He had spoken in the former commendation of that triall, did peculiarly belong to the Angel, whom He considereth as distinct from the Church, spoken of under the terme of Candlestick. Also in the Epistle to Thyatira, the Officers are especially reproved, as appeareth from vers. 24. But unto you I say, &c. that is, the Church-officers to whom He had been formerly speaking; and to the rest in Thyatira, that is, the members, as distinct from them. It is hinted also, in the Epistle to Pergamos, as the exposition thereof cleareth: and no where in any of these Epistles is that distinction so clear, as in these, where He speaketh of the exercise of this Power: thereby the more clearly to shew where it resideth. And though it be said in the close, Let him that hath ears, hear what the spirit saith unto the Churches: yet, that is not to extend every thing equally to all the members: for, then the Ministery of the Doctrine, would be common to all also. It is therefore to be understood with respect to their places and stations, as was said in our entry to speak upon the second Chapter. 2. The Church here, is divided in Angels and Candlesticks, that is, Officers and Members. Now, we must either give the Power to the whole, that are comprehended under the titles of Angels, that is, Officers; and Candlesticks, that is, Churches and Members; or, we must give it to the Officers alone, as distinct from the Churches: for there is no warrand to give it to the Angels, and to some of the Church-members, and not to all: for, that were again to sub-divide the Church, as if all its members were not (as to government) of one rank, contrary to the way keeped here. And indeed we know no other reason more palpable, why the Officers and Members of the Church, are so distinctly set forth; but that their distinctnesse in this respect might be held forth: But the first cannot be said, that all come in equally in Government, who are members: because that would take in Woman and Children: Therefore it must belong to the Officers, as distinct from the other three; seing much of this Church-power, is conversant about things of that nature, as trying of false Apostles, corrupt Doctrine, &c. which do require both fitnesse of qualification, and continuance in respect of time, and painfulnesse, beyond that which alwayes Church-members use, or, are called to have in respect of the one, or can bestow in respect of the other. And seing these are certain Truths, that these who are ordinarily called of God to the exercise of any Authority, are to be fitted for it, and patiently to follow the tryall (for here these who are to censure, are also to try,) It will follow therefore that this power in such things cannot be thought to be committed unto the body of the People: especially, is we consider these two. 1. That in the choice, even of a Deacon, there is such exactnesse required in the trial of his qualifications, and authority to his admission to that Office: yet the power of Governing, doth not belong to this Officer, as such; but he is inferiour to that. Now if it be supposed that the people generally have interest in Government and Ruling: Then it will follow, 1. That there are moe qualifications required in a Deacon, which as such, is but a service, than there is required in these that Govern in the highest things. And, 2. That to be a member of the visible Church, hath more Authority in it, than to be a Deacon, at least than a Deacon can have as such: because the one governeth by Authority in the highest things, and the other as such but serveth: And by the Institution and rules for the Election of Deacons, it would seem that there is by that Office an accession of somewhat to them, like Authority, more than they had before, or other members have: and seing this accession hath no Authority with it, It will seem strange to say, that a Church-member, that is overseen by an ordinary Deacon, hath Authority in him, which the Deacon, as such, hath not.
In the second place we may add this consideration, That it is simply impossible for all Church-members (even the generality of them) to understand many questions that may be agitated; yea, we may say further, they are not called to understand them; and again, others cannot possibly give their attendance for the triall of intricat things, which may draw a great length. For it is asserted by learned Thomas Hooker of New England, part. 3. chap. 3. pag. 36 and 37. That the preparation, is to be made by the Elders, because the body of the People, if numerous, they will be unable with any comely conveniency to consider and weigh all the circumstances with all the emergent difficulties, which will certainly and necessarily occur in such agitations, nor can in reason bestow their time and pains upon them, as the intricatie and perplexity of the work will sometime require. Thus farr he, which doth certainly render it at least exceeding suspicious, that they should be instated with Authority to judge and determine, who cannot possibly wait on the triall; especially, considering that in all Judges and Governments, mentioned in the Scripture; and particularly in these Epistles, these two are joyned together, to wit, triall and censure.
And therefore, 4. The associated number of ruling Church-officers, is the proper subject of this Church-power: because it is to them that Christ directeth these Epistles under this name Angel, as was shown, Chap. 1 vers 20. It’s these He commendeth and reproveth; It’s those to whom the oversight of the People belongeth in reference to these soares, Acts 20:28 &c. It’s these to whom the power of triall and admission of Church-officers pertaineth, 1 Tim. 4:14 which is the work here commended in Ephesus. And if this be true, that by Angel here is to be understood a plurality of united Church-rulers, as was said, Then this assertion laid down will also follow: for, no other rests to lay claim to this Authority.
To close then, in the fourth place, we may shortly lay down these conclusions further from these Epistles, 1. That this Discipline and Authority is to be exercised on all sorts of persons, members of the Church, whether they be pretended Teachers, as Apostles and Prophetesses, whether Men or Women; in a word, all who are capable to give offence and to be edified by Church censures, which young Children, mad men, &c such like, are not in the reach of.
It concerneth all sorts of cases, whether of Errour or practice; and is to be exercised in reference to the first, as well as to the last, as is clear from these Epistles.
These highest censures, are to proceed against Errours & Scandals of a high nature, as these mentioned in the Text are; or such as are agreged with hightening circumstances, as disobedience and contempt in not hearing the Church, &c. Mat. 18 and which after triall, are clearly made out: that thereby the sentence in its equity, may be convincing for the gaining of its end, both on the offending party &c others.
It followeth here, that when offences are so circumstantiated in Church-members, censures are to proceed against them, and they are not to be suffered to enjoy Church-priviledges, as if they were not under these offences, except they repent of them; yea, that un-
Churching and Excommunication in such cases, is an Ordinance of Jesus Christ.
Church-officers may be often defective in reference to Discipline as well as to Doctrine, which is also a guiltinesse before the Lord, as appeareth here.
Although a Church be defective in the purging out of corrupt members: yet that doth not pollute the ordinances to others, or necessitate them to separate from them. These Churches continue to be Churches, and the Ordinances to be Ordinances of Christ, although such were continued in communion with them; and notwithstanding thereof, these who were free of those corruptions, are approven and commended by Jesus Christ. And if it were not so, that a persons endeavouring in his station to amend such a fault, and to have such scandals censured, did not exempt him from guiltinesse, so as to continue in Church-communion, although the plurality of Officers should be short of their dutie: in that respect then there might be still separation after separation in infinitum: which absurdity the learned Hooker, and Norton of New England, do presse for the obtaining of submission to their Church censures and keeping of communion with their Churches; even upon supposition, that the plurality of a Congregation, should refuse to shut out some deserving the same. Otherwise (say they) when these did separate, upon such a new emergent occasion, there behoved to be a new separation, and so forth; because no Church or men can be expected to be so straight, as either not to keep in some injustly, or not to suspect that some such are keeped in: which also would be a snare to their consciences who judged so, and be a cause of separation, although it were not so indeed. And were this applyed to the detects of Presbyteriall Churches, there would be no pressing necessity of separating from them, or from communion, in any ordinance, with them.
We may see from these Epistles, that although exact holinesse be, de jure, required of all Church-members; yet, de facto, often, They are not all exactly such, and that therefore the holinesse which is spoken of, as essential to visible-Churches, or to Membership in them, is not rigidly to be extended to a reality therein. If this Church of Laodicea (wherein nothing is commended, but much found-fault with) be considered, it will be found that this holinesse will not abide a rigid trial; yet it cannot be denied, but they have what is essential to a visible Church, and Membership therein; even as her Ministers, were Ministers, although not answerable to their stations, as was said: and if what these worthy men, Mr Cotton, Norton, and Hooker, do assent unto in their writings, were accordingly adhered to in all practices, we conceive there needed not be any great controversie concerning this point. The second of these forcited Authors, part. 1. pag. 20 layeth down the pinch of the difference in these words (as he calls it.) Whether such as walk in a way of profannesse, or remain pertinaciously obstinate in some wickednesse, though otherways professing and practising the things of the Gospel, have any allowance from Christ, or may be accounted fit matter according to the tearms of the Gospel, to constitute a Church? Which Authors, also do acknowledge, that casting out of a Church, is but to proceed upon clear scandals of a grosse nature, convincingly made out, and no otherwayes, part. 3. pag. 39. And if there be defect in the executing thereof, separation upon that account, is disclaimed, as is formerly hinted, if the Church in Doctrine and administration of Ordinances be pure, that is, without error. The judicious Cobbet of new England, hath an excellent saying (as he hath many to the Anabaptists) against whom he writeth (p. 2. cap. 1 sect. 11) Better (saith he) they who have not so peculiar a title thereto, be folded up in the Church, than that one of such lambs be lest out in the wild wildernesse. And again, cap. 3. sect. 3. is full, to shew that there was no strictnesse observed in the admission of Professors to Baptism; but rather an enquiry of their purpose for the time to come, in bidding them bring forth fruits, and believe in Him that was to come, as from John’s example, Mat. 3 and Pauls, Act. 16 where there is no mention of trying the faith of the housholds of Lydia and the Jaylor; who yet were instantly baptized; as also were these Pharisees so checked by John, Matth. 3 and much more hath he well to this purpose. I have but hinted at these things, to shew that although there be many questions of Church-discipline; yet they are not all of one nature and hazard, with all adversaries. And the last doth rather concern the constituting of Churches, and admission of Members, supposed yet to be without, than the governing of Churches, and inchurched-members: in reference to which there is great difference.
We may see, that the sustaining of, and submitting unto this Church-power, is a necessary and concerning duty: and if, what is said of Church-power and Government be truth, then this submission must follow: otherwise there could be no Government nor exercise of Power, if those who are called by their stations to be governed, were not submissive thereto: and if it were the Church-officers duty to try and censure, even by cutting off such and such scandalous persons, Then it behoved to be their duty to submit, and the Churches to acknowledge these sentences, as Christs Word is, Matth. 18 Let him be to thee as a heathen, &c. And Heb. 13:17 it is thus expressed, obey, them that rule over you, and submit to them: which certainly, looks as well to the Authority of Discipline, that requireth submission, as to the obedience that ought to be given to the Word in Doctrine: for this cause, Officers are designed by the title Rulers: which is often given to civil Governours, and the fainting of such soul-overseers, is marked as a thing most unprofitable to the people themselves: and therefore is the more to be shunned.
Amongst other batteries against this Ordinance of Discipline, this is not the least that is raised against it, that it hath no compulsive force, is men willingly do not yeeld, which indeed tends to place all Authority in strength and force: for, by that same Argument, a strong son rebelling against his father, or a people or armie against their Magistrate or General, should be exempted from their subjection to them; and the Parent, Magistrate or General, be denuded of their Authority over them: because they have not force to compel obedience. Authority lyes in Gods appointing of such to rule, and such others to obey; although some sinfully should invert that order, as such disputes teach men to do. And the Question here cometh, it in reason a Church-member may disclame Church-authority and censures simply, or de jure, though by Power or violence they may do so de facto: yea, this doth indeed prove Church-government to be distinct from the civil: because it is not armed with worldly Power and strength, as other Governments of the world are; & in that respect, is not of this world, as the Lord Christ said of His Kingdom, Joh. 18 yet was He still a King, and it cannot be but a high guilt to mar this, either by overturning or it altogether, or by encroaching on it, and thereby to mar its freedom or enervat its power, or by refusing to submit unto, acknowledge, or authorize the sentences thereof, as mens places call them to do.
We may therefore propose a word or two to all, but especially to Magistrates in reference to this. 1. Let Magistrates in the fear of God consider what they do, lest they involve themselves in this guilt; it hath ever been hard to kick against the pricks: and although some would make encroachment on this Government to be a sweet thing; (which men easily admit in their own persons without any restraint,) yet the end thereof is bitternesse. And it would be considered, if such counsels tend to commend Religion and further it, or not? which at the best are but to mould and restrain it, so as it may be subservient to their own greatnesse and ends, asin Henry the 8 of England did appear. 2. They would consider if conscience put them to it, or if the most zealous presse it, or if some other thing drive it on, and to what fort of persons that design is most favourie? If it be not ordinarly the most profane, or otherways erroneous? and shall Magistrates be subservient to such? 3. They would consider the absurdities and consequents alledged, if they be hinderances or ills to Religion and Godlinesse, or but to their own power and greatnesse, and that in pretext only? is it because they will more zealously or profitably do it, themselves, or because they had rather it were not done at all, nor done by them, and such like? If it be the strengthening of their own Power, more than of Christs that moves them: for it hath often been a miserable mistake of the Powers of the earth, to seek the Strengthening of their Government by their enervating of Christs, which hath proven to be the overturning of their own. If Magistrates cannot in conscience clear themselves in these things, it cannot but be found to be an encroachment on Christs Ordinances, which are usefull and necessary in His Kingdom. 4. Consider the consequents, when things are marred and lye undone, or when misguided by undiscreet hands, who love nothing more than to make Ordinances despicable: for, if indeed a distinct Government be inconsistent with the civill, then a distinct incorporation as a Church is, must be inconsistent, even in its being, with a civil State and Commonwealth. And it Church? government be needlesse. because all things may be done by civil Rulers that are incumbent to it, a Ministrie also will be needlesse, because civil men that have knowledge may supplie that; and seldome is any found that rejects the one, but he is (at least) exceedingly lax in the other.
Suppole it be obtained, that this Government be born down, what doth the Magistrates gain thereby? It is bur, either that such things, that Church-discipline takes notice of, should altogether be slighted, that so there may be confusion in the Church: which is but a poor advantage: or, it is that the burden may be doubled on him who had it heavy enough before, and so he be made more immediatly liable for all the defects that shall be in those things. And at the most, supposing that they should be diligent in the outward duties for the restraining of the outward man; yet doth never that come up to the use of edifying, as it doth by Christs Ordinance of Discipline: for men, are but punished as men, and not as Christians; and faults are but censured, as in other States, and not as in Christs Church.
Let them consider, that the establishing of this Power, as distinct from theirs, doth not exclude them upon the matter from having accesse to anything which may edifie the Church: for they are admitted to oversee the spreading of pure Doctrine and the restraining of false Doctrine, error and vice, and to every other thing conducing to the end of edification in the way suitable to their places: only it bounds them here, that pure Doctrine be preached by Christs orderly called Ministers, and not by themselves or others, upon their meer command, and so that order be preserved, and Discipline and censures be exerced and made effectual in the Church in the same method. And this is not to restrain them in Government and incapacitate them for edifying the Church in their places, more than by refusing them power to preach authoritatively, &c to administer the Sacraments as Christs Ambassadors; or, more than a Father is incapacitated to exerce his fatherly power on an unruly child, because a Magistrate or Church-Judicatory doth concur with him.
They are no way weakened, in civil things: for, what ever the Magistrate formerly possessed before the constituting of the Church, or what ever Magistrates in other Sates, where no Churches are, do possesse, that is still allowed to him, where this distinct Government is erected: therefore it cannot be said, that it doth encroach on him: for, what cases do slow from a State, as a State, are still left untouched by this Authority: only what cases flow from it as a Church, or from the Members thereof, considered as Christians, these only are meddled with by it, to wit, trial of Gifts, admission of Ministers, censuring of Church-officers and Members, and that with Church censures, others than have been, or are used in any meer State or Commonwealth, and such like &c. And seing none of these belonged to th Magistrate formerly, and do but flow from this consideration of their being a Church: It follows that the keeping of Power distinct in these, can no way be said to encroach on the Magistrates Power, seing he possesseth still, what ever any Magistrate possessed: yea, seing by the Church there is a new relation arysing from what formerly was, it seems convenient and necessary, that there should be a new distinct way of ordering and governing the same: else supposing that a Magistrate had under him both Christians and Heathens in the same incorporation, he were either not to censure Christians otherwayes for their faults than heathens: which is absurd, seing the fault of a Christian hath a distinct notion from the same fault in a Heathen, to wit, it is an offence and scandal which ariseth from this, that the person committing it, is a Church-member; and so by their mischarriages, they reflect more on their head, and the profession of the Gospel, than the faults of others: or, he must punish the same faults that are done by persons under the same civil Law with several and distinct punishments, which is no lesse inconsistent with the nature of a civil State considered in its self, which admits not of distinct censures of the same faults and persons, more than of a distinct Power. And so is the consideration of a new Church-relation will admit of distinct Laws and censures, without wronging of the nature of a State, and that equity which ought to be kept in reference to Subjects, neither ought this of a distinct Power to make these Laws, and execute these censures, be thought inconsistent with Magistracie, seing it flows from the same new relation; and this equity among Subjects, is no lesse essential to a well ordered Common wealth, that universal Supremacie and Power to the Magistrate. And the conveening of Church-officers for the exercising of Discipline, and that without dependence on the Magistrate, can be no more inconsistent with subjection to him in civil things, than the conveening of Church-members for hearing of the Word and receiving of the Sacraments, even thought it should be expresly contrary to His command.
It would be considered, that the right exercise of Church-power, doth not only not weaken; but on the contrary, doth exceedingly strengthen civil Authority and obedience thereunto in the Church. For, where this is, a Magistrate hath all Authority that civil Laws give him, and all the power that the Word upon consciences doth imprint; and he hath beside these, Church-power and censures concurring for his strengthening: because disobedience to him, is accounted a scandale by the Church; and therefore is amongst other scandals to be taken notice of, and censured by this Power; even as they take notice of disobedient Children, Servants, and Wives; which doth exceedingly strengthen the Authority of these relations in the Church, beyond that which can be elsewhere. And thus the Churches Power doth confirm the Power of the State, when they censure disobedience to them, and when they censure the same faults in the same persons, which the State doth, thought under a different notion; and by so doing, they pronounce the Power and proceeding of the civil State to be just, when the things punished by it, are thus represented to them, and not only as faults against humane Laws and inconsistent with Civil-states, but also as sins against Christ and unbecoming His Church: which certainly cannot but add a great impression of reverence unto the civil Power. Thus these two distinct Governments, do no way interfere, but support each other. And so as it’s no obstruction, but a great furtherance unto Church-power in the exercise thereof (although it be still distinct and independent as such) to have Civil-power after its own manner concurring with it; so is it a strengthening to Civil-power, to have the accession of Church-power in its kind, to concure with it. And if indeed we suppose Magistrates to punish all things that are scandalous in the Church, there can be no prejudice to the Power by this, which doth censure the same things on another account. And if we suppose them not to do so, Then there is necessity for this Church-power, that such things may be taken notice of, as hath been said.
The exercise of this distinct Church-power, is a great advantage to the Church; and so cannot but be well consistent with Magistracy: for these two ordinances, cannot but be consistent. 1. It maketh sin hatefull. 2. It strengtheneth the Authority of all other Ordinances. 3. There can be no such way for trying qualified men fit to mannage Church-censures and Church-affairs, as such who are purposely chosen. 4. It hath what the Magistrate can give, and this beside. 5. It proveth more convincing and edifying to the person censured: for, (what ever is said to the contrary) experience doth prove, that no censure hath such convincing weight on consciences, as when it’s distinctly administred by Church-officers. 6. It doth more shew the Holinesse of the Head Christ, and the compleatnesse of His Ordinances, and other advantages that may be gathered from what we said at the entry to this degression. In a Word, is civil powers mind edification in their place, and to be a terrour to evil does, this proves strengthening to them: because it furthers that end. If they mind not that; it is no marvell such a power be suspicious like, which tendeth only to the carrying on thereof.
It is ordinary to men to suspect more the encroaching of Church-men in Power and their exorbitancy than of any other, that being ever thought by naturall men to be a bondage, and these ever esteemed to be more proud, rigid, &c. and I know not what in the exercise of their Power. But men would soberly consider, 1. If that be the fault of the Ordinance, or of the persons, and if Discipline well discharged and Ecclesiastically followed with love, meeknesse. conviction, &c. if so it were not usefull? And it the fault be in the persons, why should it be imputed to the Power it self in this case, more that in other cases? 2. Is there anything in a Church-Office to occasion this exorbitancy and miscarriage, more than in another civil Station? This looketh not like in it self. 3. If more neerly we consider Church-officers, there is no such reason to suspect them: for, is there any rank of persons so regulated, and to be tried in their qualifications for the exercise of their Trust, as by the Scripture they are? Or, are any places more deliberately filled, that men conscientious and fit for such a Trust my be called thereto? And are there any sort of persons so bounded with profitable rules in the exercise of their Authority? If there be defect in the observing of these, it ought tenderly to be remedied; yet, it cannot be thought but Church-officers must be most fit to mannage Church-matters. 4. Let them that are imployed in Church-power be considered, without respect to that, are they not of themselves men of rendernesse, conscience, and gifts proportionably, as men in any other Station are, so that it may be supposed for their qualifications and carriage, they might have been men of other Stations; and if called thereto, Judges, Rulers, &c. without any just ground of suspition more than others? And if so, shall the very Office, which ought to capacitat them more, only render them obnoxious to suspicion? This had need to be adverted unto, least their office be reproached. And may not that Power put in civil hands, be as ready to miscarry as in theirs? 5. What Church-men are usually most mistaken? is it not they who still have been most faithfull and zealous in their duty? Have not such ever also been thought most intolerable even in respect of their freedom in the Word, as we may see in the case of Elia, John the Baptist, &c. and the two Prophets, chap. 11. Shall therefore Doctrine and Power in the word, be thought insufferable? Or, shall the false Prophets of Baal, or of Antichrist, be thought more fit to have place than the Lords faithfull servants? This can be no good ground that doth reflect only upon these that are faithfull, others being ready to apply themselves to the pleating of men both in Word and Discipline. 6. It would be considered, what may move men of judgement and parts (especially if they be conscientious) to top with Magistrates? It’s not like that self interests doth that; seing flatterers that seek that most, take the contrary way and come speed, when as the most faithfull are often under a cloud. Or, is it like that the most zealous, humble and tender, should be most subject to miscarry? And if there be ground to reprove or censure either by Word or Discipline, is it not most profitable, even though most displeasing, that it be done? 7. Consider, who most readily fret at this Power? it will be found they are such, who from inclination to lousnesse or errour cannot abide any bands, or from a principle of politick indifferency in the matters of Religon; would mould all in a State-frame; and such are imbittered at freedom in Preaching, as well as power In Governing: or, they are such as are led with a prejudice at the power of Ordinances, which certainly men naturally are not free of: and it would be adverted in this. 8. Consider, that this mistake of Church-mens Power, doth often arisein such cases, wherein they are serving Christ: and men entertain it most in such times, when their frame is least spirituall and sober, as the observation thereof in experience will evidence. What man at the approach of death hath been comforted in such an opposition, or challenged for submission? Although contempt thereof hath lien heavy on many, and that to scare others from following their wayes. All therefore of all ranks, would be obtested to advert to this left they be found even fighters against God; especially at such times, when this designe by some is driven: least by putting to their hand to pull down his Authority, they themselves perish in the fall thereof. And what doth the advantage at most amount unto? It is this, there shall be greater freedom to sin, and fewer means to reclaim from it; or what censure shall be inflicted, may be done in such away as may stand with mens laughing at their sin, without being affected in the conscience by any convincing mean? Hath this ever profited any hitherto? Or, hath the right exercise of Discipline ever been prejudiciall to any? And do not ordinarily Religion and Discipline flourish together? And are not Congregations in best case, where this Ordinance is most vigorous? And do not the sad effects of the want of this in other places evidently demonstrare the necessity thereof? People would consider these things, especially these who are engaged singularly for the supporting of this Ordinance: for a time of reckoning will come, when this exercise of Discipline and submission thereto according to mens places and engagements, will not be found so indifferent as now it is esteemed by many. And disputes of this kind, we suppose, will not be admitted, when the Lord will declare that he hath ratified in Heaven, what according to His will hath been pronounced in this ordinance of Discipline upon earth: which by Divines, is well accounted to be the ratification and confirmation of the threatnings contained in His Word, and added to make them the more weightie, as the Sacraments are unto the promises of His Grace.
THis relation between the Angels and the Churches, is mentioned in all these Epistles. The Minister, or Angel, is called the Minister of such a Church peculiarly: here the Church, or Candlestick, is called His, I will remove thy Candlestick. It will not therefore be impertinent to enquire a little concerning this mutual tye and relation in these three, 1. In the general. 2. In the grounds of this peculiar tye. 3. In the nature of it; particularly, in these two, 1. If a Minister, as such, be only a Minister to a particular Congregation, in which he serves: And, 2. If that tye be such, as upon no consideration it may be broken or loosed, and he removed by transportation to some other charge. We are the rather to take notice of this: not only because it serves to clear the Text in hand; but also because it supplieth somewhat yet defective in reference to a Ministers Call, (of which we have formerly spoken) to wit, what may be thought of a Call, that is, by transporting of a man that is already fixed in a particular Congregation: or, if a Minister settled in some particular charge, may upon occasion act Ministerially in things peculiar to a Minister without the same.
For clearing of the first, we would distinguish a threefold relation that a Minister of the Gospel stands into. The first is, a relation that is between Christ the Master and Lord, and him as his Servant and Ambassador. This is the first relation, and fountain of all the rest: in this respect, they are the Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the mysteries of God, 1 Corinth. 4:1 and Ambassadors for Christ, 2 Corinth. 5:20 &c. because they have their Authority and Commission from Him, and He peculiarly is their Master and owner. In this respect also we may consider the Church; and so she is Christs, Church, purchased with His own blood, Acts 20:28. This is the principall relation, by which both Angels and Churches are Christs, as he is the Soveraign Master and owner of both: And so neither are the Churches the Ministers, nor the Ministers the Churches; but both are Christs.
In the second place, this particular relation between the Minister and a particular Flock, doth arise from these grounds, 1. From the Lords speciall assigning of one particular Church, to one man, rather than to another: in which he is to labour for the good of the whole. In which respect, as he is a Minister of Christ, to the Catholick Church, and hath that common with all other Ministers; so hath he this peculiar to him, that he is specially designed in reference to that portion, as it were his particular Post, as hath been said. 2. Upon this delegation by the Master, such a people become peculiarly his; and by the Masters appointment, are to submit to the Ordinances administrated by him: because, that same Lord and Master of the Minister, who warrands him peculiarly to treat with such a people, being also Master of that Flock, calleth them peculiarly to submit to Him: from which, according to his appointment, there doth arise a mutual obligation between such a Minister and such a People: he is, obliged to minister unto them in the Gospel; and they, are obliged to submit to him, strengthen him, acknowledge him, communicate to him in all good things, and to provide for him, &c. And this mutual relation, is not founded meerly on voluntary consent, nor is of a personal nature (to speak so) that is, as is he, or they were disposing of themselves as principal parties; but it is an obligation slowing from the former delegation, and cannot but follow from the nature thereof, and by vertue of the general commands given, Heb. 13:17, 1 Thes. 5:12, Gal. 6:6. &c. although there were no explicite covenanting in reference to these ends amongst these parties: and where any is, it is but a formal expressing of that which otherwise is implied: and is necessary, not for binding up that relation simply; but for the better furthering the ends thereof. Therefore in that tye, Ministers and People both are to look upon that obligation as a mean subservient to an end, and so to be regulated by it: and (as was hinted at) both would remember that they do principally belong to Christ; and that therefore it is not free to them to article or not, or as they will in that obligation, or otherwayes than may stand with the Masters end, and delegation forsaid. 3. From this mutual obligation, there doth arise a more near mutual sympathie between that Minister and Church, than between him and any other Church, or them, and any other Minister: they have common intrests, common hazards, common joy and grief, &c. in which respect a crosse to one of them; is a crosse to both, as this threatning here doth clear: and in this respect, there is a greater sibnesse between them than others not in this peculiar relation. 4. As there are peculiar duties called for on both sides from each to other, which are not so required between them and others; so there is a particular charge or reckoning and account, which will follow thereupon; in this respect, a Minister is to count more peculiarly for that particular Church than others; and the people again for the reverencing and encouraging of him in a special manner, as may be gathered from, Heb. 13, vers. 17. And upon this account, Paul did particularly aggrege the Gentiles slighting and grieving of him, in his Epistle to the Corinthians and Galatians, because of his particular delegation in reference to them. In which respect, although he was an Apostle of the universal Church; yet peculiarly was he the Apostle of the Gentiles: and upon that ground, did plead a peculiar claim to them; But still as subordinate and subservient to the former.
The third thing preposed, is, that which mainly is to be enquired into, to wit, The nature of this tye and relation betwixt the Minister and a particular Church: if it be such as doth bound him in his Authority, so as he may not perform any Ministerial act without the same? and so upon the other side, if he be so tyed to that Church, that, for the greater good of the universall Church, he may not be loosed from it, and be made use of, as a Minister, elsewhere?
For the first, We may take these generall Conclusions for helping us in the understanding thereof. The first is, that there is an Union and Communion in the catholick visible Church: which is one Body, 1 Cor. 12 and that both of Jews and Gentiles, one City and House, one Commonwealth, Ephes. 2:19. &c. one Mother of us all, Gal. 4:26 one Bride and Spoule, &c. Which expressions, do hold forth this Union in reference to all visible Churches, and all the members thereof. There are not two Bodies, Cities, or Commonwealths in this respect; yet must these places be understood of the visible Church, it being that Bodie, into which we are entred by Baptism, 1 Cor. 12:13 and that City, in which Watch-men are set, and externall Ordinances; and that Commonwealth, which succeedeth to that which once was peculiar to Israel, and from which the Gentiles were once separated by a Partition-wall, which is now taken down by the Gospel.
Conclusion 2. Although this Church be one in it self; yet it is subdivided in particular Churches, which are as parts of that whole. This ariseth from accidental considerations of the number of Professors, distance of place, and such like: in which respect, it’s needful for her edification, and the going about of the Ordinances, that this should be; yet is this subdivision without prejudice of the Union foresaid, yea it is subservient thereto; even as supposing a numerous City or Incorporation should be sub-divided in so many Quarters, or lesser Societies, for the good of the whole. Thus the Church at first, being one, upon the former considerations, upon this occasion did extend her self in this manner; and these who just now were of one Church, & meeting together for the Ordinances, were induced to divide in severall Societies and meeting-places, (as may be gathered from the History of the Acts) yet continuing still of the same Bodie together, in the first respect. In which respect, somtimes the visible Church is spoken of in the plural number; sometimes again only in the singular, as pointing out an Unity: such are these phrases, to edifie the Church, to add to the Church, to cast out of the Church, &c. which respect the whole Church, considered as an integrall whole, existing in particular Churches, as we say, the whole world, which doth yet but exist in so many particular Nations, & hath no existence distinct from them; and to say it were considered as a genus in this sense, would not be intelligible.
Conclus. 3. Our Lord Jesus, the owner both of Ministers and Church, hath given Ministers, principally for the edification of His Catholick Church, without respect to this or that particular congregation, but as that is subservient to the former end, as it is, Ephes. 4:11, 12, 1 Cor. 12:28 it being one Church to which both Apostles, Pastors, Prophets, and Teachers are given; and they having all one scope, to wit, the perfecting of the Saints; and one Commission, to wit, the preaching of the Gospel, which principally is to engage Souls to the Bridegroom. Hence in their preaching, we are to conceive this order, 1. Apostles and Ministers, &c. treat with sinners, to have them engaged by faith to Christ, as the Master for whom they treat. 2.To enter them in the Catholick visible Church by Baptism as the entring of them within Christs House in generall, without respect to this or that particular congregation: as when Philip, Acts 8 did first preach Christ to the Eunuch, and afterward did Baptize him, and then left him. And, 3 Being thus entred and brought in to the Catholick Church, thereupon followeth their entring into particular Congregations, that so they may be the more conveniently and commodiously edified and provided for, as all that are in Christs House should be: who therefore are committed to some speciall Overseers and Stewards for that end: as suppose the Eunuch had been admitted to some particular Church for partaking of the Ordinances therein after his Baptism; that he should be a member of Christs Church in generall, which is sealed by Baptism, 1 Cor. 12:13 was not indifferent to him, but of what particular Church he might be a member, that by after conveniency was to be regulated. Whence it doth appear, 1. That there is a consideration of the Church as universall, beside the considering of her in particular Churches. 2. That the Church so considered, as an integrall whole, is before the particular Churches; and they are derived from her: 3. That the work of the Ministery doth relate principally to the whole, their commission being, in common, to build the Bodie, to watch the City, feed the Flock, preach the Gospel, &c. and their delegation to particular Churches, is in a subserviency to this, that is, so as this may be the more orderly and conveniently followed: even as suppose so many Eldermen or Watchmen were by some Superiour designed for the governing and watching of one City, and should for the better accomplishing thereof, have their severall Quarters and Divisions assigned to them; yet still were they to be accounted as Governours and Watchmen of the City principally, and not of these particular portions only.
Conclus. 4. Although they be designed principally for the Catholick Church, and their Commission will bear them to treat any where; yet are they not Catholick Officers of that Church, nor at their arbitriment to treat where they will; but (according to the order which he hath setled) in particular Churches as parts of that whole; that being the way which He hath laid down for edification. I say, 1. They are not Catholick officers, there being great odds here betwixt Officers of the Catholick Church, and Catholick Officers of the Catholick Church, such the Apostles and Evangelists were; such the Pope claims to be, that is, to have an immediate accesse for exercising the Trust equally to all places. Officers of the Catholick Church, are such as are placed in it for the building up thereof, and have commission in reference to that end; yet is it to be executed according to the rules laid down, that is, as Christs call in an ordinary way shall give them accesse. For although (as was said,) they have a Power and Commission, actu primo, to be Ministers of the whole Church, and Watchmen of the City indesinitly; yet, actu secundo, they are specially delegated for such and such congregations or Posts, as was hinted in the former similitudes. In this respect, Peter and Paul were Apostles of the Catholick Church equally; yet, for the good thereof, by speciall appointment Peter becometh the Apostle or the Circumcision, and Paul of the Gentiles: and so Paul could not be called the Apostle of the Circumcision, nor Peter of the Gentiles, in an equal manner. Hence that Argument may be answered, is a Minister be a Minister to more congregations beside his own, then he must either be a Minister to them as to his own equally, and so have common charge of all: which were indeed absurd, and would constitute him a Catholick officer; or, he behoved to be to them a Minister or officer of some other kind than to his own, which were also absurd, and would introduce a new kind of office and Officer: It’s answered, actu primo, he is a Minister of the same kind to all the Churches, to wit, a Minister or Ambassadour of Christ; but, actu secundo, and in respect of special delegation, he is peculiarly Minister of that congregation, whereto particularly he is appointed: in which respect, Paul and Peter are equally, and yet not equally Apostles of the same Catholick Church.
