Appendix: In Answer to Some Objections

It is a bard case that either so good a master and work should have servants so bad, as will plead against their duty when they practise it; or that good men themselves should be so backward, and need so many words to draw them to so needful an emj)loyment. There is no sanctified man but hath virtually in him a love to the main work that is uro;ed in this treatise: and it is hard that men should oppose, or stiffly refuse the duties which as Christians they love, and by their nature are incHned to. And it is harder that those should be ministers of the gospel that have no such sanctified natures and inclinations. (Though I am thankful to God that useth even such for the service of His Church.) If we are sanctified, we are devoted, separated and resigned up to God as being wholly His. And if indeed we are absolutely resigned up to God, we shall have no time or labour that will seem too much and too good for His service. It is one of the clearest, surest difierences between a damnable hypocrite, and a truly sanctified man, that the hypocrite hath something, but the sanctified hath nothins; so dear to him that he cannot spare it for God. If we love not our work for the end, and therefore the end more than the work, we are deceitful workmeD: and if we do but value tke success of our labour, methinks we should be willing of that sort of labour in which we have greatest probability of success; though it may be somewhat troublesome in the performance. If we are faithful servants, the work of God will be pleasant to us: and if it were pleasant, methinks we should not be drawn to it, as a bear to the stake; much less should we fly from it, and oppose it like enemies. Whatever a Jonas may do in a temptation against one particular act, methinks the ordinary discharge of such duties should neither be opyosed nor wholly neglected by the faithful. Methinks while we live among the miserable, and see such multitudes near to hell, compassion should be argument enough to persuade us to do all that we can. for their relief, and humanity Bliould be enough to convince us of the duty, and stop our mouths from cavilling against it.

Though I seemed to myself even unmannerly bold with my brethren in this book, yet I must needs say, that conscience did not accuse me for it, but provoke me to it, and often asked me, “Is there not a cause V Nor can I repent of this adventure, when I consider the necessity and the success. I bless God that I have lived to hear of so many faithful servants of Christ falling closely to this work of peisonal instruction, not only in this county, but in many other parts of the land. Now I begin to hope that the pastoral office will be better understood, by some competent time of experience, both by our people and ourselves, and that they will come in time to understand what use they have of ministers, and what duty towards them they are obliged to perform: I hope now that misunderstandings between people and their teachers will be removed; and they will perceive what we aim at, and how far we are from intending their hurt, or lording it over them, when they see us take our greatness and dignity to consist in heing the servants of all. Now I am in hopes that we shall get a more universal, effectual advantage against the common ignorance, and profaneness, and security that have discouraged and disappointed both us and our predecessors; and that we shall have a more satisfactory acquaintance with the state of our hearers, to direct us in the several acts of administration and discipline. These, and abundance more fruit, we may expect, if the Lord will but give us hearts to proceed with a vigorous seriousness in the work, and not to faint and be weary of well-doing. The greatest thing that I fear next iinshilfuliiess, is laziness; lest we begin to favour ourselves, and say, a toil is this 1” and so the flesh pervert our reason, and make us say, “I do not think that I am bound to all this stir and trouble;” especially lest when we have gone once over the parish, we lazily say, “I have done enough already; what need I do the same again 1” Though I hope experience of men’s necessity, and the benefit, will do much to save us from the power of these temptations.

I have no great fear of any opposition from conscience or unbiased reason; but only from unwillingness, and from reason biased by the flesh. Most of the objections that I have heard of since the publishing of this book, are the same that are already answered in it, especially in the Preface; and yet I hear of no reply that they make to those answers. I shall not think it my duty to answer the same again, because men will not observe what is answered already; but shall answer now to the new objections only.

Object. 1. Some carry about this objection at a distance, that my whole book doth run upon a false supposition — viz., “That discipline and personal instruction are essential to our ministry.”

Ans. I know of no such word that ever 1 spoke or wrote. Nor do I build on any such supposition, otherwise I should have said, that all that perform not these duties are no ministers. But these words 1 did write indeed, Ruling is as essential a part of the pastor’s office as lyreacliing I am sure. But then I difference the special office of a pastor from the general office of a minister; and, secondly, I distinguish between the power and duty of ruling, and personal instructing, and the exercise of that power and performance of that duty: and I distinguish between the ministry or office, and the pastor. And so I conclude, (1.) That it is essential to the office or ministry of a pastor of a particular church to have the power of ruling as well as of public preaching, and to be obliged on fit occasions to rule as well as to preach. (2.) But actually to rule is not essential to his being a pastor; for to be a pastor is to be empowered and obliged: these only are contained in the office, and the exercise followeth as an effect- A man is a pastor before ever he preach; and continueth to be so when he interrupteth his exercise. (3.) Ruling, taken for authoritative guidance in the way to heaven, (which is our ministerial kind .of rule; even as a physician ruleth his patient, supposing him to be of Divine institution,) is the general work of the ministry, and comprehendeth public preaching, and therefore is more necessary than a part alone. (4.) A man may be a faithful minister, and yet never preach a sermon. If a great congregation have six or more pastors, and two or three of them be the ablest preachers, and the rest more judicious, and fit for discourse and private oversight, these latter may well employ themselves in such oversight, conference, and other ministerial works, and leave publicspeaking in the pulpit to them that are more able for it, and so they may divide the work among them according to their parts: and it will not now follow that they are no pastors that preach not publicly. I think, then, that all this laid together will warrant me to say, that Tiding is as much essential to a pastoi’’s office as preaching. At least, though methinks it should be enough to persuade us to our duty to know that it is commanded, without disputing whether it be essential to our office.

Object. 2. “The same persons say that they cannot aoree with us, because we make a diflference between the members of our flock, or church, and the rest of the parish, and so take not all the parish to be our church, as in the tenth article of our Agreement is expressed.”

Ans. 1. The palpable vanity of this objection is a dishonour to the heads or the hearts of the objectors, and doth but open their own nakedness. What force is in this reason, or what show of force? If they take all their parish for their church, cannot they agree to catechise and instruct them personally, because we take not all of our parishes for church-members? They may as well give over preaching, and say, they cannot agree to preach to their own parish-churches, because we take not all in oui’ parishes to be of our churches. Who can believe that this is a reason to excuse them from their dutyl 2. But to give them also an account of our actions, I add, that we expressly there exclude none of our parishes from our churches, but such as have withdrawn themselves from our charges, and ‘particular church, by refusing to own and profess their membership. And for our yarts, we have not the faculty of making men church-members, whether they will or no, or discerning them to be such, whether they will signify it or no; much less when they disown it, and after many public invitations, and a year or two’s waiting for their fuller information, do still refuse to profess themselves members. They that have this faculty let them use it: in the meantime, let them know that their doctrine obligeth them to more duty than ours; and therefore will be no excuse to them for doing less. We shall endeavour to instruct and catechise men, whether they be members of our churches or not: but we take not ourselves bound to rule and watch over all those in our parishes that withdraw themselves from our pastoral oversight, with the same exactness and authority as we must guide and oversee the members of our charge. But you that take all in the parish to be of your churches, must see that you rule and oversee them accordingly.

Object. 3. “Others object against the following words in the same article of our Agreement, — ‘That we shall in regard of communion, and the application of sealing and confirming ordinance, deal^’ith them as the obstinate despisers of instruction should be dealt with.’ And who are these that we must so deal with? Those that after sufficient admonition shall contemptuously and obstinately refuse to be either catechised or instmcted thus personally by us, giving us no valuable reason of their refusal.”

Ans. It seems, then, that these objectors, (1.) Either take not those for obstinate despisers of instruction, that “after sufficient admonition shall contemptuously and obstinately refuse either to come to the minister, or to let the minister come to them, and be instructed by them, not giving any valuable reason of such refusal.” By which it may appear what reformation they desire, and how they judge of the qualifications of church members; and why cannot they also be as charitable to those that contemptuously and obstinately refuse to hear them preach, and will join only in sacraments and common prayer. I like not charity unreasonably large for the exempting of ourselves from the laboiu’ of duty: I would not choose such a charitable physician that would make his patients believe that they are in no danger, to save himself the labour of attending them for the cure. (2.) Or else they think that we must not deal with such men in refrard of church- communion and sacraments as they should be dealt with, which we agree to: 1)ut this surely can never be their sense. But I suppose they will say that the thing offensive is the intimation, that such persons should be denied the sealing and confirming ordinances. And, indeed, would you not have it so 1 If people will neither come to you for instruction, nor let you come to them, nor give you any valuable reason, yea, contemptuously and obstinately refuse this, after sufficient admonition, would you yet have these admitted to communion in the sacraments? It seems, then, either this is no scandalous sin with you, or you. would have the garden of Christ lie common as the wilderness; and you woidd be their pastor in despite of them, that contemptuously and obstinately refuse to take you for their pastor 1 Or you will divide Christ and His ordinances, and give them one jDart at their will, that obstinately refuse the other. But think as you please of this resolution of ours, and admit all the most obstinate refusers of your instruction to the sacrament, (which yet a Papist will not do.) if you can make it good; but what is this to the business of catechising and instructing those that will submit? Cannot you agree with us in the rest, because of this clause 1 Cannot you agree to instruct them that will submit, because we resolve to deal with the obstinate refusers as we ought “?

