Part 3 — Quest. LXXXIII. May the people bear a vocal part in worship, or do any more than say, Amen?

Answ. Yes:[326] the people should say Amen; that is, openly signify their consent. But the meaning is not that they must do no more, nor otherwise express their consent saving by that single word. For, 1. There is no scripture which forbiddeth more. 2. The people bear an equal part in singing the psalms; which are prayer, and praise, and instruction. 3. If they may do so in the psalms in metre, there can no reason be given but they may lawfully do so in the psalms in prose; for saying them and singing them are but modes of utterance; both are the speaking of prayer and praise to God: and the ancient singing was liker our saying, than to our tunes, as most judge. 4. The primitive christians were so full of the zeal and love of Christ, that they would have taken it for an injury and a quenching of the Spirit, to have been wholly restrained from bearing their part in the praises of the church. 5. The use of the tongue keepeth awake the mind, and stirreth up God's graces in his servants. 6. It was the decay of zeal in the people that first shut out responses; while they kept up the ancient zeal, they were inclined to take their part vocally in their worship; and this was seconded by the pride and usurpation of some priests thereupon, who thought the people of God too profane to speak in the assemblies, and meddle so much with holy things.

Yet the very remembrance of former zeal, caused most churches to retain many of the words of their predecessors, even when they lost the life and spirit which should animate them. And so the same words came into the liturgies, and were used by too many customarily, and in formality, which their ancestors had used in the fervour of their souls.

6. And if it were not that a dead-hearted, formal people, by speaking the responses carelessly and hypocritically, do bring them into disgrace with many that see the necessity of seriousness, I think few good people would be against them now. If all the serious, zealous christians in the assembly speak the same words in a serious manner, there will appear nothing in them that should give offence. If in the fulness of their hearts, the people should break out into such words of prayer, or confession, or praise, it would be taken for an extraordinary pang of zeal; and were it unusual, it would take exceedingly. But the better any thing is, the more loathsome it appeareth when it is mortified by hypocrisy and dead formality, and turned into a mockery, or an affected, scenical act. But it is here the duty of every christian to labour to restore the life and spirit to the words, that they may again be used in a serious and holy manner as heretofore.

7. Those that would have private men pray and prophesy in public, as warranted by 1 Cor. xiv. "Ye may all speak," &c. do much contradict themselves, if they say also that a layman may say nothing but Amen.

8. The people were all to say Amen in Deut. xxvii. 15, 16, 18-20, &c. And yet they oftentimes said more. As Exod. xix. 8, in as solemn an assembly as any of ours, when God himself gave Moses a sermon (in a form of words) to preach to the people, and Moses had repeated it as from the Lord, (it being the narrative of his mercies, the command of obedience, and the promises of his great blessings upon that condition,) "all the people answered together and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do." The like was done again, Exod. xxiv. 3, and Deut. v. 27. And lest you should think either that the assembly was not as solemn as ours, or that it was not well done of the people to say more than Amen, God himself who was present declared his approbation, even of the words, when the speakers' hearts were not so sincere in speaking them as they ought: ver. 28, 29, "And the Lord heard the voice of your words when you spake unto me, and the Lord said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people—They have well said all that they have spoken. O that there were such a heart in them—."

Object. But this is but a speech to Moses, and not to God.

Answ. I will recite to you a form of prayer which the people themselves were to make publicly to God: Deut. xxvi. 13-15, "Then shalt thou say before the Lord thy God, I have brought away the hallowed things out of my house, and also have given them unto the Levite and unto the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the widow, according to all thy commandments which thou hast commanded me: I have not transgressed thy commandments, neither have I forgotten them. I have not eaten thereof in my mourning, neither have I taken away ought thereof for any unclean use, nor given ought thereof for the dead; but I have hearkened to the voice of the Lord my God, and have done according to all that thou hast commanded me. Look down from thy holy habitation, from heaven, and bless thy people Israel, and the land which thou hast given us, as thou swarest unto our fathers, a land that floweth with milk and honey." Is not here a full form of prayer to be used by all the people? And remember that Joseph and Mary, and Christ himself, were under this law, and that you never read that Christ found fault with the people's speech, nor spake a word to restrain it in his churches.

In Lev. ix. 24, "When all the people saw the glory of the Lord, and the fire that came out from it, and consumed the burnt offering, they shouted and fell on their faces;" which was an acclamation more than bare amen.

2 Kings xxiii. 2, 3, "King Josiah went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah, &c. and the priests and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant. And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, &c. with all their heart, and all their soul, &c. And all the people stood to the covenant." Where, as a king is the speaker, it is like that the people used some words to express their consent.

1 Chron. xvi. 35, 36, when David delivered a psalm for a form of praise: in which it is said to the people, ver. 35, "And say ye, Save us, O God of our salvation, and gather us together, and deliver us from the heathen, that we may give thanks to thy holy name, and glory in thy praise. Blessed be the Lord God of Israel for ever and ever. All the people said, Amen, and praised the Lord." Where it is like that their praising the Lord was more than their amen.