Conclus. 5. Notwithstanding of this particular delegation; yet is it profitable that a Minister should exerce Ministeriall acts, upon occasions warrantably calling for the same in other Churches; and when called to it, he may do it, not only by vertue of his gift; but also Authoritatively and by vertue of his office and commission, as a Minister of Jesus Christ: even by that same Authority and Warrand, whereby ordinarily he ministers within his own Congregation; and they are acts of Ministeriall Authority in the one as well as in the other: for Ministers in the Church, are not to be looked upon as Majors of severall Towns, or Sheriffs of severall Counties, who cannot exerce Authority out of their own Bounds; but they are to be looked upon as Heraulds of one King, having Authority to charge in His Name, where ever it be, within His Dominions, although for the better supply of the Subjects, some of them be designed for one corner, some of them for another of the Kingdom: or, they are like Ambassadoars, authorized to treat with rebellious Subjects, who have each of them Authority to treat and conclude with whosoever shall come in their way: although for the better carrying one of that treaty, some of them be designed for such a corner, and to tryst at such a place, and others elsewhere; yet all of them being joyntly Ambassadoars, and any of them warranted if it were possible, to treat and conclude with all, by vertue of their Power: so that the ending of the Capitulation with one of them, is equally strong and binding as if it had been closed with another, although for eschewing of confusion they met in their treaty severally. It is so here, every Ambassadour of Christ, upon Gods occasionall Call, hath warrand to propose the same termes, and conclude the treaty with a sinner; yea, to seal it in any congregation, as well as in his own: which may be cleared and confirmed further in these following considerations.
The Power and Commission, which a Minister hath to perform Ministeriall duties, he hath it from Christ the Master and Lord of the whole Church: and in this respect, is the Minister of Christ, 1 Cor. 4:1 and His Ambassadour, 2 Cor. 5:20 and therefore may his power extend it self to His visible Kingdom, he being a Herauld authorized to proclaim in the Name of that King: as far therefore, as His Authority as Master doth reach; so far may his Ministeriall delegation under Him, upon just occasion, be extended. Indeed were his Authority derived from a particular Church, it could be extended, no further than it self; (which is the ground of this mistake). But his Authority being derived from Christ, the Master, though in a mediate way; and the Minister being His Ambassadour, treating and performing all his acts in His Name, There is no ground to deny this Ministeriall Authority of the servant, where the Master is acknowledged.
Consider, that the Masters intent in sending Ministers, is, by them not only to edifie particular Congregations, but the whole Bodie, as is said. A Minister therefore in his acting as a Minister upon such occasions, must be as a Minister in them; otherwise he were only given as a Minister to that particular Church.
If his relation to the Catholick Church be principall, and his relation to a particular Congregation subordinate to that, then must his Ministeriall Authority, in the case foresaid, extend it self to others of the visible Church, beside that particular congregation: because, according to the rule, propter quod unumquodque est tale, id ipsum est magis tale, that is to say, if because he is a Minister of the Catholick Church, he is therefore capable to be a Minister of a particular Church; or, if his Authority reacheth to that particular Church, because it is a part of the whole, then much more must he have a relation to the whole: But the former is true, as hath been cleared. Ministers are in capacity of taking the Oversight of such and such Congregations, because such Congregations, are parts of the whole Church; and Ministers are appointed to edisiethe same; and do undertake that particular charge, as it is subservient to the generall end of edifying the whole: even as Watchmen take the oversight of such a Post, because they are Watchmen of the City; and their overseeing such a place in particular, doth contribute to the good of the whole.
Their Commission which they have from Christ, will fuit as well in one Congregation as in another, it being indifinit to preach the Gospel without respect to this or that particular People; and it agreeth also with their office, and His end: seing therefore their Commission, in the matter of it, is not bounded, what warrand is there to bound their Authority, as is as Ambassadours they did treat with one People, and as private persons with another; whereas their Commission, in it self, is indefinite, and by accidentall considerations but appropriated some way to one people more than another? For further clearing whereof, consider,
That the Apostles had their bounds in Christian policy asigned to them; yet notwithstanding might they Authoritatively, as Apostles, act any where in the Church: therefore will not the particular allotting of Congregations for Ministers in a speciall manner, confine their Authority within the same. It’s true, they were Apostles of the Catholick Church, and so might use Apostolick power in any part thereof, which a Minister cannot do; yet proportionally, he is a Minister of that same Church, as is said: and therefore as that peculiar delegation did not marr the Apostles in the use of their Apostolick power when it was called for any other where; (for, although they did it in an extraordinary way, yet Peter had still Apostolick power in reference to the Gentiles, and Paul to the Jews, when they exercised it;) So may a Minister have Ministeriall power, in Ministeriall acts, and may act by vertue thereof, when in an ordinary way he is called to it without the bounds of his own Congregation.
If Apostlesmight use Apostolick Power, and, as Apostles, act without the bounds of the Catholick Church, then may Ministers act, as Ministers, without the bounds of their particular Churches: because there is a proportionablenesse inrespect of the extent of power betwixt Ministers in their particular Congregations, and Apostles in the Catholick Church; But it’s certain that the Apostles, as Apostles, did Preach to Heathens, and engage them to Christ, and enter them in the Church, and that by vertue of their Apostolick Commission and Authority: It will follow therefore, that a Minister is not so bounded by his relation to a particular Church, but that he may exercise Ministeriall power without the bounds thereof.
If a Minister, by that same Authority, may Preach and administrate the Sacraments to others without the Congregation, as to these within, then is not his Ministerial Authority confined to one particular congregation; But the former is true. For the matter of preaching, it is not denied: only it is said that they preach not by Ministeriall Authority, but as gifted private men. Unto which we oppose, 1. If a Ministers warning, reproof, invitation, &c. have equal weight with it in every part of the Church, as it hath in his own Congregation, Then must he preach every where as a Minister; because, it cannot be denied, but he hath in his own Church a Ministeriall Authority, beside that which a gifted Brother would have; But the former is true, the Word by him hath the same weight as preached by commission from, and in the Name of, Christ, so that he may say, We pray you in Christs stead be ye reconciled, which another cannot do: and the guilt of refusing the Word from him, will be found upon the account of his Authority, no lesse inexcusable than if the refuser were a member of his own congregation. And I suppose a conscience will not get a defence tabled for excuse upon this exception. Beside, the Minister hath Ministeriall Authority, as an Ambassadour, to conclude with them that receive his word; and by the power of the keyes, to pronounce pardon upon the termes of the Gospel in one Church, as well as in an other; and one may receive that word, and rest on it as spoken by an Ambassadour, and expect the ratifying thereof. And is it were not so, their consolation were exceedingly lessened, and the Minister disabled from concluding the treaty as an Ambassadour, which doth not agree with Christs end of sending Ministers, which is the perfecting of the Saints, and edifying the Bodie indefinitely, Ephes. 4:12. And therefore may he, as an Ambassadour, act in these Ministeriall duties.
The considering of the second Branch, will clear it more, to wit, thus, If a Minister may administrate the Sacraments without his own Congregation, then must his Ministeriall power go beyond that relation; because there is a Ministeriall power requisite for these, which no gifted person whatsoever can assume; But the former is true. Ergo, &c.
This minor is denyed by some, as being an unwarantable practice; yet being generally used by all, it is thus answered, that a Minister may give the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to one not of his congregation, because the bodie of the Church thinks good to admit them: and therefore he may warrantably administrate it to them, it being still lawfull to him in it self to consecrate the elements in his own congregation. But we reply, 1. That a Minister may warrantably baptize one, who is no member of his congregation: and therefore neither of the former answers will weaken this Argument; As suppose a Minister did encounter same heathen, it cannot be denied, but he might preach the Gospel to him; and upon his professed Faith and converlion, baptize him: otherwayes it were now impossible to baptize and bring in a heathen: which were absurd. Yet could not that be done, without Authority, as is granted; nor could it be done to him as to a Member of a particular Church: because, even after his Baptism, it were lawfull for him to choose what particular Church he would joyn unto; neither before that, were he in capacity thereof, nor could the Minister act therein by the Churches warrand: because, 1. The Church could not judge a person that is without: that were not within their reach: 2. Because a Minister might do this upon occasion, where there could not be accesse to have any Church determination concerning the thing, as suppose it were abroad on a journay, as Philip’s encounter was with the Eunuch, Acts 8 yet can it not be said that upon the heathens proposing this question, What doth hinder me to be baptized? that it might be answered warrantably by the Minister, it hindereth, because thou art no Church-member; or, my Church is not here to authorize me, &c. such answers would be uncomfortable to the man, and disproportionable to Christs end. It followeth therefore, that the Minister, as a Minister, might baptize him, and seal the treaty, and so Authoritatively treat and preach as a Minister, seing Authoritatively he may seal it. The former answer is therefore weak: And, 1. doth speak nothing at all to the case of Baptism; Nor, 2. to the administration of the Lords Supper out of his own congregation, seing it alloweth him power only to consecrate the elements there: yet there can be no question, but Authority to administrate the Lords Supper, must be as broad in this respect, as to administrate Baptism, seing they are both seals of the same covenant. 3. If a Ministers power were peromptorily commensurable with his flock, even in that case of the plurality of the Church their admitting of such a member, the Minister could not be warranted to administrate to him; because still notwithstanding that person continues to be no member of that particular Church, nor subject to other Ordinances of Discipline: and therefore, according to the former grounds, no such determination of a people could communicate Authority to a Minister by such an act, as to make him use ministerial power in reference to a person, not under his charge: if other wayes he were not furnished therewith.
It doth also thwart with their practices, it being acknowledged and practised almost by all ever since the dayes of the Apostles, that Ministers might and did administrate Word and Sacraments Authoritatively beyond the bounds of any particular congregation. And although in the primitive times, there was strict interdiction, that no Bishop should exercise jurisdiction at his own hand, within the bounds of another: (which was necessary for preventing of confusion and keeping of order) yet was it never heard that a Minister might not Authoritatively Preach, and administrate the Sacrament by the key of order in any part, as he might be called: yea, it is not to be thought that the Ministers of particular Churches in their voyages to the Apostles, or scatterings and otherwayes, whereby they were necessarily withdrawn from their own particular charges, that they did, during that time, abstain all Ministerial exercises, because so it should prejudge the Church of their labours as Ministers, during that time: which is not likely, considering, that their help in the Ministrie of the Gospel, is sometimes insinuated, and acknowledged by Paul; &c they counted his fellow-labourers, such as Aristarchus, Epaphras and others, companions and fellows, bothin Paul’s suffering’s and labours. It is like therefore, that their ministerial acting, cannot be confined to any particular place or Congregation.
Lastly, This opinion would infer many absurdities; As, 1. A Minister could administer no Ordinance as a minister, and some, not at all, but in his own congregation. 2. Nor in it, but to such as were of his own Flock. And, 3. If any other were present, he should be the Ambassador of Christ to one, and not to an other; and that in the same message. 4. Suppose a Congregation to want a Minister; or, that he be, by sicknesse or otherwayes, incapacitated from exercising of his Office, By this ground they could have no ministerial act administerd amongst them, and so no Baptism, or Sacrament; nor yet have any benefit of a ministrie more than if there were no such Ordinance. 5. By this, no particular Church might have ministerial communion (to say so) in Church-ordinances together, but such as private persons; yea, as heathens might have in the hearing of the Word. 6. There could be no ministerial communion and help amongst Ministers: for so, no Minister could supplie another, more than a private person, though ministers, as joynt workers in one Work, be called in a special manner to have communion together. 7. No member, how ever gracious, being withdrawn from his own congregation, could be under any ministeriall charge, or have accesse to the preaching of the Word, as it is a treaty by an Ambassador; or, to any Sacrament for himself or his: which is hard, considering that it is the same Master, and the same house; and seing often occasions may draw men abroad where the Ordinances are, this would make them in a great part to be strangers even within the Church whereof they are children. 8. No Minister might Authoritatively reprove any offending brother not of his own congregation, nor censure such as did not willingly joyn, howsoever scandalous: which is contrary to the practice of Ephesus, as already hath been said. Neither would this bring in confusion, or the making of the particular priviledges of a Congregation common, more than is allowable: because this pleadeth not for an arbitrarinesse in the exercise of this power; but that there may be a power to be exercised for edification, when it shall be called for.
Neither will it hence follow, that a Minister, Elder, or Deacon, may thrust himself in, to the exercise of Jurisdiction in every place, because they are Officers of the Catholick Church: because, 1. This only faith, that he, being called orderly by an opened door may exerce his power in one place and congregation, as well as in another. 2. Because ruling belongeth to the power of Jurisdiction; which, beside instalment in an Office, doth require other things to concur with it, before it can be exercised: Preaching and administration of the Sacraments, are done by the power of order, and by vertue of the Office as such. Hence a Minister might preach to Heathens without the Church, and baptize in due order; because he doth that as a Minister: yet could he not censure one such, till he were a Church member, and untill there were some orderly way of trying, judging, censuring, &c. by a Church Judicatory setled: because the exercise of this power doth require more than the being of an office. And therefore even the Apostles; who did thus preach and administer the Sacraments; yet neither judged these that were without at all; nor these that were within (when they acted by ordinary rules) except in the way of orderly proceeding. Therefore, Acts. 15. Paul found it meet to go to Jerusalem to a Synod for deciding of some things by this power of Jurisdiction, although though still by his Doctrine he was Authoritatively condemning the Errour: which sheweth, that there is more required in the one than in the other. And in that practice, the Apostles gave a precedent to Ministers whereby to be directed in ordinary cases, because in it they did follow ordinary, rules common with them to all Ministers, and did not act as extraordinary Apostles, for so one was equally sufficient for deciding of the matter as all were, but in this a copy is given how the Church is to walk in such cases ordinarily.
The last thing which we are to enquire into, is, If this relation betwixt a Minister and a particular Congregation be such, as the Church for a greater good to the whole bodie may not loose it, and call one, serving at one particular Church, to fix and serve elsewhere, upon supposition that it may more further the good of the as hole Church?
Answ. What is already said, doth make way for the answering of this, which we shall comprehend in these three Assertions,
Asser. 1. No Minister ought to dispose of himself at his own private arbitrement, to the prejudice or dissolution of a tye betwixt him and a particular Congregation that is orderly and legally settled. For, fiat, no Minister being free of such a relation, ought to dispose of himself arbitrarily, (as was said in the close of the first Chapter) much more being under a tye and particular relation. 2. It’s a generall to all, 1 Cor. 7. Let every man abide in that calling wherein be is called; but especially, Ministers are to walk by a singular call, even in reference to a particular Charge: so as it may be the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath set them: which must, at least, include his being set there in the mediate way of Church order; which is that that the Holy Ghost ownes, as by comparing, Acts 13:3 and 4 and Acts 14:23 with Act. 20:28 is clear. This therefore cannot be left to any private way of transacting betwixt a Minister and a People. 3. If it were so, then this particular relation were of no value, neither could properly a Minister be called the Minister of such a Church, or such a Church be his in a more peculiar manner than other Churches, if he might at his pleasure and of himself dissolve that Union. 4. Ministers being servants of Christs House & Watchmen put to their Posts by Him, as being specially to count for that People committed to them, they ought not and cannot without His warrand remove: this would be found to be treachery and unfaithfulnesse in any other Servant or Watchman, much more must it be here. 5. Whereas Christ hath appointed these particular relations for the entertaining of order, the preventing of confusion and promoving of edification, this would destroy these ends and bring confusion into the Church: which is contrary to the order that He hath established in it. Lastly, It would beget despising of the Ministery in the hearts of the People, and lay them open to snares, if a Ministers settling in a place stood so upon his own Election (especially after a former tye) as is usually in men who are of other professions. And there are many strict acts of Councels in all times against this as a most wretched abuse, if it should be admitted in the Church.
Assert. 2. Although this tye cannot be loosed by any private consent, so that no Minister can transport himself upon that account; yet may the Church for her own greater good transport a man from one particular place to another, and that warrantably, notwithstanding of the former particular tye and relation: yea, sometime it will be expedient for the good of the Church so to do. The application of the former grounds and the laying down of some others, will make way for the clearing and confirming of this. The first is, If there be an Union and Communion in the Catholick visible Church, and if Ministers be especially given to the edifying of it, and in a Subordination thereto, to the edification of particular Churches, then supposing that a Ministers transportation from one place to another may farther more the good of the whole than where he is, in that case, it ought to be done. Because the whole is to be prefered to the part, the good of the Bodie to any particular member: and in that case, it is not the prejudice of that particular Church, that their Minister be set where he may more profite the Bodie, but (as the learned Eowles in his Treatise of a Gospel Ministery, lib. 3. cap. 7. faith) “It’s rather their preservation and safty, even as it’s the good of any particular Fort of a City, when a Watchman is removed from it to some other Post, where he may be more usefull to the whole City: because the benefit of the City, is the advantage of every person therein. But both the former are true, as hath been said, to wit, that there is an Union and Communion in the Catholick visible Church; and that a Ministers relation, standeth principally to serve Christ in reference to the edification of the whole: Therefore, &c. 2. The examples used already, hold this forth, the Church being one City, and Ministers appointed to be Watchmen thereof, there can be no reason why one may not be removed from one corner to another, if so it may conduce for the good of the whole. This is allowed in all Commonwealths, Cities, and Incorporations, &c. and is engraven by nature on the hearts of all men to preserve themselves into Societies by such means: and can that be denied to the Church of Christ, which nature maketh common to all Incorporations? 3. If a Ministers relation to a particular charge be lesse principall and subordinate to his relation to the whole Bodie, Then ought it not to stand in the way of his being usefull to the whole, But rather it is in such a case to cede and give place to the other: otherwise that particular relation would be principall, and would not be subservient to the other, as a higher end: because so, the Church in generall would be more frustrated and prejudged of the benefit of such a mans Ministery, than if there had been no such relation at all. But the former is true, This particular relation is subordinate to the other, as is said. Therefore, &c. These consequents do follow upon the grounds formerly laid down. Moreover we may add these uncontrovertible conclusions.
Conclus. 1. There is a diversity in the cases of particular Congregations; and there is diversity also in the gifts of Ministers. Some Congregations are more weighty, and much more or the good or hurt of the Church dependeth upon their plantation than others. Again, some are more intelligent, some are more uneasie and dangerous to deal withall, &c. as experience cleareth. Whereby it is apparent that the planting of some places, is of great consequence for the Gospels advancement, above the planting of others: and, also that comparatively, one place will require Ministers otherwise qualified than another. Again, there are diversities of gifts among Ministers, some are fit for one People, and not for another, as is clear from, 1 Cor. 12:14, 15 &c. There are diversity of gifts, but the same spirit, differences of administrations, &c.
Conclus. 2. Ministers ought so to be distributed and placed in particular charges, as that there may be some proportionablenesse and suitablenesse betwixt the Minister and his charge, that is; the ablest Minister should have the weightiest Charge; the weakest, the easiest burthen: and as their gift is more eminent in learning, teachings, prudence in Government, &c. there likewise ought a proportion to be keeped in laying on their Charge, so as there may be a fit object for such qualifications, and as the good of the Bodie may be most advanced. This also we take for granted: for, that is the end of all gifts which are given to every man that be may profite withall, 1 Cor. 12:7 whether it be the word of knowledge, or, the word of wisdom, &c. they are all members of one body, vers. 12 and therefore are to concur for the good of the Body, according to their severall qualifications, as different members of that one Bodie: and in this respect, a disproportionating of a Ministers Charge to his gift, it is as if we would put the foot to do the hands Work, of the ear to supply the room of the eye: which were absurd; and would urgue either such and such distinction and difference not to be necessary, and so all the members might be eye or head, or any one member; or, it will say that we are not to walk according to that which the Lord hath distributed to every one: both which are absurd, and expresly contrary to that which is said, 1 Cor. 12. Where expresly these three are held forth, 1. That the Church is one Body. 2. That there are different gifts, which are as different members of one Body, some more eminently for one use, and some more eminently for another. 3. That the Lords intent by that difference, is, to have all these members concurring in their severall places for the good of the whole Bodie: that so, as it is, vers. 25 by each members concurring in its own place, there may be no Schism in the Bodie: which cannot be eschewed, if this proportionating of publick Charges and Gifts be not observed.
Conclus. 3. There cannot be ordinarily such a discerning of the proportionablnesse of mens gifts to a particular station at the first entry, as to fit every one sufficiently, and to place them in their right room. This we suppose, is also clear from experience, wherein it is seen that many, at first, are fixt in Congregations wherein afterward there proveth to be a disproportionablnesse. And it cannot be otherwise, upon these considerations, 1. Because it cannot then be known fully what will prove to be the peculia gift of every man, till triall and experience evidence the fame. 2. Because this propostionablnesse is not only to be tried by comparing a man and a particular. Congregation simple; but it is to be taken by trying him comparatively, and that both in reference to other gifts and other Congregations: for, a man absolutely considered, may be fit for such a Congregation; yet when other Congregations and gifts are considered, it may possibly be seen that he is more fit for an other Congregation than many other Ministers; and yet possibly some of these may be as fit for his Congregation. In that case, it cannot be denied, but it looketh liker the right proportionating of every member, that men be put to serve in these Congregations, for which according to their gifts they are best fitted. 3. Because at a Ministers first entry there is not occasion to try a mans proportionablnesse to any other Charge but one, or at most in reference to so many as shall at that present be vacant and give him a Call. Now, suppose some other Charge should thereafter value, it’s hard to say that they should be simply excluded from having any access to that person, if his gifts were more proportionable to them: Because, as we said, this proportionablnesse is to be looked to in reference to what is most fit for the whole Bodie: for although (if we may so compare it) it is not unfit that the foot should be guided by fight; yet with respect to the whole Body, it is more fit for the whole Bodie, that the eye should be placed in the head, than in the foot: because it is not to give light to one member only, but to the whole Bodie, So is it here, a Minister may suit a particular Congregation, giving light as it were to the foot, whereas if we consider his office, which is to be an eye to the whole Bodie, he is disproportionably placed: for so the Bodie is darker, when the foot hath more light: which is absurd.
Conclus. 4. Christ hath furnished His Church with Power in her Judicatories and Officers, to proportion Ministers Gifts suitably to the good of the Body. Hence is the trial of spirits and Gifts appointed: and in that respect, the spirits of the Prophets, are to be subject to the Prophets, 1 Cor. 14 otherwayes the Church in her Government were defective in that order which is in other Societies: and it would not be odequate and proportionate to its end, if that were not: for so there might be an inconveniencie and disproportionablnesse in the church, and no remedy to cure the same. From which grounds put together, we may thus argue, 1 If God hath given diversitie of Gifts to Ministers, and they be to be improven for the good of the whole Body, Then supposing that a Minister setled in some more private or lesser Congregation be more proportionably qualified to fill such a place as is more large and eminent, than any other who can be had without a charge. Then in this case he is to be transported: because otherwayes, that being denied and the Charge put up on a man of no competent ability, there would be a disproportionablnesse between the Gift and the Charge. For, that would joyn the able man and the light burthen, and the weak man and the heavie burden: which were absurd; But the first is clear from the former conclusions. Therefore, &c. 2. If by a Ministers first plantation in a particular Charge there be a disproportionablnesse in the a Body, which transporting of him to another Charge would remeed, Then is he to be transported: and transportation in that case must be allowable and expedient: because by it that due proportionablnesse is preserved among Ministers, and Members of the Body, which otherwayes would be defective, and so a Schism is prevented; For if the end, to wit, that proportionablnesse be necessary, Then transportation, which is a necessary mean whereby it is attained, cannot but be necessary also; But the first is true from the former grounds. Ergo, &c. 3. If transportation were unlawfull. Then we behoved to say, that either no Minister could be at first misplaced to the prejudice of the Body: or, that there were no remeed for such a case, for the recovering thereof; but both these are absurd, as the former grounds do clear. 4. If Ministers were peremptorly fixt by their first tye to particular Congregations, Then could not their Gift come under cognition in reference to any other charge; which would inferre these absurdities, 1. That the Church were bounded and limited in the use-making of her own Members for her own good: which is contrary to the nature of a body; for so the might have Members, fit for such and such stations; and yet could not make use of them. 2. In proportionating Gifts for places, their would, be little place for Christian prudence and deliberation: because so the case would be determined necessarily by providence, that such vacant places behoved to call such men as were not under any former tye; and they behoved to accept these particular charges: or, must both necessarily forbear; and so such Churches be without Ministers, it may be for along time, before any did occur whom with confidence they might Call: and it will be hard to fasten any of these necessities upon the way of Christ. 3. By this, the Church should have little or no accesse at all to cognosce of mens Gifts, so as to proportion them for her good; if she had no place for it after their first entry to the Ministrie: because, then often there doth lye much of it upon the mans determining himself; or, at most a Presbyteries determining of him, and a particular Congregation pressing, who often are more swayed with respect to themselves, than to the Church in common. Beside, that there is no accesse to cognosce thereof, upon other grounds given: if then the Church be any wayes allowed to cognosce or dispose of Members according to their Gifts, and that be not left to particular inclinations, transportation must be allowed: And if it be singly done, we suppose, there is no such accesse to cognosce of a mans Gift, and to proportionate it for the good of the body, as may be done in transportation. 5. We may argue thus, If Ministers be lights planted in the Church for the good of the whole, Then ought they so to be placed, as they may most extensively give light to the whole. Now, these are certain, 1. That there are some Congregations where a Minister may more conspicuously hold forth the light of the Gospel than in others, some places being as Tables or Candlesticks from which light doth shine: other places again, being as corners. 2. Sometimes a light may be set in a corner, or under a bushell comparatively, and not be set on the place where the greatest light is called for. 3. When it’s misplaced, it ought to be removed from the corner to be set on the Candlestick: and although it maybe, that, that corner become more dark; yet the house in general becometh more lightsome. And if these former grounds be true, Then transportation, when it proves the removing of a light from under a bed, to the Candlestick, for the greater good of the whole house, must be allowed and admitted: But these two considerations will make this appear, 1. Christs expresse words; Matth. 5:14, 15 ye are the light of the world, &c. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushell, but on a candlesticks, that all in the house may see light, (compared with Luke 8:16) which demonstrates there; that Ministers are so to be placed as they may most lighten the whole house: and if any place conduce more for that than another, they are accordingly to be placed. 2. The Apostles practice clears this: we will find them in their Preachings especially, to frequent most populous places, because there was most occasion of spreading the Gospel in those: Paul is marked, Acts 19:10 to have staied two full years in, Ephesus, and that all Asia, upon that occasion, heard the Word: which doth hold forth; 1. That there are some places (particularly populous and publick places) of more concernment for the spreading of the Gospel, when they are well planted, than other places. And, 2. That the Apostles were in their abode and Preaching exceedingly swayed by that consideration: so that although in some respect they had equal interest in all persons and Churches; yet did the consideration of the good of the whole engage them to have particular respect to some places beyond others; and so, as it were, to transport themselves from private places to more publick, that they might give light to the moe. 6. If the good of a particular Congregation, and necessity of a particular Minister, may warrand a transportation, much more may the publick good of the Church do the same: this cannot be denied; But both the first are true, 1. The good of a particular Congregation may warrand it, as suppose they be utterly prejudged against a present Minister, who yet elsewhere may have accesse to be profitable; either transportation must be allowed, or he must be rendred unprofitable, contrary to the end for which Christ hath given Gifts, 1 Cor. 12 and they put in a worse condition by having, than by wanting: For the second, That a Ministers particular necessity may constrain this, as suppose there be no possibility to live and follow the Ministrie in such a place, because of outward straits: thus, Nehemiah, 13:10 the Levites by the withdrawing of their maintenance, are made to flie every one to his field; and Nehemiah contends with the Rulers, and removes that obstruction, and doth not challenge the Levites, as Mr. Bowls doth observe. We find also in Church-story (Socrates, lib 7, cap. 36) of one Sylvanus, who nor being able to live in one place, because of his infirm health, which did disagree therewith, he was transported to another more wholesome and agreeable to his constitution. 7. If notwithstanding of that relation between a Minister and a people, any particular Member, or any other Officer, upon weighty consideration, may remove themselves, or be removed from that Congregation, Then may the Minister be removed also, upon supposition of the publick good: because there is that same tye between the people and the Minister, and other Officers and the people, that is between the Minister and them: for, the relation is mutual; But that private Members, and Elders or Deacons may remove, or be removed orderly, hath never been questioned. Ergo, &c. 8. If a Minister, upon particular occasion, for publick good, may perform Ministerial acts without his own Congregation for a time, Then supponing these grounds to be urgent, and Authority to interveen, why may he not be fully removed? for, the same ground that calleth to act for a time, to wit, the good of the body whereof he is a Minister, may call for it to be perpetual, and ought not to be rejected; But the first is true. Ergo, &c. 9. If we will consider the Word of God more nearly, we will find this to be conform thereto.
And, 1. If we consider the Old Testament, it is certain that the Levites had their own fixednesse in the severall Cities beside Jerusalem, seing that was their Office to teach the People: and no question, it was done orderly: hence, Thou and the Levite within thy gates, is so frequently mentioned; and Act. 15:21 it is said, that of old time Moses had them in every city that did preach him. It is certain also, that notwithstanding of that fixednesse, Levites might be removed to more publick service at Jerusalem, as is gathered from Deut. 18:6 and 7. If a Levite come from any of thy gates, out of all Israel, where he sojourned, and shall come with all his desire so the place which the Lord shall choose, then shall he minister, &c. where a Levit’s removing from Ministring in one place to another, is clearly approven. Neither is it to be thought, that this removall was left arbitrarie to the Levite himself: because so, confusion could not have been eschewed; but when it is so qualified, that he cometh with all his desire, it doth suppose a triall thereof, and an orderly way of disposing of him, for the attaining of that end, to have preceeded, as the learned Junius doth observe on the place.
If we come to the New Testament, there we will find our Lord Jesus himself going from City to City; He sendeth His Disciples to go through the Cities, Preaching the Gospel: the Apostles follow the same way in their practice: And we will find them sending Ministers sometime to one place, sometime to another; sometimes keeping particular Ministers with themselves, as from the History of the Acts, and from the beginning and close of severall Epistles, may be gathered. And although these practices may seem, at first, to be extraordinary, yet considering the end thereof, which is the spreading of the Gospel, and the ground upon which it is built, to wit, the unity of the Church, the good whereof is to be sought by all the Ministers who are Christs Servants, in reference thereunto; considering also that the Church, to the end of the world, is furnished with power for prosecuting of moral ends in an ordinary way; and that the Churches propagation, is the end now as then; seing also the removing of Ministers sometimes from one place to another, may conduce to that end now as then; and the ground, to wit, the good of the Church universall, is the same now as it was then, We conceive the practice it self must be moral, as the ground was, although then the manner & power was extraordinary, which is now to be performed in an ordinary way.
If we will particularly consider, Act. 13:1, 2, 3 we will find this near almost in an example. For, 1. There are there severall Prophets and Teachers in the Church of Antioch, as Barnabas, Lucius; Simeon, &c. 2. They are Ministring there in a collegiat way, and that for a long time. 3. Two of them are pitched on, to be sent elsewhere, for the spreading of the Gospel; it being in the wisdom of God thought fit, to call some from Antioch, where were many, that others might be helped, who had nothing: although no question, there was work for all of them in Antioch it self: And He might have thrust out moe immediately Himself, if this way had not been pleasing to Him; yet their sundering was thought fitter for the Churches universall good. 4. This is execute in a mediate way by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, and with fasting and prayer. Whence we may argue, If for the greater good of the Church, some Teachers were taken from Antioch and sent elsewhere, Then ‘may a Minister, by Church-authority, for the end foresaid, be removed from one place to another; But the former is true. Ergo, &c. There is nothing can be objected against this, save to say that this was extraordinary’, in that it was particularly commanded of God: And, 2. That they were extraordinary Officers that were sent; But this will not enervate the Argument: for, in these practices of extraordinary Officers in the Primitive times, we must observe some rules to difference what is ordinary, from what is extraordinary in them, and so know what is to be imitated, and what not: otherwise we may reject all the practices of Christ, and the Apostles upon that account, and so prejudge our selves exceedingly of a great part of the Word that is written for our direction. Let us therefore observe these rules;
Where the ground and reason of a practice, is moral, although the Call thereto and manner of discharging thereof be extraordinary; yet must the practice it self be moral, although the manner in so far as is extraordinary be temporary: Thus, that the Kirk have Teachers (supposing that there must be a Church) it is morall; as also that her Teachers have a Call, This will follow from Christs sending of Apostles, Disciples, and others: Because the same reason faith, that a Minister who is Christs Ambassador, according to his station (as an Apostle was in his) should have his commission as an Apostle had: but that the Church should always have Apostles, of that her Teachers should be immediatly called of God, That will not follow: because the reasons thereof are not moral. Now, if we may safely reason in the general, that a Church must have Officers with a lawful call, because Christs Apostles had such, though it was immediate, and also he that was called ought to obey: by proportion we may gather, that a Church-officer may be called from one place to another, upon a moral ground, although there be no immediate call at his removall, more than at his first entry: because the ground whereupon this practice is founded, & which is the reason thereof, to wit, the greater good of the Church, is still binding now as then.
Rule 2. In these primitive practices, there is a proportionablenesse to be observed between the Officers who act, and their call and minner of proceeding, to wit, an extraordinary Officer, must have an extraordinary call, as such; and he may act extraordinarily in the prosecution thereof, by extraordinary Power, whereas an ordinary Officer must act, by any ordinary call and Power, the same things, suppose in preaching, Discipline, ordaining of Ministers, &c. and in so far, that laying on of hands was extraordinary, as being done upon an immediate call. But Ministers may follow it in an ordinary way, that is, by a mediate call, they may ordain Ministers to a particular congregation, or transport from one to another by proportion: because the Apostles by an immediate call did send oat extraordinary Officers to any particular place.
Rule 3. We would in such practices difference such things as are temporary, that is, such as have special relation to that time and state of the Church (as extraordinary Officers and Gifts were) from such things as agree to the Church as a Church, and serve to the edification thereof at all times. And thus also transporting of a Minister, must be allowable in such case: because there can be no reason given why that practice should be peculiar or only agreeing to that time and case of the Church, or during the Apostles lifetime: but the grounds that infer the conveniency of it; are in a good measure common to us with them, to wit, the furtherance of the Churches good, which cannot otherwayes be so well done. And if it may be as well done without this, we acknowledge that this practice will not be binding. And certainly the Lords putting of the Church to this, to send out some already called, when immediatly he might have thrust out others, doth say, that he minded to teach what ordinarily should be done by the Church in the like case: for, his sending of them mediately by the Church, and not immediately by himself, as at other times, doth insinuate this.