Object. 4. “You cut us a shoe too narrow for our foot. You judge all our congregations by your own. AVe have stubborn people that will not be instructed, nor come near us, and are not fit for church-discipline. Had we a tractable people, we would ydeld to all.”

Ans. (1.) If I understand this, the meaning of it is, we are resolved not to sufi’er the hatred, iU-will, and railing of our neighbours: if we had a people that would take it well, and put us to no such suffering, but rather drive us on to duty, then we would do it. If this be the meaning, it soimds not well. (2.) The worse your people are, the more need they have of instruction and help. (3.) If a thousand refuse your help, will that excuse you from ofiiering it to them, and afibrdiug it to a thousand others that will not refuse itl Surely your people will not so refuse it. (4.) Are your whole parishes fit to be church members, and to be admitted to communion in all ordinances, and yet are they unfit for discipline’? This cannot ordinarily be: it is a contradiction. If, indeed, all your parishappp:ndix. 507

ioners be infidels, or ungodly, and unfit matter to constitute a church, confess then that you are no pastors of a particular church, and give them no communion ordinances, but preach to them as infidels, to make them Christians. But if, indeed, you take yourselves for pastors, and your parishes, or part of them, for churches, use them as churches, and rule as pastors are bound to rule, and take not an office which you constantly refuse to exercise; and choose not out that part of the work of your ofiice which is least costly, or distasteful to flesh and blood, but be true to your undertakings.

Object. 5. “But you build much on Acts xx. 20, Paul’s teaching from house to house, whereas, kut oiKov; and KaT oiKov, in the New Testament, is ever spoken of the houses where the churches did usually assemble for public worship.”

Ans. (1.) If I had misinterpreted Acts xx. 20, it is excusable to err vdth. so good company. Mr Mede confesseth (p. 31) that the most of the reformed writers, and some of the other side, are against him: and (p. 44) that the phrase, Kar oIkov, is commonly expoimded against his way. And Beza on 1 Cor. xvi. 19, saith, “Apparet enim Apostolum commendare Aquilge et Priscillae familiam quasi sit Ecclesia quaedam.” And he expounds, kut oIkov, Acts v. 42, by “Privatim ubicimque opus erat, ut vere testatur de se Paulus infr. xx. 20;” and so gives us his sense of that place also. And, to let pass ordinary interpreters, and speak only of those critics that may be expected most to befriend Ir Mede’s opinion, Grotius, on Rom. xvi. 5, saith, “Eodem modo de illorum domo loquitur Paulus. (1 Cor. xvi. 20.) Quia recens ab exilio redibant

Christiani, crediljile est cum Lsec Pauliis scriberet nullos Romse fiiisse communes Cliristianorum conventus, neque Presbyteros quos alioqui salutaret Paulus. Tali autem tempore qiiasqiie domus Ecclesia est, sicut Tertullianiis ait, ubi tres, Ecclesia est, licet laici.” And on Acts xx. 20 he saith, koI kot oUov, “singulos, occasione data; “and on Pliilem. 2,” In ejus domo complures erant Christiani.” And 1 Cor. xvi. 19, (Tvv TTj KttT OLKOv avTOjv eKKlr](Jia —” Id est, cum

tota familia sua quae erat Christiani. Quocunque illi ibant, secum ferebant Ecclesiam.” So he expoundeth Col. iv. 15.

And Dr Hammond (1 Cor. xvi.) saith, “It is evident what is meant by the church in their house, i. e., all the believers of their family; the same are called,

t) Kar OLKOV avTwv eKKXrja-la, (Pom. Xvi. 5,) the church

or Christians belonging to their family — the prepositions iv and Kara being promiscuously used in the writings.” And he expoundeth Acts xx. 20 thus: “AVilling to use all opportunities of instructing any, both in the public synagogues, and in private schools, and in your several houses, whither I also came.”

I confess myself somewhat inclinable to the exposition of the objectors, though I come not quite up to their sense; and I am somewhat stopped by this consideration, that there is mention of the church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla in several cities. And it is not probable that such moveable persons coming as strangers to such places should have the opportunity of making their house still the public meeting-place of the several churches where they come.

And, moreover, besides the texts observed by some, that in Acts viii. 3 will hardly be proved to be spoken only of chiircli-liouses. SavXo’i Be ekv/xalveTo tt]v

eKKXrjaiav, Kara tou? oIkov<; ela7rop€vofjLevo<;. I C0nfeS3

it was likely that he made his first assault on the assemblies; but improbable that this is all that is there meant.

The apostles then did preach to several sorts of auditors: — [l.] Sometimes to any multitude they could fitly, to speak for their conversion; either in the temple, in the market-place, at the judgment-seat, or any place of concourse. [2.] Sometimes in mixed assemblies of Christians and infidels: admittincr unbelievers to be their auditors in order to their conversion. So Paul admitted all that would come into his own hired house. (Acts xxviii. 30, 31.) And it was ordinary for the Church to admit unbelievers to be present, as appears in 1 Cor. xiv. 23-25. [3.] Sometimes there were solemn assemblies of the Church above, where they all came together into one place; that is, it was the place of their most public meeting, where the main body assembled, and no others with them, as in l:»reaking bread, and feasting together, and such acts of special communion. [4.] Sometimes there were occasional meetings of certain parcels of the Church, as that was Acts xii,, when they were praying for Peter. And such a meeting I suppose there was in almost every house where the apostles were known to come among Chiistians. It is not probable but that many would come in to them, if they did but go into any private house to visit or exhort the persons of that house. [5.] Besides these, they ordinarily used to teach particular persons, as the jailer, the eunuch, &c., as often as they had opportunity. Now, our question of Acts XX. 20 is, which of these three last senses it is taken in. I agree not with the objectors, that it is taken in the first of the three only, though I will not exclude that: but understand it more comprehensively, as extending to all the three last sorts, and comprising all that house-teaching of Christians that was then usual with the apostles; both, first, teaching the churches in houses: and secondly, teaching such companies of Cluistians as were in the houses where the apostles came; as Cornelius (Acts x.) had gathered his friends to hear Peter, so Christians would call their next friends when an apostle came to visit them: thirdly, and teaching the particular families where they had opportunity; especially the second. — Object. “But this was not an orderly taking the houses of a parish or church before them, and going into every one.” — A7is. Very true; I know of no such parishes that then were; nor do I make it a minister’s duty absolutely to go up and down from house to house, to each house in his parish, or of his charge. I would not so much as advise you to do this, without necessity; but first call the people to come to you, and learn of you at your own house, or the church-house, or where you please, so that you will but give them that personal instruction, upon necessary pre-inquiry into their states, which theiiconditions do require. And then go to those that will not come to you, if they will consent, and you are able. For my own part, I am not able to go from house to house; there being not one house of many among the poor people where I can stand half an hour in the midst of summer without taking cold, to the apparent hazard of my life; so that those few that will not come to me, I must send to. And I think it more to the people’s benefit to accustom them to attend their pastor, than for him to go to hunt up and down after them, he scarcely knows where and when. But men’s obstinacy may make that necessary which is inconvenient.

(2.) But I have spoken all this but as on the by as to this objection. My answer to it is this: It is not either only or chiefly on this text, or any like it, that I build my persuasions of you to this duty. In good sadness, can you find nothing but Acts xx. 20, in all these papers, that is urged to con’ince you of the duty in hand? If you have observed no more, read again, and save me the labour of recitals. If there were nothing but the general command of taking heed to all the flock, and no more but your very pastoral relation to each member, as a master to every servant, and a teacher to every scholar in his school, and a physician to every patient in his hospital, and a shepherd to every sheep in his flock, and a commander to every soldier in his regiment; what need there be more to convince you that you should take care of them, and help every one particularly as efiectually as you can? In a word, the sum of the question is, whether you are bound to do the best you can to save the souls of all your parishioners. Do this, and I desire no more. Do you think in your conscience that you do the best you can, if you can exhort, instruct, or catechise them personally, and will not “?

As to the objection, “Where are we bound to spend two days a-week in this, or one day, or to take the houses in course, or the likel” I have answered it already in this book, whither I refer you. As if the o-eneral precept of “teaching eveiy one, exhorting every man, doing good to all, taking heed to all the flock,” &c., were not sufficient! What if God only bid you pray continually, or on all fit occasions; will you approve of those deluded ones that ask, “Where ain I bid to pray morning and night, or in my family, or before and after meat, or before and after sermon, &c. 1” Providence will direct you, and honest prudence will discern the season and other circumstances of your duty. What if God hath not told us on what day or hour our lecture shall be, or what chapter I shall read, what psalm I shall sing, what text I shall preach on, or whether on any or not, or how the seals and utensils shall be ordered; must we not, therefore, determine these ourselves, as Providence shall lead us, and as may conduce to the end of our work 1 I do not think but you do as much, and justly do it, beyond God’s particular Scripture determination in your ordinary preaching, as we do in catechising and personal instructing. But methinks with ministers I shoidd not need to say so much to such a rustical objection as this, from the defect of particular precept.

Object. 6. “If all ministers should bestow two days a-week, they would have but little time to study, and so the adversaries would have their will when our ministry comes to the unlearned or unskilled in controversies.”