Rule 4. We are to distinguish things wherein the Apostles acted extraordinarily, by reason of their infallible Gift, extraordinary Power, &c. from such things as were common to them with other Ministers, and wherein they acted in an ordinary way common to them with all Ministers: of the first sort were their immediate deciding of controversies, appointing of censures, sending of Ministers, &c. by vertue of their own alone power: this is not to be imitated: of the other sort are their admitting of Ministers upon a mediate call to congregations, as Acts 14 their debating and deciding of controversies, & making of Laws in a Synodical way, by reasoning from Scripture in an ordinary way, as Acts 15. These are imitable; and what they did in that manner may be followed: And their laying on of Hands (when the call was intimate) their Praying &. Fasting, which are mentioned in this place, were of the last kind; and so upon supposition of the intimation of a call, this their practice for the substance is to be followed.
Now, to resume a little further the application, that we may know what is ordinary and what is extraordinary in this case; or, what is moral, and what perpetual, or what is temporary. 1. That there be a call of God, that is moral and perpetual; and it may be concluded from this, that no Minister without Gods call, is to be transported; but that that Call is immediately revealed by God Himself, is temporary, and not to be pleaded for in ordinary cases. 2. This is moral, that he who is called of God to edifie His Church, by leaving one place to serve. Han in another, should obey the same. 3. It’s moral, that this removall should not be at the mans own determination; but that it be done by Church Guides, and Church Judicatories. 4. It’s a moral ground upon which this proceeds, to wit, the greater edification of the Church, whether by engaging and grafting in of Strangers, or building up of these that are brought in; this ground can no way be thought more peculiar to these times than to after time: and therefore it is laid down as the great end of Pastors and Teachers, as well as of Apostles, as may be gathered from, Ephes. 4:11, 12, 13, 14. This reason then must have weight to the end or the world. 5. It’s an ordinary way by which they proceed, to wit, fasting and prayer, shewing the necessity of a concurrence of Gods orderly and external Call with his inward, for warranting of this practice; and also shewing that when the removing of a Minister from one place to another may contribute to the good of the Body, they are in that heartily to concur who have most special interest. Now, these things being moral and of perpetual weight in the Church, although it will not plead that the Church may send out Apostle, by an immediat call, or that they may send out indefinitely without respect to any place, or not knowing where; yet this will follow, upon the grounds laid down, that when God calleth a man for the edifying of the body of His Church from one place to another, there it ought to be obeyed; and that sometimes God may call, for the greater good of His Church, to have men removed from one place to another. He is Master of the Harvest: and therefore may either thrust out Labourers of new to His Field, or may take from one part of the Field to set upon an other. Only these things would be adverted here according to the former rules, 1. That by Gods Call, is not to be understood any extraordinary thing, but His signifying of His mind in an ordinary way, that such a mans removal from such a place, to another, is upon consideration of his gifts, upon comparing of the places, and the respecting of the state of the Church, a hopefull mean through Gods blessing for the further promoving of edification. 2. As an immediate and extraordinary Call was necessary for such officers in such a case; so proportionally is an ordinary Call by ordinary Officers, acting by ordinary Power, only necessary for ordinary cases, seing in moral things ordinary Officers, are to do by their ordinary Power what extraordinary Officers did by their extraordinary Power. And if we will consider this practice, we will find it this far to be intended for imitation: For, 1. Although the Lord immediately reveal the Call, yet doth He follow His design in an ordinary way: not by thrusting out new Officers, which he might have done, if he had walked altogether absolutely and extraordinary in this; but he doth it in a mediate way of providence, in the making use of some already called. 2. The circumstances seem so to be recorded, as if the Lord were giving the reason of calling some from Antioch, rather than from any other Church, to wit, because there was a considerable number in that place of fit qualified men; and that so in reason it were more agreeable for the good of the body, that so he should be taken from them to supplie the want of the other, rather than that others should be altogether destitute, or some removed from such places as might not so well spare: and there can be no reason of the mentioning of this, but to show the moral equity of this practice, that Ministers would be proportionated in the Church so as may be extensively for the good of the whole: and that where some places abound, and others have scarcity, the abundance of the one, should condescend to supplie the other, and that nor of the weakest or least able. 3. The Lord useth a mediate way of sending them by the Churches interposing of her Authority and Prayers, which He did not use in the sending of Apostles; nay, Matthias had no imposition of Hands; and this was because the election of Apostles was no way to fall within the compasse of ordinary Church-power, nor to be followed. It would seem therefore, that it is made use of in this practice, to signifie, that it is a thing to be continued in the Church, and to be performed by ordinary Church-judicatories, and limitated by them.
If we consider the times following, it hath ever been practised in the Church. It’s marked to have been the practice of the first two famous general Councels, as a mean usefull exceedingly for the good of the Church. The Nicæn Councel did transfer Eustachius from Berrh. a to Antioch. Sozom. lib. 7. Cap. 2. And it’s observed particularly of Gregorius Nazianzenus, that he was thrice transported: first, he was Bishop in Cappadocia, thereafter brought to Nazianzum; and thereafter to Constantinople by the second famous general Councel, and it’s marked to have been of great use to the Church. Cent. 4:15. 300 and to have been their common practice in this time. Socrates, lib. 7 cap. 35 doth for this very end, give many instances of this in several persons. At the beginning of the Reformation, it was one of the great means that was made use of by God for prapagating the Gospel in severall places: the transporting, or removing of Ministers from one place to another was exceeding usefull: and what cruelty had it been to have refused the desire of people, seeking Ministers from those that had them? And how else could they have been supplied? And proportionably the same weight lyeth here in all times.
Asser. 3. Although in some cases this be for the good of the Church, and is to be practised by Church Judicatories: yet it is to be done with great singlenesse, tendernesse, prudence and caution, least that which of it self, being rightly managed, is a benefite to the Church, be turned to an abuse, & prove hurtful to her.
These Cautions and Rules must be regulated according to particular circumstantiate cases, which cannot be numbred. Yet these things may be said, 1. That no self respect ought to have place here, but the greater good of the Church and advantage of the Gospel, is the great κριτήριον whereby this is to be decided.
This generall is to be found out, by comparing of places and qualifications with respect to the number of the hearers, their qualifications as they are strong or infirm, tractable or stubborn, pure or corrupt; In respect of their stations, as they have influence on publick things or not, as they may have influence in communicating their light to other places; as the word in his mouth may be more readily and freely received without prejudice, and such other considerations of this kind: some whereof, are hinted in the close of the former Chapter concerning a Minister’s Call at his first entry.
This comparison would not be considered between places, as if there were no tye standing between him and either of them: certainly there is more disproportionablenesse required to loose one from a charge; than would have cast the ballance between places at his entry. Also other means of a proportionable setting and providing of such a place, would be first seriously essayed and followed if they occur.
This would be endeavoured to be done by convincing reasons, so as (if possibly) they who have interest may be satisfied, if not in respect of their affection, yet in respect of their reason, to wit, that it is the more publick good of the Church.
IN this Epistle, there is a large commendation of this Angel’s practice: which is not only given to him in respect of the matter of his actions; but in respect of the qualifications of them: as, first, that he did not only suffer for, and have patience in, that which was materially right; but that he suffered for Christs, Name sake: and that he did not only hate thee deeds of the Nicolaitans; but did it with a respect to Christ: which is here added, to difference the sincerity of these actions from others that are materially good also: for, no question, there may be much suffering, which is not commendable before Christ. And certainly many others, even among heathens, did hate these Nicolaitans, who yet cannot be thought to be alike comprehended under this commendation. This therefore that is added, for my Names sake, must be to show the sincerity and graciousnesse thereof, as that which did put a difference between their sufferings and patience, and the sufferings of others. And it doth imply, that this qualification, was that mainly, which made the Lord take notice thereof. It is therefore the same on the matter with that, Matth. 5:11 of being persecuted for Christs sake, to which the promise is made, vers. 12 and the same, with that 1 Pet. 4:13 of being made partakers of Christs sufferings, and of being reproached for his Name: which being an evidence, and part of blessednesse in these places, cannot be conceived but to imply sincerity; without which, suffering it self, even where the cause is good, would be of no weight as to that end. We do therefore conceive these words undoubtedly to be added, to point out that wherein their sincerity consisted, and wherewith the Lord was especially well pleased: from which we may gather these Doctrines.
First, That there is a great difference between an action morally or materially good, and that which is gracious, and as such acceptable to God. It is not simply suffering and hatred, which the Lord commends here: but suffering and hatred so and so qualified. Hence we will find frequently in the Scripture, difference made between these, to do that which is good upon the matter, and to do it with a perfect heart. In actions therefore, there are these three to be distinctly considered, 1. The act it self, as it is natural, suppose an act of hatred, love, grief, &c. 2. As the act is moral, and is directed toward an object that is agreeable to the Law, that is, to love that which is good, and to hate that which is evil, and so forth: both which, in many respects, may be in hypocrites, who may do that which is materially good. 3. We are to consider an act as gracious, that is, when not only the thing for the matter is agreeable to the will of God, as suppose, one were acting, or suffering for a truth; but also when that is done in the manner that the Law requireth, and with a suitablnesse thereunto: and so one suffers not only for a truth; but as a Christian he carrieth himself in his suffering for the same: it is this last which makes the difference, and which the Lord, doth especially take notice of, and commend by this qualification, that it is done for his Names sake.
Secondly, We gather, that this difference, wherein the graciousnesse of the act doth consist, is not to be inquired for in any intense degree of the act it self, whether positive or comparative (at least only) but it is to be inquired for in the nature and kind thereof, to wit, in respect of positive qualifications concurring therewith, and having influence thereof: For, this commendation, is not given upon the degree’; but from the nature of these acts: it is not commendable hatred, because it is in such an intense degree positively: nor comparatively, because it hateth these errors more than it doth hate truth; but because in their hatred of these errors, they conform themselves to Christs hatred of them. And likewise by that commendation for Christs Name sake, is not holden forth any degree either of their labour, or patience simply, nor yet comparatively, that they laboured more, or did suffer more for that which is materially good, than they did for any other thing; or, because their patience was for degree more than their impatience; but, that there was a peculiar respect to the Lords Name both in their labour in patience.
If it be asked, What this is, which beside the moral rectitude of the act, must concur for the making of it to be accounted gracious?
It may be answered in these four. First, There is a different spiritual principle in the person acting, which must actually have influence upon the act, and from which the act, as gracious, proceedeth. This in Scripture is called the Spirit, Inner-man, New-creature, &c. and is different in its acting from the Old-man and Flesh; yea, and from the faculties of the soul, considered meerly as natural: for, if we consider an act, suppose of love, submission under sufferings or such like; it is the natural act of the soul as formally elicited by it: but if we consider them as gracious acts, they do proceed from the Spirit influencing them (to say so) with a suitablenesse to it self, by the co-operation of the Grace of God. Secondly, There is a difference in respect of the end; there is a gracious and spirituall end proposed in performing of such a lawfull thing: this is implied here in this, that they had the glory of the Name of Jesus before them in their suffering and patience, as seeking to pursue that, and not to gain credit to themselves. Thirdly, There concurreth to qualifie a gracious action, a spiritual motive inclining the spirituall principle to follow this end, which can never be separated from the former, and here is clear in the two instances that are in the Text; where, as respect to Christs Name, is the end, so, love to Christ, & zeal to His Glory moveth them, & swayeth them to pursue this end, by such means, as Labouring, Patience, hating of the Nicolaitans, &c. and thus to have patience for Christs Names sake, is out of respect to Christs Glory, to be swayed thereunto. Fourthly, there is a difference in respect of the formality of the act, when not only the thing that is good is yeelded unto, upon a good motive; but as such, it’s yeelded unto or acted, that is, when the object, as so considered, is acted upon: & so not only is one swayed to patience in suffering from respect to Christs Name; but upon this formall consideration, they yeeld themselves to it, and do it as such. So that still there is a reduplication in the act, suitable to the end & motive proposed: and as the person in the act hath another principle to act by, another end proposed to himself, &. another motive perswading him to it; so hath he a different uptaking of the act or object in the act, not only as considered in it self as good; but as considered in reference to such an end, and as such he acts on it. As for instance, it is laudable & commendable to give to one that is in misery, and more laudable to love one that is gracious, and to supply his wants; yet both these are not sufficient to make the act to be accounted gracious, even though the love to them should be most intense, and the beneficence large; but there must be a concurrence of these four formerly mentioned, to wit, 1. An inward gracious principle acting: otherwise, one may be renewed, and carry love to another that is gracious; and yet if it proceed not from this principle, it is not to be accounted sincere gracious love. 2. There must be a spirituall single end in their loving of them, and giving to them, to wit, the honouring of Christ in them, and their good. 3. A spirituall motive, to wit, the considering of them not only as in strait, or as lovely in themselves: but as gracious and beloved of Jesus Christ, whose command calls for love to them. And lastly, this is done to them as such, when the heart in it’s affection, closeth with them upon this account, that they are beloved of Christ, and, as being themselves called of God to that durie. Thus, Mat. 10. To give to a disciple, is one thing; but to give to him in the name of a Disciple, is another, that is, to give him upon that account that he is such; or, as it is, Mark. 9:41. Because they belong to Christ: the former may be often in many naturall men, and hath no such promise; this cannot be in any but a Believer, who only may expect the promised reward. This as, is to be understood, as 1 Cor. 8:7 where some men not only did eat that which was sacrificed; but as such a thing, and under that formall consideration, that is, with some conscience of the Idol, as the words before carry it; and this as maketh it quite another thing. So is it to be understood here, when we say the object is to be considered as such. And in this reduplication, we conceive, that a main peace of singlenesse and sincerity doth lye, when not only we do what is commanded, or suffer for what is truth; but when we do it as a thing commanded, and suffer for it as for His names sake: and in some respect, it may take-in the two former last differences; and so if any shall make the number fewer, we shall not debate, providing that under any name these be taken-in.
Hence, thirdly, We gather also, That what ever act is so qualified (as in the former is expressed) it is a sincere gracious act in whatsoever degree it be, so that it be an act of Patience, Love, Hatred, &c. proceeding from an inward renewed principle, tending to a spirituall end, swayed by a supernaturall motive; and upon that account acting, it cannot be but accounted an act of sincere Patience, Love, Hatred, &c. although as to the degree of it, it be but like the grain of mustard seed. For although the acts themselves, even toward such objects, may be distinguished from gracious acts; yet they cannot be conceived to be so and so qualified in any degree, but hoc ipso they must be conceived to be gracious: because in so far they are agreeable to the Law, and that not only in the matter, but in the manner of them. And this agreeablnesse to the Law, being a proof that one is sanctified, without which no such act could be performed, it may be also an evidence of Justification, although it be not considered as a condition thereof, which is accepted by the Covenant of Grace. And although these acts be imperfect in respect of degree; yet they cannot be denied to be sincere, or perfect, in respect of their kind. Every act of the new nature in whatsoever degree being like it self, and conform to the principle from which it proceedeth; even as on the contrary, the least motion of the old man is sinfull according to the root from which it flowes: for, these two cannot be separated, which the Lord hath put together; a good tree must have good fruit, and cannot bring forth evil fruit, Mat. 7:17, 18. &c. Now, acts in the least degree so qualified, as before is said, are in so far, at least, fruits of a good tree; yea, of a gracious principle within; and therefore they cannot but be such also. And if it were not thus, that this Angel had patience for Christs Names sake, it could be no ground of commendation for differencing his patience, from the patience of hypocrites, if it did not sufficiently prove his carriage to be sincere. And hence,
Fourthly, Ariseth also this, that no naturall man or hypocrite, though coming the greatest length in the state of hypocriste, can in the least degree perform an act so and so qualified, as is before said, more than they can act from a principle which they have not: for, if they might in any measure have patience for Christs Names sake, in respect of the end, motive, and account upon which the heart yeeldeth to suffering, it could be no ground of a peculiar commendation to this Angel, which is yet contrary to the scope. And it the former be true, that every act so and so qualified, is a sincere act, this must necessarily then follow thereupon. And so more particularly we say, that no hypocrite can thus formally do anything that is good, as, to give instances, 1. In the duty of love to God; an hypocrite cannot love God a God, and to suffer for Christs Names sake, as is formerly expressed. Because, 1. That is given here as the evidence of this Angel’s gracious practice, that it was so qualified; and the promises that are annexed to this of suffering for his Names sake (whereat formerly we hinted) do confirm it. 2. This being true of all naturall men, that they are realy haters of God; and it being true also, that naturall men and hypocrites may go a great length in loving God, & in expressing the evidences thereof in some respect; It must either be said then, that they hate God in respect of the materiality of their actions, or in respect of the want of the qualifications formerly mentioned, that is, because they love not him, and what he loves as such, and upon such an account: now, it cannot be said that they love not God in the for merrespect; Nay, not only in respect of their being defective alanerly in the degree or intensnesse of the act, as may be shewed afterward. It must be true therefore in the last respect. And so it will follow, that no man in nature can be said to love God, or perform any act in things materially good, according as it is formerly qualified. 3. This may be added, that if respect to good, could sway the naturall man so as to make him act according to the former qualifications in any one act, then might he perform all other acts upon that same account also: for, à quatenus ad omne, valet consequentia. Now, if it be absurd to say, that one can be a hypocrite, and yet in all his performances and actions be so swayed (which is the clear evidence of a sincere Professor which needeth not to be ashamed, Psal. 119:6.) Then it must also be absurd to say, that a hypocrite may perform any commanded thing upon that account as such, and is formerly qualified. 4. The doing of acts so qualified, doth necessarily presuppose a gracious principal, or habituall change in the person that acts it: for, it being a fruit, (in so far as it is so qualified) that is good and agreeable to the Law of God in the spirituall meaning thereof, it must be supposed to proceed from a tree that is good, seing grapes are not gathered from Brambles, &c. It cannot therefore be consistent with the state of hypocrisie, for one to perform acts so qualified, who in practice is still a stranger to the spirituall meaning of the Law in the kind of the act. 2. It may be instanced in hatred: for, though one in nature or an hypocrite may hate that which is sin; yet from this we may gather that he cannot hate it as sin, and it is hatefull to God: Because, 1. This hating of the Nicolaitans deeds, is given here as a proof of this Angels sincerity: and if it were a thing common, there could be no such peculiarnesse in it and there can be no peculiarnesse here, but that they hated them upon that account as hatefull to God, and out of zeal to him they did it: otherwise, no question, heathens and naturall men might have hatred at them in greater vehemency for the degree thereof, than these who are commended. The difference then must be in the qualifications, as is said. 2. The reasons for the former instance will confirm this also: for if one might hate sin as sin, and as hatefull to God, then might he hate all sin, and what is hatefull to God, according to the axiome formerly laid down, à quatenus adomne, &c. and so he might here his loxing of anything more than God, and his being defective in the degree and manner of any dutie: and consequently, he could not be said to love anything more than God, seing no man can actually love a thing, and, upon that same account and consideration, hate that act of their love, at the same very time, in the same very degree: It must then follow, that what hatred they bear to sin, is for some other ends, and not upon this account. Again, if one might hate sin as sin, one might love grace as grace, it being equally approvable by God to hate sin as sin, and to love good as good. Now, this being disproved in the former instance, must also fall in this. Lastly, The hating of sin as sin, must suppose a different principle, whence that act doth proceed, beside what is in it self sinfull: for, it cannot be conceived that a sinfull principle, as such, can hate it self: and in Scripture, lusting against the flesh, or fighting against the law in our members, which must be a warring against sin as sin, and as proceeding from such a root as the flesh or the old man, is ever attributed to the Spirit, Gal. 5:17, or the inner man, and law of the mind, Rom. 7, which doth necessarily inferr a change of the root in these who do hate sin as sin: and therefore this can be within the compasse of no hypocrite. Neither will it infringe this, that by experience we find drunkards, swearers, and other unrenewed persons, hating not only these acts in themselves; but even in their children; or, that we may find it to have been in ourselves before regeneration: This indeed will prove that a naturall man, may hate that which is sin; but will not prove that he hates it as sin, but as that which is hurtfull or shamefull to him, or proves disquieting to the peace of his naturall conscience, as from the same experience may be gathered; for, these sins in others will never affect them: and there will still be many delightsome sins continued in, which, it may be, they will know to be sins, and yet carry no such hatred to them. And though naturall men in their judgement may be convinced that sin as sin is hatefull, and evil in it self; yet it will not follow that they will actually hate it as such upon that consideration: because there is no particular sin, that from the Word may be gathered to be sin, but a naturall mans judgement may be convinced, that as such it is evil; and yet oftentimes do they continue drunk with the love of many of them: because men do not consider and hate ill simply as ill, but as evil to them; even as they desire not that which is good simply, but that which they conceive good to them; and experience daily will make this appear, that the heart loveth not, or hateth not things as they appear simply in themselves, but as it conceives them to be in reference to its present condition. Now, considering sin as sin simply, without reference to any other thing, there is nothing upon that account can be conceived in it that can be hatefull to a natural man, who is dead in his sinfull condition. It must be therefore for some other respect that he hates any particulare ill, as these whom God afterward renews will find in their own experience.
Fifthly, This also will follow, that then there is a difference between the acts of saving Grace and the acts of common Grace, beside any consideration of the degree thereof: so that this difference may well be said to be in kind, or, ispo genere. We need not be curious in the tearms of Physical, or moral differences, this must be a Physical and real difference, as Grace is a Physical and real thing, and doth not only differ from common gifts in respect of the Covenants accepting of such a degree, and not of another; but also in respect of concuring qualifications formerly mentioned: for, an act performed with these qualifications, must either be of the same kind that an act is without them, or it must differ from it because of these qualifications. And if it differ because of these, then is that difference real, flowing from the kind of the act, and not from the consideration of the degree alone: and so not graduall only.
Lastly, It will follow, that one in the search and trial of the sincerity and savingnesse of his Grace, is not only to consider it in the degree thereof, either positive or comparative; but may also look to the nature and kind thereof, and cannot conclude the sincerity of it, except they consider the qualifications formerly mentioned: for, that must be the only sure way to find out the sincerity of an act, which our Lord Jesus proposeth as the ground of the commendation thereof: but here we see that the grounds upon which He commends both their patience for Him, their respect to Him, and their hating of what was evil, is, not (only at least) because of any degree, that is considered in these acts; but because of their kind, or qualifications wherewith they are qualified, as it is not patience (that is, patience as it is a Grace) because it suffers so much, or suffers more for Truth, than for any other cause, considered upon the matter; but because their suffering in a good cause was so qualified, as is said: We will see this same to be clear in all other instances, as, it is true saving Repentance, not that which hath the deepest sorrow positively, nor that which hath more sorrow for sin comparatively than pleasure in it, but it is according as the principle & motive are, from which the sorrow proceeds, and by, and according to which it acts: otherwayes, no question, Judas his sorrow might have been said to have been true Repentance: which was certainly not only an intense grief; but also comparatively, it affected him more than any worldly love could affect him, or any pleasure or advantage, which by his sin a creased to him, as the story of the Gospel doth clear. The like may be said of fear, There is no positive or comparative degree can prove it to be saving, this being certain, that for degree some natural men may fear and tremble, and that with anxietie, so as the Lord may be more feared in this manner by them than any other thing else: trial then must especially be, by considering the principle whereby the person is acted in this fear, the motive that swayes him to it, and the account upon which he acteth on God in it, whereby filial fear is differenced from servil: and this can be by no consideration of the degree, however considered; but must be in, respect of the qualifications of the act.
If it should be said, That it’s single respect to God swaying one to sorrow for sin or fear more than any other motive doth; & so in that respect, it may be said to consist in the degree.
Answ. 1. This supposeth the concurring of positive qualifications. 2. It supposeth the concurring of the same qualifications mentioned. 3. This placeth not the difference in the intensnesse of the act only, but in the qualifications that have influence on it; and so it doth confirm what we said, to wit, that more respect is to be had to the nature of the act, and the qualification thereof in our trial, than to the degree thereof.
Here it is to be adverted, 1. That in all this discourse of the positive qualifications of sincerity, they are still to be considered with respect to Christ and the Covenant of Grace, so that singlenesse in the end, taketh in the glorifying and worshipping of God in Christ, and in the motive, the consideration of Gods worth and love, as considered in Him, comes in (as the words, out of the apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, put in the definition of Repentance, do import) and in the reduplication, it acts on Him considered as such, that is, it loves God, fears him, and believs in Him as considered in Christ: and this hath an universal approbation of the way of the dispensation of Grace, and that as proceeding from a principle of life communicate to them by Christ Jesus: whereby they become not only obliged to God for it; but obliged to Him in Christ Jesus. And thus we may see, that this single respect to God and His own goodnesse for Himself, doth not shut out, simply all respect to our own good: for, the considering of Him in Christ, cannot but include that; but it derives all our good from that Fountain, and by that Channel Christ; and subordinateth all the thoughts thereof to the praise of Gods Grace in Him. And this is to be remembered throughout: because this doth fully difference true Gospel sincerity from the moral flashes of love, fear, faith, &c. which by some legal work, may proceed from natural men, who yet can never act anything for kind the same with these qualifications: because the considering of God, and acting on Him so by love, fear, faith, &c. is really to call Him and count Him Father in whatsoever degree they be, which hath the promise of acceptation, and is a fruit of the Spirit of Adoption: for, Gods Covenant runs not to him who believes at such a degree; but simply, to him that doth believe, thus qualified, whether his faith or unbelief be more or lesse: and so the marks fun not, these that have Grace or fruits at such a bignesse only; but these that have good fruits in any measure, have them from Christ; and may conclude that the tree is good: and therefore cannot but be accounted living branches, that will never be broken off: which of no hypocrite can be said, who do never bring forth their fruits in Him. And it is hard to say, that fruit brought forth by vertue and communication of life from Christ, doth not differ, but in degree from fruit brought forth from, and to our selves. Especially considering, that the Scripture doth contradistinguish them on that account, without this respect to their degree, as we may gather from Hos. 14:8 being compared with Joh. 15. v. 2, 4, 5.
Learned Baxter, in his excellent Treatise of the Saints everlasting rest, part. 3. doth otherwise expresse the Doctrine of the difference and trial of saving and common Grace, than what hath been usually rested in among practicall Divines, which doth necessitate us someway to insist a litle further in the clearing thereof. He hath these Assertions, 1. That it is not the Law but the Covenant, that can clear the sincerity of Grace as saving, to wit, as it is accepted by the Covenant as the fulfilling of the condition thereof, pag. 205 and 206. 2. He saith that God hath not in the Covenant promised Justification upon any meer act, or acts considered without their degree and suitablenesse to their object, &c pag. 210. 3. There is no act, considered in its meer nature and kind, which a true Christian may perform, but one that is unfound may perform it also, pag. 211. From which he draweth, That wicked men may really rely on Christ, have recumbencie on him, love God, &c. pag. 211 and 231 and that they may hate sin as sin, and as displeasing to God, Ibid. 4. He asserts, That the sincerity of saving Grace as saving, lieth materially, not in the bare nature thereof but in the degree; not in the degree considered absolutely in it self, but comparatively as it is prevalent against its contrary, that is, when love adhereth more to God than any other thing, and such like, pag. 222 which he endeavoureth to show both in the infused habits, and in the acts of saving Grace: and pag. 35 doth assert. That in loving God and Christ as Mediator, there is no more than a graduall difference between the regenerate and unregenerate: and in the end, he doth load the common opinion with many dangerous consequents.
These assertions do seem, at the first, to be expresly contradictory to what hath been said; yet if we will consider the explication thereof, we will not find so great difference in the matter it self as to be the rise of a new debate and controversie in the Church, wherein there are, alace! too many already; nor any just cause to reject the former received opinion for any prejudice that follows upon it: to which two we shall speak a little.
We conceive that the difference will not be found so great as the expressions at first seem to carry, and were it not that this opinion of his, is expresly laid down in opposition to what is commonly received, there might be not so great ground to suspect it: For 1. the infusing of habits as necessary and antecedaneous to gracious acts, is acknowledged by both: and expresly, part. 1. pag. 158 and 159 he doth condemn the contrary in Grevinchovius, at least as an error. And, part. 3. pag. 224 he hath somwhat to the same purpose. 2. It is not questioned whether true acts of saving Grace have a rational and deliberate prevalencie over the opposite lusts, as he asserts, part. 3. pag. 212, 213 that will be also granted by all Divines, that though where true Grace is, it may be captivated and not alwayes actually prevail against the opposite suggestions of the flesh; yet in a sober and deliberate frame, the interest of God and spiritual things will have more room in the heart of one that is renewed (as he is such at least) than sinful lusts unto which the flesh doth intice.
It is granted also, that beside the act there is necessary for the constituting of it to be saving, a sutablenesse and adequatnesse to the object, which we will find in the explication thereof to be almost the same with the positive qualifications, which formerly we did lay down, as pag. 211 and 212 he doth thus expresse it, The sincerity of the act, as saving, consisteth in its being suted to its adequat object) considered in its respects which are essential to it as such an object) and so to believe in and love God as God, and Christ as Christ, is the sincerity of these acts, but this lieth in believing, accepting and loving God, as the only supream God, &c. where expresly the act is considered as acting upon its object under the reduplication formerly mentioned, and seems to be by him accounted the same with accepting and loving God above all. And again, pag. 229 to will God and Christ above all (faith he) this is to will savingly, which he explains thus, to will God as God, the chief good, and Christ as Christ the only Saviour: and pag. 230 he saith, that a man may will God and Christ, who by the understanding are apprehended as the chief good (as the devils do) and yet by not willing Him as so considered, that willing is not saving, and wherefore? It must be because it wants that reduplication: which reduplication in the terme as, must be indeed extended to the will, as well as to the understanding, as he there asserts; but is not to be restricted to the degree of its act, to speak so, but is to be extended also to the nature of it. Further, we will find the same learned Author elsewhere (to wit, in the Appendix to his Aphorisms, m. lib pag. 242 in answer to the 4 objection) giving the difference between sincere Covenanting with God and that which is not sincere, where he doth lay down six concurring qualifications, and so concludes thus; Ye see that there is a great difference between covenanting sincerely and covenanting in hypocrisie, and so between faith and faith, and yet the difference will be found no other thing but what almost is usually asserted by Divines in the like case.
We will find him also come near in expressions, as pag. 226 a specifick difference is acknowledged: and although he call it a moral specifick difference; yet doth he expresse the same, thus, that it proceedeth from the agreement and conformitie of our actions and dispositions to the Law (which determineth of their duenesse) or their disconformitie thereunto: again, pag. 229 he instances love and delight, &c. as these things wherein sincerity may be tried, (for certainly delighting in God, is a Grace and a commanded duty, as loving of Him is) compare it with pag. 213 and 214 he doth assert that hypocrites may have delight in the same objects (to wit, the knowledg of God and His Works) which are objects also of the delight of the Regenerate; but (saith he) “In the sinner, these delights are nearest of the same nature with the former sensual delights: for it is not the excellencie or goodnesse of God Himself that delighteth them; but the novelty of the thing, &c. as receiving thereby some addition to its own perfection, and not as from God, &c. and though they delight in studying and knowing God, and Heaven, and Scripture; yet not in God as God or the chief good, nor out of any saving love to God (this contradistinguishing of saving love, from knowing of God as God, and from hypocritical love, doth seem to place the difference in some other thing than the degree alone) but either because (as some Preachers) they make a gainfull trade of it by teaching, others; or, because it is an honour to know these things, or be able to discourse of them, or at best (nota, if these be their best motives, or the highest account upon which they delight, Then they cannot delight in God as God, which sincere Believers do; nor can they do an act for kind the same: and sith there must be a difference between their delight, and the delight that is gracious in respect of the kind, because they go on different accounts, so must it be in other Graces) as I said before, they delight to know God out of a delight in the novelty, &c. and natural elevation of the understanding thereby; it is one thing to delight in knowing, another in the thing known, And afterward neer the foot of that page, saith, So it is the same kind of delight that such a man (to wit a hypocrite) hath in knowing God and knowing other things: whereby it is clearly insinuated, that it is another kind of delight, which the Believer hath in delighting in God, than any unrenewed man can have, seing it’s an other kind of delight thin he hath in any other thing. And wherein this kind of difference consisteth we may gather from what is said. 1. There is supposed to be a different principle, to wit, an infused gracious habite, which must precede this act. 2. There is a different end, the one seeketh to please his own curiosity, the other respecteth God and his own spiritual good. There is, 3. a different motive; the one delighteth in it, because it is profitable, or honourable, or pleasing to himself to know such things; the other delighteth in God Himself, as acted therein from the excellency that is in himself, and the love that he hath to himself, and the spirituall satisfaction that he hath in it. 4. There is a reduplication in the act, they not only delight in God, but in him as God, moved thereto out of true love to God, which (faith he) the naturall man doth not. Now, these four being granted by the said Reverend Author, and being the very same thing upon the matter with that which formerly we asserted, we may see that beside any consideration of the degree, there must be a concurrance of these qualifications, wherein ordinarily the difference in kind, betwixt saving grace and common, is placed; and the thing that they call the physicall and reall difference being acknowledged by him, as by others; it is not of great moment to debate for the termes of physicall or morall. Seeing then, upon the one side, the supremacy of Gods interest in the act is not denied, and that in respect to its eminent degree, if it be well understood; and upon the other the concurrance of these qualifications is acknowledged, the difference cannot be great: for understanding of this difference (which must be lesse than appeared at first) we would consider these two, 1. That when the degree of grace is spoken of, it may be considered either more strictly, as contradistinguished from the former qualifications, which in this respect are said to be the kind of the act; or, it may be considered more largely, as it comprehendeth the principle, motive, end, &c. and so it taketh in the former qualifications. It seemeth that this learned Author, when he speaketh of the degree, doth take it in this large sense; whereas usually it is taken in the first and strict sense, and this maketh the difference appear greater than it is: and if this distinction might reconcile these mistakes, it were desireable. 2. The supremacy, or precedency and prevalency of the interest of God in us above the interest of flesh (in which alone that reverend Author doth place the sincerity of saving Grace, pag. 211. prop. 10) may be considered in respect of the degree of the act it self, being compared with the objects whereupon it acts; and so comparatively, that act may be said to be prevalent, suppose of love, fear, sorrow, &c. that loves and fears God more than any other thing, and hath more sorrow for sin than delight in it, &c. or we may consider this supremacy and prevalency of Gods interest in respect of the qualifications of the act, that is, of the end, motive, &c. and thus the interest of God may be said to be prevalent, when it is respect to God Himself, and the souls esteeming of Him as He is God, that maketh it love Him and fear Him, and sorrow for dishonouring of Him, so that it’s His interest, more than any other end or motive that hath influence on these acts: in this latter sense, there is also no difference from what was formerly said; and if that proposition could be so understood, there might be an accommodation: but the instances and explications added by the fornamed Author, seem to limit this prevalency of Gods interest to the act it self, as being only compared with other objects, or as acting on God, or what is approven by Him prevalently, beyond what it doth on other opposite objects. In a word, this, when the good that is in God is considered on the one hand, and the good that is in creatures on the other hand, if the soul choose God and love Him beyond any created good, That is accounted by him to be saving sincere love, and the sincerity thereof to consist in this degree alone. From this the ordinary Doctrine differeth especially in these, 1. That usually Divines consider the prevalency of Gods interest to be especially in the motive swaying to the act, and other qualifications, and the act to be sincere, suppose of love, fear, sorrow, &c. not only because it loves or fears God more than any other object; but because, single respect to God and spiritual good, maketh it love Him, fear Him, sorrow for the offending of Him, in what ever degree the act it self be. In the former respect, supposing that an act could be prevalent, to wit, in loving or fearing God more than any other thing, such acts behoved to be accounted sincere and saving without any respect to the motive, or other qualifications of them: and it supposeth that an act may have these qualifications and not be gracious: in the last respect, acts so qualified (supposing that there may be such prevailed over by the violence of other objects) yet are to be accounted gracious, because so and so qualified, without respect to the degree of the present act; and so, that no act of an hypocrite can be so qualified. 2. The difference is in this, that this reverend Author doth only constitute the difference in that comparative prevalent degree alone: and therefore expresly asserteth, pag. 235 that there is no more but a graduall difference betwixt the grace that is in an regenerate man and the love that he hath to God, and the common grace and love that may be in one unregenerate: which would seem to say, that the one may love God on the same consideration and account, and from the same motives that the other may, especially considering that he doth extend this meer graduall difference, both to the habits and acts: and so the question here cometh to this, if there be any other difference than a graduall difference to be inquired for? And this is that which we assert, that there is beside any gradual difference, a difference in kind (that is, in respect of the former qualifications) betwixt saving and common grace, and that in our search the one is to be inquired for with the other; so that no degree simply can quiet the mind, except it be so qualified as aforesaid. And we conceive that the instances, reasons, similitudes, and Scriptures that are adduced by that reverend Author to illustrate and confirm his opinion, will do no more but this, to wit, shew that when a gracious person is acting rationally, Gods interest will be prevalent with him in degree; and that ever it should be so, and that it is most usefull for a Believers clearnesse that it be so in an high degree. All which are without question: but they will no wayes exclude the qualifications mentioned; but rather do presuppose them, as for example, pag. 231. 32 he faith, That sincere sorrow must be at such a degree that it prevail over our delight in sin and love to it, else it cannot be saving: although this be true, yet, can any say that this is enough, except the principle, motive, &c. from which it proceedeth, and by which it’s qualified be considered, as was formerly hinted? Again, pag. 234 he faith, True love to the brethren consisteth in this degree, that it love them above our honour, wealth, &c. And (faith he,) What did the love of some in Queen Maries dayes want but a more intense degree to make it prevail over love to their houses, to their honour; safety &c. that it might be sincere? Beside this intense degree, there might be wanting a right principle, for bringing forth of love, and a right account upon which to love them, without which the hazarding of lives & estates both for them, had never been accounted sincere love before God; and with which, the giving unto them a cup of cold water as in the name of a Disciple, Mat. 10 would have been acceptable. And no question, many who through fear, and self love, did keep down the stirrings of sincere love within them, so that it prevailed not to make them publickly own these Sufferers as they should have done: yet might still carry sincere love in their hearts to them, although sinfully they obscured it: which will indeed prove them to be guilty, and their love to be imperfect; but will not prove it altogether to be hypocriticall and unsound in the kind thereof: and therefore seing without these qualifications, no degree can be sufficient to prove the sincerity of an act: and where these are, the act in whatsoever degree cannot but be accounted sincere; it must rather be these that constitute the sincerity of the act, than any degree considered as distinct from them. That assertion therefore, which is, pag. 238. That a hypocrite may love a Godly man for his Godlinesse, or as Christian for Christs sake, seemeth to be unwarrantable, and utterly to make void that mark of the Grace of God, which consisteth in true love to the brethren: for, nothing can be conceived in the comparative degree without the kind, but may be in hypocrites: and often these that are sincere will be for a time so captivated with self-love, that they will not evidence their love to others; but see for themselves, as the Disciples did, when Christ was betraied: yet it cannot be denied but that then they loved him sincerily; and that not in word only, but in deed also. And although it was exceedingly defective; yet unfound it cannot be called: and so may be said of love to others. And considering, that where nature hath dominion, there is still enimity at the seed of God as such, how can it be that it a natural man can love, and hate the same person, upon the same account, at one time? It cannot be denied, but natural men may intirely love these that are gracious; and that also their supposing them to be beloved of God, may have some weight with them: yet is not that respect had to them upon this account as they are beloved of God, or like to Him; but at the most, as thereby they may gain Gods love, or have some benefit by their loving of them, or the preventing of some evil, or the confirming of themselves in their security and self-conceated opinion from this, that they love such an one, &c. And it appears further in this, that they love not all who are Godly, and hate not, & shun not, all that are opposite to Godlinesse; and so do not love God and Godlinesse it self singly as such: because then their own inclination and secret delights, would be hateful to themselves. And yet certainly, all this would be, if Godly men were loved, upon this account, because they are such. Again, pag. 226 he illustrateth it by this comparison of eating much and little, to shew that the moral good of an action consisteth in the degree thereof. Now, none will say, that simple shunning of extreams of eating and drinking too much or too little, will constitute an act to be sincerely gracious, and acceptable to God, except it be considered as qualified with its motive and end, to wit, Gods Glory, &c. And elsewhere, gold (saith he) is to be tried by weight, as by the touch stone: now this is true that the quantity of gold is to be tried to, (but gold simply is not only to be tryed by the weight; and then also Grace is not only to be tried by the degree) yet certainly the reality and truth of it, is to be tried by the touchstone, and it is here the sincerity and truth of Grace that we are inquiring for; and, faith he, Ibid it is not the Wrestling, but the overcoming, that the promise is made to, which is true in respect of the promises of full fruition: for, these do presuppose a full and total victorie; but can it be said that no wrestler may be said to have true Grace, or may conclude that he hath it, till he have in this sense fully overcome? That would directly thwart the Authors scope, which is to presse the making of our election and calling sure, and by this debate to help therein: for, upon this ground, none in this life could attain assurance, because this victory that is mentioned in these Scriptures, Rev. 2:3. &c. He that overcomes, &c. is the result of all: that therefore which he asserts, pag. 243 cannot be granted, to wit, that fighting is the same action naturally in both, to wit, in these who overcome, and these who are overcome, 1 Joh. 4:5 with 2 Pet. 2:19, 20. For both fight but the valiant strong, and constant do conquer, when the feeble faint, and cowardly and impatiently by do turn their backs and are overcome. It may be observed, that though fighting be the same (possibly Physically understood) yet it’s one thing to fight valiantly, and stoutly, another to do it cowardly and faintingly, or to fight for respect to their Captain, or for love of wages, &c. and so there is a great difference morally between righting and fighting, and also in respect of the positive qualifications thereof: and thus the difference is admitted here. Beside, that word νικῶντι in the present, sheweth that the Lord doth reckon a difference before this victory be obtained. And (saith he) the Kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence; and violence is no distinct action but a different degree of action. There things (I say) may serve clearly to illt strate what we asserted: for here, fighting is contradistinguished from the victory that followeth it. Now can it be said, that there is no true Grace in the person that fights, or in fighting that he may overcome? And if there be, than the sincerity and truth of Grace consisteth is not in this actual overcoming only: nor can it be said, that the renewed fighter wrestleth in the same manner, or that his fighting is in the same kind, considering that he fighteth by his faith, 1 Joh. 5:4 that he mortifieth the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit, Rom. 8:13 that he putteth on the whole armour of God, Ephes. 6 &c. And seing an unrenewed man, neither hath such weapons or spiritual armour, nor hath a life or dexterity to use them, nor such arguments inducing him to the fight, or such an end before him, or such a principle as is capable, so to be wrought upon, &c. can it be said that his fighting is the same with the former? And that other expression of offering violence to the Kingdom of God, is but a borrowed expression; and therefore ought not so to be made use of here, as if there were stronger and weaker assaults made at Heaven indeed; and as it there needed no more to the weak assault, but a further degree only, when, at least, there must be new conveighed skill and strength, and a new way must be followed for attaining it. For, the scope of that place, is, to shew the necessity of taking hold of Christ by Faith, notwithstanding of what ever impediments and discouragements would scare one in the way: and so it proves, that the Faith of a Believer, is far different from the Faith of a Hypocrite; because the one steps over difficulties upon the consideration of Gods faithfulness, and by taking hold of Jesus Christ doth prevail in the conquering of Heaven, as it by violence and might they did carry it, whereas others, who never took hold on Him, or by their Faith improved His offices, for the upmaking of their own needs, have no ground of expectation to be admitted to Heaven; and nothing they can do, can be of force to do violence to the Kingdom of God without this. And so in this respect the fighter prevaileth and overcometh, and gaineth Heaven: because, as the Apostle saith, he striveth lawfully, 2 Tim. 2:5 and because he fighteth in the right manner; and his fighting is not, not to be accounted sincere, till he overcome; but he overcometh, because it is sincere; and so it’s sincere before that. Beside, the native exposition of that place looketh to a violence peculiarly called for in that time: for, since the dayes of John Baptist, saith the Text, which will concern this nothing, For indeed then, there was a great difficulty to get the Messiah closed with as already incarnate, and to lay by all Types, as now having their accomplishment. By all which, we think it is more agreeable to Truth; to continue the received Doctrine of inquiring for the Truth and sincerity of Grace in the kind thereof, and not in the degree only. For further confirming whereof, (beside what is said) we shall first shew that there is a real difference between the habites of saving Grace in the Regenerate, and the common dispositions that may be in hypocrites. 2. We shall shew that there is such a difference also in the acts of saving Grace, in respect or these former qualifications, beside the consideration of the prevalency of the degree, and the acts that may be in hypocrities. And, 3. That this new opinion, hath no more advantage with it, than the former; but that it hath the same inconveniences, (if they be inconveniencies) which are alleged against the former, waiting upon it and others also besides these.
That the infused habits of Grace which are called the new nature, seed of God, the unction, and spirit, &c. do differ from the habits and dispositions that are in unrenewed men and hypocrites, and that by a real and Physical difference even in kind, may thus be made out, 1. If the Flesh and Spirit, &c. be different in kind having different originals, and different effects, &c. Then Grace, thus considered in a renewed person, must be different in kind from what is, or can be in any hypocrite: because the one is Spirit, the other is still Elesh: and there is no mids between a natural and a renewed man, and what proceedeth from them as such: for what is born of the one, is Spirit; and what is born of the other, at what ever length it be, it’s Flesh: But the former is true; Flesh and Spirit are most opposite in all the former respects: this, to wit, the Spirit, is an immediate effect of a Physical opperation of the Grace of God working a change upon the heart; and so must have some suitable Physical thing in the nature of it, different from anything which is not preduced by the same cause, or by the same manner of causality; such as common dispositions are and in effects, there is contrariety, the one lusteth against the other, for the one is contrary to the other, Gal. 5:17 and therefore there must be some real, Physical difference between these, whose causes and effects are so different. 2. If they do not differ in kind, then it is either because they are both fruits of the Spirit, and that equally, or, because neither of them is so, or, because that which is of the Spirit savingly, doth not differ from that which is not saving. Now, none of these can be affirmed. Concerning the last, this only can be said for answer, that although nature and saving Grace may differ so, yet common Grace cannot be said to make such a difference, it being also a fruit of the Spirit. And to this we reply, If these common gifts can be consistent with a dominion of sin, and compleat deadnesse therein, and saving Grace cannot be consistent with these, Then there must be a real difference, seing saving Grace not only importeth a relative change of a man, to wit, that he is justified, but also a real and Physical change, to wit, that he is a new, or renewed creature, which by no common Gifts or Graces can be: But the former is true. And therefore again, 3. If saving Grace be somewhat Physical. (to speak so) and constituteth a Physical difference between a man that hath it and others: yea, between a man and that which formerly he himself was; and, if common Grace cannot do that, but the man that hath it and no more, is the old man still, and in nature; Then there must be a Physical difference between them: But the former is true. Ergo. For this is ever certain, a man is either renewed or unrenewed and in nature, there is no mids: Now if there be any difference that is Physical between these two (which must be, as there is between a good tree and an evil, a new creature and an old, and not as between a little creature, and one that is mote big: for, new and old respect the kind) Then habituall Grace must differ from all other common works Physically; because it is that which constituteth this difference Adde. 4. These common dispositions may evanish or never be so through, but the person which hath had them may perish: which cannot be said of saving Grace called the Seed of God, immortal, and incorruptible, that remaineth in them that once had it. &c. especially, considering that it is called immortal, in respect of the nature of it; and that, that continuance is one of the properties thereof. For although nothing of it self be eternal, and immortal but God; yet it cannot be denied but what the Lord mindeth to make immortal, He doth otherwise fit and qualifie it for that end than other things, as we see in the difference that is between Angels and other creatures, and the souls and bodies of men, and of that glorious conformity that shall be put on the glorified Members of Christ unto their head. And though (as he saith) that all, both Philosophers and Divines do say more; yet this is enough: which also the forementioned Author acknowledgeth in the Appendix to his Aphorisms, pag. 240. And saving Grace being of the same nature with Glory, it were hard to say, that a man in nature, did for kind partake of the Divine nature, and of the first fruits of the Spirit and Glory, who, yet may be tormented in hell for ever. Lastly, The multiplying of these common gifts, could never alter the tree and make it good; so as if it were possible that they might grow to the greatest hight and bignesse, they would be still but common gifts, seing they grow from that root: therefore the tree must first be good, ere the fruit be good. Now common gifts never being able to alter the tree, as is said, there must therefore be a difference between them and saving Grace in some other thing than in the degree. And indeed if these dispositions be of the same kind with gracious habits, then the root of common and saving Grace would be one; which the Scripture doth still difference: and in this respect the habit hath not its sincerity from the acts, as if it were gracious, because the acts thereof are thus comparatively prevalent; but the acts, are gracious and prevalent, and cannot but be so, because they proceed from such an habit; and the habit is first gracious, before the acts thereof be sincere: and therefore there must be a real and Physical difference in the habit it self from common dispositions, as it is considered (at least) in order of nature, before the acts: and so, the difference doth not only lye in the acts themselves. Neither can it be said here that habits and dispositions do not differ in kind: therefore that difference is not to be sought here: for, beside that this Assertion will find opposition among Philosophers, it can no wayes be acknowledged here, where the habit is not natural, nor acquired. And certainly the names and titles, whereby the Scripture doth set forth this habitual Grace, (as the New-nature, Spirit, New-man, New creature, Gods Workmanship, His Seed, the Heart of Flesh, &c. whereby it is not only contradistinguished in its kind from nature and flesh, taken in their most grosse acception; but from all common gifts of the Spirit also) do hold forth a real difference to be between them.
Concerning gracious acts, that are fruits of this Spirit and grow upon this tree of habituall Grace, mainly the question is here, If that act of love, whereby a Believer loveth God, doth differ any other way than gradually, from that act of love whereby an unreneweth person loveth Him, or which he while unrenewed had unto Him, that is, that the one loveth Him above all and the other doth not, though both love Him really and in the same kind for the nature of the act? And so it this be not the only mark by which the sincerity of all Graces are to be tried? Where of this is a particular instance.
To say somewhat to this, we conceive, that the truth and reality of sincere saving Grace in its acts is otherwise to be inquired for, than in such a degree only: for, true love loveth God above all, because that is the nature of true Grace as such, to have such acts: and so it is rather a consequent following on, or a concomitant of true Grace where it is sincere, than that which constitutes the truth and sincerity thereof: although it may well (being rightly understood) evidence that: even as a Woman that loveth her Husband chastly, cannot but love him beyond any other; yet doth not that constitute the sinceritie of her love; because an Adulteresse may do so to an Adulterer; But especially, it is in loving him as her Husband, and according to that relation: otherwise we suppose it is not impossible for a Wife to love her Husband, beyond any other man, and yet not to do it with true conjugall love, but possibly upon some wordly (and it may be sinfull) principle: which if contraried, would soon discover that love not to be sound, as not loving him as her Husband, but for some other advantage or satisfaction, as often experience doth clear: and must not that differ from the love of another, who cleaveth to the Husband out of conscience and affection, from that conjugall relation that they stand in, and because he is her Head, even when many crosses and discontentments occur to her in her adhering to him? So it may be in other cases, a Servant may fear his Master more than any man, as a Son may do his Father; yet that there is difference in that fear (although both agree in the comparative degree, and neither of them dare offend him) none will deny. This difference then, must be in the formality of it, (to speak so) as the same person is distinctly or differently considered by the one, and the other; and as they are differently swayed, and acted in the same thing, as in the instance of filial and servil fear, is ordinarily illustrated; much more may this be conceived in the acting of grace on God, there being so many relations under which we may consider Him, and act on Him. And may it not be supposed that a Woman may at first love a Man above all others, and yet not love him for himself conjugally, who afterward being Married to him, may come to love him on other principles, and from other grounds? and though there be no difference in the comparative degree, and the first possibly seemed to be most vehement; yet is there a difference really betwixt what it was, and what it is. And it this may be in moral and natural acts, may it not be much more in spirituall saving acts, when compared with those that are not so? It’s upon this ground that he the acute Divine Cameron doth expresly assert, that the love whereby a Wife loveth her Husband, doth differ specie from that whereby the may warrantably love another, so that if she loved any other in the least degree with that kind of love wherewith she loveth her Husband, she were really an Adulteresse. And this is when he is speaking of that question, Num Christus Mediator sit adorandus? intending thereby to shew, that that kind of love, adoration, &c. which is due to God, can be given to none other in any degree, without manifest impiety. And will it look well, to say that warrantably we may give love and fear, &c. of the same kind to men and creatures, which we are called to give to God? and that only the degree to him, is comparatively to be supream: yet upon the former assertion, this will necessarily follows for, if a Believers love, fear, &c. differ no otherwise from the love, fear, &c. of hypocrites, Then that act of love which he hath to God, must be of the same kind with what he hath to Wife, Children, &c. except in the degree: yet I suppose he would be mightily affected within himself, to approve himself to do so in the least degree. We say then, that the sincerity of Grace is not to be inquired alanerly in this prevalent and predominant comparative degree thereof; but there must be some other things concurring, at least, that constitute the difference betwixt saving acts of spirituall Grace, and these common acts which may be in hypocrites. For, if these two may be separated, that is, if there may be this comparative degree, in the common gifts or graces which an hypocrite may have, Then that which constitutes the difference of the sincerity of Grace, cannot consist in that only: for, that must be proper to saving Grace quarto modo, which doth difference it from all other things: but we may see in instances, that if we consider this degree without respect to any other thing, it may be found where saving Grace or sincerity is not; and contrarily, saving Grace may be (at least in respect of particular acts) where that degree is not. Therefore it is not that alone wherein properly, and essentially the difference doth consist.
Before we give any instances, we would premit some advertisements, especially concerning the first, which may possibly look strange-like to some, to wit, that there may be such a comparative degree of love, fear, sorrow &c. in hypocrites, who yet have nothing of sincere Grace; and that therefore sincerity is not to be tried by that comparative degree alone. Concerning which it’s to be adverted.
First, That when we say, there may be in an hypocrite such a degree of love, fear, &c. that may be comparatively prevalent, that is not to be understood, as if there were love, fear, &c. in sincerity in the least degree in any hypocrite; but only this, that seing it’s certain (and this Learned Author asserteth it) that hypocrites upon carnall considerations may love and fear God in some respects, which yet is out of no true respect to God: so it may be supposed, that upon the same considerations they may come to love Him, or fear Him above any other object comparatively. Certainly upon this supposition, that it were at that degree upon these carnall considerations, it would still be but of the same kind of which it was, to wit, carnall, and hypocriticall love, and servile fear. Neither can this supposition be thought strange, Seing, 1. No hypocrite can fear God sincerely more than love Him; yet that such an one may, upon apprehensions of Gods terrour, fear His wrath more than all the world beside, cannot be denied. 2. Seing also it’s but some carnal motive that leadeth natural men to love anything most, why should it be thought impossible, that upon such motives and considerations, they may be swayed to love God most? Especially considering what flashes of joy may be in temporary Believers (although they continue not) and what may be supposed to have been in Nebuthadnezar, Dan. 4 and Darius, cap. 6 and possibly in many hypocrites amongst the Jews and others, upon some signal manifestations of Gods goodnesse to them: yet, even the supposition of the being of such a thing, although it actually had never been, Even that were enough for confirming of what we say. 3. It cannot be denied but hypocrites may have a zeal of God, which may bear great away with them and more than any meer temporal thing, as in the instance of the Jews, Rom. 10. Yet there cannot be zeal of any kind without love of that same kind; yea, zeal presupposeth love, and that in an high and intense degree. But we shall offer some instances afterward.
Secondly, It would be adverted, that we do not assert that hypocrites may thus love or fear God habitually, and (to say so) in their ordinary strain: nay, we think it extraordinary to them to attend even to this; and that it followeth upon the back of some extraordinary manifestation, either of Gods love, wrath, terrour, &c. If it be said, that this meeteth not the question. Answ. Indeed that Reverend Author, stateth it upon habituall and deliberate acting; yet, considering that the thing enquired in here, is the sincerity of particular gracious acts: if there can be any particular act which hath that comparative degree, and yet is not sincere, nor will prove the person to be gracious, Then it will follow that the sincerity of particular gracious acts, is not alone, nor mainly to be enquired for in that.
Thirdly, It would be remembered, that when we speak of this prevalency in the comparative degree, that we take not the phrase largely, as including the motive, end, &c. or Gods intrest swaying to such an act, by such a spirituall motive, &c. but strictly, according as we held it forth in two distinctions, mentioned before this. Gods interest then in this act, is not to be considered, as it respecteth motives, and compareth all these, amongst which respect to Him doth sway; but it’s to be understood, as it respects the act only, without respect to the motive, what ever inducement it be that perswadeth thereto. Otherwise, as we said, the difference is but in expressions: and it’s not our purpose to contend for words. And therefore in such an explication, we shall acquiesce, as to this, and we professe not to dispute against that.
If it be said, that the loving of God so comparatively above anything, is not to love Him above all: because that for which we love Him, is more beloved by us, even though thereupon we should be induced to give our lives for His Cause, &c. Answ. 1. It’s true, this proveth it not to be sincere love, or to proceed from right principles and motives, as is said; and this is not intended: for even such a person hates God really, as was formerly asserted. Yet, secondly, it’s such love as hypocrites use to have to other things, to wit, that love wherewith, they love the world, their Patrons and Idols of any sort, which is certainly still from some selfish principle or motive: and therefore indeed still they love themselves best; yet are they said to have such things to be their Idols, and comparatively to love them above all other things, even above the Lord Himself, although it be such a motive as prevaileth with them for that end: and may not the same be acknowledged here, supposing, that the Lord may for a time get that from a man upon carnall considerations which some Idol useth to have? Thirdly, We conceive it will be, in this case argumentum ad hominem: for, this Reverend Author instanceth the prevalency of love to God and the Brethren, not in the motives that swayeth to love them most, but in the acts, being compared with other objects, that is, if God be loved above His temporall good things, if the Saints be loved more than our estate, place, &c. so as we can quite all these for them, as the former instances do clear. Now supposing it may be made out, that as to the effects, hypocrites may so love God and the Saints, as to abandon all their temporall satisfactions for them, and possibly even their life (which is the only thing that that Reverend Author saith was desiderated in the love of some in Queen Maries dayes, pag. 237, 238, 239) though still upon carnall principles and motives: Then it will follow that the assertion as formerly understood, will be sufficient to oppose that proposition, that the difference betwixt saving and common grace is only graduall, and that in respect of such a degree as is explained. Now we come to instances.
Thirdly, That men may love their Idols above all, cannot be denied, seing men are naturally mad upon their Idols, so Turks love their Mahomet, Baal’s Prophets their Baal, even beyond their own lives. Now, may not one love God and Christ, as one may love Mahomet or their Idols? This Argument is also made use of by the for cited Author, to prove that a natural man may love Christ really for kind, pag. 236, 237. And will not this same hold in respect of the degree also? Considering that there is as good ground, and more, even in a humane respect, for Historicall faith to believe the truth of the being and worth of God’s, and Jesus Christ, and as much proof and experience of the advantages and benefits that come from him, as there are for any to be assured of the being and worth of Mahomet, Jupiter, Apollo, &c. Now suppose one that formerly loved Mahomet, or Jupiter, above all, should by the force of Historical faith, or some extraordinary deliverance be brought to account of, and love the only true God, as he did formerly love Mahomet or his Idols, could that be accounted to be sincere love, because the object were changed? Supposing still no change to be in the man, nor intrinsickly in the act it self in respect of its kind? and yet upon the supposition forsaid, this act would not be defective in respect of the comparative degree, supposing him so love God now, as formerly he did his Idol: It must therefore be in kind. And may not such acts as have proceeded from Nebuchadnezar and other hypocrites, upon special and singular appearances of God, be accounted such, wherein there was some kind of reality as to their actual esteeming of God above all, yet still being without sinceritie, as the zeal of the Jews was, because God was not esteemed of according to knowledge, that is, as in Christ Jesus: in which respect. He hath manifested Himself in His Word, and without which, there can be no degree of love acceptable to Him.
Fourthly, Might not one have loved Christ above all, while He was upon earth, from the convictions of the worth that was evidently seen in Him, and from particular favours, received from him, suppose of health, freedom from the rage of the devil, &c. as one man may love another, especially His benefactor above all things, so that He may become his Idol? Now, suppose it had been so (which was not impossibel) that men had known and loved Christ thus after the flesh (as the Apostle speaketh, 2 Corinth 5:17) could that have proven that love to be sincere? And yet the fault, is not in respect of that degree.
Again, we may instance it in faith: for, that one may trust Christ in some respect above all, is clear by the many examples of the faith of miracles and that both active, and passive; yet is it also clear that saving faith is of another nature, and hath other qualifications concurring in it’s acting as such: the first acteth on Hin, as powerful to bring forth such an act, and in respect of some particular manifestation of His Will for the bringing forth thereof; the other considereth Him as a Saviour offered to us by Gods faithfullnesse in the Word; and for that end, to wit, Salvation; and upon that account, to wit, as offered, and as such, it receiveth Him and resteth on Him, being moved thereunto by its giving credit to the faithfulnesse of God in respect of His Covenant and offer of speciall Grace. So, to be willing to have Christ, is a main act of Faith; and that one in nature may in some respect be willing to have Christ and Heaven above all, cannot be denied, especially by this Author. Neither can it be said, that this respect to God and Christ, is inferiour to their love to earthly blessings, which they prefer to him, as is insinuated pag. 237 for certainly they may esteem Him beyond temporal blessings: therefore they will suffer the losse of these, and their life it self upon this presumptuous ground of gaining Him by the abandoning of these; yet cannot that be accounted sincere willing, because they will Him not as such, and according to the tearms of his Covenant.
Further it may be instanced in fear, repentance, love to the brethren, &c. as was formerly hinted: wherin we will find that natural men may come to this comparative degree in respect of the external object to wit, to fear God more than to feat men, or any other thing; to sorrow for sin in such a degree, that it may prevail over delight in it, and love to it: wherein the comparative degree that constituteth the sincerity thereof, is instanced, pag. 231, 232 and they may love the brethren so as to relive, clothe, visite them, &c. and for this end to part with their own ease and estate, which is the degree that is only marked as wanting to such as loved the Saints; but yet could not part with temporal things for them, pag. 239 and upon this ground it is, we conceive, that pag. 232 this necessary advertisement is given, That these graces which are expressed by the passion, as fear, love, joy, &c. Are not so certainly to be tried by the passion that is in them, as by the will that is contained in them or supposed to them: which must either be to shew, that sometimes the vehemency of the passion may seem more towards one object, suppose in fear of men, or love to creatures; when yet the will rationally feareth and loveth God more: or, it is added to shew that somthing must be respected in the trial beside the degree simplie; so that this degree is not to be accounted the alone mark of trial: otherwise this advertisment were needlesse. And what is spoken of the will its acting rationally in its act, as contradistinguished from the passion, or act of the sensitive part, must infer some concurring qualifications to be necessary in the act of the will, which cannot be in the sensitive part, which doth necessarily infer a racite acknowledging of the necessity of observing something in the nature of the act, beside this degree alone, for the evidencing of the sincerity thereof.
On the other side, may not habits for a time be without acts, at least, without acts prevalent in respect of this degree? Now then, what shall be judged of such acts, suppose of love, fear, faith, &c. which for a time are prevailed over, and the heart is led captive by the opposits? They cannot be denied to be sincere acts of Grace; nor can it be said, that there are none such at all: for, in that one place, Rom. 7 we will find the Apostle speaking of such motions of the Spirit or Inner-man, which yet prevail not as to the effect, but the heart is led captive over them, so that what he would, that he doth not; and he is led captive to the law of sin, over the law of his mind; yet, even then doth he acknowledge these acts of the Inner-man to be sincere acts of Grace: and therefore doth comfort himself in them; and doth oppose them to the law of sin in his members, which otherwise he could not do. And this sincerity cannot flow from this degree, which then is not: it must therefore slow from the kind thereof, and so be contradistinguished in that respect from any common work of a hypocrite. If it be said here, that it is true love, faith, &c. that in its sober, composed and deliberate rational actings doth prefer God, although at fits and times it may be overpowered; and that in this respect Paul did in his deliberate actings, prevail over the Law of his members, though by its suprizals it did captivate him. Answ. Although this be granted to be truth; yet it will not infringe the Argument: because we ask not only what Paul was in respect of his state, or of his deliberate acting, but what these motions and stirrings of the Spirit in him were, that were overpowered, whether even these were gracious and sincere, or not? For, if these stirrings be acts, as is acknowledged, pag. 224 they must either be sincere, or not; it cannot be said, not, upon the grounds formerly given; they must be then sincere: and if sincere, then they must be sincere, not in respect of the prevalencie of the degree; but in respect of the nature of the act it self, as is said, For although we say that such a person did in his natural acting of love, &c. prefer God above all; yet that would only prove that the person were habitually gracious, and a true lover of God; or, prove that once he hath had acts truely sincere; but that could never be the ground upon which the sinceritie of these present acts could be founded. And so as the close of all, seing this prevalent degree may be separated from sincere acts, and may be in acts that are not sincere in the manner qualified & contrà: Therefore the formal reason of sincerity, is not to be inquired in it alone. If it be said, that even in such acts wherein corruption prevaileth in the affection or passions; yet Grace is still prevalent in the will. Answ. Then whether can it be said that there is no true Grace in the affections, or, whether the actings thereof in them be not sincere, although not prevalent? If they be gracious, even as such, Then the Argument doth still hold, that Grace may be sincere where it prevaileth not as to the effect: if it be denied that they are sincere as such, Then it will follow that true Grace is not universal as to the subject thereof, or, that it may be sincere in the will and not in the affections: which yet are acts of the same Grace and soul, in so far as renewed, striving with it self in so far as unrenewed. Beside, prevalencie is but in the will as renewed, so that it is only as such induced to different or consent; whereas that same will, as unrenewed, yeeldeth over that dissent of the renewed will: whereby it cometh to passe that acts are elicited thereby, which the renewed part did oppose; and so indeed, as to the effect, the renewed will is not prevalent: because that is not acted, which it would be at; yea, acts are elicited by the will, as is said, which, had the renewed part been prevalent, had not been at all, which sheweth that in such a case there is a prevalencie, even in the will.
If it be said further, That the love wherewith natural men love God, as it is formerly described, is but still self-love: because they love not God as God; but upon some other self-account: and therefore do still love themselves more; and so do not love God above all soveraignly: because they love Him not for the goodnesse that is in Himself; whereas if Gods interest were main and chief in that love, it were to be accounted sincere: and this presupposing the habits to be infused, this sovereign interest of God in the act will take in the end, motive, and that which we called the reduplication of the act. Answ. If that Assertion, that sincerity doth lye in the comparative prevalent degree, be thus explained, as to take in Gods interest as soveraign in the end, motive, and formal consideration of the act, Then it cometh indeed to be one: and if so, then, there were no reason to fall out with the Doctrine that ordinarily is delivered concerning this: and, for the expressions we will not contend, as we formely said: but when we consider the explication of the Author, especially as it is opposed to the common Doctrine, it seemeth that he meaneth the soveraignity of Gods interest in respect of objects, compared together, that is, God more soveraingly loved, feared, and trusted, than any other: and doth not take in the consideration of God in the motive, end, and formall consideration of the act, which hath influence on the person for bringing forth of such an act; and so on the act itself, that is brought forth: for, the comparison runneth thus, betwixt the objects, flesh and spirit, who doth prevail most on the heart, but is not in comparing the motive and other qualifications of that act, which materially is spirituall: and therefore still in that respect, the former Argument, will hold, and the ordinary expressions will suit better to the thing.