Ans. (1.) I have answered this already in the book. (2.) I only add, these things are not objected to mere bystanders; we try the work, and can tell by some experience what it is. Is not four days a-week, after so many years in the university, a fair proportion for men to study controversies and sermons’? Though my weakness dejDrive me of abundance of time, and extraordinary works take up six, if not eight parts of my time, yet I bless God I can find time to provide for preaching two days a-week, notwithstanding the two days for personal instruction. Now, for those that are not troubled with any extraordinary work — I mean writinsjs and conversations of several sorts — besides the ordinary work of the ministry, I cannot believe, but if they are willing, they may find two half days a-week at least for this work. (.3.) And perhaps they will find before we have done, that this employment tends to make men able pastors for the Church, much more than private studies alone. He shall be the ablest physician, and divine, and lawyer too, that addeth practice and experience proportionably to his studies; and that man shall prove a useless drone that refuseth God’s service all his life, under pretence of preparing for it, and lets men’s souls pass on to perdition, while he pretendeth to be studying how to recover them, or to get more ability to help and save them.

Object. 7. “The times that Paul lived in required more diligence than ours; the Churches were but in the planting, the enemies many, and persecution great; but now it is not so.”

A71S. This was the bishops’ argument against so much preaching when they put it down. But it savours of a man locked up in his study, and unacquainted with the world. Good Lord! are there such multitudes round about us that know not whether Christ be God or man, the first person in the Trinity or the second; whether He have taken His body to heaven or left it on earth, and what He hath done for them; and what they niust trust to for pardon and salvation! — Are there so many thousands round about us that ar§

2 K drowned in presumption, security, and sensuality, that break the hearts of preachers, and when we have done all, will neither feel us, nor understand us! — are there so many wilful drunkards, worldlings, self-seekers, railers, haters of a holy life, that want nothing but death to make them remediless! — are there so many ignorant, dull, and scandalous professors, so many dividers, seducers, and troublers of the Church! — and yet is the supineness of our times so great, that we may excuse ourselves ivovii personal instruction, because of the less necessity of the times 1 What need is there ut faith and experience, to answer this objection 1 Beheve better within, and look more without among the miserable, and I warrant you, you will not see cause to spare your pains for want of work, or of necessities to incite you. T^Tiat conscientious minister finds not work enough to do, from one end of the year to another, if he have not a hundred souls to care fori Are ungodly men the less miserable, because they make profession of Christianity, or the morel

Object. 8. “You have here too confidently determined, that it is ministers’ duties that have lartre congregations to procure assistance, though they leave themselves by it but that low allowance to live upon which you mention. We must not be wise above what is written. And you will scarcely shew us where this, or the * quota pars temporis ’ for catechising, or taking a set time, are written in the Scripture.”

Ans. (1.) Must I go to turn to my Bible to shew a preacher where it is wTitten, that a man’s soul is more worth than a world, much more than a hundred pounds a year; much more are many souls more worth 1 or that both we and that we have are God’s, and should be employed to the utmost for His service 1 or that it is inhuman cruelty to let many souls go to hell, for fear my wife and children should live somewhat the harder, or live at a lower rate, when, according to God’s ordinary way of working by means, I might do much to prevent their misery, if I would but a little displease my flesh, which all that are Christ’s have crucified with its lusts 1 Every man must give God the things that are God’s, and that is all. How is all pure and sanctified to us but in the separation, dedication, and using them for God? Are not all His talents, and must be employed to His service 1 Must not every Christian first ask, which way may I most honour God with my substance 1 Are not these things written? Do we not preach them to our people 1 Are they true to them, and not to us? Yea, more; is not the church-maintenance devoted in a special manner to the service of God for that church 1 and should we not then use it for the utmost furtherance of the end 1 If any minister that hath two hundred pounds can prove that a hundred pounds of it may do God more service if it be laid out on himself or wife and children, than if it maintain one or two meet assistants to help the salvation of the flock, I shall not presume to reprove his expenses; but where this cannot be proved, let not the practice be justified.

No wonder that we have so many sensual gentlemen that do little good with all their riches; but see their brother have need, and shut up the bowels of their compassion from him, rather than they will live at lower rates, or not fare deliciously every day; and that they can find no Scripture that commandeth them such things; when even the preachers of the Scriptures cannot see the wood for trees; they want a letter to express to them the common moral verities. No wonder if these gentlemen can find no Scripture that requireth them to buy in impropriations, to endow or build colleges, to give a common stock for the poor, or the like, or out of two or three thousand pounds portion to a daughter to give one or two hundreds to some pious, charitable use, though the daughter have the less. How should gentlemen fin<l any Scripture for self-denial, or preferring God before themselves, yea their flesh, or children’s superfluities and snares, when some ministers of the gospel can find no such Scripture, when the case concerns themselves; or at least can meet with no expositor that can make them understand such difficult texts!

And for the other matters: of the stated time for catechising, and the “quota pars.” As I never presumed to impose an unnecessary task on any, nor should do, were it in my power, but leave it to their prudence that are on the place to determine of circumstances; so I know not why any man should be loath to tie himself to this duty, especially in order to a common reformation, and after so long and general a neglect, unless because he is loath to practise it. If set times be not needful for the constant performance of such a work as this, devise for us some way of doing it without a stated time, and do not keep a set time for your lectures, class meetings, family duties, no, nor your studies or secret prayers. When you have shewed me a written word for these, and for your preaching once or twice every Lord’s day, then I will shew you more than one text for the things in question.

Object 9. The next objections made are against my urging them to associate; and one is,” Why cannot I do my duty to God, and for my people at home, without travelling many miles to a meeting of ministers 1 What Scripture binds me to this labour V

A71S. Were I in a disputation, I would give you several formal arguments for all these things; but in this brief way of answering objections, I think it more profitable to them that are in love with truth, to take up with the general grounds of the duty, which may afford them matter for many arguments. And to the objection, “Can you find no Scripture that commandeth Christians to be of one mind and mouth, and way, and to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace 1” Cannot you prove from Scripture that God would have ministers to be one in mind and heart, “as Christ and the Father are one’?” (John xvii. 21.) Do you doubt whether you should do the work of God with as much unity and concord as is possible? And do you know that constant communion and correspondence is necessary to that end “? You cannot be ignorant how the unity and consent of ministers is their honour, and much of their strength with the people, and takes off much prejudice and odium that would fall on single men; and that singular actions brings us into contempt with them. Doubtless, as many Christians are bound to hold communion together in particular churches, so many particular churches, by their guides, are bound to maintain communion as far as natiu’e makes them capable. And I hope few ministers are ignorant that these ministerial assemblies for concord among ourselves and the churches have been the constant practice of

the churches of Christ, as high as we have any history to acquaint us with their practice, (I mean when the persecution made it not impossible.) And shall we now in the end of the world begin to be wiser, and one single pastor, and perhaps of no seraphical intellects, correct this practice of the universal Church as a needless thing, and say, “Why may not I do my duty as well at home alone V

You owe duty to your neighbouring ministers and churches for communion, and in order to the common good, and the promoting of your common work. Are you humble men, and yet can you think that yourselves have no need of the advice and assistance of your brethren 1 I should hardly think you humble if you say so. But if you be so far above teaching, advice, or any other help to yourselves, your brethren have the more need of you, by how much the less need you have of them. There are many young ministers that very much need the helps that such communion may afford them, and the advice of more grave, experienced men, for carrying on the work of the ministry; and many so humble and sensible of their need of such communion, that they would be loath to be deprived of it. One would think we should no more need such a stir to make ministers desu-e the communion of ministers, than to make Christians desire the communion of Christians, or to make men desire the society of men.

Object. 10. “But we have observed in most associations where we have been, that some one, or two, or few more do all, and the rest do but follow them. It is as good, then, to go to these men alone, if we need advice.”

Ans. There is no one that pretends to any authority over their brethren in our association; neither civil coercive power, nor ecclesiastical directive power. You cannot say, therefore, that any one doth either force the rest, or awe them by any pretended commission from Christ. So that if any have so much power as 3’ou speak of, it is likely it is but the power of truth in them, and such as light hath against darkness; or if it be from the strength of their parts and gifts, have not you need even of the gifts of your brethren? and are they not given for the body? It seems by this objection, that you justify our associations from all popular or factious prevalency of the multitude, or major part; and that they lay not the cause upon number and votes, but upon wisdom and the prevailing power of evidence; and that one man that can bring more reason than others shall be heard and regarded by all. What could you have said more to the honour of our associations, to vindicate them from all imputations of pride, and faction, and clamorous running on with the most.

And where you say, It is as good to go to those men in private; I answer. Those men themselves do not think so. Perhaps, they that you call the leaders of the rest, do find themselves more in need of the help of those whom you say they lead, than you do of theirs. Among many, that may be spoken by a man of inferior parts, that came not into the minds of wiser men. Which of you are so wise that needs no addition or assistance 1 and what minister is so weak that may not sometimes add to the wiser’? Moreover, among many, they that are of greater parts have the better opportunity to do the greater good with them, than with one in a corner. Would yon have your neighbours say, “What shall we do at th6 congregation’? — there is but one man that does all, and I can go as well to him at home.” It is sooner done to speak to twenty or forty at once, than one by one.

But if, indeed, you think that these leading ministers do mislead the rest, there is the more need of the presence of such as you that discern it. Care you not that your brethren and the churches be misled’? If you see it, you can give your reasons that may disclose it; and how know you what your light may do ‘? seeing your brethren are not forced into error, but seduced; if it be so, why may not you do as much to undeceive them”?

Object 11. “But, as I hear many say, under pretence of associating, you will but fall into a multitude of fractions! Not two counties can agree upon the same terms, but one company go one way, and another go another way; and why should we join with any of them till there be a greater likelihood of union among themselves’?”

Ans. (1.) A self-condemning, unreasonable objection. Are they more divided where they associate, than you that are single, and every man goes on his own head “? What if there were as many ways as counties 1 that is not so bad as to have as many ways as parishes. Have you no more modest ia, way to excuse your singularity and disunion, than by charging communion itself with singularity, and uniting with division 1 (2.) But wherein is it that this diversity of ways consisteth, which you complain of? Tell us the particulars; for I see no such great diversity. Most counties that I hear of that have associated, do only agree to hold communion in stated meetings, and there to afford the best help they can to one another; and have not proceeded to any more particular agreements, unless perhaps to catechise, or personally instruct the people. And you cannot accuse them for diversity of ways, that descend to no more particular agreements. Indeed, this county, (Worcestershire,) and the counties of Cumberland and Westmoreland, have published the articles of their associations and agreements: and I pray you compare them, and see whether one egg be more like another than they are in sense.

But it is likely you mean that our articles are not in the same words, and it is not the same forms “in terminis” that we agree upon. And what of that! I think there be above a hundred catechisms now in England, that yet contain the very same principles of religion. WHl you fall out ^dth catechising, and use none, because we all agree not in one, for the terms; or should you not be more encouraged to it, because among so many there is such full agreement in sense, that they are all but as one 1 How many of the ancient councils of the Church did determine only of the same canons ‘? and yet this was not called a disagreeing diversity.

The truth is, this objection is commonly made by men that place the imity of the Church in matters that God never placed it in. We must not be one, because we subscribe not the same form of words, and agree not in every circumstance and expression. Whereas, indeed, we shall never be one, while unity is placed in such indifferent things. There are no greater dividers of the Church in the world than they that overdo in their pretendings to imity, and lay the unity of the Church upon that which will not bear it. The Papists must needs centre all the churches in their pope, and by this means have made the agreement of the churches with them to be impossible; whereas, if they would have left out these false means of union, and the concomitants, we might have held our union and communion with them. So if formalists will lay the union of the Church on this gestm-e, and that vesture, and this order, and these words in prayer, preaching, &c., they will presently make union with them impossible; for there is a possibility of bringing all true Christians to unite in the revealed will of God, but no possibility of bringing them all to be of every formalist’s opinion, and to use every gesture or form of words that he and his like shall impose upon them. I speak not against agreement in circumstances, but against unnecessary impositions therein, much more against laying the Church’s unity and peace upon them. For example: at the reception of the Lord’s Supper all were forced to kneel; at the eucharistical action of singing psalms, when we speak to God in the highest worship that we can perform on earth, no man was forced to kneel, or to any one gesture. In the former we were altogether by the ears, and driven from communion; and to this day thousands do separate from assemblies because they may not kneel, as formerly some did, because they might not have it any other way but kneeling: but in the other case, of singing, where all were left at liberty, I never heard of one contention about the gesture to this day; no, nor of any offence that one took at another. So in reading that parcel, that was then peculiarly called the gospel, all were bound to stand; and this bred contention: but at the reading of the same words in the chapter, all had liberty to choose their gesture; and there I never heard of contention or ojBfence. So I may say in our present case, we do not intend by associating to tie one another to new forms and ceremonies, nor make new terms of union. In this county we only chose out so much of the imquestionable work of presbyters, about that government which had been long neglected, which Episcopal Presbyterians and Congregational are agreed in, and resolved at present to practise that which all are for, rather than to neglect an acknowledged duty, because of by-circumstances in which we differ: so that all these parties may join with us, without deserting the principles of their parties: and I think this is no way of division or discord.

Object. 12. “But if this be all, what need we subscribe to Articles of Agreement? Is it not enough that we have all subscribed to the Scriptures akeady, if you require no more than what is there V

Ans. We require no more but that all agree to perform those duties which God’s Word doth command, and freely, without force, accord about those circumstances which Scripture hath not particularly determined, but given as general rules to discern according to providential changes, how to determine them ourselves. I mean only such circumstances in which an agreement may further us in our work, without agreeing in those where agreement is wholly unnecessary, and without laying the Church’s peace upon any of them. We associate, not 16 make new laws and duties, but to accord in obeying the laws of God; and therefore the articles which we agree upon are Scripture articles. And if any scruple subscribing to any that are not the very express words of Scripture, we will not dififer tvdth them, but will give them as much as is necessary in such Scripture words to subscribe. And the reason why we subscribe to these articles, though we have already subscribed to Scripture, is because they are matters long and generally neglected; and we do lut hereby awaken ourselves to duty, and bind ourselves faster by renewing our obligations, and manifest our repentance for our former neglects, and our resolution for new obedience. As the people did in Ezra, that had taken heathen wives, and as it was ordinary in the Old Testament, after some notable breach of covenant, to renew this covenant with God: and as we used to do at sacraments and days of humiliation, though we have formerly taken the same covenant, yet we see cause to renew it again and again, especially as against those sins, and for those duties, where we have lately been most faulty.

And if it be no more than is your duty already; whether you subscribe or no, what reason have you to refuse an agreement or subscription to such duty, unless, as I said, because you are unwilling to perform it 1 He that is resolved to do it, is wilHng to be as much as may be obliged to it. When it must be done, the strongest bonds are surest.

Object. 13. “But some associations do not only practise, but subscribe to such things that we cannot in conscience agree to: as the use of lay-elders, as the Presbyterians do; the calling people to profess that they own us for their pastors, as you do.’’

Atis. I hope you are not of such dividing principles, as that you cannot in conscience hold communion with men that dijBfer from you in as great a matter as this, if they will but leave you free. Else, if you should plead conscience for such dividing, I would desire you to see that you can plead Scripture as well as conscience for it; for an erring conscience, engaging men against the will of God, is a poor excuse for sin: it is no more than to say, when I sin, I think I do not sin. It is a very good answer that Mr Lawson, in his book against Hobbs’s politics, doth give to the common question, Whether an erring conscience bind 1 He saith, that an erring conscience is not conscience; for conscience is a sort of science, and error is not science, or knowledo;e.

But if these brethren would force you to subscribe with them in such matters as you mention, which your judgment is against, or else they will hold no communion with you, then it is they that exclude you, and not you that exclude yourselves. But I hope no associations now with us, will be guilty of such a course. I hope they are not resolved to refuse communion with all that are not for lay-elders, or such like matters. Then they woidd be the dividers, that lay the Church’s unity and peace on such a doubtful point. But if they do themselves subscribe to that, may not you desire to join with them, with a modest exceptino- of that article alone in which you are unsatisfied 1 which, no doubt, if they be peaceable men, they will admit. And for the instance you give of our calling people to an express consent, viz., (1.) To Christianity. (2.) To their membership in the churches where we are pastors: I answer. It is a strange conscience that can find matter of scruple against this: when we are assured, that people cannot be members or Christians afrainst their wills, and their wills cannot be known to

US but by the expressions of it, may we not call them to express it “? Especially since parish-habitation is grown a less fit note than heretofore, and hearing is certainly no sufficient evidence; and people will take it to be a heinous injury to them if we should exercise discipline on them without their consent, and perhaps would have an action against us at law for it! And where consent must be necessarily signified, is not the most express signification more satisfactory to us, and obligatory to them, than an uncertain, implicit, dark signification, which our own consciences tell us, with abundance of them, is really no signification, nor intended by them to any such use, as not knowing what a church is, or what discipline is, but thinking that to be a church member, is no more than to be a parishioner, and come to church 1 Though we might well prove against the SejDaratists that this much, with the professions of the rest that had more knowledge, was enough to prove the truth of our churches, lfhen we could do no more; yet if we shall now (after so many years of fullest liberty, when we may reform if we will) proceed no further, but tolerate, yea, plead for all such defects as will but consist with the truth of the churches; yea, pretend conscience against them, it is just with Grod to lay upon us so much of His wrath, and withdraw from us so much of His mercy as shall leave us no more to comfort us, but that still we are truly men, as our churches are tridy churches.

But I must further tell you, that the objection is grounded on a mere mistake and wilful or careless oversight. For our agreement to call our people to a profession of their Christianity and church-membership, is but with this exception —” Except any of us should judge that they can better exercise the forementioned discipline without calling their people to such a profession of consent, in which case we wDl declare our reasons to our brethren of the ministry, in our meetings, and hear their advice when the case is opened. If, indeed, you can and ^Yil exercise Christ’s discipline on all in your parish, without their express consent, we shall not refuse communion with you: only let us see in good sadness that you do it. First privately, and at last openly admonish all the scandalous, obstinate sinners in your parish; and if they do not repent and reform, reject them; and then we will not differ with you about calling them to this profession. But if you will not do this, you must pardon me if I conclude that, whatever you pretend, it is not the calling your people to this profession that you scruple in conscience, but it is the trouble and opposition that discipline exercised woidd draw upon you, that makes your flesh scruple anything that would en2:ao:e you to it. And if this be so, faithfulness to God, and you, commandeth me to tell you, that the searching day of God is at hand, when self-seeking hyocrites shall have their reward. If I may speak according to my experience of the state of our ordinary congregations, I must needs conclude, that if you did but perceive that you must exercise Christ’s discipline impartially, we should need no other argimient to bring you to call for your people’s consent, than youiown safety and self-love, and that very flesh would be for it that is now against it. For I imagine, that if you should exercise this discipline on all your parish.

especially in great and bad congregations, you would hardly escape long from being knocked in the head, without a special preservation of God.