It may be further argued against the placing of the nature of sincerity in the prevalent degree alone, thus, If the acts of saving grace be sincere, before they be in this degree prevalent, Then this prevalency of the degree, cannot be the thing that constitutes the sincerity thereof, much lesse alone be it; But the former is truth, that act of love, faith, &c. is saving, which is wrestling against its opposits, so as to win the heart to love God more than all other objects, even before it attain it: For, we are to suppose this method, 1. Gracious habites are supposed as infused, whereby the tree is made good. Then 2. That these habites have their inclinations and acts, that lust against the flesh, and fight with the flesh for winning of the heart to the following of its motions: and as fighting goeth before the Victory; so in this spirituall combate, do these lustings and actings go before the prevalent degree, and by these the heart is engaged to love God above all; whereupon followeth that prevalency as a degree of Victory. And yet we suppose, that were the least sparkle of grace kindled in the heart, so that it were but smoaking in desires of love to God and faith in Him, it cannot be denied to be sincere; although it hath not broken out in a flame. For, if this prevalent degree be in some respect an effect of these stirrings, these stirrings must be sincere before they come this length, as to prevail: for, they were acts before, and if not gracious acts, then how could acts that are of themselves unfound, produce an effect that is sincere, seing the cause must be of the same nature, and as noble as the effect? And so consequently its sincerity doth not flow from this degree; but on the contrary rather, this degree is attained by these stirrings, because such stirrings, are acts of sincere love and grace: whereas they are extinguished in another, and come not up that length (at least in the former respects) because these stirrings were for their kind unfound: and so natively the actings and stirrings of grace of any kind, must go before, either the prevalency or repulse thereof. For, supposing creatures once to have the heart of man, there is first an essaying (as it were) by some inward motions to gain the heart from these, before actually it be gained. Now, we say, that which maketh some motions gain the heart deliberatily to prefer God above all, is, because these motions are sincere, and do suppone as antecedaneous to that degree, at least in order of nature, 1. An inward gracious principle fitting the heart so to conceive of God, and making it capable to be swayed by spirituall and supernaurall motives, and in sincerity to act on them as such. 2. It presupposeth an actuall putting forth of this gracious principle in its considering God as such a good in Himself, and for its happinesse in Himself desirable, and lovely in an other kind than any creature: Whereupon, 3. The heart is actually inclined as being swayed by such a motive, to wit, the goodnesse of God Himself, and the spirituall happinesse that is in enjoying of Him, and as such, and upon that account to love Him, desire Union with Him, and prefer Him above all; whereby self (as it is properly self, sinfull and corrupt) is shut by, and a spirituall motive beareth sway in the act, and so must be supposed in order of nature (at least) to before it. 4. When the heart is thus affected towards God, then the former three (to wit a spirituall end, the enjoying of God, a spirituall motive, that is, a respect to His worth, and a spirituall principle whereby he was enabled so to conceive of Him) do concur for the eliciting of this act, and that in a new manner, upon that object so considered; whereupon it acts otherwise in the closing with God as God, than ever formerly it did. Upon which this prevalent degree and Victory doth follow, as the result of the hearts so acting on God, which cannot but prevail. And thus it loveth God above all, and shutteth down all competitours, because considering Him as such as He is, and to it in respect of the understandings uptaking of Him, it doth for such an end, from such a motive, by such a principle, and in such a manner, act on Him, as so considered; which others do not, who though they may have a sort of striving in them; yet their sighting, not being according to the former qualifications, can never prevail; as it cannot but in the end be a Conquerour in them that thus fight.
Further, supposing this sincerity to lye in that prevailing comparative degree, we ask, what maketh the love which is in one to prevail, so as to love God above all, more than in another? Or what made Paul, after conversion, love God in that respect sincerely, more than before? It must be said, that it floweth from the interveening work of the Spirit, both operating in the infusing of habits, and co-operating in the beinging forth of acts; whereby Paul, is now enabled to do that which could not be done, till first the tree was made good. And if so, then there must be a real difference in the act it self, as being the fruit of another tree, or of a tree that is changed: and if the trees be different in kind, the fruits must be so also: for, grapes are not gathered off thistles, nor contra: and so must it be said of these acts, either they proceed from different habits, and so must differ in kind; or, both must be from a gracious habit: which cannot be granted, seing often these acts in hypocrites evanish, which of gracious habits cannot be asserted: and to say that different infused habits are not requisite to either, will not be urged by any, as hath been said.
We adde, that acts of love that flow from common dispositions in a natural man, may be considered as acts before they be thus prevalent: for, he loves, fears, &c. and so they be acts, although not gracious acts or sincere; but we cannot consider the acts of the gracious habits of love, faith, fear, &.c. (as that a man, as renewed, doth love, fear, &c.) but we must conceive them as such to be gracious and sincere: for, they are of the Spirit, and what is of it, is of that kind; and what is but like to a grain of mustard seed, and cannot be considered as lesse, is yet saving and true Grace, having the qualifications foresaid; the least blossom on that tree being good fruit: therefore there must be some difference in kind between common acts, and these of saving Grace, beside anything that can be conceived to be in the degree: because in the one, the qualifications may be, and are separated from the act; but in the other, no act can be conceived as influenced by the Spirit, and proceeding from it, but it must be conceived as having these qualifications in it, to wit, it hath a spirituall end, is swayed by a spirituall motive, and acteth from a spirituall principle, and as such, is swayed to such an act. If it be said; that it is the least degree of Grace when it is sincere, that is so to be accounted, that is, when it is so prevalent; and that in that respect no act as such, is in the least degree prevalent, but it is sincere. Answ. That will not satisfie: for, here it is asserted that the act of love as proceeding from these habits, cannot be conceived as an act; but must also be conceived as gracious, and as arising from that root: but according to the other opinion, these may be separated, that is although love act; yet is it not sincere love, till it act prevailingly; and so it may be considered as an act before it come to that prevalent degree of acting, which cannot be in the other. Beside, if so, then were not saving Grace, Grace, as having a different original from common gifts; but as having different fruits or effects, or different degrees of fruits. For clearing whereof, we may suppose gracious habits to be in one. And, 1. do not the acts of love, faith, fear, &c. proceed from these infused habits; and are they not actings of the New-creature? And, 2. are not these acts gracious as such? and because they are such, they are saving and sincere, that is, because acts of the New-nature. 3. Do not these habits fit and qualifie one to act otherwise than one can do who hath not these habits: & that not only in respect of degree, but in respect of kind? otherwise these habits would not be a different principle from common dispositions, or, as infusing a different life, but helping one to exercise the life which he had: which were absurd. 4. Do not men who are so fitted by these habits, act accordingly in the producing of their acts otherwise than any other who is not so qualified? And so, 5. must not then the acts produced, be differenced, which are thus differently produced? And wherein can this difference consist but in the kind? For, if it be said, they differ, because these gracious habits bring forth acts in that prevalent degree, wherein the Lords interest hath the chiefest room, Then it may be enquired, 1. Is that the alone difference? or can it be said that the new life hath no influence even on the manner of acting? considering that the person is furnished with new qualifications, both in the understanding, will, and affections: and these cannot but concur in the act; and yet must concur differently in respect of what one in meer nature can do. 2. It may be inquired, could that man have brought out these acts without these habits? And if not, they must be then different in kind from what formerly he did bring forth, seing they could not be produced without a new and different cause. 3. Neither can any acts proceeding from these habits be accounted common acts; they must then, even the least of them be saving. And, 4. if they be saving, & that as acts simply, it must be because of something that is in their kind, without respect to their degree; as the least motions & actings of corruption are sin, because they are from flesh, even when by Grace they are kept from victory: So is it, on the contrarie, with the least motions of the Spirit.
Yea, if we were strictly considering this very difference, as it is proposed in respect of the prevalent comparative degree, we will find it to infer a real difference in the kind of the act, beside this comparative degree: for (suppose in the act of sincere love) by one the Lord is preferred, and all other objects are rejected; by another, He is loved, but some other thing is preferred to Him: now that act of love, which respects God as the chief good, and as such closeth with Him, must be different in kind from that that taketh Him, but not as the chief good: and therefore loveth some other thing more. For, in this act there is not only a comparing of God with o her things; but an act resulting from that comparison, whereby the heart of one saith, when this question is proposed, Is God thy chief good? Yea: and so positively it closeth with Him as such: in the other, when the heart compareth, it saith, Nay, God is not the chief good: and therefore closeth not with Him as such; but refuseth Him. Now these two, nay and yea, to accept of Him as such, or to refuse Him, must differ oppositly, and not in degree only. For the consideration of God here in the act of the heart, is not simply if he be good; for, that cannot come under consideration, but if He be the chief good, and so to it, and if it will take Him as such; and so that act of love to Him must be such as determineth that question by yea, or nay: and in that respect the one yeeldeth, the other rejecteth. Therefore here it is not yeelding in this or that degree, but yeelding, or refusing; which in that pinch are contradictory. 2. By the one act of love, God getteth the chief room, and other things are casten down: it is quite contrary in the other; and can these two be of one kind? Or can that act of love which preferreth manythings to Him, act for its kind on God, as that act of love that taketh Him as infinitly proferable to all? Because the one considering Him as the chief good, accordingly loveth Him; and the other, not doing so, but otherwise, This difference must follow thereupon. 3. That act wherein there is this prevalencie, must either have somwhat peculiar in it which doth make it prevail over its opposits, as to love God above all, which another hath not, that loveth created things above Him; or, it must have its prevalencie from what is common to both. Now, this last cannot be said: because so, it were man himself that did make himself to differ: there must therefore be somthing peculiar in the other, as a cause producing that effect; and if there be a peculiar cause, and some peculiar thing in the one which is not in the other, differing the rise of this from the rise of the other, Then this prevalent act of love which is the effect of that peculiar cause, must beside this degree differ in kind also, as being peculiarly influenced by that cause which the other is not. And seing this peculiarnesse is presupposed to proceed the prevalencie of the act, It must necessarily follow according to the same grounds, that there must be some positive qualifications concurring for the constituting of the sinceritie of Grace beside the prevalent degree thereof, And that therefore sinceritie doth not consist alone in it: and so, that hypocrites cannot do the same acts for kind, which the Regenerate may do, without respect to this comparative degree.
To conclude then, we may illustrate all, thus, Suppose a dead body were by the power of God made to move, or speak, as once Balaam’s Asse did, There is motion and speech there, suppose it be to the same object, and in the same, words; yet doth it differ from the motion and speech of a living man that acteth according to reason. 1. A dead man is moved only from some extrinsick power without the interveening principle of life from within: although he may be moved more speedily and swiftly toward a certain object, than one that from an inward principle of life acts himself; yet doth the motion of the living man, differ in kind (beside any comparative degree which can be in the act of moving) by a positive concurring of an inward principle of life and a locomotive faculty whereby he is immediatly acted: So, naturall men being dead in sins, what ever acts are produced by them, are meerly produced by the common work of Gods spirit from without, without the interveening of any spirituall principle influencing these acts, whereas the acts of a renewed man are indeed performed by the power of Gods speciall grace; but (mediantibus habisibus) by the interveening of infused habits, whereby he not only is acted, but acts himself in the bringing forth of these. As, A tree in the Spring-time, doth send forth her bads, from the native season of the year its having influence thereupon; yet also by the quickning of that naturall sap and moistnesse wherewith it is furnished within it self. 2. A dead man hath no end before him in his motions or actings, as a living man habitually hath concurring in his act: so an unrenewed man hath no pure spirituall end in the best acts, which the gracious man hath; the one, eating, drinking, living and bringing forth fruit to himself, Hos. 10:1, Zach. 7:5, 6 and the other living, and thenceforth bringing forth fruits to God, 2 Cor. 5:16. Hence, men in nature are said to serve sin, and men in grace to become servants to God, Rom. 6 in respect of their design in the same acts. 3. Dead men, as they have no end before them, so have they no reasonable motive, as a living man is supposed to have in his actings: so naturall men have no spirituall motive, supposing it be, in loving of God, it is some carnal selfish-thing that swayeth them: for, having no spirituall principle within, as matter to work upon, No spirituall motive can have influence upon them, more than fire can be kindled by any blowing, where no kindling, or combustible matter is: a renewed man as such hath a spirituall motive concurring with, and having influence on, his actings: and so, not only loveth God, because of some externall benefit; but he loveth Him, as being provoked from that inward principle of the Divine nature that is in him, and respects to Gods Commands and Goodnesse, whereby as such he cannot but love Him, and these who bear His Image, and what is spiritually good: even as a naturall Parent, or Son, cannot but love his own Child, or Father, and that from another speciall principle than they love any other Child or Parent; so also he hath a pure spirituall motive, warming this principle, and kindling the sympathy: and thus he is swayed to love God, because of some spirituall good, as the subduing of sin, the conforming of him to Gods Image, the manifesting of Himself to him, and such like; and be loves Gods People, because he taketh them to be beloved of God, or to love Him, or be like Him, as suppose a Woman did carry affection to a Man, it may be from some carnal principle, as his furnishing of her in her vanity, and his being subservient to the lust of vanity, pride, &c. in her; yet afterward, being matched with him, might love him because be were her Husband, and had condescended to marry her, although he should not serve her vain humour as formerly: in this respect, her love doth differ from what it was, as having a conjugall motive added to it, which it had not formerly. 4. A living man, in his actings, is swayed to them as good, and as good to him; and it is impossible for him to will anything even though it be good, but as it is considered as such by him: yea, even things that are hurtfull are in his desiring of them considered under this notion as good to him; but there is no such thing in the motion of a dead man: so, a renewed man, not only acteth on that which is spiritually good, suppose in the loving of God or His People; but also he is swayed therein, and acteth therein upon this formall consideration as it is such, that is, he loveth God as He is good in Himself, and to Him in what is spiritually good; and others as they are such as have title to Him, that is, Mat. 10. To love them in the name of righteous men, that is, upon that formall consideration as such, to love them. And this is that wherein mainly Godly sincerity and singlenesse doth kythe, when we are not only moved to do what is good, and that from a spirituall motive upon the matter good; but are swayed to that thing, by this motive, as they are such, and so considered by us: and thus, this as doth not only respect the object, as it is conceived by the understanding to be such; but it doth respect the act, as it is inclined to, undertaken and performed by the will, to wit, it willeth it as such: although the act it self be not in respect of its degree every way adequate to such an object, that is, though God get not so much of the heart as it becometh Him to have; yet, the heart, considering Him as such a God who deserveth the heart, and ought to have no competitor with Him, and as sufficiently able of Himself to make it happy doth so will Him; and upon that account, doth love Him and delight in Him, although it be exceedingly defective in the degree of both, and they be but conceived as such, to have a being. Now, as a man is to try the truth of his life, not only because he moveth and speaketh, but because he moveth and speaketh so, in respect of the kind formerly mentioned; So a renewed man, is not simply to try his new life from his acts but as they are so qualified, as is said,
If it be objected, That hither to this seemeth to admit no motive that concerneth our selves, as suppose one loved God, for being good to him; or, heaven, because they expected to be happy in it? and that as if no motive could be admitted in loving God but for himself; or, how may this motive be differenced in the love of a natural man, from one that is renewed?
Answ. There is no such thing as the first intended: it will only say this, that as the natural man is swayed in the persuing of moral good, as it is so considered by him; so a renewed man doth that which is spiritually good, and that as it’s considered as such by him. Hence there is this difference, that a natural man in his considering any act, which in it self is spiritually good, and materially agreeable to the Law; yet in his yeelding to perform it, he doth still consider it as a natural good, or moral at the best: as suppose in loving of God, he is considered by such, as good to them, on a natural, or (as to them) a sinful account, is he loveth God, because He hath gotten temporal peace, deliverance from bodily hazards, an easie or honourable life; it may be, because in providence He hath prospered him in some sinful course, this the learned forementioned Author, pag. 203 doth justly call one of the greatest of all sins, when the holy God is made a pander and servant to our flesh: and no question, many do love God upon such an account; or, if they love God for the hope they have of being brought to heaven by Him (which is one of their highest motives) it is because they hope to get heaven from Him, and accesse, to their sinful lusts here also; thereby supposing, because of His goodnesse and mercy, that they may sin, and serve their lusts, and expect even heaven also afterward: or, they love Him under the hope of heaven; not because there they do expect or desire spiritual or heavenly satisfaction in Himself, in being satisfied with His likenesse (which they never delight in here) But because they have a supposed opinion of a greater degree of that same happinesse, which now they hunt for: and so heaven is never considered by them as a spiritual good: or, they may love God, as supposing Him to love and esteem of them, because of some lovelinesse and excellencie that is in themselves: and upon that ground expect, even heaven from Him, and love Him, because He so esteemeth of them: and this is to think God like themselves, and not to love Him upon any spirituall account, as is said.
Again, The renewed man as such, is swayed by spiritual motives in these things, that are but naturally and morally good; and under a spiritual consideration He acteth on them, to wit, as they are commanded of God, tend to His honour, and are usefull to help one in the worshipping of Him, and so forth: and thus He may be acted even in Eating and Drinking, and things that are spiritually good in themselves, as the loving of God, studying of holinesse, &c. He acteth in them as such, that is, he loveth God, because He is an infinit spiritual good in Himself, and because he hopeth to be made blessed and happy in Him: thus, to love God, and desire union and communion with Him, that we may not simplie be happy, but happy and blessed in the enjoying of Him, and in being made conform to Him, is no carnal, sinful or mercenary love: because, this the Lord Himself doth warrand; and it supposeth a spiritual principle, withdrawing one from common satisfactions and delights; and it loveth God as God, because thus God is considered as the chief good, sufficiently and only able to make happy in Himself: and therefore He is desired, because no other thing is accounted sufficient or meet for happinesse, but he. And so, love to God for himself, and love to Him because we expect to be happy in Him, or have already gotten spiritual good, such as Regeneration, Sanctification, Repentance, &c. from Him, are no way inconsistent together: and therefore, when we speak of loving God for Himself, it is not to exclude all respect to our selves, and our own good in Him; but it excludeth all carnal respect to our selves or respect to our selves as carnal, and delighted with things that are such; and to shew that the good which we expect from God, and for which we love Him, is ‘a spiritual and heavenly good, having the enjoying of himself joyned with it: which doth commend all other good to us; so that it is respect to God, and our enjoying of Him, that doth make these things lovely. And to we love God, because He is good, and because He heareth our Prayers, and because He furnisheth us with what is needful, and so forth: not because any fleshly lust is pleased, or temporal end is gained; but, because He confirmeth our faith or spiritual joy in him: whichmany that have the same things which we have obtained from him, and are also carnally chearful in the use of them; yet, are not joyful upon this account, but are delighted in the things themselves, or what pleaseth their natures in them, but not in God Himself, and so in other things.
Before we close, it will be of concernment for the understanding of all this Question, to take up rightly the true difference between a moral specifick difference (which is acknowledged) and a physical difference, which is denied. This physical difference doth flow from some positive qualifications concurring in the act it self, which are not in another act, that hath other, or contrary qualifications in the place of these: again, a moral difference, as it’s expressed, doth not consider the act with respect to any positive qualifications in it self; but, in respect of some extrinsick consideration; as a pound of gold, and an ounce of gold, are of the same kind in respect of their qualifications physically; yet, suppose one had hired a servant for a pound, or had conditioned so much for the rent of some lands by a subscribed Contract and Covenant; in this respect, the pound would differ from the ounce morally: because the pound, by vertue of such Covenants, would become the servants hire, and the landlords rent, which the ounce would not be. This is a moral difference, and floweth from the bargane, wherein it was conditioned that so much, and no lesse, should be accounted so; so saith the forenamed learned Author, that this moral difference of Grace, doth flow from the consideration of the Covenant, whereby only it can be determined what is saying Grace, according to the tennor thereof, whereby Justification or Salvation are bestowed upon any act, pag. 205. And therefore, Grace that is thus comparatively prevalent in degree, is to be accounted true saving Grace: because: by the Covenant of Grace that is called for, and only accepted as the condition thereof, Pag. 226 where also he doth say, That the sinceritie of Grace doth lye in the degree, not formally but materially only: because the form of these gracious acts, consiseth in their being the condition on which Salavation is promised. Where, 1. To forbear the Authors esteeming, of all Graces equally, and gracious acts indifferently to be the condition of the Covenant, (which yet necessarily this opinion doth presupose, and so is the more to be adverted unto) There are two things to be observed, wherein the mistake lyeth here. 1. That it accounteth nothing to be saving, or an evidence of what is saying, but what is called-for, or accepted by the Covenant as the condition thereof, whereas anything that consequently will prove one to be renewed, will also prove him to be justified: although it be not that to which his Justification is covenanted: but is something that doth necessarily presuppose it, and follow after in a justified person, and can be in no other else: for, if an act, so and so qualified, will prove one to have the habits of Grace, without which he could not produce it: Then must they prove him to be renewed, and so to be justified: because, these acts are holy acts, and fruits of the spirit, as they are called, Gal. 5 and motions of the Inner man, Rom. 7 and fruits of a good tree: and therefore, must prove that the tree is good. 2. There is a mistake in this, that it supponeth the Covenant not to accept of Graces (whethe as the condition or otherwise) suppose of love, faith, &c. but at such a comparative degree only; and not simply to accept of them as sincere, although not as fully perfect. As suppose one by covenant had farmed some portion of land, that doth for the time bear nothing but brambles, upon this condition that he should have returned to him so many wine grapes, bigger than the brambles that grew thereon, in this respect, one that really gave grapes, could not expect to have these accepted, as being the covenanted fruit of the vineyard, or the rent of his lase, if they were not bigger than the brambles which formerly did, or doth continue to grow therein: whereas the tennor of the Covenant in the condition that it proponeth, and in its acceptation of Grace (to speak so) doth ever propose and accept these Grace, simply considered as such, that is, it accepteth of Faith: and the Believer is to be accounted a Believer, and in Covenant, not only because of the degree of his Faith in Christ: but because tie, considering Him as the saviour of sinners, and as sent of God for that end, is drawn, out of respect to the faithfulnesse of God in His word, to receive Chirst, as He is offered to him: and upon that account, according to the tearms of the Covenant, to submit to His righteousenesse, and rest on Him for attaining of Salvation. Likewise in Repentance, Pardon and justification are not knit to any degree of sorrow (as was formerly hinted) that it, that God will account him a penitent, whole sorrow for sin doth exceed his delight in it: but unto true Repentance, which is for its qualifications such is the promise made, whosoever repents, &c. And in this respect, Gods Covenant runneth not, that he will have grapes bigger than brambles, or gold of more weight than the person himself; but, if they be true grapes, growing upon a good tree, and not grapes of Sodom, or brambles, he doth accept of them, and faith, destroy not, for there is a blessing in it, though it be like unto the smallest berrie upon the uppermost tops of the boughs, and although still he call for perfection in the degree of all as the Covenanters duty. And if it be gold, and may abide the touchstone and fire, and not be consumed, he rejects it not, of what ever weight it be in the scales, as 1 Cor. 3:13, 14, and 15 is cleare. Now gold abideth the fire, not as it is in quantity but as it is in kind, and for the quality upright: and no place is there which doth expresse Gods way of trial more plainly; and it hath the promise to the man whose work in any degree will abide the fire, though the drosse that is with it (which shall be consumed) be in the quantity far beyond what is solid. Hence we will find in Scripture, that such expressions are used as do ever lay the weight of the sincerity of mens acts, and place the difference of gracious and sinfull acts in the kind thereof, as accounting all of such a kind to begracious, without such respect to its degree, as when it is said, a tree is known by its fruit, Mat. 7 the meaning is not, that it is known by fruit of such a bignesse, but by their kind; so it’s not every tree, that bringeth not forth fruit at such a degree, but that bringeth not forth good fruit, that is, of such a kind; that is bewen down, Mat. 3. A vine is known to be a vine, by its grapes of the smallest bignesse; yea, even by its blossoms. Hence so frequently in the Song, the Lords trees are differenced by their buddings, and blossomings, and most tender grapes, or first buds: which could not be, if it were not the kind of fruit that evidenced the difference of trees: for, men gather not grapes (even of the smallest bignesse) from thorns, nor figs from brambles. So all true Believers, are said to have the same spirit of faith, 2 Cor. 4:13 and the like precious faith, 2 Pet. 1:2. Which doth hold forth this, that as all Believers, who have faith, have the same for kind, though not for degree precious; so also, all these who partake of that faith, that is true of its kind, must also necessarily be Believers, and in Covenant with God, of what ever degree it be, if it be the same for its qualifications and kind with the former, it is precious: otherwise, even Believers have not the like faith in degree: the likenesse then and preciousnesse thereof, must be in the kind, which no hypocrite can have, and it cannot but be accepted by God; so true Repentance, and worldly sorrow, are differenced, 2 Cor. 7 not in respect of any degree, but in respect of the kind; and the one is wordly, and the other is sorrow (v. 9) after a Godly manner, and (v. 11) after a Godly sort: which must be because of positive qualifications concurring in it, which the other hath not. And the instances that are brought to prove their sorrowing after a Godly manner, in the words following, do confirm this, to wit, their carefulnesse, zeal, &c. So, 1 Pet. 1:22 there is unfained love; and else where unfained faith, which are differenced from counterfeits in hypocrites, as that which hath reality, is from that which is only in appearance, For although they may have really Historicall faith, and a kind of naturall love to God (to let these go, as supposed) yet, can they never have justifying faith, or real spiritual love, or of that kind: otherwise it were not fained, and could not but be accepted, seing what is unfained is ever accepted. Now, love and faith, cannot be called fainted simply in these who have truly the same kind of acts of love and faith, or yet true acts of some kind: they must therefore be in this respect fained, that though they be in their own kind, true acts of Historicall faith, and common love; yet in this they are fained, that they seem to be of another kind than they are of, to wit, saving and gracious: and therefore common acts in an unrenewed man and saving acts in him that is renewed, must differ in kind, as that which hath reality and such a being, doth differ from its counterfeit, and that which is but in shew.
The same might be followed in all such Scriptures, where some practices are differenced from other in respect of positive concurring qualifications, as to do with a perfect heart, is frequently in the History of the Kings to walk with godly simplicity, and sincerity, and that as in the sight of God, 2 Cor. 1:13 and 2:17 to have zeal qualified according to knowledge, and so forth, and almost ever when a gracious act is described: yea, we will find it even in outward duties, suppose in the duty of Praying, or Preaching: that is acceptable Prayer to God, which is Praying in the Spirit, in the Name of Christ, and so forth: otherwayes the Gift of Prayer may be, where the Grace thereof is not, and no intensnesse of the exercise of the common gift can make it, without these qualifications, to be acceptable, &c. whereas the least sigh or groan rightly qualified, and arising from the right root, cannot but be acceptable.
To come then to say a word to the third thing proposed, to wit, that this inquiring for the truth of Grace, in its kind, and not in its degree only and simply, but at least in its degree and kind together, is no way prejudicial but helpful to the exact and search of our selves. This seemeth to be the reason that moveth that learned Author, (who is an eminent batterer down of presumption, and a presser of holinesse) to place the sinceritie of. Grace in this comparative degree, that thereby presumptuous hypocrites be not strengthened in their self delusions, who may abuse this maxime, which faith, that the truth of Grace lyeth in the kind and not in the degree thereof: for, readily do they think they are assured they love God, and believe Him truely, &c. But there is no ground for fear of that here.
Therefore, 1. We say, that this degree being well understood and expressed, is indeed necessarily knit with saving Grace; so that if any man deliberatly and habitually prefer the interest of flesh, or any carnal respect to the interest of God and His way, or love anything more than God, or equally with Him, that man can never warrantably conclude that he hath saving Grace, this being inconsistent with it; and also one Who loveth God sincerely, cannot when he acteth deliberately, and according to the former qualifications, but love Him beyond all, because that is the nature of sincere love.
And, 2. We do not seclude this, but adde the former qualifications of the kind thereof; and therefore this way must be both more convincing to discover a hypocrite, when he must not only look to the degree but to the kind also; and on the other side, be more satisfying to the poor Believer, when he hath not only his mark to gather from the degree, which often may be exceeding dark and doubtful to him, when he considereth many Idols that may have great place in himself, and how far hypocrites may come in that respect; but when he may also reflect within himself upon his end, motive and manner of acting, &c. he may be helped to discern the sinceritie and honestie of his own act and purpose, and have the help of his conscience testimony in reference to these also; and so come more confidently to conclude concerning himself.
It is true, it is a most hard task (though a most necessary task) to discover the nature of sinceritie and saving Grace for the comfort of a tender Believer, so as presumptuous hypocrites may not justly stumble thereon to their own ruine; yet, are they, to wit, hypocrites, more apt to flatter themselves in the truth of their grace, suppose of faith, love, &c. in respect of the kind thereof, than in respect of the comparative degree thereof. And are they not as confident and perswaded of this, that they love God above all, and trust and lippen to Him more than to any other thing for attaining to life? And will be ready to say, there is no other, thing they can lippen to; and in this they are fixed so, as none shall be able to convince them of the contrarie, because Gods soveraignity in that respect, is so naturally fixed in the conscience, that they never debate it, but thinks themselves through in it, the conviction of its reasonablesse is so strong on their judgements. And indeed upon what hath been said, if we will separate the degree from the kind and qualifications formerly mentioned, they will have much seeming reason for them: and yet even then, they will bewray that love, faith, &c. which they esteem to be in this degree, to be unfound in its kind, as being but the fruit of nature, and somewhat (readily) which is of age equal to themselves, &c. and therefore cannot be found. Therefore we adde, that this way will be more useful to convince natural men, than the other is: because generally, they are perswaded of the truth and reality of their grace: and to say that their grace were but defective in its degree, would, 1. keep them from the through conviction of their gracelesnesse, and the right uptaking of their deceitful nature; which yet is mainly and principally necessary to the work of conversion. For it would make them suppose that they had already attained some beginnings, whereas this placing of the sincerity of true Grace in the kind, doth at the first point out to them the necessity of a change, and more easily discovereth the unfoundnesse of every thing that groweth from the naturall root of an unrenewed condition. 2. This placing of it in the degree, doth put hypocrites only to amend or quicken their pace, and to be adding to their building; but not to take a new way, or to lay a new foundation: now this exceedingly suits with a presumptuous hypocrit’s humour, who easily will grant that their faith is weak, but not that it is unsound, and are ever desirous to encrease what they have, which will prove but a building upon sand: and if this were the alone mark of trial, whether God had the chief room by this comparative degree in their acts, they would be exceedingly confirmed in their opinion that all is well. It’s like when Nicodemus came to our Lord, he would not easily have been convinced that he loved or trusted anything more than God: neither doth our Lord take that way for convincing of him; but doth shew the unsoundnesse of what he had, in respect of the kind thereof, and that the tree behoved to be made good and of another kind, before any fruit thereof could be approvable: and therefore He preacheth to him the Doctrine of Regeneration, and the necessity of being born again, and doth not insist to shew any defect of degree, but of kind, as in that, Joh. 3 is clear, that, faith He, which is born of the flesh, is flesh, that is, what ever fruits may be in a natural man, they are of a corrupt kind as the root is: whereby He would obviat a secret objection that Nicodemus, or a formal hypocrite, might have from the degree or abundance of seeming good acts of zeal, love, prayer, &c. (as may by Nicodemus his words to Christ be gathered to have been in him) be it so, saith He, let there be many fruits, and that in a great degree, that is not the thing that maketh them acceptable: for, they are still but flesh, that is, of a corrupt kind: and thus He rejecteth them all at once, and stoppeth his mouth without comparing them in reference to their objects, wherein Nicodemus had not been so easily convinced. And on the contrary, faith the Lord, What is born of the spirit, is spirit: whereby He doth not only shew, that there must be fruits of another kind, to wit, spirituall; and that nothing of whatsoever degree can be accounted sincere, except it proceed from this principle, to wit, the Spirit: but also it sheweth that there is nothing which doth come from that principle, if it were but the least motion, but it is spirit, and acceptable according to the root that it cometh from, without consideration of the degree thereof. And seing our Lord took that way, to discover and convince, it cannot but be safest. 3. This way also would be dangerous to many poor tender Believers, if they were put to try the sincerity of their Grace by this prevalent degree alone: for, do not they often find their unbelief or leaning to creatures (at least in their sense) to exceed their faith in God? And do not they find love to things of the world more frequently carry the heart to delight therein, than in God alone? And shall they cast all unsound in such a case? What had Paul done if he had walked by this mark, when the motions of sin captivated him, Rom. 7 and yet is he still comforted in the sincerity of His Grace, and in the actings of the inner-man: which cannot be grounded upon this comparative degree; but upon the kind thereof. Now, if this maxime were true, these things would follow it, 1. He could have no evidence of his sincerity, except he had more grace (and that still in exercise) nor corruption, and that to his sense: for, every grace hath some opposite corruption, and if it were not prevalent over its opposite corruption, then could he not conclude that he were gracious, and so not except he were more gracious than corrupt. 2. If any grace were prevailed over by its opposite corruption, he could not conclude that he were in a gracious estate: because this is certain, that where one grace is sincere, there all graces are, they being all members and parts of the new creature, which in Regeneration is brought forth; and it being certain also, that for a time, some graces will be exceedingly prevailed over by their opposites, more than others, as the fear of men will keep a Believer under in a particular more then the fear of God, Then it will follow that either he hath true fear of God at the same time; and so the sincerity of this grace of fear doth not consist in the prevalent degree thereof, or, hath no grace sincere at all, because where one is unsound, all is unsound, & contra; or, one grace must be sound and another unsound, which cannot be said simply, upon the ground formerly given. The Believer then, in such a case, must either conclude himself to be unsound; or, he must try it by some other mark from the kind thereof. And though a Believer ought to account himself greatly faulty, when any one corruption prevaileth; yet it will not follow that he should reckon all to be unsound, which this would infer, and so contradicteth the Saints practices in such cases.
From all this we conclude, that it’s more safe to keep both the common doctrine and expressions: and although we have been longer upon this than possibly may be thought suitable to out purpose; yet we have adventured upon it, if so be it may conduce anything to the clearing of that wherein the triall of mens states is so much concerned; or if it may occasion some more unanimous expressing of this matter, by others who may more dexterously perform it, that so this be not stated as a new controversie in the Church, at such a time when she is almost over whelmed with intestine debates already. For we are sure in the generall, that these qualifications formerly mentioned, of the end, motive, reduplication, &c. are necessary to the constituting of any act to be sincere, as hath been said. And if they be necessary, they must either be comprehended under the expression of this prevailing degree of the act, and so it is but (λογομαχία) a striving for words, which are not to be contended for. And so both these are upon the matter one. Or, if they be not comprehended under that expression, then they must be somewhat different from it; and so there must be more requisite to constitute the sincerity of grace, and to difference it from common works in hypocrites, than this degree foresaid. Or, we must say, that these qualifications must be accounted common to the acts of hypocrites, and these that are renewed: which is a thing that we cannot admit, upon the grounds formerly laid down: although we still acknowledge that the pressing at the most eminent degree of grace, even in that comparative respect is exceeding necessary, and usefull for attaining to the clear discerning of the sincerity of grace: for, often Believers do make their own search exceedingly difficult, because of the want of this. And the agitation of this question, being somewhat new, we hope what is said will be the more favourably constructed: especially this being our fear, that by such expressions, or assertions, as this opinion hath with it, grace may come to be looked on as too common a thing, and it and nature, to be thought more sin than indeed they are.
THe second Epistle, is directed to the Church of Smyrna: and as her case doth differ from the case of Ephesus, and that both in respect of suffering and integrity; so doth the Lords message to her differ, and is wholly comfortable.
There is no charge against this Church, as in many of the rest: this doth not imply an universal freedom from guiltinesse of all sorts; But, first, that this Church hath been free of grosse evils, and hath been in honest simplicitie aiming at their duty. And, secondly, it beareth out the Lords tendernesse in passing over many infirmities in an honest Church where there is much suffering.
It is not our purpose to insist in these Epistles (the matter being clear, and ye having good opportunity of hearing them more fully opened) we shall only give a view of the scope, to keep the coherence of the whole Book.