Object. 14. “But some associations are forming canons, and putting laws upon us which we know not that we are obliged to obey.”

Alls. (1.) Associations sometimes draw up articles of agTcement, whereto the several members oblige themselves by consent: but I know of none lith us that presume to impose any laws on others. (2.) K the things you speak be made already your duty by God, either expressly by a particular command, or else by a general word determined by Providence, as about some necessary, variable circumstances; then it is no man, but God that imposeth on you, and it is not your refusing your consent that shall disoblige you or excuse you. But if they be things evil that are imposed on you by men; put in the reasons of your dissent, and take the leave of differing in that one point without withdrawing unnecessarily from their communion. K it be but about indifferent circumstances, as I would not have any, no, not by an agreement, much less by imposition, make common determinations of such ^sdthout any need; so if they did, I must tell you that union and communion of churches is not indifferent, but necessary; and therefore reject it not upon the account of such things as you say yourselves are but indifferent.

Object. 15. “But we are not satisfied with their practice of suspending men from the Lord’s Supper, that are not excommunicated: nor do we know any warrant for it.”

Ans. Suspension is either penal or not penal. That which is not penal is of two sorts: — (1.) Sometimes I deny to give men the sacrament, merely because I have no call or obligation on me to do it. In this case, the proof lies on you, viz., to prove my obligation. For example: I take not myself obliged to give the sacrament to all the county, if they require it; nor to any neighbour parish that have a pastor of their own; nor to any of this parish where I live that are separated members of another church: or that throuo’h hatred of discipline will Ije members of no particular church; or that will be members of no particular church, and yet will not come near me to acquaint me with their reasons. Nor am I bound to watch over, or administer sacraments to any that will not take me for their pastor in an ordinary stated course: no, nor at all, when I have so much to do with my own flock, that I cannot do such offices for others without neglecting as great duties to those whom I am more especially related and obliged to. Thus I suspend from the sacrament many thousands — that is, I do not give it them that I have nothing to do with, or no obligation to give it to. (2.) Sometimes we may forbear to give men the sacrament, while we are admonishing them of their sin, and calling them to repentance, or doing some necessary previous duty. As if the whole congregation would have the sacrament on Thursday, I may desire them to stay till the Lord’s day, and in the meantime to humble themselves and prepare. If you will call this a suspending of the whole church, you may speak as you please. So if you know a man that hath ofl’ended his brother, you may persuade him, yea, require him ministerially, by authority from Christ, to leave his gift at the altar, and go first and be reconciled to his brother, and then come and offer his gift. Though if he disobey, I will not presently without further trial censure him.

These acts are but negative, (a not giving the sacrament,) and not properly privative, and therefore not properly suspension. Duties must be done in right order: no duty is at all times to be performed. I am not bound to give a man the sacrament when I meet him in an alehouse, nor wdien I am admonishing him about a scandal; nor when three or four, or a doen, shall send to me to bring it them to a private house, without any more ado. All things must be done decently, orderly, and to edification: and the forbearing a disorderly, indecent, unedifying administration, is no proper penal suspension.

And I am even ashamed that the Church is troubled about this question voluminously, by good men, that are for discipline and excommunication, whenas the things that we make such a stir about, are cases that are not likely to fall out in a congregation once in twenty years. For if a man have offended, and no man have admonished him, nor the fact by notoriousness or accusation be brought to the church, or officers, we are not bound to take notice of it, so far as to suspend any: nor do any that I know of plead for such a thing. But if the case be duly brought to the pastors, cannot they go to the person, or send for him before the very hour of the sacrament? Cannot they try whether he be penitent or nof? And if he be penitent, we yield that he is not to be penally suspended. If he be not after other admonition, and the case is brought to the church, how can the officers be bound at the same time to give the sacrament to an impenitent person, and also to avoid him for his impenitency, or to tell the congregation, in order to his recovery ‘? If these men are for discipline, they must confess that I am bound either to tell the conoreo-ation of this offender, (and that I must do when he demandeth communion,) or else, if telling the ofiBcers be enough, I must require them to avoid him, if he be impenitent.

(2.) And this brings us to the other sort of suspension, which is penal and properly so called; and this is nothing but an avoiding of the communion of the oiTender, “pro hac vice.” Where note: that it is one thing to be unsatisfied of the fact, and another to be unsatisfied of the person’s repentance. In case the fact be not manifest, we confess there must be no suspension, save what prudence requires on the first mentioned grounds: as not properly penal. But if the fact be manifest any of these three ways — by notoriety, or violent presumption, or valid testimony — and yet the person express not his repentance, we are bound by God to avoid communion with him till he repent; and therefore thouo;h I cannot sentence him as habitually obstinate, and therefore shall yet stay longer in a course of admonition before we reject him, as from his church relation, or state of communion; yet on the proved act of sin, till he manifest his repentance, I must forbear the actual communion with him, and deny him actual communion with us: for I cannot take him to be penitent till he profess it (probably); and if I take him not to be penitent, I must take him to be yet in his sin, e. g., to be an adulterer, a drunkard, &c., and so am frequently commanded to avoid him, and forbidden to have communion with him. And this suspension is nothing but initial, actual excommunication; even exclusion from the act of communion, before (upon the proof of fixed obstinacy) we exclude from the state of communion. This is plain, and methinks is enough to end, or at least, to quiet this needless controversy. But if this be all, if you would indeed excommunicate only, and not suspend, this need not hinder any association. If you will go farther than others, you may: as I confess you have great cause to go further than “the most.

Object. 16. “But, say others, is not denying them the Lord’s Supper a sufficient exercise of discipline on the most? What do you more to those that join not with you %”

Ans. Either your not giving them the sacrament is penal, or not. If not, it is no exercise of discipline at all. Do you exercise discipline on all the county, when you give them not the sacrament? If it be penal, it is irregular and harsh dealing to punish and initially excommunicate, for so it is, one half of a parish without an orderly trial, or calling them to speak for themselves, or without taking Christ’s course of first admonishing them. So that it seems to me not very much to differ from them that gather churches irregularly, by casting off” the most without a trial as no church members. And it is absurd to deprive them of actual communion so many years, and yet to let them remain in a state of communion, without any question. And if it be not a penal suspension, but they keep away themselves, it is gross neglect to let them alone so many years in the omission of church-communion and God’s ordinances, while they are members.

As to our case, and the second part of the objection, I answer: AVe take not ourselves to have a pastoral charge of those that separate from us, and wilfully refuse to be members of our charge. We cannot make them our flock against their wills. We cast not out men that cast not out themselves, but only in an orderly regular way of discipline; that is not our fault, but their own.

And yet I must tell you, that I let not them all so pass: but though I think not that I have such a charge of them as the rest, yet I sometimes publicly admonish the most notorious, and pray for them, and require the church to avoid them, as to private familiarity, as they withdi’aw themselves from sacramental communion. For I think if a man call himself a brother, that is, a Christian, and yet live scandalously, I must avoid him, and warn my people so to do, though he never joined himself to any church. Though I know what Beza’s conjectural observation is on Acts xxi., that they are called merely disciples as they are Christians not yet under the church order and officers, and they are called brethren when they are under officers and order. The observation hath its use; but it is not so always, but often otherwise.

Object. 17. “But are not there seasons when discipline may be forl)orne”

Ans. Yes, no doubt, and preaching too; but that must not be ordinarily. It is hard that there was scarcely ever yet a season in England to execute it. I marvel when it will be seasonable, if not now!

Object. 1 8.” But why do you go without the magistrate, and lay his interest aside V

Ans.{.) We go not without his licence, for he graut6

US liberty. (2.) Nor without his encouragement. (3.) But if we had neither, for discipline, sacraments, preaching, Or praying, shoukl we not use them 1 Is not Christ our Master 1 Is not His authority sujtficient ‘How did all Christian churches till Constantine’s days ■?

See our Agreement, (iVrtic. 6, et Reg. 20,) whether “we go without or wrong the magistrate. Our monthly meeting in this church for matters of discipline consisteth of two or three justices of peace, two or three presbyters, three or four deacons, and about twenty-four delegates of the people, of the most wise and pious men, chosen yearly by themselves to represent them, not prohibiting any other to be there, disclaiming any proper office, but only looking, that the church have no wrong, and doing that which private members may do.

Object. 19. “But some of the Prelatical men are offended at our leaving out the clause of Christ’s descent into hell in our profession.”

Ans. (1.) The Creed is part of our profession; and if these men cannot find it, and that clause in our papers, it is not our fault. (2.) The rest is about our exposition of the Creed, for out people’s understanding; and either that clause is plain and commonly agreed on, as to the sense, or not. If it be, then Vviat need we expound if? If not, methinks they should rather commend our modesty that thought ourselves unmeet judges of so great a controversy where the Church is so divided. (3.) It seems a late clause that came not into this Creed for some hundred years after Christ. (4.) The word hell was never put into the Creed by the Greek or Latin Church; and if it were a full and plain translation of the Greek aS?/?, or the Latin inferi, we should the more easily receive it without scniple; but if we should change this English word by a stricter translation, you would be offended much more. See Dr Hammond in his Practical Catechism, pp. 286, 287, against the local descent into hell at large. Or, if you would see much more, read that learned treatise of Sandford and Parker, de Descensu Christi, and Bishop Usher, in his answer to the Jesuit, de Limbo, et Descensu Christi ad inferos. Read well but those two discourses, and you will but pity the self-conceitedness and confidence of such dry and raw discourses as Mr Ashwell and many of his train, that seem to place more hope of their success in reproaching the contrary-minded, and in bold pretences to antiquity and universality, than in any evidence that should compel assent.

K these men have the moderation of true Protestants, let them hear the words of one of them. Bishop Usher, de Limbo, p. 417 — “And to S2:)eak truth, it is a matter above the reach of the common people to enter into the discussion of the full meaning of this point of the descensiou into hell; the determination whereof dependeth upon the knowledge of the learned tono’ues, and other sciences that come not within the

compass of their understanding It having here

likewise been further manifested what different opinions have been entertained by the ancient doctors of the Church, .... I leave it to be considered by the learned, whether any such controverted matter may fitly be brought in to expound the rule of faith, which being common both to the great and the small ones in the Church, (August. Ep. 57, ad Dard.,) must continue such verities only as generally are agreed on by the common consent of all true Christians.” Or if they have more respect to the judgment of a Jesuit, let them liear one of greatest name there cited, — Suarez, tom. 2, in 3d part; Thom. Disp. 43, sect. 4. Si nomine articuli.. ...” If by an article of faith we understand a truth which all the faithful are bound explicitly to know and believe: so I do not think it necessary to reckon this amono; the articles of faith: because it is not a matter altogether so necessary for all men; and because that, for this reason peradventure, it is omitted in the Xicene Creed; the knowledge of which creed seemeth to be sufficient for fulfilling the precept of faith. Lastly, for this cause, peradventure Augustine and other fathers exj)oundiug the Creed, do not unfold this mystery to the people.’’^

And saith Bishop Usher, ibid., “That He descended not into the hell of the damned by the essence of His soul, or locally, but virtually only, by extending the effect of His power thither, is the common doctrine of Thomas Aquinas and the rest of the schoolmen. Card. Bellarmine at first held it to be probable that Christ’s soul did descend thither, not only by His effects, but by His real presence also; but after having considered better of the matter, he resolved that the opinion of Thomas and the other schoolmen was to be followed.”

And whereas some of them do with confidence persuade us that this article was in the Creed from the beginning, they might also from a Jesuit have learned more modesty; John Busjeus, de Descensu Christi, Thes. 33, cited by Bishop Usher, de Limbo, p. 309 — who saith,” Saint Cyprian, or Euffinus rather, in his Exposition of the Creed, denieth that this article is read in the Creed of the Church of Rome or the churches of the East; and some of the most ancient

APPEXDIX. ri’.ij

fathers, while either they gather up the sum of the Christian faith, or expound the Creed of the Apostles, have omitted this point of doctrine. But at what time it was inserted into the Creed, it cannot certainly be determined.” So far the Jesuit. And yet I will not imitate Mr Ashwell’s royal authority on his title-page, and so believe it to be from the apostles, till another certain author is found out, as he saith, of the Creed; but I will contrarily believe it is not by the apostles, because it cannot be proved by the affirmers to be by them, and because I can prove a time since them when it was not in the common Creed.

And saith Bishop Usher, ibid. p. 310, “The first particular church that is known to have inserted this article into her creed is that of Aquilia, which added also the attributes of invisible and impassible unto God the Father Almighty in the beginning of the Creed, as appeareth by Paiffinus, who framed his Exposition of the Creed according to the order used in that church. But whether any other church in the world, for five hundred years after Christ, (mark this,) did follow the Aquilians in putting the one of these additions to the Apostles’ Creed more than the other, can hardly, I suppose, be shewed out of any approved testimony of antiquity.” He goes on further to prove this by instances of many authors’ recitals of the Creed, and out of some ancient manuscripts, as is there to be seen, pp. 310, 311. Mr Ashwell thankfully confesseth some things that he learned of him. If he had had the patience to have learned these and many more, before he had so far exalted himself against those that are not of his opinion, he had not done amiss.

Whether the Arians first put it into the Church

Creed, I leave men to conjecture as they see cause when they have perused the said Bishop’s allegations, p. 308; but certainly, when the Nicene fathers had none of it, the symbols of the Eastern Church, not knowing it, as Euffinus tells us, these bastard fatherlings the Arians, saith the Bishop, did not only insert this clause, “He descended to the places under the earth,” but added, for amplification, “whom hell itself trembled at.” The like did they in another and a third creed.

And as Euffinus testifieth that this article was neither in the Eastern nor the Roman Creeds, so he adjoined presently, as the Bishop noteth, p. 339, “yet the force or meaning of the word seemeth to have been buried, which some,” saith the Bishop, “think to be the cause, why in all the ancient symbols that are known to have been written the first six hundred years after Christ, that of Aquilia only excepted, which Euffinus followed, where the burial is expressed, there the descending into hell is omitted, as in that of Constantinople, for example, commonly called the Nicene Creed; and on the other side, where the descent into hell is mentioned, there the article of the burial is passed over, as in that of Athanasius: and to say the truth, the terms of hurial and descending into hell, in the Scripture phrase, tend much to the expressing; of the self-same thino-,” &c. So he.

These good men, therefore, that (some of them over their pots in an alehouse) do learnedly reproach us for not expounding the article of the descent to hell, or not twice expressing it, should have considered, that with us they more reproach the Xicene and twenty other creeds, yea, that of Marcellus in Epiphanius, v.Licli is nearest to that now called the Apostles’ of any so ancient a form that 1 have met with; and they should have thought it enough in us to retain it in our Creed, without presuming to expound it, till they can answer what Bishop Usher, Parker, and other Protestants in this cause have delivered; or if they be of their mind, they should confess that it is expressed in the terms which we in our explication do retain.

But, as they must confess, the Creed was not delivered by the apostles in English, and so the word hdl was not in the original, so, if we must stick to the Creed indeed, we must translate it truly, and you must help us to some word that is of as comprehensive a signification as ahry is; which, as is most largely proved by Usher and Parker, besides many more, signifieth the “state of the dead” in general; or as applied to soul?, “the invisible state of separated souls; “whereas, whatever etymology of the word hell be, yet we are sure that the common use (which is the master of language) hath among the ^^ilgar appropriated it to the damned’s place or state of torment. Saith Bishop Usher, p. 388: — “Some learned Protestants do observe, that in these words there is no determinate mention made either of ascending or descending either to heaven or hell, taking hell according to the vulgar acceptation; but of the general only, under which these contraries are indifi“erently comprehended; and that the words, literally interpreted, import no more than this, he went unto the other world.” Allow us but this translation, and we shall please you; and surely you will not say, that the apostles agreed on your translation.

If you say, “Then the words arc superfluous, as intimating no more than His death before expressed;” I answer, that you may as well say, the apostles superfluously expressed Christ’s reviving after His rising. (Rom. xiv. 9.) “For this end He both died, rose, and revived.” “When indeed His revidng expresseth not the first reunion of soul and body, for that was before His rising; but His state of life among the living after. So here. His death expresseth His entrance into that state; but 08779 signifieth the world of souls, or state itself of the dead, which dying He presently passed into. But of this Bishop Usher hath said enough in answer, ib. pp. 407, 408, and forward.

But yet for my part, I shall further tell you, that as I take the controversy to be of no greater moment than Suarez, Usher, and others do express, so also I suppose our difi’erence about it is not so great as many do imagine: lay but aside the metaphysical controversy about the locahty of spirits, and the Popish conceit of Christ’s fetching the Old Testament fathers from hell, which Usher shews that Marcion in all likelihood first hatched, and then our difi’erence is but small; for what would you have that we do not grant youl Would you have us yield that Christ’s body lay in the grave 1 Why, who denieth it? Would )^ou have us yield that His soul was in the region of the dead, or in a state of separation from the body”? Who is there that questions it 1 AVould you have us yield that this state was penal both to soul and body? We easily grant it you. Not that Christ had the pain of sense, or the loss of heaven, but the penalty of death: the soul’s being separated from the body was a penal state, as such. If any say that Christ’s soul was in Paradise, and there is no pain; I answer, There may be somewhat penal, where there is not that which vulgarly is called pain: and what glory soever the separated soul of Christ did partake of, yet the separation from the body, as separation, was penal. There remaineth a desire in separated souls to be reunited to their bodies, and therefore it is a better state; and glory is not perfect tiU the man be perfect. Death is a penalty to the whole man, and not to the body alone; and thus far it is a most undoubted truth, that both to the separated soid of Christ, and now of the saints with Christ, there is something penal in this separation and imperfection remaining, though joined with exceeding glory. Saith Bishop Usher, p. 390: — “Heaven itself may be comprised within the notion of 08179: heaven, I say, not considered as it is a place of life and perfection, nor as it shall be after the general resurrection; but so far forth only as death, the last enemy that shall be destroyed, (1 Cor. xv. 26,) hath any footing therein; that is to say, as it is the receptacle of the spirits of dead men, held as yet dissevered from their bodies; which state of dissolution, though carried to heaven itself, is still a part of death’s victory, (1 Cor. XV. 54, 55,) and the saints’ imperfection. (Heb. xi. 40.)” Thus he. And Peter plainly saith, “Whom God did raise up, loosing the sorrows of death: forasmuch as it was not possible that he should be holden of it.” (Acts ii. 24.) And “Christ being raised from the dead, dieth now no more: death hath now no more dominion over him,” saith Paul, (Rom. vi. 9.) So that He was, as to His whole man, under some power or dominion of death for a time. Of this penalty on Christ’s separated soid, and ours, see most fidly Parker, 1. 2, sect. 46 ad 50.