The Epistle hath the division common with all the rest, in those three general parts, to wit, first, a Preface or Inscription, comprehending the Person from whom, and to whom, this message is directed. The Titles given to Christ, the Sender, were spoken to, chap. 1. They are two, 1. He is the first and the last: this setteth out the eternity of His God-head, or His eternity as He is God. 2. He is stiled, He that was dead and is alive: this setteth out His Office with the efficacie of His death, and the victory that He had obtained by overcoming death, and the devil; and being now above death and suffering, to live God and Man in One Person for ever. These Titles are specially chosen here for the consolation of this suffering honest Church for, His suffering and dying commendeth Him as pitiful and compassionate; and His God-head and Victory, setteth Him out as sufficiently able: both which being put together, do exceedingly comfort His people, who cannot but live, seing He liveth, and cannot but continue so for ever, Psal. 18:46, Joh. 14:19.
Secondly, The Body of the Epistle, is contained, vers. 9, 10, 11 it especially runneth on these two, 1. To hold out Smyrna her cafe, and that both in respect of what was present, vers. 9 and also in respect of what was to come, vers. 10. 2. It holdeth out the consolations which are allowed to her for her incouragement in reference to both, and these two are intermixed.
Her present case hath two things in it. 1. Her outward afflictions are mentioned. 2. Her honesty and integrity under them, is taken notice of, and approven by Jesus Christ. And this last, is a main ground of consolation against the first.
Her outward afflicted condition, is expressed in these three words. 1. They were under tribulation, that is, sad and greatly straitning pressures, as the Word signifieth: and by this may be understood the afflictions of body, name, and estate, and the sad consequents following thereupon, which the Godly are put to by the persecution of wicked men. The 2. word is, povertie; I know thy poverty: we take it literally to be understood of such pinches and straits in their outward estates, as plundering, sequestration, sinings, and other means of that kind use to bring upon men: unto this sort of affliction the Christians in the primitive persecutions were exceedingly liable; who yet joyfully suffered the spoiling of their goods, Heb. 10:34. This is indeed no little part of trial, when parents and children are casten loose of all temporal things, and have not for the refreshing of themselves and their families. The 3. part of their affliction, is, the reproach of wicked men that wanted not altogether profession; I know (saith the Lord) the blasphemie of these which say they are Jews, and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan. Amongst all the Saints crosses, there are none more bitter than cruel mockings, as they are called, Heb. 11:36 and mockings from Jews that pretended to Worship the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, would be more heavie than the reproaches of heathens: there were none also more bitter revilers of the Son of God and of His followers, than these hardned Jews; who having synagogues in considerable Cities, did ever with all their might joyn themselves to reproach and persecute the Christians. It is like that they had a synagogue in this place, pretending to worship God according to the manner of His Law; but because of their obstinate maliciousnesse, they are by the Lord denied to be Jews; and are said to lie, and to be of the synagogue of Satan: because indeed they looked liker a combination for the devil, than a Congregation for worshipping of God, who slew the Lord, forbade to speak in His Name, and did persecute His Ministers and People, as the word is, 1 Thess. 2:14, 15.
From which we may see, 1. That the most honest and tender, may be liable to most sharp afflictions. 2. That often rods and crosses of several kinds are joyned together. 3. That reproach is not the least part of affliction of the people of God; and the shame thereof, being well endured, will be accounted honest suffering of a crosse, as if it were a bodily affliction. 4. There is no person more bitter and invective against those that are sincere, than such as have had some engagements to God by profession, and have fallen from the same. 5. Pretended friends (as these Jews were) may come to be most grosse enemies, which is both their sin and their plague: therefore, 1 Thess. 2:16 it is said, that wrath was come upon them to the uttermost. 6 Gods people may look to be met with, and entertained by men, as the Lord Jesus useth to be: if He be well entertained, so will it be with them; if He be despised, as He was by these Jews, let them look to be blasphemed and despised also: for, it is enough to the servant that he be like his Matter.
The consolation that is proposed against the foresaid affliction, is two wayes set down, 1. More generally I know thy works: which doth not only relate to His Omnisciency, as is usuall in these Epistles; but here it taketh in His approbation, as the word after cleareth. Also it is opposed to His taking notice of their enemies malice, I know the blasphemy of them that call themselves Jews, &c. Therefore, His knowing of their works, must include His respect to their honesty, as His knowing of their blasphemy pointeth out His detestation of the same. It is no little part of Believers consolation in any strait, that the Lord Jesus knoweth how it is with them, and can bear testimony to their integrity, when they are even almost overwhelmed with reproaches before men. It is no little encouragement also, that He doth take notice of enemies their malice, as here is observed.
The second way the consolation is expressed, is more direct, by Christs plain testimony in these words, thou art rich, that is, what ever men think of thee, as being most despicable, or, what ever thou be in thy own estate, most poor and desolate; yet really, and in my estimation, thou art rich, that is, thou art indeed strong in the Grace of God, well furnished with Promises and Priviledges, and abundantly rich in faith and good works, Jam. 2 vers. 5, 1 Tim. 6:18. In which things, true riches do consist. This seemeth to be a strange paradox unto the men of the world, thou art poor, and yet thou art rich: yet often have the Saints found this to be a truth; as having nothing, and yet possessing allthings, 2 Cor. 6:10. And if this were believed, it might allay the fervour that men have in pursuing after temporall riches: for, the having of them cannot make them rich, (the greatest men in Smyrna get not this testimony from our Lord Jesus, that they are rich) and the want of them cannot make them poor: and therefore Smyrna, even in her poverty, is rich. This also would make the heavenly Riches to be esteemed of, if men believed that their life did not consist in the abundance of the things that they enjoy, as it is, Luk. 12:15.
The future case of Smyrna, which is set down, vers. 10 is also an afflicted condition; and hath its encouragements suitable thereto, laid down. It is, 1. generally proposed to be suffering, Fear none of these things which thou shalt suffer. This Church had been suffering, and though honest, was yet to suffer more.
Obs. 1. Sufferings when they begin, oftentimes are not instantly at a close. Yea, 2. The Lord will sometimes exercise these that are most tender, with one crosse upon the back of another. 3. He Himself is notwithstanding still tender of them, even when they suffer, as may be gathered from this comfortable message to Smyrna.
These sufferings are more particularly described, 1. In the kind of suffering, to wit, Imprisonment: this is not so to be understood, as if they were to be tried by no other kind of suffering; but it setteth out a main part of their crosse, to wit, that some of them should be cast in Prison, and liberty taken from their persons, which it may be, heretofore they enjoyed. 2. It is described in the principall Agent and Instrument of their suffering, The devil shall cast some of you into prison. Heathen Emperours, wicked Governours and Souldiers, were instrument all therein; yet it is ascribed to the devil, as if it were immediately acted by him, for these reasons, 1. To shew what influence the devil hath in the acting of wicked men, so that in effect their deed, is his deed, they are so subservient to him. 2. It is to shew from what author all persecutions do flow, to wit, from the devil, who is a murderer and a liar from the beginning, and father thereof, Joh. 8:44. 3. It is to aggrege the horriblnesse of this sin of persecution, as being a main peece of the devils businesse, be instrumentall therein who will. 4. It serveth also to comfort and encourage the suffering people to patience and constancy, seing the devil is their special enemy, they ought therefore not to saint in opposing of him, nor to stumble in being opposed by him.
Their suffering is described by a designation of the persons, who were especially thus to suffer, be shall cast some of you into prison, &c. By you, we understand especially the Ministers; some whereof; saith the Lord, were to be cast in prison; and yet but some: to shew that He was not altogether to extinguish their light. The reasons why we understand it especially of Ministers, are, 1. Because that doth especially prove a triall to the Church, when her Ministers are set upon. 2. Because the preserving of some of them, is a speciall comfort against affliction, according to the promise, Isa. 30:20, 21. And were it not to be understood of Ministers, it might have a fulfilling, though they should all be cast in prison. 3. The sensible altering of the number from thou in the singular, to you in the plural number, doth clear that the same party is to be understood by both: and seing by the first, the Angel, collectively taken, is certainly to be understood; this sheweth that in this last place, such, to wit, Ministers, are also to be understood. This form of changing the number, will be more clear in vers. 24.
This future affliction, is described in its end, that is, triall; that ye may be tried: this is neither the end that the devils or persecuters have before them; but that which the Lord intends, who, by this suffering, minded to discover some infirmities to themselves, and to bring forth the solidity and strength of His grace, to His praise and their comfort before others.
It is described in its height, and continuance: its height is tribulation, that is, very sore and great pressures; its continuance, is, ten dayes, a definite, for an indefinite time: and doth set out, 1. That their afflictions in general were determined by the Lord, to a day. 2. That it was not long; it was but for dayes. The saddest affliction of the people of God have an end. Yet, 3. It is for ten dayes: to shew that it was for some continuance, and that the people of God ought not to look for freedom from their crosses in the first, second, or fith day. Some apply it to the persecution that followed in the dayes of Trajan, for the space of ten years; but we conceive the most generall acceptation is safest.
The speciall encouragements that are expressed, are two: (for, some are implyed in the former words) The first, is, fear none of these things, &c. This is a generall comfort, frequently given by the Lord, fear not, &c. Isa. 41, 42, 43. &c. And certainly though it be generall; yet being spoken out of Christs own month, must be very comprehensive and massie. By which we learn, That the Saints consolations flow not from their freedom, or being preserved from crosses, (for, that is not their comfort here) but they slow from Christs being engaged to sustain them under the same, and from his Word, which ought to keep them from anxiety and fainting in the greatest tribulations. The second encouragement, is subjoyned to an exhortation, Be thou faithfull unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. The Lord subjoyneth the promise to the exhortation, 1. To shew the necessity of stedfastnesse, even under suffering, seing without it there is no promise of reward. 2. It is done to mollisie and sweeten the peremptorinesse of that exhortation by such a sweet encouraging promise annexed to it. The promises is of a crown of life: which looketh to the eternall happinesse that Believers are to enjoy after this, as 2 Tim. 4:7, 8. It is called life: because of the cheerfulnesse of that condition, where Mortality is swallowed up of life: and the life that is here, is not worthy of that name. And it is a crown of life: to shew the dignity and excellency thereof; and also to intimate that it is a prize to be obtained (as Crowns usually were given) after a fight. Also, the Lord faith, I will give it, if thou be faithfull unto death: to shew, that faithfulnesse and perseverance therein, is a necessary pre-requisite to the obtaining of this Crown; yet that it hath no meritorious influence to alter the nature and freenesse of it, it is still a gift of grace even to those that persevere.
Observe, 1. That faithfulnesse and perseverance in Holinesse, are no lesse necessary than Heaven: for, a man cannot attain the one without the other. 2. What ever pinches a Believer may have, the Crown of Glory ought to make all sweet in the very hope thereof: therefore is it proposed here. 3. It is not every one that have this promise, nor every one that may warrantably apply the same, although most men usually exceed in this, and beguile themselves.
The Conclusion (which is the third part of the Epistle) followeth, vers. 11. Wherein there is, 1. The common advertisement to all that have an ear, to hear: which sheweth how carefull men ought to be in hearing of this Word, even as if particularly it were spoken to them. 2. There is a speciall promise made to overcomers, be that overcometh, shall not be hurt of the second death. The person to whom the promise is made, was formerly spoken of: it is not the man that pleaseth himself, or yeeldeth to all sort of tentations, or for a time seemeth to be diligent; but he that fighteth and overcometh. The thing promised, is, to be keeped from the hurt of the second death: there is a first death, which is separation of the Soul from the Body, common to good and bad; there is a second death, which is to be eternally separated from the presence or God and the Lamb, especially at the day of Judgement, to wit, when all the wicked as dogs, sorcerers, and liars, shall be cast into the lake, which is the second death; Rev. 21:8. In sum, the promise is, he that overcometh shall be keeped from hell.
From which we may gather, 1. That there is a second death after men are laid in the grave. 2. That this death is most horrible and dreadfull. 3. That it is a singular rare and speciall favour and priviledge to be keeped from that second death. 4. It is implyed, that the generality of men, who are slaves to their lusts, and war not against them for Christ, shall be made liable to this second death, and for ever be a prey to the same. 5. It sheweth what is the Believers advantage by Christs moyand and friendship that lives forever, he shall be freed from this. And lastly, from the scope, we may gather, that if a man may be keeped from the second death and wrath to come, he may the more patiently endure what ever else he may meet with in this world, though it were even the first death it self.
ONe thing may be further inquired here, to wit, concerning the devils influence on mens actions: for, that this, effect is attributed to the devil, (the devil shall cast some of you into prison) it holdeth forth a special hand that he hath in acting men to do evil, so that their deed is his. Concerning which, we may in generall say, that the devil may have, and often hath great power on men, especially wicked men, in making them subservient to his designs. Thus, he maketh men cast some faithful Ministers in prison here: he reigneth, as having men at his command, in the next Epistle; and leadeth them captive at his will, 2 Tim. 2:26 he fighteth with Michael, and stirreth up Herefies as well as persecution, chap. 12 he deceiveth the Nations, chap. 20. And often his power is spoken of in this Prophesie: and it is certain that it is very great, 1. having effects upon the bodies of men, to carrie them from one place to another, as he did to the body of Christ, Matth. 4 to afflict them by sicknesse, pain and sores as he did Job: and the Woman (Luke. 13:16) whom, being a daughter of Abraham, Satan hath bound, faith Christ, be, these eighteen years &c. 2. Upon the external senses: he can delude ears, eyes, &c. either by misrepresenting external objects, or by inward disturbing of the faculties and organs, whereby men and women, may, and do often apprehend that they hear, see, &c. such and such things, which indeed they do not. 3. Inwardly he may have influence to disturb the reason, and mar the judgment, as he did in these men whom he possessed, Matth. 8 vers. 28. He hath influence on the understanding, and so he is said to blind men, 2 Corinth. 4 vers. 4. He may work on the memory and affections also, as by stealing away the Word, Mat. 13 vers. 19 and also wakening hatred, lust, envie, &c. Yea, some way he may work on the will, and so he is said to put resolutions in the heart, as it is said of Ananias and Sapphira, to lie to the holy Ghost, Acts 5:3 and of Judas, to betray Christ, Joh. 13:27. So, 1 Chron. 21 being compared with, 2 Sam. 24:1 it is said, that he, that is, Satan, did move and provoke David to number the people. All which in the effects, are clear: therefore is he said both to reign in some at his pleasure, and to deceive or delude others by wiles and subtilty, 2 Corinth. 2 vers. 11 which are his devices. These are all certain: Although we cannot fully shew how he effectuateth them; yet, this we may say;
First, He hath no absolute independent power to do what he will; but is limited, ordered, and bounded by the Lord. And, secondly, He hath no infallible, insuperable way of acting by himself on men; but as men through their sin yeeld unto him: for, he is dependent, Job. 1:7, 8 and can violent none to sin. Thirdly, He can have no immediate infallible acquaintance with what is in mens hearts: for, that is Gods property. Fourthly, He hath no immediate determinating influence on the will of men: so that although he may perswade violently; yet he cannot determine men to follow: that is the Lords prerogative alone, to have hearts in His hand, Prov. 21 vers. 1 to turn them whither soever He will. And therefore, whatsoever way the devil prevaileth, it is but by a mediate way of alluring, or deceiving, by making use of means for that end. Fifthly, He can infuse no new corruption, nor can he create any inward species or representations, thereby to tempt: for, that is a work of omnipotencie; but, he must work upon what is within the person that he acteth upon, for producing of these: yet, being permitted of God, he may use most powerfull perswasive means, by It’s skill and agility to draw men (being now corrupt) insensibly to many grosse sins; or, at least, to tempt them. Which temptation, meeting with corruption in us, and the Lord justly giving over some to it, Satan may prevail over them by such and such like means, as,
By all which we may see, that it is not without good reason said, that the devil goeth about seeing whom he may devour; he is near the heart, and is often upon folks counsel when they are not aware. And this sheweth, what need there is of watchfulnesse, that we give not place to the devil, and that he get not occasion to tempt: for, with much subtility can he make use of it; and act men in executing of his orders, when they know not what he is doing, as likely it was with these persecuters whom he engaged thus to persecute these Ministers: which way of his, being frequently mentioned in this Book, we have once for all, said this of it.
From this we may also gather, how little weight is to be laid upon the testimonie of this devil, whose work it is to suppresse the Truth of Christ, and to traduce His Servants: for which cause, our Lord and His Apostles, would not suffer him to speak, even when he pretended to confesse Him; because, he was a liar from the beginning, and the father thereof. It’s therefore not unworthy the observing how contrary to our Lords way the Jesuities are in this; who, to supplie the defect of other testimonies for their way against the Calvinists, (as they call them) do carefully and industriously gather and heap up testimonies from the devils mouth, and insult therein as a proof incontrovertible: for this end, Lorinus, in cap. 5 Act v. 16 having cited some pretended Histories holding forth the little weight the Lutherans had with the devil, doth subjoyn this as an infallible confirmation of their compliance with him, Sed & ex ore energumenæ Laudunensis tota Gallia, ac toto orbe Christiano celebratissime, Calvinianos demon irridens, nihil sibi ab illis timendum clamabat cunctis audientibus, Anno 1566 quoniam amici essent, & fœderati, ficut testantur acta, Gallice summa fide scripta, &c. It is in sum, thus, That the devill out of the mouth of one that was famous for being prossessed by him, did mock the Calvinists, crying out, and that openly before all, that there was nothing to be feared from them, for they were friends and confederates: and for confirmation of this, he asserteth the thing to be with great faithfulnesse recorded; as if the weight did only lye in the matter of fact, and that there were no cause to question his faithfulnesse who gave this testimonie. But of this enough: we have reason to thank God, that our faith in the Truths of God, and our clearnesse of the Errors of their way, are built upon a more sure foundation; and that our controversie with them, is not at the devils decision, from whom indeed the Calvinists might expect no favourable sentence. But the Lord is judge Himself, To Him be praise for ever.
FOlloweth now the third Epistle, directed by the Lord to the Church of Pergamos: the estate of it is implyed in the Body of the Epistle to be a suffering condition: and though having much integrity, honesty, and constancy under her sufferings: yet in some things reproveable and defective: especially in her zeal against false Teachers: for which cause, the Lord doth here, though with great tendernesse, reprove her.
The division of the Epistle is common with all the rest. The Inscription is in the 12 vers. The Body of the Epistle, in the 13, 14, 15, 16 verses. The Conclusion in the 17 vers.
The direction, (which is the first part of the Inscription) is, To the Angel of the Church of Pergamos, a famous City in Asia the lesse, sometimes the seat of Kings; and for that present time, a seat of the Roman Governours: a place full of sin, Idolatry, and cruelty; Yet hath our Lord a Church here, to which He writes, when He taketh no notice of the Governour, or of these who were most eminent: which doth shew, 1. The power and efficacy of the Ordinances of Jesus Christ, in reaching whom He pleaseth, though in the most desperate condition. 2. It sheweth the freenesse of grace, that condescends to gather a Church here. 3. It sheweth His tendernesse to, and care of those whom He hath gathered to be a Church unto Himself, beyond any other in the world.
The Title He taketh to Himself, is, He who hath the sword with the two edges: the sword with the two edges, is the word of God, Ephes. 6:17, Heb 4:12 which we heard (Chap. 1 v. 16) did proceed out of Christs mouth. It sheweth, that Christ hath the command of the Word, to make it effectuall for the good of His Elect; and for the convincing, smitting, wounding and slaying of His enemies by spiritual plagues: and it is chosen in this place, because He doth make use of this as His soveraigne priviledge in the threatning, for stirring up the Angel to his duty.
In he Body of the Epistle (besides the common assertion of Gods Omniscience) we have, First, the commendation of this Angel and Church, vers. 13. Secondly, the reproof, vers. 14, 15. Thirdly, an exhortation to duty, with a sharp threatning added, as a motive to presse the same, vers. 16.
In the commendation, we have, 1. the thing commended. 2. Some excellent aggravations, (to call them so) or commending qualifications of this commendation. The thing commended, is in two expressions to one purpose, Thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith: By name, we understand the Doctrine of the Gospel, whereby Christs Name, that is, Himself is held forth and manifested: for, in the Gospel, to preach Christs Name, and to declare it to the Gentiles, is all one with preaching Himself, or His Gospel. By faith, is understood the Doctrine of faith in Him, which is the same thing. The holding fast of His Name, is a zealous adhering to the profession of His Truth, as it were, holding it by both, hands; and not denying His faith, is an open avowing of the same by a publick profession, and honouring Christ by their avouching of their faith in Him, without fainting, or shifting in the same, notwithstanding of any peril that might follow thereupon. For, this negative, Not denying his faith, doth import more than is expressed.
The commendation, is amplified by two speciall circumstances, that serve to heighten the same, 1. From the place where; And, 2. from the time when; they expresse this constancy. 1. For the place: it is where Satans throne was. It is not much to avow a profession in some places; but to do it in such a place as Pergamos, where Satan had a seat or throne, (as the word is) is much. Satans having a throne, implyeth not only a sinfulnesse in that place, common with other places; but it doth insinuate such an open avowed opposition to Christ and His followers, and such an adhering to Satan, that, on the matter, it looked as if Satan had commanded expresly there in chief: for, not only was wickednesse tolerated; but carried on, and established by a law: nor only had he a seat in hearts, as he hath in all men by nature; but in the Magistracy and Judicatories, whereby orders were given in publick, in reference to persecution and profanity; and men did so walk, as if directly orders had been given by Satan, and taken from him, in that place: he did so effectually without controll (as it were) obtain his will, the Lord so permitting and ordering it in His wise and secret providence and Justice.
From which, 1. We may see how tyrannously the devil would mannage every thing, if he had things at his disposall. 2. At what great height he may have his dominion, even beside the Gospel, and in the place where it is. 3. How fully men naturally are slaves to the devil, he being the prince of this world, that worketh in the children of disobedience, Ephes. 2:2. And, 4. We may see what need there is to pray that Christs Kingdom may come, and how thankfull we ought to be, who are in any measure freed from this tyrannie.
The second circumstance in this commendation, is, the time, that is, it was even in those dayes wherein Antipas was my faithfull Martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. This is also an excellent part of the commendation, that it was not only in such a place, that was wicked and prorane; but at such a time when wickednesse and profanity was exercised in its height, which is proven by the death of a faithfull Martyr, who was then violently slain amongst them: at such a time to hold fast His Name, was indeed commendable. Whereby we see how the Lord doth take notice of the commendable circumstances of his peoples duties, as He doth of the aggravations of their sins. What this Antipas was, there is no more mentioned in Scripture concerning him: it is recorded in Story that he was a Minister in Pergamos, and it is not improbable, seing these are most ordinarily the object of persecuters malice and violence. However, the Lord putteth three great titles upon him, 1. He is a Martyr: this signifieth a witnesse, and that not only such a witnesse, as witnesseth by word and profession, but as sealeth it with his bloud: thus Paul, speaketh of Stephen, Act. 22:20 when the bloud of thy Martyr Stephen was shed. And therefore in the Primitive times, Martyrs were distinguished from contessors, thus, Mirtyrs, were such as suffered to death; confessors, were such as suffered imprisonment, mutilation of some member, whippings, or such like, for the faith of Christ. 2. He calls him a faithful Martyr: to shew that not only the cause was honest, for which he suffered; but also that he was honest in his suffering for the same. 3. He is my faithful Witnesse: which setteth forth, 1. The end of Antipas suffering, which was to bear witnesse for Christ. 2. It holdeth forth the Lords owning of him in that testimony, and now by this, as it were, from Heaven writing this kindly and honourable Epitaph upon him, he is my faithful Martyr. It may be, he was stoned in some tumult as a seditious person, or one not worthy to live, because of some reproaches or other put upon him; yet thus doth the Lord own him, to wipe all these away, and to make his memory to be the more savory; and witnesse bearing for Christ, to be the lessescared at; that so others may be animated and encouraged to be followers of Him.
From all which we may gather, 1. That it is exceeding commendable to be zealous, and stedfast in such a place, and at such a time as Religion is hazard some and dangerous. 2. That the death of any of the Lords people, especially when it is in witnessing for Him, is exceeding precious in His sight. 3. That honest witnessing for Christ is a most honourable thing Antipas being particularly named with these titles, for setting forth the honourablnesse of his suffering. 4. We may see also, that there is an implied distinction of Martyrs, some are faithful, and, it may be, some dying the same death, and before men for the same cause, may yet not be accounted faithful before the Lord. If it be asked, What is necessary to make one to be accounted a faithful Martyr before God? We suppose these four are necessary, 1. That the person suffer as a wel-doer, so it must be for the truth of Christ, or righteousnesse sake, Matth. 5:10, 11 for, non est mors, used causa mortis, quæfacit Martyrem. 2. Not only would suffering be stated upon a particular account, where in they have the side that is right comparatively; but they would be right simplie in the main truths of Christ, as for instance, somtimes Arrians and Jews, after Christs coming in the flesh, and other Hereticks, did suffer by Heathens, either because they would not worship their Idols, and disclame the true God; or, because they would not simplie deny themselves to be Christians: they had indeed the better, if we look to the Question as stated between them and Heathens; yet they cannot be called Christs faithful witnesses, seing they did not faithfully give testimonie to Him in His Person, Natures, and Optices. 3. It is necessary that the person be, as to his state, a Believer, without which none can be a faithfull Martyr, although possibly his testimonie may be a faithful testimonie: for, without faith it is impossible to please God, especially in such a great thing as suffering for Him. 4. It would be gone about in the right manner, so as thereby the testimonie given to Christ, may be made the more to shine, to wit, there would be blamlessenesse in the mans conversation, finglnesse in his end, deniednesse, zeal, humility and love kything and in exercise in his undertaking and undergoing those sufferings, as we may see in Stephen, Acts 7:51. &c. And this is to suffer as a Christians, and not as an evil doer, and busie body, 1 Pet. 4:15, 16 and according to the will of God, by which such may be incouraged to commit the keeping of their souls to Him in wel doing, Ibid. vers. 19. This is also confirmed from, 1 Corinth. 13.
He doth again repeat where Satan dwelleth. 1. To shew that the devils dominion in that place, was not by starts and fits; but that he had a setled, and (as it were) a constant residence there. 2. To commend their honesty and stedfastnesse the more. 3. It is to shew the great evidence of the devils dominion, to wit, that faithfull men were put to suffering for the cause of Christ.
The reproof followeth, vers. 14, 15. First, generally, but I have a few things against thee: this is not to be understood as if the faults were little in themselves; But it is thus expressed, 1. To shew how tender He was of them, when (as it were) He heightens their commendation, and extenuates their faults. 2. It is to encourage and hearten them to mend cheerfully that which He reproveth.
Hence Observe, 1. There may be corruption and defects, where there are very manythings commendable. 2. Where there is honesty in the main, and a suffering condition for Christ, there He is no rigid or severe censurer; but a most tender constructer of His Peoples infirmities.
Secondly, More particularly He setteth down by way of similitude the ill reproved, vers. 14. Because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, &c. which He applyeth, vers. 15. It is not to be thought that there were any professed followers of Balaam in that Church; but the intent is, to shew, that, upon the matter, the doctrine of the Nicolaitans did agree therewith; and if Balaams practice was hatefull, theirs must also be such. And so, by proposing the hatefull way of Balaam, He discovereth the odiousnesse of the doctrine of the Nicolaitans: which will be found, upon the matter, to be the same. The History of Balaam is recorded Numb. 22, 23, 24 and 31. Chapters: In sum this, he was a greedy covetous wrotch, who greedily aimed at the wages of unrighteousnesse; and being restrained from cursing the people of Israel by the Lord, he gave subtile advice to Balak, to draw the people of Israel into a share, that thereby God might be provoked against them; and so, in the close, they might be prevailed over. Josephus, in the fourth Book of the Antiquities of the Jews, expresseth it thus, That he advised Balak to send some of the beautifullest Women of Midian to wander about the Camp of Israel; who, though they should intertain the Israelites familiarly, yet that they should not yeeld anything to their lust; but that they should pretend to run from them, till they should partake of their Idol-fealts with them: in reference to both which, they prevailed with the Israelites, and drew them both into bodily, and spiritual fornication: which were the two great faults of the Nicolaitans, to wit, liberty in fornication, as if it were not sinful; and indifferencie in eating of things sacrificed to Idols, without respect to offence, as was showen on vers 6. Therefore the Lord here speaketh of the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, as being indeed the reviving of Balaam’s old condemned Error: And so they became guilty before God of his practices, as if they had expresly professed the maintaining of the same. It is said, That Balaam taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, &c. His wicked advice getteth that name: because, it proved an occasion of falling and stumbling to the Israelites, as if a stumbling block had been cast in the way of some man, to make him fall. Thus many sinful practices have not only the consideration of guiltinesse, in respect of the persons themselves, who commit the same; but have also the consideration of offence, as they are apt to prove occasions of falling, and ruine unto others. This also, to wit, of laying a stumbling block before others, will agree well in application to the Nicolaitans: who, as they were guilty in the sin of uncleanesse; so were they carelesse in reference to offence, not regarding how offensive their way was unto others in the use of indifferent things, such as eating of things sacrificed, &c. which in these primitive times was to many the occasion of stumbling, when Christian-liberty was not rightly bounded, as we may gather from, 1 Corinth. 8:9, 10. And these two also often go together, to be carelesse of guilt before God, and of offence before others.
From which we may gather, 1. That the most vile Errors and delusions may increase exceedingly: This of the Nicolaitans had spread in Ephesus, Pergamos, and several other Churches, even in the dayes of John the Apostle. 2. That new-upstart grosse abominations, are oftentimes indeed but the reviving of some old buried and condemned practices or doctrines. Thus the Error of the Nicolaitans, is but indeed, on the matter, the putting of Balaam’s practice in a doctrine, and maintaining the same under another name. 3. We may see that it is an allowed way of confuting new startup delusions, to shew their agreement, on the matter, with former old acknowledged and condemned Heresies. Thus the Lord doth here; and in the Epistle following, he compareth them to Jezebel: for, often men will more impartially judge of by-past Errors, than of what seemeth to be new: and therefore the devil useth most cunningly to disguise those things, and to endeavour to have old Errors vented under the notion of new lights, and depths, when indeed they are but old rotten delusions.
If it be said here, that ordinarily the most grosse men use to brand the most Orthodox with this, as being revivers of old Heresies, whereof many instances may be given. For Answer, We say, that a simple asserting of this, is not sufficient to bear it out: we would therefore propose these qualifications, 1. That the thing esteemed to be an Error or Heresie, be indeed incontrovertibly such, and that in sons fundamental thing: indeed sometimes, even the Ancients, do put somethings in the Catalogue of Heresies, which will not be found to be of such weight. It is not those we speak of, nor is it such that are mentioned here. 2. The application also would be clear; and men would not charge others with Heresies of an odious name or nature upon prejudice, or upon mistake of some expression: may, not upon some seeming consequence, which the Authors do deny, and, it may be, others cannot demonstratively shew the inference thereof. Here it is not so, the practice and doctrine of the Nicolaitans, is so clear, that they cannot deny it in particulars, though it may be, at first, they would refuse it to be the doctrine of Balaam. 3. Such an application would be made in knowledge, and from through acquaintance with the alleged old Heresie upon the one side, and with particular tenents of others, who are supposed to maintain that error, upon the other side. Oftentimes men speak in those things, what they know not, or with a too lightly passing view; or, upon some probable resemblance, or appearance, are ready to ground such an application. 4. This would be remembered, that the old condemned Heresie must be such as is condemned in Scripture, and that still the Word is to be acknowledged as the supream rule. All which agree in this application; and where they agree, it is not a little prejudice to an opinion, to say, it is, on the matter, the same with such and such an old Heresie, that is, to mens conviction long since condemned upon grounds from the Word of God.
This was a soul Error: and it is not to be thought that this Angel, who is here so commended, was guilty of any of these evils, by any positive accession to them; but this is the fault charged upon him, that thou hast them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, that is, the Angel had such in the Church, who continued to be Members, and were not by Discipline cut off. This is his fault: for, it was not the Churches fault that such lived in Pergamos, because they had no civil Authority to impede that; yet it was their fault that they lived Church-members there, because they had Church Authority to remedie that, which yet was not put in exercise against them, as by Ephesus had been done.
From which we may gather, 1. That the Church is invested with a Power and Authority for cutting off of corrupt Members. 2 That it is a most horrible fault where there is defect in this. Our Lord Jesus quarrelleth the want of this in Pergamos, where He commendeth much honestie: and He commendeth it in Ephesus, where there wanted not inward defects: because there is nothing that more occasioneth the Name of Christ to be reproached, his Ordinances to be despised, his people to be offended and stumbled, than the suffering of corrupt Members that are tainted with Errors to continue in the Church. Therefore much of the Churches commendations or reproofs in these Epistles is founded on this, as it is rightly, or, partially exercised. 3. By this it appeareth, that our Lord Jesus is no friend to toleration; and that the tolerating of corrupt teachers, can no way be approven of Him. It is true, this is directly spoken against Church-men their tolerating of corrupt teachers: But will anything that that will be approven in civil Powers, which is so hateful in the Church-officers? or, that Jesus Christ will account toleration in the one to be hateful, and in the other to be approvable? 4. There is diversitie of tempers in Church-officers, and diversitie of conditions in Churches, even where there may be real honesty in both: Ephesus had much coldnesse within, and yet much zeal against those Nicolaitans; Pergamos again, is much commended for their zeal and constancie in suffering: and yet reproved for want of zeal against there corrupt Members. 5. Men may be very straight and tender in the work of God, and bold in reference to suffering, and yet faint and be defective in the prosecuting of Church-censures against erroneous men. This appeareth both from this Epistle and that which followeth, where their particular condition and publick carriage in other things, is exceedingly commended; yet if there a notwithstanding in both in reference to this.
If it be asked, What can be the reason that honest, tender, and zealous men should be so often defective in this, who yet may be zealous and servent against scandalous practices?
Answ. These reasons may be given, 1. It is more difficult to get the impression of the odiousnesse of corrupt doctrine on the heart, than of grosse outward practices: because grosse practices offend nature more directly, and are hatefull even to naturall men: and even some good men are ready to softer such an opinion, as if grace were more consistent with error than with profanity. Upon this ground the Lord Himself, and the Apostles do more frequently give people warning to mark and abstain from them that cause offences contrary to the Doctrine of the Gospel, than they do in matters of grosse practice. 2. Persuing of persons that are erroneous, hath often little fruit with it as to the persons themselves, there being but few that are recovered out of that snare of the devil, and to whom God giveth repentance, who once deliberately oppose themselves to the truth; but on the contrary, they seem to be more bold, and to make a greater stir than if they had not been taken notice of, as we see in Corinth, and Galatia; the more that Paul pressed them, the more they seemed to despise him, and they go on in their contradiction and blasphemy, as in the History of the Acts, and instances of Hymeneus and Philetus, is clear. This maketh that even sometimes good men, out of fear of the inconveniences that may follow, and the difficulties that accompany such a work, may be too prone to oversee and forbear them. 3. Sometimes respect to the persons of some who may be carried away, may have influence on this, as suppose some persons for a name of piety, sometimes savorie, should be seduced; preposterous tendernesse to those may make men cruelly to spare them to their prejudice. This fault the Lord seemeth to quarrel in Thyatira, that they suffered his servants to be seduced. 4. There may be also a design by more gentle means to restrain such an errour, and recover such as are fallen, whereby they may come to exceed and turn to be defective in not using the means appointed, as if such censures had been needlesly appointed, or, as if the Lord did not make use of mediate means for the restraining of errour. 5. Such businesses also have often their own mistakes among many tender members of the Church; some whereof, may be too favourable constructers of the most grosse seducers, and so fear to offend them; and love to keep all in peace, oftentimes may steal in to have weight to the prejudice of the Lords Ordinance. It is written of the Schism in Phrygia, which arose for Montanus, that many did construct too well of him, as not thinking it impossible but he might be a good man, who, therefore could not go alongst in the thoughts that others had of him. There is readily something of this amongst the weakest fort where deluders come, which getting way for a time, doth rather increase than diminish; and so leaveth this duty in a greater none-entry than at first.
We come now to the remedy, or duty exhorted to, which is laid down and pressed vers. 16. It is in short, Repent; that same which was proposed to Ephesus, vers. 5. The Lord hereby signifying, 1. That when sins are fallen into, it is not enough for bear them, but there must be an exercising of repentance for them. 2. That there is no expectation to be keeped free from wrath where there hath been sin without repentance. 3. That ommissions are sinfull and to be repented of, even as commissions are. And, 4. That sinfull ommissions in a mans publick Station (such as this is, which is reproved) are to be repented of, as grosse personall faults are.
The threatning annexed, is, in these words, or else I will come unto thee quickly and, I will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. It hath two parts: the first, respecteth the Church or Angel of Pergamos, I will come unto thee quickly, that is, if thou repent not, I will one way or another come in judgement against thee. We conceive it relateth to the Angel especially, it being in the singular number: because this fault being a defect in Discipline, is not so to be imputed to the People, as to him whole place it was to take order with such corruptions: which will appear more clearly afterward. The second part respecteth these grosse members that were suffered to be in the Church, to wit, the Nicolaitans, I will fight against them with the sword of my mouth, that is, seing ye are guilty of defect here, if there be not repentance for it, I will come in an extraordinary way and my self punish those whom ye have suffered. For clearing of this threatning, we may consider, 1. Wherein it consisteth. 2. How it can be a threatning to the Angel. 3. Wherefore he is so peculiarly threatned.
To the first, It is clear here, that the party immediately threatned, is the Nicolaitans, whom the Lord threatneth to fight against with the sword of His mouth: which looketh not to any external, or corporal plague: for, the sword of His mouth, is not the weapon that inflicteth such: But it looketh especially to these, 1. To a discovery of their wickednesse, and of the hatefulnesse of their way, by his Word. 2. To a censuring, threatning, and sentencing of them by the same. 3. To a fruitlesnesse of such discoveries, threatnings and sentences, as to any spritual or saving work upon them, but that they should be by such clear convictions and sentences, in Gods secret Wisdom and Justice, more hardned, convinced, irritated and affected with spiritual plagues, than if they had not been so dealt with: in this respect often in the Scripture we have mentioned, hewing by the Prophets, and slaying by the words of the Lords mouth, as Hosea 6:5 and fighting with Antichrist, and destroying him by the Spirit of His mouth, 2 Thess. 2:8. And elsewhere the like expressions to that purpose. This is a lad plague, when the Table of the Gospel becometh a snare, and when through mens own corruption they become more drunk with their own delusions, even under convincing Light; and when the Word of God, which is the only Weapon whereby they may offend their enemies, is through their opposing the Light thereof, turned to fight against them, as they have turned themselves to fight against it: the event here as to them, cannot but be desperate.
For the second, It may be questioned how this can be a threatning to the Church or Angel that the Lord would take such course with these corrupt Nicolaitans? It might rather look like a favour to them?
Answer. If we consider it more particularly, we will find it a threatning in these respects, 1. That it implies Christ to be angry at their neglecting of their duty; and that this extraordinary way doth insinuate His esteeming of them not to be worthy to have this employment: therefore he taketh their duty off their hand, and provideth Himself of some others for the performing thereof. Thus, when Paul is threatning the Corinthians, 1 Epist. Chap. 4 vers. 21. What, shall I come unto you with arod? &c. whereby he sheweth himself to be angry. In the beginning of the next Chap. he reproveth them for suffering the incestuous person, and commandeth him to be Excommunicated: which bearethout this, that Paul’s coming over them to presse such a duty, was a stroke or note for their defect in the same. 2. It is a threatning in this respect: because the taking of some extraordinary way and mean as in reference to these Nicolaitans, hath strange like and uncouth effects oftentimes following upon it: thereby the Church is put through other, and revolutions follow; and often the Wheat is trode upon, when the Tares are a weeding: which cannot but be hurtful to the Church. 3. It supponeth a laying-by of this Angel and making use of some other for this work of convincing, reproving, and confounding, &c of those wicked men, which should be to His disgrace, when he should have no hand in so good a work: and so the meaning of the threatning, is, to the Angel, if thou spare these wicked men, and do not thy duty in reference to them, I my self will come in another way, and lay thee by, and follow my purpose in sentencing, and censuring of them by some other mean. And this is to give another his Crown, which is so oft commended to the Angels in those Epistles to be kept. Thus the threatning is not to remove a Ministrie or Church-estate from Pergamos as was in the case of Ephesus; but it is the Lords threatning to lay aside such particular Ministers, and notwithstanding thereof to carrie on His Work.
Now for the third, to wit, wherefore this threatning respecteth the Angel more peculiarly, than that of Ephesus, did. Answ. The reason was formerly hinted, to wit, Ephesus sin & defect was in the practice of the power of Godliness; common to Ministers and people: therefore doth that threatning extend almost equally to both: this sin again, which is reproved here, doth peculiarly reflect upon the Ministers: and therefore the weight of the threating doth peculiarly respect them.
From which we may learn, 1. That fainting and unfaithfulnesse in the Work of the Ministrie, may procure an interruption by one mean or other in the exercise thereof, or a blasting of a man in Gifts and Parts, who somtimes hath been usefull. 2. It sheweth that somtimes God may keep His Word in a place, and exercise it in reference to some persons, between whom and Him there is a standing or stated fight, they fighting against Him and not receiving the love of the Truth, and He fighting against them by giving them up to hardnesse of heart and strong delusions; and, in His secret and holy Justice, making His Word and Ordinances to promove the same. 3. It followeth also, that it is a molt dreadfull thing when the Lord and His Word become our party, and when He fighteth against a people with that Sword: it is here a more terrible threatning to fight against those with the Sword or His mouth, than if He had sent the Sword, Famine or Pestilence upon them. 4. It implieth, that this is a plague, and a way of punishing, that the Lord in His Justice often sendeth and exerceth upon deluders and corrupt Teachers, who have not received the love or the Truth, and have perverted the Word of God to their own destruction, to wit, that it should be a weapon of Gods indignation for the inflicting of Spiritual plagues upon them.
The Conclusion followeth, vers. 17 and hath two parts common with the rest; 1. All that are spiritually affected, and have the sense of right hearing, are exhorted to hear what God saith by His Spirit to the Churches, as if particularly it were spoken to them. This is so far from supposing that men naturally have ears to hear, that it doth imply the contrary, to wit, that it is not every one that hath ears to hear, but that he is a rare man that hath them; for, none can hear spiritually what the Lord faith to the Churches, but such as have gotten them as Moses word is, Deut. 29:4.
The second part of the Conclusion containeth some encouragements to the wrestling Believer, as all the rest of the Conclusions do. The party to whom the promise is made, is the same, to wit, him that overcometh, or he that is a overcoming, as it may be read: which pointeth at the zealous, single, constant, and faithful Wrestler, though he hath not yet obtained the victory. The encouragements given him, are, on the matter, the same with the rest, to wit, the happinesse that may be expected in heaven; but are set down in three, or four different expressions, for commending of the same. The first, is, I will give him to eat of the hidden Manna. Manna is called, (Psal. 105.) Angels food; and, Joh. 6 bread from heaven. It is, in a word, the most excellent, and refreshing food; yea, Christ Himself, who is called the true Bread from heaven, Joh. 6 of whom whosoever cateth shall not die. It is hidden Manna, possibly relating to that pot of Manna that was kept within the Ark of the Testimonie: and so it pointeth at such food as is hid with Christ in God, and to be enjoyed with God in the heavens: which was typified by the most Holy. However, it importeth, First, the excellencie of this food, and the satisfaction which the overcomer may expect: it is inconceivable and inexpressible, The eye hath not seen, the ear hath not heard of it, nor hath it entered in mans heart to conceive thereof, Isa. 64. Secondly, It importeth its sickernesse: it is hid, it can not but be sure to the overcomer, seing it is kept in the secret place of the most High. Thirdly, It importeth the rarity and singularity of this excellencie, being a thing altogether unknown to the world, as if it were hidden: in which respects (Coloss. 3:3) our life is said to be hid with christ in God. The second expression, is, I will give him a white stone: white stones were used in those dayes, for two ends, as may be gathered from Heathen writers, 1. In their wrestlings and games, he that overcame, and was victor, got a white stone, as a badge of honour put upon him. 2. It was used in civil Courts (when men were accused and challenged of crimes) to be given as a sign of absolution: thus a man that was found innocent and absolved, got a white stone, and he that was condemned got a black stone: both answer well here, where Christ promiseth to give to the overcomer a Crown, in pledge of his victory, and a full, publick, and open absolution in the great Day, before men and Angels. 3. This white stone hath a new name written upon it: a Name, is some honourable thing; a new name, is something eminently honourable: It was the Lords way to change the name of some, whom He eminently loved: and for confirmation of His favour to them, He gave them new Names: so he did to Abraham, Jacob, &c. This faith that the believing overcomer shall be made by Jesus Christ quite another thing, where He shall have such Glory and Majesty bestowed upon him, as will need a new Name to expresse the same, and make him think himself another thing than ever he thought to have been. We take it, on the matter, to be that same which is expressed, chap. 3 v. 12 by having the Name of God, and Christs new Name written upon them. 4. It is a Name which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. This must be an excellent mot to that only the spiritual senses of the receiver is able to discern the excellencie thereof, so that no on-looker can tell what the satisfaction, dignity, and honour of such a person is; but he who is possessed with the same: and proportionally, these who are made joynt Heirs of the same Glory. These promises may in some part be applicable to the first fruits of the Spirit that the Believers are partakers of here: which, in respect of carnal delights, are unspeakable and glorious, and such as passe all understanding; yet the proper fulfilling of them, and the main scope of the place, is to be applied only to the enjoyments that Believers have to expect in heaven; when they shall reap the full Harvest, and be brought to the possession of the Kingdom prepared for them: for, all of them do presuppose a full accomplished victorie before they be attained: which cannot be expected in this life. O but heaven must be an excellent happinesse: seing the satisfaction thereof is so inexpressibled even the Apostle Paul who was ravished to the third heavens, must give it over, and say, he heard what was impossible to be uttered, 2 Cor. 12.
THis is the fourth Epistle, directed to the Church of Thyatira. The division is common with the rest of the Epistles, To wit, 1. An Inscription, vers. 18, 2. The Body of the Epistle, vers. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. The Conclusion is in the rest.
In the Inscription, Christ taketh three Titles to Himself; the first is, thus faith the Son of God. This is (to say so) His royall Stile, than which there can be none higher: For, 1. It beareth out His Godhead: for, Christi, not the Son of God by Adoption, as Believers are; but He is the Son of God by an eternall Generation, being begotten of the Father in an unconceiveable way: in which respect, He is frequently called the only begotten of the Father, 1 Joh. 14:18 and the brightnesse of his glory, and expresse image of his person, Heb. 1:3. 2. It points out the unity of the Essence of the God-head, which is common to the Father and the Son: for, this same that is the Son of God here, as being a distinct person from the Father, is the first and the last, who is, who was, and is to come, the Almighty, Chap. 1:8, 11 which are essentiall Attributes of the God-head. 3. This title being compared with the Vision in the former Chapter, where in Christ was spoken of as true Man, doth point out the Union of the two Natures in one Person: for, the Son of Man, is the Son of God; and the same Person who is the Son of God, is the Son of Man. All which, are considerations that bear forth excellency in Him; and give ground of comfort to His People. The reason why He taketh this stile to Himself in this place, is, because He is Soveraign to reprove faults in, and to give directions unto, His Church: and that with severe threatnings in reference to persons that were guilty: therefore, to make all the more weighty, He taketh this stile.
The other two Titles, are taken out of the Vision, Chap. 1. To wit, Who hath eyes as a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brasse. The first of them, setteth forth His Omnisciency, that is able to reach the secrets of hearts, and discover the hypocrisie of the most subtile hypocrite. Answerable to this tittle (vers. 23.) He is said to search the heart and the reins: and His being manifested to be such, is His being known to have eyes like unto a flame of fire. The last title, and his feet like unto fine brasse, sheweth the incorruptnesse and justnesse of His way in mannaging the affairs or His House, and his foveraign irresistible manner in promoving his designes; as having both absolute Authority to Govern, and absolute power to execute what he intendeth. Answerable to this, (vers. 23.) He is said to render to every one according to their works. He taketh the first of these two titles: because He is to discover the hypocrisie of a counterfeit Prophetesse. And He taketh the last: because He is to threaten her and her followers.
In the Body of the Epistle (beside the generall asserting of his Omniscience) there are four main things, 1. There is a commendation, vers. 19. 2. There is a quarrel, with some aggravations thereof, vers. 20 and 21. 3. There is a threatning, including a duty, or, comprehending the way how the thing threatned might be prevented, vers. 22 and 23 This is in reference to them that were corrupted. 4. Their is a mitigation of the threatning, or, a consolation laid down in reference to these that were keeped free from these corruptions, vers. 24, 25.
The commendation is great, both as to the extent of the matter commended, and as to the qualification thereof. Beside the general, I know thy works, the things commended in them, are set down in five words, exceeding comprehensive. The first is, their charity, or love: this setteth forth the inward frame of their heart in reference to God and the Saints: and is, in effect, the sum and fulfilling of both the Tables of the Law. This was defective in Ephesus. The second is, their service: this looketh to their ministering to the Saints of their substance, and otherwise: and is a fruit and proof of the former. The third is, their faith: which respecteth not only the purity of their profession, by their keeping themselves from Error: but mainly it looketh to their exercising of faith in Him, and dependence on Him: for, it is faith, to wit, the grace of faith that is commended here, as it is the grace of love, patience, &c. The fourth thing, is, patience: which is a fruit of faith; and importeth their submitting to suffering for the Gospel of Christ, without fainting or shifting in respect of the outward profession before others, or freting in respect of the inward frame of their spirit as to themselves, notwithstanding of all these sufferings. The fifth word is, and thy works; which generally looketh to the strain of their carriage, which by this the Lord holdeth forth as commendable. All these being put together, they shew an excellent frame this Church once had, and withall, give a Copie unto us. Yet there is a circumstance or qualification added; which doth exceedingly heighten the commendation, that is, and the last to be more then the first. The meaning whereof, is, although thou hast been in a good condition for charity, patience, works, &c. since the beginning; yet thy last works are, for extent in practice, for livelinesse in degree, and for a spiritual manner of performing of them, beyond what they were; so that her present condition is set forth to be a growing condition, which doth confirm her to have been really sincere and in a most lively frame. The commendation was excellent but this qualification patteth the crown upon it: for where a decay cometh upon the graciousnesse of a peoples frame, (as was in Ephesus) or, where there is an up fitting without progresse, these become as a dead flie that maketh all the box of ointment to stink.
The challenge followeth, vers. 20 and 21. 1. Generally proposed. 2. Particularly expressed. 3. It is aggreged. Who could have thought that the next word to such an excellent commendation, should be a not with standing? But this sheweth, 1. The deceitfulnesse and desperatnesse of our corruption, that may have its influence beside much grace, as hath been frequently marked. 2. It sheweth the Lords condescending and graciousnesse, who giveth such a testimony, even where there are faults. The generall expression is, I have a few things against thee: Which is the same, upon the matter; and so to be understood as was spoken to Pergamos, vers. 14. We shall therefore say no more of it.
More particularly, the quarrel, is, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth her self a prophetesse, &c. For clearing of which, we would, 1. consider Jezebels fault, which the Lord chargeth upon her. 2. The Angel’s fault, for which he is charged, who yet was free of her grosse evils.
For the first: Jezebel is described by her name and practice. It is not to be thought that there was such a woman bearing such a name, or owing the practices of Jezebel Queen of Israel, who is recorded, 1 King. 16:31. &c. But it is like, there hath been in this Church some impudent woman, who, for the furthering the abominable Sect of the Nicolaitans, getteth this name Jezebel, to make her and her Tenents the more odious, even as in the former Epistle, some were said to hold the doctrine of Balaam, for this very end. For Jezebels practice, 1 King. 16. &c. is recorded to be infamous for these two, 1. For grosse idolatry and the spreading thereof. 2. For painting and fairding her-selfin an impudent way, which insinuateth her being guilty of Adultery and uncleannesse. Which two being the faults whereof this counterfeit prophetesse was guilty, the Holy Ghost giveth her this name of Jezebel: thereby to scare His People the more from her, &c. for, what ever she intended, she was, upon the matter, but a Jezebel. By this it appeareth also, that she hath been some special promoter of the Sect of the Nicolaitans: for, we will find her practice and tenents to agree therewith. 1. She calleth her self a prophetesse, that is, she rook on her, and so gave out her self, as if the had been extraordinarily inspired by the Holy Ghost, thereby to again more credit to her opinions. It’s marked in Ancient History, that there was never almost an eminent Heresie or Heretick, but had some special woman for the promovers thereof, who oftentimes took to themselves the name of prophetesses. Eusebius, lib. 5. cap. 16 (which is cited in the second Centurie. cap de Hœres.) marketh it of many: Simon Magus had his Helena; Carpocrates his Marcellina; Apelles his Poilumena; Montanus had two, whom he called prophetesses, to wit, Priscilla and Maximilla: and Augustine frequently mentioneth one Lucilla, who was a great ring-leader of the Donatists: so it is like the Nicolaitans had such a prophetesse, for furthering of their designe.
If it be asked, Why the devil sesketh thus to engage women, and to put them on the top of such designes?
Answ. These reasons may be given, 1. Because often women are most easily engaged and carried furthest on in the delusion; and it is not to easic to make a man give out himself for a prophet, as a woman to take on her the name of a prophetesse. This generall we may gather from, 2 Tim. 3:6, 7. 2. Women are most eager, vehement, and diligent in pursuing what they are engaged into: even late times may teach how they may prevail and infinuate on many by their diligence, if we consider what is recorded of Mistris Hutchinson and some others, mentioned in that little Story of the Rise, Reigne, and Ruine of Familists, Libertines, &c. in New England. 3. Women are oftentimes lesse suspected than men; and any seeming parts or abilities, which in the Lords secret Justice they may be furnished with, is usually more admired and taking than in men, as if it looked like a thing above nature. This same consideration, occasioned a shism in Phrygia, because some had more respect to Montanus his prophetesses, than was fit. 4. Woman also have more secret, and private accesse to tempt and infect others, than men can have: for, partly, they are lesse suspected; partly, more slighted and despised by others; partly also, more forborn because of their sexe than men would be: whereupon often they arrogate to themselves a greater liberty and impudency in speaking when they are corruptly principled, than would be suffered in men. And lastly, there is more accesse for them to converse with women, and to infuse their venom in them than there is for men. Eusebius marketh this as a reason of such Hereticks associating with women, that thereby there might be the greater facility to reduce the simple of both sexes. Sometimes also they were helpfull by their means and credite to further Sect-masters in their designes, and to hold them on in them: sometimes again, they were exceeding dexterous and diligent inventing and spreading false reports upon honest Ministers, and to beget a favourable opinion of these that were erroneous. All which tend exceedingly to the promoving of Error and to the hurting of the truth. And we will find Augustine often complaining of the malicious reports that this Lucilla used so spread upon them, whereby the calumnies of the Donatists were strengthened. Upon which grounds and the like, we may fee what the devils design is in seeking to engage such in the head of such a design. This then is the first fault charged on her, that contrary to truth, and without warrand from God, the did call her self a prophetesse; even though she had not proposed any Error.
Her second fault is, that she teacheth: this was forbidden, 1 Cor. 14:34 and 1 Tim 2:12. And it appeareth, that even these Prophetesses, who had an extraordinary Gift from God, as Philips daughters had, Acts 21. Yet were not publickly and Authoritatively to Preach: for, Paul commands them silence, 1 Cor. 14 even when he is speaking of extraordinary Prophets. And we will not find in the New Testament (at least) any ground for a Woman publickly to officiate in the Ministrie of the Gospel, as an Authorized Officer bearer.
The third part of her challenge, is, that by her Teaching she did seduce: which is a challenge to her, though she had been guilty of none of the former two. This, to wit, seduction and leading of people out of the way of Truth, doth ever almost follow upon persons usurping a Calling to themselves, or upon persons stepping without their own bounds and station to Teach; and we will seldome find persons to run unsent in any of the former respects; but itching after some new thing, hath had influence upon them, to carry them without their bounds, as we may fee in Jezebel here, and ordinarily through the Scripture and Church-historie. The particulars wherein she seduced her hearers, are two. The first is, to commit fornication, that is, by her asserting fornication to be no sin, the occasioned and stirred them up to take liberty therein, which possibly other wayes they would not have done. The second is, to eat things sacrificed to Idols, that is, by propounding the indifferencie of meats, and pretending to Christian liberty, she induced them without all respect to scandal, to eat of these things, to the stumbling, grieving and wounding of others that were weak and tender: which two, are the very doctrines and practices of the Nicolaitans, as was shown in the Epistles to Ephesus and Pergamos.
But it is a different quarrel from this which the Lord hath with the Angel: it’s expressed thus, because thou sufferest that woman lezebel, &c. that is, not that they countenanced her in her Errors, or did her Teaching; but that they suffered her, and did not impede hear her in her If it be asked, How they can be quarrelled for suffering of her, seing they were not Magistrates, nor had civil Authoritie to restrain her? Answ. That is not the quarrel; but this, that they being invested by Christ Jesus with Church-power to censure corrupt Ministers, and cut off rotten Members, did not exercise the same in censuring and Excommunicating of this false Prophetesse and these that adhered to her, as Ephesus had censured the false Apostles, vers. 2. So, on the matter, it’s the same fault which is condemned in Pergamos, vers. 15 who had such corrupt Members in their societie, and did not by Excommunication cut them off: which sheweth that the Church is invested with such a Power (for, no civil Power can be alledged here) and that the neglecting of the exercise thereof, is exceedingly displeasing to Christ Jesus.
If it be asked, 1. How Church censures, when backed with no civil Authority, can impede one to teach? 2. Why the Lord info displeased with Church-rulers their suffering of corrupt teachers? 3. If this relate any way to civil Powers as well as Ecclesiastick?
To the first, we answer, Although Church-censures have no civil compulsion with them or bodily violence or strength to restrain any from corrupt teaching; yet they have a threefold weight, when rightly gone about: they have an authority and weight as to the conscience of the gain-sayer: because censures, being the Ordinance of Jesus Christ, and, as it were a seal put by his Authority to a conditionall threatning, they have a stamp of His Majesty upon them: and so they serve to humble men, or to revenge their disobedience: and therefore these who seeminly prosesse to despise sentences, want not an inward apprehension of the terrour of Excommunication, and would gladly not have that sentence past upon them. 2. If men obstinately suppresse the weight of the censure upon the conscience, as well as of the Word; yet, being a mean appointed of God for the restraining of such evils, it’s oftentimes countenanced by Him, if not to the humbling, yet to the blasting of such persons in their designes: whereby in his secret Providence and Justice it often cometh to passe that sentences against such persons, are eminently owned and countenanced by Him, with some concurring dispensation, evidencing His satisfying of the same, as sometimes, such, are in justice given up to more vile despensions, sometimes to grosse out-breakings in practice, sometimes their very natural judgement and senses are blasted, their credit and reputation evanisheth, and, it maybe, some way He doth signally follow them with His own immediate Hand by some stroak upon their Estates, Persons, or Families, even when they seem to be countenanced by civil Power, as it is written in Church-story he did to Simon Magus, and Arrius after he was Excommunicated, by taking him away in the very hight of his insolency, who having again recovered Court and beinga in a solemn manner with many attendants coming to appear for his pretended vindication, was smitten as he thought with a desire to eafe himself, and for that end withdrawing to a retiring place in one of the streets of Constantinople, he did instantly expire, and having been waited for long by his attendants, was at last found dead in the seat, his intestines being dissolved and voided. That little Book (formerly cited) of the Rise, and Reigne of the Familists, &c. hath some dreadfull instances of this. Thus the Lord hath often made such away to stink, by smitting the head thereof in some extraordinary manner. And though this be not the proper end of Excommunication; yet when it meeteth with mens corruptions, it is often a just consequent thereof. And these, or such like wayes of disappointment, cannot be so warrantably expected where this Ordinance is not improven: because it hath the promise, and is a mean appointed for this end, that men may learn not to blaspheme, as the Apostle speaketh, 1 Tim. 1:20. 3. It hath weight as to others, to scare them from countenancing of such; and is, as it were, a Mark or Beakon set upon them, thereby to give warning to others for eschewing of their company, as it is, Rom. 16:17, 18 and in many other places: and if it have this fruit, it cannot but in a great part blast their designe. Now; the neglect of this sentence, made all these restraints void, as if no weight had been in Christs Ordinance: this was the Angels fault.
As to the second, to wit; wherefore Christ is so displeased with the suffering of corrupt Teachers, we may gather the reasons thereof from what is said: For, 1. it sheweth little zeal to His Glory, when His Name is suffered to be blesphemed. 2. It she weth little love to His People, when they are suffered to be seduced. 3. It sheweth little respect to His Ordinances, when they are not made suffered to for the end appointed, and when corrupt men are suffered to invert the order appointed by Him: in a word, Error and false Teachers have brought more reproach upon the Name of Christ and Profession of the Gospel, and have made Religion more despicable to profane men, than any grosse out-breakings have done: also, moe souls have been destroyed thereby, and that speedily with swift destruction, 2 Pet. 2 and, as it were carrying them away with a flood, as it is, chap. 12. Lastly, Other sins are fallen into, by some more pretext at least, of tentation and corruptions prevailing, but this is done with a high Hand, whereby men not only break the command themselves, but teach others so to do, Matth. 5:19. And therefore it is called a Teaching of rebellion against the Lord, Jer. 28:16 and is fallen into, with more deliberation than other sins: for which cause an Heretick is said to be condemned of Himself, Tit. 3:11. Which being put together, with many other aggravations of this sin of corrupt Teaching, and ills that follow thereupon, it is no marvel that the Lord Jesus who is jealous of His Glory; and affected with the hazard of His People, be exceedingly displeased at the neglect of such a duty, as is the using of the Authority which he hath given to His Church-officers for edification, and particularly for the curbing of corrupt Teachers, and the taking of the foxes that spoil the Vines. Song. 2:15.
We suppose now, it is not difficult to Answer to the third Question, to wit, If the suffering of corrupt Teachers be reprovable in men, who have civil Authority to restrain the same? for, the same grounds that ought to awaken zeal in Ministers against this ill, ought also to stir up Magistrates zealously in their places to use their Authority for vindicating of the Name of Christ, and preventing of the hurt of His Church and People, seing the Sword is not delivered to them in vain, but for the terror of them that do evil, Rom. 13:3. Sure we are in the Old Testament; Magistrates were included within the command of restraining and punishing such as did intise to false Worship, as well as the Priests were, Deut. 13:1. &c And, in the New Testament, we find no repeal of the same: and though there be no instance thereof in the Gospel, or Acts of the Apostles, because Magistrates were not then Christians; yet, in the progresse of this Book of Revelation, we will find, that when Magistrates became Christian, it’s looked upon as reprovable in them that countenanced Antichrist; and it’s highly commended in these, that out of zeal to God, should with draw from the whore and burn her with fire, chap. 17 vers. 16, 17. And seing in the Scripture, all Sectmasters are accounted Antichrists, as, Mat. 24, 1 Joh. 2:18, 2 Epistle, vers. 7. &c. can there be any better rule to try what is duty in reference to them, than by what is approven of God in reference to him who is the prime Antichrist? And this is clear, that the Lord hath not more clearly engaged Himself to fight against any Error by His Word than this; yet, He will not have that a pretext to Magistrates for shunning to exercise their civil Power against Him. We see also in Church-historie, that the most tender Magistrates, when they were in the best frame, have ever been most zealous in this, as by the examples of Constantin, Gratianus, Theodosms, &c. is clear: and the most untender friends, or greatest enemies of the Truth, have striven to have all sorts of Religions equally tolerated, or, at least, to have a fort of harmonie amongst them by the removing, or burying of all Laws Civil and Ecclesiastick, that did strike against some Errors. In reference to the first, it’s observed by Amminaus, Heathen writer, and a great friend to Julian, that amongst other devices that Julian used to root out Christianity, this was one, that he gave toleration openly to all the different Professions that were amongst Christians, (which then after the Councel of Nice were very many) and required no more of them, but that they should abstain from civil discords; and so without fear follow any Religion they pleased. The words are (as they are cited by Ludovicus Molineus, pag. 560.) ut consopitiis civilbus discordiis, suæ quisque Religioni serviret intrepidus. And certainly, it can be no acceptable service to Jesus Christ, to follow that way, which this expert child of the devil made use of against Him. And Anastasius also, is condemned for this, that he endeavoured such an oblivion, or δμνηστίαν in the Church, as tended to suppresse all the former Cannons, Decrees, of Confessions, which had been enacted in the former famous general Councels against grosse Errors, as may be seen in the beginning of the sixth Centurie of the Church-historie. Lastly, This is also sure, that the asserting that Magistrats ought not de jure, or might not de facto, meddle with restraining of Hereticks; was ever in the Primitive times accounted a grosse Error. Augustine professeth himself sometime to have been of that opinion: yet often in his writings doth he professe himself to have been convinced with the reasons of his brethren, and with the experience that he had both of the necessity and advantage of the Magistrates interposing in such a thing; so that he became a most vehement presser of this, as in his Epistles is clear: and he feareth not to account the opposers of this, (to wit, such as pleaded for toleration from Magistrates) amongst Hereticks; and often nameth them under the Title Rogatiani; from one who it seemeth, was some eminent pleader for this forbearance, and one of the Donatists party.
It is not intended that Magistrats, or Ministers, should account alike of all Errors or Hereticks; much Jesse that indifferently the highest degrees of civil punishments, or Church-censures, should execute against them; but that according to Spiritual prudence, both Civil and Church Authority should be exercised for the restraining of such evil workers from, and punishing of them, for hurting of the Church of Christ &c dishonowring of His Name. In which, Christian prudence will make difference, 1. between Errors that destroy the foundation and are called damnable, 2 Pet. 2:1, 2, &c. and other Errors, which are consistent with the foundation, although they be as hay or it stubble built thereon. 2. Difference is to be made between Errors that are simplie Doctrinal, such as these that are about the object of Predestination, order of Gods Decrees, or such like: wherein certainly there is a right and a wrong, yet are they not so intolerable as Errors that imply a Schism in practice to the renting of the union of the Church, as these Errors or the Novatians and Donatists were. 3. Difference also is to be made, betwixt a man who entertaineth an erroneous opinion, and an other who is an Heretick, that is, Who not only after admonition, doth continue in the same opinion; but also doth persist to vent and propagat the same to the hurt and offence of others. 4. Although he that is seduced is guilty, as the seducer is; yet reason would put a difference between him that actively teacheth and seduceth, and him that is out of weaknesse seduced, and is but a follower of such a leader. 5. There may be a censuring in some degree either by civil or Church-Authority, when yet there is no procedour to any high degree in either: and thus the censuring in some cases, may be distinguished, not only from forbearance and negligence; but also from such censures as may appear rigid, or unseasonable: thus Paul sometimes reproveth and threatneth in the Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians, when yet he will neither altogether forbear them, nor palse the highest sentences upon them. Christian prudence is to lay weight upon such and such considerations in the managing of such an Authority; but still so as nothing extinguish that zeal which Magistrates and Church-officers ought to have for exercising of their respective Authorities in restraining of such an evil. But we will insist no more on this.
Followeth now, that we should consider the aggravations of the Lords quarrel, both in respect to Jezebel, and to the Angel. They are two, relating to both: 1. She seduced Christs servants: and this is the greater guilt both in references to her practice, and also to their suffering of her. 2. It’s aggreged from this, vers. 21. I gave her space to repent of her fornication and she repented not: whereby it appeareth, that she had continued for a time in her practice, and, notwithstanding of Gods forbearance, had not amended: therefore her sinful practice, and their neglective forbearance, became the more inexcusable.
Concerning the first aggravation, we are to consider, 1. Who are to be understood by this title, Christs Servants. 2. Why they get this title in this place. To the first we say. By Christs Servants, are not understood men indifferently: for, heathens and those that are without the Church, get not this name; but it is peculiarly applied to the whole house of Israel, Lev. 25:55 and so here it is to be applied these two wayes, 1. To Christians and Church-members: so Jezebel aimed not to seduce Pagans, and infect them with her Errors, but Christians and Church-members. 2. It may respect some more eminent in the Church nor others for Parts or Profession: and so amongst Church-members she aimed most to seduce these that were sound in the matter of Doctrine, and infected with no Error; and these that were clean in their conversation and free of grosse scandals, rather than such as were grosse and offensive in their carriage. But these are clear in matter of fact by experience: and by proportion it will follow, that as Hereticks, upon their own considerations, seek to infect Church-members rather than these that are without; so among Church-members they will seek rather to engage these who are eminent for parts, blamelesse in their carriage, or appearing to be gracious, than others, who are not of such esteem. For the second, to wit, why Christ giveth them this Title in this place who were seduced? We may give these reasons for it, 1. It is to aggrege the guilt of both, as hath been said. 2. It is to give the alarm and warning unto these that are His own People, seing even His Servants may be seduced. 3. It is to shew His own resentment of the successe of Error in His Church the more, that it draweth away these that stand in such a relation to Him, and (as it were) diminisheth the number of His Familie and Servants.