What would you have yet more granted 1 Is it that Christ triumphed over Satan and hell, and con^inced the unbelieving, impious, damned souls of their sin and remediless misery 1 Why, we do not deny you; for as the damned man (Luke xvi.) is said to see Abraham and Lazarus in his bosom, and the wicked in hell have such a knowledo;e of God and heaven, as sufficeth to convince them of the loss and misery, and to torment them; so we deny not but they might have such a sio;ht of Christ, and He miojht make such a manifestation of Himself to them.

Would you have us grant that he went to aS?;?, to procure the deliverance of the captives of aBry<i? we denv it not: His humiliation is the cause of our exaltation; His death and going to arj<i was to purchase deliverance for all His members, dead and li%*ing, that the dead bodies might in time be raised, and the separated souls be reunited to the bodies, and the whole man perfected. Would you have us believe that He went to bring the glad tidings of this to the spirits of the just 1 we do believe it; so that they that believed in Him before might intuitively behold their Lord in whom they believed, in their own present state, and might be the assurance of the resurrection of their bodies, and their final perfection.

But if, besides all this, you would have us believe that Christ’s soul was locally in its essence in the hell of the damned; and that thence He fetched the souls of the old fathers out of the limbus, that is part of hell, here we must leave you: — [l.] Because that else we must be worse than the Papists, whose schoolmen are content with a virtual presence, and deny a local. [2.] Because we know not what locality of spirits is:

and [3.] Because in the latter branch, we are loath to be either iIarcionites, or Papists, till we see more reason for it; especially, we have no mind of your speculations in our Creed.

Object. 20. The last objection that I have been troubled with, is against the title that we put over the old Creed, the ancient Western Creed. And what is the matter here 1 Engagement to their opinion makes them jealous; and jealousy suspecteth the most innocent syllables. Was not this the ancient Western Creed f Yes, no doubt; they mean not to deny it; but they think we intimate hereby a distinction between the Eastern Creed and the AVestern; and consequently intimate, that this Creed was not the universal Creed of the Church, and composed and delivered for that use by the apostles.

But our intimated distinction can be supposed necessary to intimate no more, than that the East and AVest did ordinarily make use of several creeds in baptism and other solemnities; and that this was it that the West made use of. So that whether the East also, and all churches used this sometimes, or whether it were thus formed by the apostles, are questions that we never intended to decide.

But being called to it, I must give a further account of my own opinion. You cannot in modesty, surely, either deny the aforesaid ground of the distinction from the use of the several churches, nor yet the antiquity of the terms of the distinction; much less can you think that learned and wise men have not used it, and brought it to our hands. He that is your chief author for the apostolic composure of it, doth give you himself the matter and terms of this distinction — I mean Euffinus; and Bishop Usher useth it frequently in the aforesaid dispute, in his Dissertatio de Symbolis, and in other writings, to say nothing of Pithseus, Vossius, or any others. Why then doth the quarrel begin with us?

I have read Mr Ashwell, and others of his opinion, as impartially as I could, being as willing to believe that the apostles were the authors of this symbol as not, if I could see any evidence for it; but I must confess the reading of such writings as his do more confirm me in my former opinion, which is as followeth: —

(1.) I do believe that Christ himself is the author of the ancient Creed; expressly in Matt. xx’iii. 1.9, “Baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” And that the Creed at first contained but these three articles: and that all that were baptized, at age, were to profess this belief, viz., that they believed in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And I desire them that are confident of the contrary opinion, to confute what Parker hath so copiously brought for the proof of it: and learned Ludov. Crocius that followeth him.

(2.) And yet I do fidly believe, that before the New Testament was written, the apostles taught their catechumens and persons admitted to baptism the sum of the gospel or Christian religion in a few distinct articles. For it is certain that they could not deliver all the history or doctrine of Christ to every convert; and as certain, that they must deliver all the essentials before they could make a Chiistian, and that every Christian that was converted by them was made such by the power of these essential truths; for the essentials of the subjective Christianity are the image and effects of the essentials of objective Christianity or faith; as the image in the wax is of that in the seal.

(3.) I am persuaded that the method of the apostles in delivering their Creed, or essential verities, was according to Christ’s platform; even to deliver the doctrine of the Trinity, and what was found necessary to the explication of any one of the three articles; and consequently, that they ordinarily taught the same doctrine that is now in our Creed to all their converts; yet enlarging it, especially on the second article, which was it that the world did most resist.

(4.) I do believe that it cannot be proved, and therefore should not be affirmed, that the apostles did in any one precise form of words, explain the three articles laid down by Christ; but as they ordinarily preached the same truths, and that much in the same or like phrase, not affecting novelty; so they did not compose this into any precise form of words, but delivered the same great truths in such expressions as they found meet for the persons with whom they had to do.

(o.) Thus I believe that every Christian and church was a living gospel, or book, in which the Creed, and all essentials of Christianity, doctrinal and practical, were written by the Spirit of God, through the instrumentality of the preaching of these fundamental truths; and this before the Scripture of the New Testament was written.

(6.) This I believe was the great tradition of the essentials of religion, distinct from Scripture: baptism itself was a notable means to deliver do^^l these truths.

2 M (7.) Yet I am not against a strict agreement upon such a form of profession “in terminis” without liberty to change a word; but think that exactness is as necessary in this, both for the sake of truth and unity, as in most matters that are left to man.

(8.) The reasons why I cannot believe that this present form of words, as now in our hands, was either composed by the apostles, or the universal Creed from the beginning, are these following, among many more: —

[1.] Because of the no-proof that is brought by the afhrmers that should prove it.

[2.] Because I find the fathers in the first ages constantly giAung up the Creed of that Church in other words, and in forms all difiering one from another, and not one of them giving us this veiy form of above three hundred years at least after Christ. Ignatius, IrenaBus, Origen, Tertullian, thrice recite the Church’s faith, and so do many others; and all in several forms of words, and not one of them in this form. So that it would make a man shake the head to read such kind of proofs as Mr Ashwell’s, that this is the Apostles’ Creed; he heaps up other forms to prove the apostolic composure of this form. What did he think of his readers when he offers them with highest confidence such proofs as most efiectually disprove the thing he brings them for? Who can think that all these men would offer to give us the very symbol of Christianity in forms of their own, and various forms, and none of them use the Apostles’ form, if such a thing in precise terms had then been by them commended to the churches ‘i Those A^’illing men that can make their own faith, may believe many such matters as these; but so cannot I. The first that I remember to have read that is like the present form, though maimed, is that of JMarcellus, in Epiplianiiis, 72. Heresies, which are delivered with such expressions adjoined, as would make a man imagine that it was the matter and not the form of words which he professeth to have received from his ancestors: nor is there any one cited by Mr Ashwell himself of those elder times, that seems the same form with ours, but only this of IVIarcellus; and that of the Latin Chrysostom and one of Tcrtullian’s do Veland. Virof. seems to be part of this. And among such abundance of forms of words, it were strange if they could possibly miss sometimes of delivering these few principles in the terms we now use. And for that of jIarcellus, it is in many things diJ0ferent from ours; and that of Tertullian is so different that no man can prove that ever the author had seen our form. And as for that of Chrysostom, if it were his, he was about four hundred years after Christ; but indeed there is no such matter in his works. No wonder if ]Ir Ashwell could not find it in Sir H. Sevil’s edition, of Fronto Ducajus des, but only in the Latin edition of Erasmus, saith a far greater antiquary. Bishop Usher, de Limbo, pp. 310, 311, ‘“For as for the two Latin expositions thereof that go under the name of S. Clirysostoni, the latter whereof hath it, the former hath it not, and the others that are found in the tenth tome of S. Austin’s works among the Sermons de tempore; because the authors of them, together with the time wherein they were written, be altogether unknown, they can bring us little light in this inquiry.” All the rest of the three first centuries at least, that Mr Ashwell citcth, are set as if it ere.

on purpose to make his reader wonder at his self-confutation.

[3.] Another of my reasons is, because I find so many clauses new in this form that we now have, and find withal that the arisins; of new heresies was an avowed reason of adding new clauses to the Creed in those days, that it makes me much suspect that all the rest, except the three essential articles, were brought in by degrees, as heresies gave occasion, and never formed all at once.

That several new clauses were added to this. Bishop Usher may satisfy you in his Dissertatio de Symbolis, and other writings, ibid. — “Quo tamen hodie Eomana Ecclesia utitur Symbolum, additamentis aliquot aactius legi, res ipsa indicat....” The additions not found in any of the more ancient copies are these, “Creator of heaven and earth,” added to the first article: which in likelihood was ao;ainst that rabble of heretics that feigned the world to be created by angels, yea, bad angels: also the word “conceived “is added; the oldest forms having it” born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary.’*’ Also the word “dead” is added, “he descended into hell,” and the name of “God” and the attribute “Almighty” to the article of Christ’s sitting at the Father’s right hand. Also the word “Catholic” is added to the “holy Church,” and so is “the communion of saints” and “the fife everlasting,” All which are a considerable part of so short a form. And that clauses were used to be put into the Creed upon occasion of heresy, is well known of other creeds; and Eufiinus confesseth of their Acjuileian Creed, thus, “His additur invisibilera: et impossibilem sciendum quod duo isti Sermones in Ecclesioe Romanse Symbolo non habentur: constat autem apucl uos additos htereseos causa Sabellii, illius perfecto qiioe h. nostris Patri passiana appellatur..., Ut ergo excluderetur talis impietas de Patre, videntnr hsec addisse majores,” &c. Ruffin. in Symb. c. 7=

Saith Bishop Usher, in his Sermon of the Church’s Unity, p. 17 — “This Creed, though for substance it was the same everywhere, yet ior form was somewhat diflferent, and in some places received more enlargements than in others. The Western Churches herein applied themselves to the capacity of the meaner sort, more than the Eastern did; using in their baptism that shorter form of confession, commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, which in the more ancient times was more brief also than now it is: as we may easily perceive by comparing the symbol recited by Marcellus Ancyranus, with the expositions of the Apostles’ Creed written by the Latin doctors, wherein the mention of the Father’s being ’ maker of heaven and earth,’ the Son’s ’ death,’ and ’ descended into hell,’ and the ’ communion of saints,’ is wholly omitted. All which, though they were of undoubted verity, yet .... and need not necessarily be inserted into that symbol, which is the badge and cognisance whereby the beUever is to be diflferenced and distinguished from the unbeliever. The Creed which the Eastern Churches used in baptism was larger than this; being either the same, or very little different from that which we commonly call the Nicene Creed.”

And he begins his Dissertation de Symb. thus, — “Licet apud omnes turn orientis, tum occidentis Ecclesias ut unus Domiuus, et Baptismus ita et una fides fuerit; una tamen et eaclem verbonun formula fidei syrabolum, quo in cultus Domini professione, et Baptismi susceptione, illse sunt usoe, non fuisse conceptum, omniumque Eomanimi fuisse bredssimum, in symboli explicatione, Ruffinus Aquileinsis Presbyter jamdudum nos docuit: de additamentis etiam apud Occidentales ad Romanum hoc oppositis in proaemio suo sic pr£efatus.”

And lie useth the distinction in his preface, “Meam de Occidentalis et Orientalis Ecclesise Symbolis sententiam” &c. Et passim, pp. 18, 13, 19, 20, 21, 26, &c.

[4.] And it is enough to debilitate the force that some imagine to lie in the title apostolic, that the Nicene Creed was as confidently, and for aught ever I yet saw proved, as anciently called the Apostles’ Creed as this, and said to be delivered from the apostles. Saith Usher, Dissert, p. 16, “Sed et ab Occidentalibusconsimiliter Ecclesiis longius istud Symbolum et Apostolicum habitum et Nicsenum etiam noniinatum fuisse, observare liceat. Sic enim habet Ordo Romanus in prsefatione Symboli cujus recitationi prsemissa, ante administrationem baptismi: Audite suscipientes Evangelici symboli Sacramentum, a Domino, inspiratum, ab Apostolis institutum, cujus pauca quidem verba sunt, sed magna Mysteria. — Et in Coense Sacrse celebratione Latina JNIissa, quae circa annum DCC. in usu fuit, de eodem adjicit Finito symbolo Apostolorum dicat Sacerdos, Domiuus vobiscum.”

And p. 1 7, he had before said, “Hanc fidei formu- 1am, ut ab Apostolis Ecclesiae traditum, et a Nicaenis Patribus promulgatum, laudat Epiphanius.” And Cyril, or John of Jerusalem, calls the Jerusalem Creed by the name of ‘^y/a? kui a7ro(n6liK7]<i Tr/o-Teo)?, Catech.

1 8. Bishop Usher, de Limbo, ix 309, saith, that “The Creed of the Council of Constantinople, much larger than our common Creed, was itself no less than the other (N.B.) heretofore both accounted and named the Apostles’ Creed: and it is not to be thought it would leave out any article that was then commonly believed to have been any parcel of the Creed received from the apostles.” And he citeth for the title Epiph. in “Ay/cvp, p. 518, and the Latin ancient missal before mentioned. And citing Epiphan. again to the same purpose in his Sermon on Lenity, he addeth that “Cassianus avoucheth as much, where he urgeth this against Nestorius, as the Creed anciently received by the Church of Antioch,from whence he came; and that the second General Council at Constant, approved it as most ancient and agreeable to baptism,” apud. Theod. lib. 5, cap. 9.

!Many other reasons that stick with me are at large expressed in Parker de Descen. lib. 4; which whoever will read impartially with judgment, I dare venture him easily upon Mr. Ash well’s answer to them; the sum of which alloweth the fathers to make additions, as being but an explication; whenas our question is only of the form of words. If any of them may be altered, and additions made, who knows which of them be apostoKcal 1 and why may not others now do the like “? What commission can those fathers shew more than other pastors of the Church 1

Far am I from believing him, that none but an apostolical spirit coidd have known by the Scriptures which were fundamental articles of faith, thus far to have summed them up, when Scripture so expressly tells men which are the principles, and which life and death are laid upon.

And fm-tlier am I from believino; him that there is so much difference between the Creed and the Scripture as he expresseth, as if there were no understanding nor keeping our religion for all the Scripture, were it not for the Creed, but the whole frame of our religion would fall instantly to the ground; and the contempt which he spitteth in the face of the Scriptures, I must needs say, I do dislike, and think it most unseemly in a man that is so tender of having the nakedness of the fathers opened, and that hath no more sensible an answer to give to those testimonies of the Church of France and of England, so valued by him, and of Cyril and Paschasius, who all take the Creed on the authority of the Scripture, from whence it is gathered. (See his, pp. 115, 168, 169, and 178 to Object. 9.) It is past my understanding, that the bare words that Christ “was crucified, dead, buried,” &c., should teach a man more plainly to what end it was that Christ did all this, whether only for example, as the Socinians, or for ransom, sacrifice, propitiation, &c., than the Scriptures, that at large set forth these ends. As plain as the Creed is, he must needs reserve the undoubted exposition and applying of this rule to the Church and ancient fathers, “in whose writings,” he saith, “the apostles have left it us, these being their successors, to whose care and custody they not only committed the oracles of God in writing, and the Creed by word of mouth, but the interpretation also of both, as they heard them expounded from their own mouths while they preached and lived amongst them; for in vain had the apostles given them the words, if they had not given them the sense withal, to stop the mouths of heretics.” — True, it were in vain, if the words themselves are nonsense. I know the apostles have successors so far, as to have the care of expounding this Scripture delivered to them, by the ordinary helps of grace, art, and nature, discerning the sense by the words; but oh that I knew where to find that church that could give me the sense of all God’s oracles, by this undoubted tradition, as from the apostles themselves, or that I knew the names or characters of those fathers that had this depositurti by tradition from the apostles, and where I may find it left to us! Is it each father individually, or is it the greater number together 1 And how shall we take the vote, or know which of them to account a father, and which not? Surely, when I read them telling us no more of the sense of the oracles, and so often erring and disareeino;, I cannot believe that their memories were all so good, as to deliver down from father to son an exposition of the Bible, without writing; and if ever any of them had such a voluminous commentary in his brain, from the hand of an apostle, which was not thought meet to be given in writing, the issue by this time may convince us that either it was intended only for themselves, or else that indeed such a world of matter would have been more surely kept in writing than this tradition hath hitherto kept it; for I think most of us love our fleshly ease so well, that if we knew where the book or the church were that would give us such a certain exposition of Scripture, as from the apostles, we would be glad of it, not only to the quieting of our minds, but also for the sparing our time and labour that we now bestow in studying. Yet still I say, as before, that I doubt not but the principles were preached before the gospel was written, and that tliousancls were made Christians hj the reception of those principles; and that all Christians and churches of them successively contained these principles written in their hearts; and that the great articles of the Creed, believing in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were in terms

imposed on the Church by Himself; and that the meaning of them was still taught to the catechumens and the Church. And that the churches did well to keep the sum of faith in certain forms of words; and I would they had made fewer, and chang-ed them less: and 1 think it meet that they be still used in baptism, and on other occasions of public confession of faith in our congregations.

But yet I am not convinced that the apostles did compose this form of words, or any other to that use; nor that it was composed for some hundreds of years after Christ, though the same articles were then professed in several forms of words, and those articles were all delivered from Christ and His apostles: nor do I believe that the form now called the Apostles’ Creed was any more theirs, or more ancient than some other forms; nor do we owe it any more belief or reverence than we do the Jerusalem or Nicene Creed; and yet I truly much reverence both, and believe them all. Nor do I think that ever this Creed was the form which the universal Church did use above others; but think that -in the third century the Nicene was the more common. So much (and perhaps too much) to these objections.