For further opening of this aggravation these things may be enquired into, 1. If any truely gracious may be engaged by false teachers and seduced to Error? 2. What may be the reasons that maketh the devil aim at the seduction of Christs Servants, rather than others? 3. Why Christ doth so expresly aggrege this guiltinesse upon this account?.
In Answer to the first Question, we say, first, that these that are truely gracious, are not readily and frequently seduced to Error, at least to be leaders therein and promoters thereof, as they are unto grosse practical offences: For, 1. We will not find in Scripture so many examples of the one as of the other. 2. It is a most rare thing for an opposer to get Repentance, 2 Tim. 2:25, 26 and therefore the Believers; yea, even the EIect before their conversion cannot be said frequently to fall in this evil. 3. It’s an ill that is followed with more deliberation, and cometh not from the surprising of some particular tentation, as other grosse evils do: therefore cannot be so consistent with gracious principles, and a spiritual walk, as particular outbreaking wherein a person is captivated. 4. To be a Teacher of Error, is to be a Teacher of rebellion against the Lord, Jer. 28 and to be a Minister and promoter of Satans kingdom, 2 Cor. 11:14, 15. Which at first appeareth to be abominable unto any of a gracious principle, and more than a sin of infirmitie. 5. Also the promises seem especially to relate to Gods guiding of his People in the way of Truth, and keeping them from being seduced by false Teachers: which, though it be not to be extended simplie to all; yet it appeareth it is to be extended further than in reference to practicall scandals.
Yet secondly, we say; That it is possible, even for these that are truely gracious to be seduced to Error: for, 1. There are promises indeed that they shall be kept from the sin against the holy Ghost, and from total and final apostafie and impenitence in respect of any ill; but there is no promise that a Believer otherwayes shall be kept from any ill incident to one that is unrenewed. 2. Even Believers have corruption, and so have much darknesse and ignorance in their judgment, and much perversnesse in their inclination and affections. It cannot be thought strange then, that they be capable to be carried away by a tentation to Error, there being no ill but it hath a party in them to take part with it. 3. The many warnings that are given in Scripture, even to Believers, to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, to beware of false Prophets that come in sheeps cloathings, &c. shew, that they are not without the reach of the hurt of such a tentation. 4. Experience also doth confirm this: for, it seemeth that in some measure Solomon wanted not his accession to this evil, if we consider what is recorded, not only of his suffering of corrupt worship to be within his Dominion; but also of his countenancing of the same, by building altars and otherwayes, although we cannot particularly determine. Neither can it be denied, but that some of these that were seduced by false Teachers in Corinth and Galatia, might be gracious: and in after-times also it hath been out of question.
To the second, to wit, wherefore Satan aimeth to seduce Christs Servants unto Error rather than others? We may answer in these reasons, 1. He doth it, because his hatred is most at such; and it’s their ruine, which especially he hunteth for. 2. Because men that are in Error and profanity already, are his own; and it’s no gain for him to take pains to seduce them unto such delusions, so long, at least, as they continue such. 3. He hath other more sutable baits for other men that are given to grosse ills: therefore he reserveth this for others. 4. In some respect, these who have a form of Religion, or some inclination towards it (especially if weak in knowledge) are in some respect more obnoxious to this rentation than grosly profane men are: for they, like Gallie, care not what be truth and what be Error: but one, who hath some tendernesse, and withall weak, is more ready to debate, and inquire for Truth; and so not being strong enough to rid himself of difficulties, he is the more easily in angled. 5. Grosse tentations to profanity, are not so taking with them: therefore the devil assayeth them by this, that under the colour of some new discoverie of Truth, or some more perfect way of Christianity, or such like, he may draw them to Error: and, by this more subtile tentation, whereby he transformeth himself to an Angel of light, he doth often prevail when other tentations would not. 6. It’s most advantagious to his way, to have some eminent for piety and parts engaged for it: for, by this, he gaineth credit to it, and maketh it the better digest with others, who often respect an opinion, as they respect these who own the same: thus he aimeth at this as a main engine whereby he may prevail with many; whereas the engaging of profane men bringeth no credit to such a way; neither is it his advantage to divert them from their profanity. It was a great stumbling in old, especially in the case of the Novatians, that many confessors and eminent men were drawn away with that Error: and this was often cast-up to the Orthodox, as a matter of great weight: whereupon Cyprian, in his book Deunitate Ecclesiæ, taketh occasion particularly to Answer this Objection, that people be not prejudged at truth, because of some mens name: especially, considering that there were many moe more eminent of the contrary mind. And, by the way, this slight of the devil may be observed, that men will make more work, and greater noise in commending Error by the name of one or two that favoureth the same, as if that were of so great weight, than they will allow to Truth, though it have many moe eminent names standing for it. 7. When men are aiming to be serious in Religion, the devil casteth this stumbling in their way, that if he prevail not to draw them to Error, he may at least mar them or divert them, by putting them through other, in making them debate such and such needlesse Questions; and so keep them from the more serious and profitable exercise of Repentance, self-examination, making of their Calling and Election sure, &c. Hence it is, that while men lye in security or profanity, they are not much troubled with this tentation; but being once awakened, then he setteth upon them, if so be he may extinguish that wakening, or give them a wrong set before they be fully formed and setled. And this is one reason why Errors and delusions do often accompanie the first rise of the Gospel amongst people. 8. By seducing of these that appear to be Godly, the devil bringeth most reproach, upon the Name of Christ and Religion, and maketh it the more to be stumbled at by these that are in nature, as being but some fancie and conceit, which would not follow upon the fall of many profane men: therefore he aimeth rather to seduce them that are Christs Servants and appear to be Godly.
To the third, We may see why the Lord especially aggregeth His quarrel from this, 1. Because His Servants come more near to Him than others. 2. He will have us knowing that Error is not to be extenuated or commended, nor false Teachers to be tolerated, even though many of His Servants should come to countenance the same: yea, on the contrary, it is the more aggreged and to be abhorred. 3. He doth by this shew the Church-officers, that the moe that are engaged to love Error of follow false Teachers, they ought to be the more stirred up with zeal in their duty against seducers, that they have prevailed with many of His Servants. And by this, He sheweth His tendernesse to affectionate Professors, rather to censure for their sake corrupt Teachers whom they respect, than to forbear them. 4. This is also mentioned, to shew this woman, and all corrupt Teachers, what they gain by having most successe against Christs Servants, to wit, this, that they have the more guilt, and are the more obnoxious to Christs quarrel. 5. The moe advantages the devil hath to his kingdom by the seduction of Christs Servants, it concerneth Him the more in that to oppose him, as in a thing, which in a speciall manner reflecteth upon His honour; which maketh Him so to quarrel for Jezebels practice, and the toleration of the same.
From all which, what we have said, is confirmed, to wit, that corrupt teachers are not to be tolerated in a Church, even when civil Powers do take no notice of them: it is well known from the History of the Primitive times, that severall Godly and zealous men have censured; yea, and even Excommunicated many Hereticks, as Arrians and others, when they have been sure to be instantly persecuted for the same: and it is recorded of some, who though they were threatned before hand, that yet having first provided their Churches with well qualified Successours, they did afterward proceed to pronounce sentence: thereby shewing their readinesse to undergo what ever trouble might follow upon that same account, and with all their zeal and tender care of the Churches edification.
We come now to the second aggravation, which is in vers. 21 and it is made up of these two, 1. There is a forbearance upon the Lords side, I gave her space to repent, that is, I did not suddenly and at first execute judgement upon her; but did for a time forbear her, thereby giving her an opportunity to repent; and indeed His long-suffering and forbearance, doth of it self lead to repentance, according to what is said, Rom. 2 vers. 4.
The second part, is, but she repented not: which holdeth forth the abuse of this mercy upon her side, to wit, that notwithstanding of the Lords forbearance she continued in her former practice without repenting of, or turning from, the same: therefore she is the more inexcusable, and they also in suffering of her. This aggravation doth import these four, First, that the Lord forbearing of a sinner, ought to be an inducement to them to repent, as is clear from that place, Rom. 2:4. Secondly, It importeth that sometimes God will give time and opportunity to repent, by His forbearance, unto most grosse sinners; and suffer with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath sited to destruction, Rom. 9:22. Thirdly, It importeth also, that such opportunities are often abused; and particularly, that it’s a rare thing for an opposer of the Truth to repent, The Apostle putteth a peradventure in it, 2 Tim. 2:25. In meeknesse instructing those that oppose themselves, if peradventure God will give them repentance, &c. We find also, Chap. 9 and 16 of this Book, that on the back almost of every plague upon Antichrists kingdom, it is marked, that yet they repented not for all that.
If any should ask the reason, Why repentance is so rare in reference to this sin?
We answer, 1. It’s a sin of a high nature, being deliberate and against sufficient grounds of conviction: and therefore in Gods Justice, is plagued with impenitency beyond other sins: and as in some respect, it commeth nearer to the sin against the holy Ghost than other sins in its nature; so also in Gods Justice it commeth nearer to it in its punishment. 2. The nature of this sin is such, that men tainted with it, are thereby in a greater incapacity to repent than these who are guilty of grosse ills in practice: because, 1. Nature doth not so challenge and convince for sins against the Truths of the Gospel, as for sins against the Moral Law. 2. Because men in Errors and delusions have their judgements so engaged, blinded and prejudged, that they think often such Errors are no Errors: and therefore there is the greater difficulty to bring them to the acknowledgement of the Truth, and of their being wrong; and yet this must precede their repentance. 3. The Lord also by this doth set a mark upon this sin, to scare all from the same: men oftentimes think little of this ill, He hath therefore put this mark of His displeasure thereupon the more expresly. Hence it is, that His threatnings are more clearly and expresly annexed to the second and third Commandments than any other, that He may make men know He is jealous of His Truth and Ordinances, and will by no means acquit such as take His Name in vain, whatever men think of these sins. In the fourth place, this aggravation importeth, that when time, and good opportunities are abused, guilt becometh the greater and the more inexcusable, and the Lords controversie becometh the more sharp.
There are two Conclusions aimed to be drawn from these words, by some, which no way they will bear, 1. Some say, that Jezebel had an ability and power to repent, seing she hath time allotted to her for it, and God expecteth it of her. For Answer, To say nothing of this generall, which is found to be an untruth from other clear Scriptures, which hold out men to be dead in sins, Ephes. 2:1. &c. and unable for any spiritual good, These things will vindicate this place, 1. If we consider who this party is, to wit, a most vile Seducer and Adulteresse: and even such Patrons of nature, will grant, that such high and grosse sins do justly deprive persons of any ability to repent, and do incapacitate them for exercising of the same. 2. If we compare this with 2 Tim. 2:25 we will find that patient waiting upon opposers: and thereby giving them opportunity to repent, is one thing; and to have repentance given them, is another: for, many have time allowed them, when yet it’s at a peradventure if God shall give them Repentance. Which sheweth, that Grace to exercise Repentance, when an opportunity is, must be given of God as well as the opportunity it self: otherwayes no opportunity can be rightly improven: which sheweth again, that men in such a case, have not this ability of themselves to repent. 3. The words do not speak out her ability; but what was her duty under such along suffering dispensation, as the opening of the words cleareth.
If it be said then, How can she be more incxcusable?
Answ. 1. Because this inability is of her own on-bringing. 2. Because it was not inability that swayed her to continue in her sin, and reject Repentance; but it was her positive inclination to these Errors, and her aversnesse from the Truths of God. And what ever men may dispute for the patronizing of nature against the Justice of God, now; yet when He cometh to judge, and when the conscience beareth witnesse of the vehement affection and delight which men had to, and in their, wickednesse, There will be none who shall dare to enter a defence upon their inability, seing in conscience they will be convinced, that that was not the thing which made them willingly choose such and such evils, and made them reject all means tending to recover them. 3. This also will make her, and such as she, inexcusable, that they did not improve such opportunities so as they might, and did not abstain from the following and committing of such grosse evils, which even many unrenewed men have done; who yet had not ability to repent of themselves more than they: and thus, none in such a case will be able to say in judgment, that they did make such use of the Word and other means as they might have made, even in such a condition; or, that they have come that length in outward Reformation, that they might have done.
The second Conclusion pretended to be drawn from this, is, That the Lord hath an universal will to have all men saved, seing He giveth her time to repent. This we say doth not follow hence: For, 1. suppose it might be said in some respect, that he willed the Repentance of such a particular person, who lived under His Ordinances, It will not follow thereupon, that He willeth the Salvation of all; even of such who never heard of Repentance. 2. It will not follow, God giveth some time, which ought to be improven to Repentance, and doth not instantly execute His Judgment, Therefore He willeth such a persons Salvation: for, God for a time forbare Pharaoh, even after he had evidenced his purpose in so doing, to be the exalting of His own Glory in his destruction, 3. If it were so, what might be said of such as the Lord doth not forbear, nor give time to repent; but taketh away in their sin, as he did Zimri and Cozbi? It cannot be said on this ground, that He willeth their Salvation; and so not the Salvation of all. 4. It will not follow, Christ willeth persons to repent, Therefore He willeth their Salvation: because He may be said to will them to repent, when he requireth it of them as their duty: and this, their duty of repenting, is the immediate object of His revealed and preceptive will: but a persons Salvation is, the proper object of His will of good-pleasure, or of his decreeing and purposing will. And no otherwayes can he be said, to will such persons Salvation (because he commandeth them to repent) than this, to wit, that in his Word he hath signified Repentance to be such a persons duty, and that he hath appointed a connexion between Repentance and Salvation; which still relateth to his revealed will: even as when God made the first Covenant with Adam, it might be said that he willed Adam to be holy, and that by that Covenant he had made a connexion between holinesse and life; yet it is not proper to say, that the Lord willed life to Adam upon that condition: because that looketh to the event, and respecteth the Lords will of purpose: which cannot but be effectual. And if the Lords willing of men (at least such as are under his Ordinances) to be saved be thus understood, as including only the duty which God layeth upon men, and the connexion that he hath made between it and Salvation in his Word, It may be admitted: but if it be extended to any antecedent will in God himself, distinct from that which is called his revealed will, This place and such like will give no ground for such an Assertion. If it be asked then, Why did he give her space to repent, if he intended not her Salvation? Answ. To forbear deciding of what might be His purpose to this particular person, (who haply may be an Elect,) because nothing is decided of her final condition in the Word; These reasons may be given, 1. thereby the Lord commendeth His Grace that doth so condescend to such a person. 2. The aggravation of her guilt and inexcusablnesse; are the moreclear, as hath been said; and thereupon He hath the more accesse to manifest the spotlessenesse of His Justice, as is in the threatning, vers. 23. 3. It doth the more comfort and encourage a penitent sinner, to step forward in the hope of Mercy, seing even such a person as Jezebel hath had such an offer; and that she, if penitent and believing, would have been accepted.
The third thing in the Body of the Epistle, is, the threatning, vers. 22, and 23. Whereby He again wonderfully presseth her, and these who were seduced by her, to the exercise of that much slighted duty of Repentance. The threatning hath three parts, 1. Something is threatned. 2. An exception is put in, leaving a door open to Mercy. 3. The scope or effect of the Lords executing this threatning, is set down. The thing threatned, is threefold, according to the several parties that he threatneth. 1. For Jezebel, Behold, I will cast her upon a bed: which pointeth out some remarkable stroak or plague threatned to be inflicted upon her, whereby she should become a spectacle to others, and yet not be instantly removed. 2. For them that commit adultery with her, I will cast them into great tribulation, that is, I will bring upon them that partake of her sin, whether in respect of spiritual or bodily adultery (for she was guilty of both) grievous and publick temporal stroaks. And, 3. I will kill her children with death: for, her children, it’s like were children begoten in their unclean conversing together: them the Lord threatens to remove, and thereby to give an evidence of His displeasure at their way, as He did Davids child for his adultery. For, we conceive, the children of her spiritual whoredom, are understood under that expression, these that commit adultery with her. From which we may see, that grosse Errors may procure many temporal and bodily crosses, as was formerly said.
Yet secondly (as is said) even this threatning hath a door open in it, and is not absolute, but conditional, except they repent, &c. which doth indeed exceedingly set forth and commend the Grace of God.
The third thing, is the Lords end, which is the manifesting or Himself in two of three of His Atributes, to wit, His Omniscience, Justice, and power, as was hinted in the entry. When the Lord forbeareth wicked men, He is either thought not to see, or know such things; or not to be just, and powerful to redresse and avenge the same: and when he severly and publickly inflicteth judgement upon such, then He is known not only to be Omniscient, but also lust and Powerful; and this is that which he aimeth at, especially in his Churches.
The last thing, is, the mitigation of this threatning, vers 24, 25. Wherein we may consider these two, First, To whom it is directed. Secondly, What is the mitigation it self. 1. It’s directed, to you ὑ μιν; to you, in the plural number, that is, to the companie of Ministers, who were designed by the Title Angel, at the entry. And to the rest in Thyatira, that is, the Members of the Church, contradistinguished from the Ministers. It’s added, that have not this Doctrine and have not known the depts of Satan, &c. This is to distinguish the Church-members, that were pure and clean, from these that were corrupted with Jezebels doctrine. So there are three parties implied here, 1, The Ministers. 2 The pure Members. To both these this consolation is directed. 3. There are some led away with these corruptions, which are not included. The pure Members, are qualified and distinguished by these two, 1. They have not this doctrine, that is, they own not, nor maintain, nor reprove this corrupt doctrine. 2. They have not known the depths of Satan, that is, they have not loved nor approven the same, nor in their practice experimentally meddled there with. They, that is corrupt Teachers, counted such doctrines and practices, depths and high mysteries and attainments in Religion: therefore they gave them this name of depths. And it’s not to be thought that they called them depths of Satan; but the Lord addeth this, to shew indeed what kind of depths they were: they are (faith He) depths indeed, as they spake; but they are the devils depths or depths of Satan. Which expression, holdeth out these two, 1. The great subtilty of the adversary of mans Salvation, the devil, he hath depths in his way; all his designs are not obvious; he can vail and cover things and make them appear far other wayes than they are; and he exerciseth his subtilty most especially and deeply, in the carrying on of Error, and drawing of souls from the Truth: these are his depths here; and his subtilty is spoken of, 2 Cor. 11:3 his wiles and cunning craftinesse and special slight, Ephes. 4:14 whereby it cometh to passe that he intangleth, and, as it were, bewitcheth, Gal 3:1 many with the most grosse delusions. 2. It holdeth out what influence delusion will have upon poor creatures; it will even make them cry up the most absurd Errors for mysteries and depths, as if there were nothing in Religion so excellent as these.
The mitigation it self, is in two expressions: the first, is negative, vers. 24. I will put upon you none other burden, that is, in sum, I will not give you any other direction, nor prescribe to you any new duty, beside what formerly ye have had given unto you, and to which ye have submitted: for, though burden somtimes signifie some weighty threatning, or denunciation, or judgment, as may be gathered from Jer. 1:19. Yet in this place, it cannot be so understood; but must be understood as it implieth some new duty beside what formerly was imposed upon them, as the exposition in the next verse doth clear. And so somtimes in Scripture, duty is compared to a burden and yoke: not because of its burdensomnesse and troublesomnesse, in respect of it self; but because every duty hath some obligation with it, which in respect of our corruptions & infirmities are burdens, though by Christ Jesus they become light.
The second part of the mitigation, is positive, vers. 25 and will help to expound the former, But that which ye have already, hold fast till I come: which doth imply, First, that they had some duties prescribed unto them already: whereby it appeareth that an other burden, did signifie some other duty: for, that was the thing they had already. Secondly, It sheweth, that by having of such duties (to speak so) is not only understood the having of them prescribed unto them; but their being a great length in the obedience thereof, as may be gathered from the like Phrase, chap 3:11 where hold that fast which thou hast, doth signifie their endeavour to keep what they had attained to. And thus the meaning of this mitigation here, is, I have prescribed to you that are pure in Thyatira, no other duty or direction; but that with all sincerity and zeal ye keep the directions prescribed unto you, and continue to walk in the way which hither to ye have followed, unto the end. This is pressed by Christs second coming, 1. to let them know, He was to come again. 2. To let them know, that at his second coming, He will reckon with His Churches according as they obey or disobey His directions. 3. To teach all to walk so in making use of the Word, especially in corrupt times, as they may with confidence appear and reckon for the same before Jesus Christ at His second coming. 4. To shew, that Believers ought to set no other tearm to their persevering in duty, but Christs second coming.
From what is past we may Observe 1. That in these Epistles, expresse difference is made between Ministers and People: to you I say, relateth to the Ministers, and, to the rest, relateth to the Members of that Church. And therefore in the application of things contained in them, we would distinguish them also.
That by Angel, in the Inscription, is understood Ministers collectively: to you, is in the plural number; and yet it’s to these that the Epistle was directed under the name of Angel, in the singular: and therefore are they contradistinguished from the rest, which looketh to the Members of that Church, you and the rest being the same thing here upon the matter, that Angel and Church were in the Inscription; save, that the rest, even as many, &c. distinguisheth the pure Members from the impure, the Church comprehending both.
That a Ministers guilt, or the guilt of Officers is not secluding scandalous persons from Church-communion, doth not lye on the people, as upon the Ministers: therefore the duty common to the Ministers & people, is commended to both, whereas that reproof was peculiar to the Ministers: and, the rest, are taken-in only in the mitigation or consolation; but it was, Thou sufferest, in the reproof.
Christ thinketh much of zealous executing of Discipline, and would not have Ministers sparing it against Hereticks or corrupt Teachers, more than other scandalous persons: yea, the reasons from the hazard of infecting the Flock, and the examples of it in Scripture, are most pressing in reference to them.
Here also we may see, that there is a Church-power & Authority, distinct from what is civil; and censures to be inflicted by Church-officers on scandalous persons, even where Magistrates are Heathen.
That delusion may come to a great height: As, 1. That a woman preacheth. 2. That she calleth her self a Prophetesse. 3. That she seduceth Christs Servants, and they are seduced by her. 4. That this is immediatly after Christ, while John the beloved Disciple liveth. 5. That all these Errors and abominations are covered with the title of mysteries and depths: what may we expect in our times, when such was the lot of those who lived at that time?
The writings even of the Apostle John, could not prevail so far as to make them renunce and abandon them.
See here, how Christ accounteth of Members of a visible Church: He stileth such as were seduced to adultery and Error, His Servants: and they were Servants still, who were seduced; and are afterward threatned, as jezebel is. Whereby it appeareth, that these titles go more upon the relation, that Church-members stand in, and the obligation that lieth on them, than upon the qualifications that are always to be found in them.
Our Lord Jesus, is no approver nor countenancer of separation from a true Church, for the faults of some Members in it: neither do faults in some Members, and defects in Ministers and Officers in executing Discipline, pollute the Ordinances in themselves, or to others, who are free of that guilt: and so do not necessitate a separation from such a Church, or any Ordinance thereof: for, this, and the former Epistle, being compared together, these things are clear, 1. That there were grosse Members in the Church, Adulterers, Nicolaitans, Seducers, &c. 2. That they were continued in Church-communion; thou hast them and sufferest them, clearly import this: for, that Angel no otherwayes had them, but as Church-members under his charge. 3. That this Angel sinfully permitted them to continue Church-members: & therefore is reproved.
Yet, we conceive also, it’s clear in matter of fact, 1. That many who were free, continued in Church-fellowship with this Angel, in that Church, notwithstanding thereof; so, the words to you, and to the rest, as of that same Membership, import, it being but one Church. And, 2. That our Lord did not reprove them for their so continuing, even when He reproveth the Angel for his fault of being defective as to his censuring of Jezebel. Yea, 3. that He approveth their not separating, in his approving the general strain of their carriage, which could not otherwayes be approven, this being so obvious to view, if it had been a fault, or if they had by it partaken with them in their sin. 4. That our Lord warrandeth them to continue so; & layeth no burden of separating from them, on these who were honest: only, faith He, Hold fast that which ye have already till I come, that is, keep your selves according to the rule given unto you, and according to your present practice.
Hence may be argued, 1. If where Church-members are polluted, and suffered notwithstanding by Church-officers to remain in Church-communion, Christ doth not only, not condem the clean for keeping fellowship with them; but expresly requireth them to continue, as they did, then He alloweth not separation on that account: But the first is truth: He condemneth them not, but requireth them to hold fast till he come. Ergo, &c. 2. If Christ lay upon Members no other burden, but to keep themselves from personal pollution, then he laieth not on them separation: (and it must be a burden not of His laying on) But the former is true, Hold fast that which ye have already. Ergo, &c. 3. If separation thwart with Christs direction to a Church in that condition, then it’s not a duty; But if the honest Members in Thyatira had separated, they had not held fast what they had already, but would have gripped to some new thing, and so have thwarted with the direction laid on them. Ergo, &c. 4. If this direction containeth all their duty in reference to that defection, or these polluted Members, then separation is not a duty in such a case: for, it’s inconsistent with it. But this containeth all, 1. Otherwayes it would not befit their case: which to do, is Christs scope. 2. It’s not only negative, not condemning them for not separating; nor only positive, giving them other directions inconsistent with it, but it’s exclusive, I lay on you no other burden, this, and no other. And though other particular duties may be alleaged to be comprehended under this generall; yet separation cannot be comprehended: because it’s inconsistent with it, as appeareth: For, if the thing that Christ calleth for from these who were honest in Thyatira, be such a thing as was consistent with their former practice of keeping Church-fellowship with such, then separation must be inconsistent with it; But the former is truth, and appears thus: If Christs direction to them be, to hold as they were, and not to alter, then certainly it is consistent with their own former practice: But the words are plain, I lay on you, to wit, that are clean, no other burden, but abstain from their way, and hold fast. And certainly it would look very strange, to say, that separation from them were commanded under that word, hold fast, &c. And that so, hold fast, were to be expounded, separate from that society; and yet that must be comprehended under this, or it’s not a duty for such a case.
Beside, this duty which Christ commends to them, is a duty which every one of them ought personally to go about, though others did not. And if separation were included here, according to that ground, it would infer many absurdities, as, first, suppose the Minister to continue defective in his duty, are all the pure members to separate from him? Or, Secondly, Suppose none but two or three did lay that duty to heart, were these two or three to separate from all fellowship with the rest, and quit all publick Ordinances? yet, no question, in such a case they were to hold fast what they had already. Thirdly, Suppose the pure members to continue in fellowship with their Officers that were thus defective as formerly they have done; yet keeping themselves clean in their own stations, can it be thought that they disobeyed this direction of Christ, That which thou hast already, hold fast till I come? Or, It is not rather to be thought that they did more nearly conform to Christs direction by so doing, than if they had withdrawn, and separated?
We may also argue against separation in such a case, from this Scripture, thus: If separation be an other burden to Christs Church than what He laid upon Thyatira, Pergamos, &c. in such a case when their officers were defective in executing Discipline, then it is not to be allowed in the Church of Christ afterward in such like cases; But the former is true. Therefore, &c. If these two things be clear, this Argument will be clear, 1. That though these Churches were in such a case, yet there was not separation from the Ordinances in practice or exercise amongst them upon that account; This, we suppose, is clear from what is said. 2. If this also be clear that the pressing of separation upon such a ground, will prove a burden unto the people of God: Then it will follow, that Christ doth not lay it on upon these Churches, seing He expresly signifieth that He intends to lay no other burden upon them, but to hold fast what they had already. It must therefore be an untender thing to burden honest souls with the apprehension of being polluted from the personall faults of joynt Worshippers or Communicants: for, first, this putteth them to try all that they so keep fellowship with: and they cannot have peace, except they have some confidence that others, by their joynt Communicating, do not pollute the Ordinances: and this confidence cannot be, till sufficient triall be made thereof; and yet Believers find it sufficiently difficult to try themselves. 2. It putteth them to an utter uncertainty, in respect of any comfortable fruit of Ordinances: because so, it hangs not only upon their own frame and good condition; but also upon the good frame and disposition of these that Communicate joyntly with them. And so, supposing that a Believer may be out of the present exercise of grace, and a joynt Communicater with them; in that case, the Ordinance is polluted unto them, because they are polluted even to that Believer that is in such a case. And, can any have confidence that no natural person, or indisposed Believer hath Communicated with them? Neither will it remove this difficulty, to say, that men may have peace, if the offences or indispositions of others be not known unto them: For, 1. What if it be said, if triall had been made, they might have been known? 2. Suppose it were not possible to know them; yet if the Communicating of corrupt men did not only pollute the Ordinance to themselves, but also pollute it in it self, that is, make it want the nature of such an Ordinance as to others; then, whether it were known or not, the ordinance were no ordinance, because of its being polluted in something essential to the being thereof: otherwise, the same Ordinance might be an Ordinance to one who knew not of such scandals; and not be an Ordinance of Christ to another, who knew such things, though, it may be, in his own particular case, no lesse gracious, and lively than the other: for, it cannot be our knowing that such a person is scandalous that Communicates with us, that can pollute the Ordinance to us, except upon supposition that the being of such a thing did pollute the Ordinance in it self before we knew the same. 3. If this ground were laid, it might be a scruple to a tender Believer to Communicate with himself, to say so: for, he hath corruption in him; and it will be hard to say, that the corruption of others, will have more influence to pollute an Ordinance to him, than his own can have: especially considering, that he is most throughly acquainted therewith: and it will be as hard to say, that Christs call doth warrand a Believer to Communicate with peace, notwithstanding of his own seen corruptions; and yet that that same call will not warrand him to Communicate with peace, if he be in his own duty and frame approveable, notwithstanding of the corruptions of others. All which, being grievous burdens, cannot be supposed to agree with our Lords scope in this place.
Hence also we may see, that Christ doth not rigidly cast off Churches, for defects in Discipline, and grosnesse of particular members, when, in the main, the foundation is keeped: and though the Lord never look on these but as faults, and as reproveable where they are, as we may see in many of these Epistles; yet, to allow separation from a Church, because of these, and to account it no Church, is with Him all one, as when He calleth His people from Babel, Chap. 18.
We come now to the Conclusion of the Epistle, which is contained in the 26, 27, 28 and 29 verses. Wherein, 1. Some promises are laid down, in the first three verses; and the common advertisement, is repeated in the last verse, as is usuall in the rest of the Epistles. The object of the promises, is the same, to wit, the overcomer: only here, he is described by an other property, which interpreteth that generall, to wit, He keepeth my works unto the end, that is, one who in the sincere practice of Religion hath ceased from his own works (as it is, Heb. 4:10) and hath given up himself to live to Me, as it is, 2 Cor. 5:15 that is, to have My glory for his end, and My Will for his rule; and doth continue to prosecute that end according to that rule, notwithstanding of all difficulties to the end. This is the overcomer, and the person to whom all these promises of being admitted to Heaven, are made, and who may expect the same.
There are two excellent promises made to such a person in these words, 1. To him will I give power over the Nations: which doth indeed speak out an excellent Dominion, but no earthly Dominion: For, 1. This promise is to be performed after the full victory. 2. All overcomers are not capable of temporall Power over the Nations. It imports then these two, First, an excellent Dominion that the Believer may expect. Secondly, a joynt sharing in Christs Conquest over the Nations: in which respect, it is said, 1 Cor. 6. They shall judge Angels and all the wicked in the day of judgement. This Dominion is two wayes amplified, vers. 27. First, In respect of the absolutnesse thereof over all the wicked, they shall be bruised with a rod of iron, as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: this is a figurative expression, tending to set forth this, that though often Believers are now oppressed by the wicked of the world; yet the day is coming, when it shall be otherwise: Believers shall not only be free from their oppressions; but shall be as absolute Kings, having Dominion over them in the morning, as it is, Psal. 49:14 when the condition of the wicked in Gods Justice shall be most miserable. The second way how it’s amplified, is, even as I received of my Father: which respecteth, 1. The thing given, they are made joynt partakers of that which Christ receiveth. 2 It respecteth the security whereby it’s given: and so I will give him power, even as I received of my Father, imports that the Believers Dominion shall be no lesse sure unto him by Christs gift, than Christs Dominion is sure unto Him by the Fathers conferring the same upon Him.
The second promise, is, and I will give him the morning star: by the morning star, is understood Christ Himself, as He Himself expounds it, Chap. 22 vers. 16. I am the bright and morning Star, so it is, I will give him my self. The first promise was much, but this is more: and though heaven be much when it is promised; yet this promise containeth more: for He that built the house, is of more worth than the house Christ is called the morning Star for these reasons, 1. Because the morning Star is most eminent amongst the Stars; so is Christ among the Sons, Cant. 2:3. He hath an eminencie beyond all other consolations whatsoever. 2. He is called the morning Star, because when He is bestowed upon any, the dark night of their former miserable and disconsolate condition is put to an end, as the Day-star putteth an end to the preceding night. 3. Christ brings in the Day-Spring from on high unto the soul who receiveth Him: and never was the Day-star so refreshfull to a Traveller wearied with the darknesse of the night, as Christ will be to the wrestler, who is longing to have the Day-star arising in his heart, 2 Pet. 1:19. And although these be hints, to shadow out the excellency of Christ, yet the truth is, neither Day-star, nor Sun, nor Moon, nor all the Stars put together, can sufficiently resemble His worth and lovely beauty, and refreshfull seasonablenesse to a soul, when He manifesteth Himself to it.
If it be asked, why Christ promiseth to give Himself to the overcomer, and under that name? Answ. It is for these reasons, 1. Because there is no other thing that can be absolutly satisfying to the Believer but Christ Himself: and seing Christ aimeth at the satisfaction of the Believer, this glorifieth His Grace and Love, that He will for that end bestow Himself upon them. 2. It is, to teach them where to expect their happinesse when this life is ended, and so where to seek it while they are here: this is not to be had in, and amongst creatures, but is to be sought and looked for in Christ Jesus Himself. 3. It is done to comfort and encourage the Believer: for when Christ bestoweth Himself upon him, what will He not else communicate to him that may be for his good? as the Apostle reasoneth to this purpose, Rom. 8:32. Believers may be encouraged to wrestle a while; this night will have an end, and the Day-star will arise: after which, there shall be no more night, nor darknesse, nor Sun to give light, but the Lord God shall enlighten them, and the Lamb Himself shall be a light unto them; for holding forth of this consolation, is Christ expressed by this name in this promise.
In the 29 vers. the Epistle closeth with the common advertisement, He that hath an ear to bear, &c. which is not done for the fashion; but is the Lords commending of what hath been said unto the consciences of the Hearers: because what is said, is said by the Spirit to the Churches; and it becometh well these who have ears to hear, to hear what is said by Him.