And it is a command, Psal. lxvii. 3, 5, "Let all the people praise thee, O God, let all the people praise thee." And he that will limit this to single persons, or say that it must not be vocally in the church, or it must be only in metre and never in prose, or only in tunes and not without, must prove it, lest he be proved an adder to God's word.

But it would be tedious to recite all the repeated sentences in the Psalms, which are commonly supposed to be the responses of the people, or repeated by them. And in Rev. xiv. 2, 3, the voice as "of many waters and as of a great thunder, and the voice of harpers harping with their harps, who sung a new song before the throne and before the four beasts and the elders, a song which none could learn but the hundred forty and four thousand which were redeemed from the earth, which were not defiled with women, who were virgins and followed the Lamb," &c. doth seem very plainly to be spoken of the praises of all the saints. Chap. xvii. 15, by waters is meant people, multitudes, &c. And chap. xix. 5-8, there is expressly recited a form of praise for all the people: "A voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great. And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad, and rejoice, and give honour to him; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her it was granted," &c.

And indeed he that hath styled all his people "priests to God, and a holy and royal priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, and to show forth the praises (τὰς ἀρετὰς, the virtues) of him that hath called us out of darkness into his marvellous light," doth seem not to take them for so profane a generation, as to be prohibited from speaking to God in public any otherwise than by the mouth of a priest.

And it seemeth to be more allowed (and not less) under the gospel, than under the law; because then the people, as under guilt, were kept at a greater distance from God, and must speak to him more by a priest that was a type of Christ our Intercessor.[327] But now we are brought nigh, and reconciled to God, and have the spirit of sons, and may go by Christ alone unto the Father. And therefore though it be true that ministers yet are sub-intercessors under Christ our High Priest, yet they are rarely called priests, but described more in the New Testament by other parts of their office.

Object. But the people's responses make a confused noise in the assemblies, not intelligible.

Answ. All things are ill done, that are done by ill men that carnally and formally slubber it over: but if the best and holiest people would unanimously set themselves to do it, as they do in singing psalms, so that they did not only stand by to be the hearers of others, it would be done more orderly and spiritually, as well as singing is.

Quest. LXXXIV. Is it not a sin for our clerks to make themselves the mouth of the people, who are no ordained ministers of Christ?

Answ. 1. In those places where ordained deacons do it, this objection hath no place. 2. The clerks are not appointed to be the mouth of the people, but only each clerk is one of the people commanded to do that which all should do, lest it should be wholly left undone. If all the congregation will speak all that the clerk doth, it will answer the primary desire of the church governors, who bid the people do it; but if they that will not do it themselves, shall pretend that the clerk doth usurp the ministry, because he ceaseth not as well as they; they might as well say so by a few that should sing psalms in the church, when the rest are against it and forbear. May not a man do his duty in singing or saying, when you refuse yours, without pretending to be your mouth, or usurping the ministry?

Quest. LXXXV. Are repetitions of the same words in church prayers, lawful?

Answ. 1. It is not lawful to affect them as the heathens, who think they shall be heard for their battology, or saying over the same words, as if God were moved by them, as by a charm.[328] 2. Nor is it lawful to do that which hath a strong appearance of such a conceit, and thereby to make God's worship ridiculous and contemptible; as the papists in their psalters, and prayer books, repeating over the name of Jesus, and Mary, so oft together as maketh it seem a ludicrous canting.

But, 1. It is lawful to speak the same words from fulness and fervency of zeal; 2. And when we are afraid to give over lest we have not yet prevailed with God. 3. And in God's solemn praises (sung or said) a word or sentence oft repeated sometimes hath an elegancy, and affecting decency; and therefore it is so often used in the Psalms; yea, and in many Scripture prayers. 4. In such cases, to bring a serious urgency of spirit to the repeated words, and not to quarrel with the repetitions, is the duty of one that joineth with true christian assemblies, as a son of piety and peace.[329]

Quest. LXXXVI. Is it lawful to bow at the naming of Jesus?

Answ. The question either respecteth the person of Jesus, named by any of his names, or else this name Jesus only. And that either simply in itself considered; or else comparatively, as excluding, or not including, other names.

1. That the person of Jesus is to be bowed to, I never knew a christian deny.

2. That we may lawfully express our reverence by bowing, when the names, God, Jehovah, Jesus Christ, &c. are uttered, I have met with few christians who deny, nor know I any reason to deny it.

3. Had I been fit to have prescribed directions to other ministers or churches, I would not have persuaded, much less commanded, them to bow at the name of Jesus, any more than at the name of God, Jehovah, Christ, &c. for many reasons which the reader may imagine, though I will not now mention them.

4. But if I live and join in a church where it is commanded and peremptorily urged to bow at the name of Jesus, and where my not doing it would be divisive, scandalous, or offensive, I will bow at the name of God, Jehovah, Jesus, Christ, Lord, &c. one as well as the other; seeing it is not bowing at Christ's name that I scruple, but the consequents of seeming to distinguish and prefer that name alone before all the rest.[330]

Quest. LXXXVII. Is it lawful to stand up at the gospel as we are appointed?

Answ. 1. Had I been a prescriber to others myself, I should not have required the church to stand up at the reading of one part of a chapter by the name of the gospel, and not at the same words when the whole chapter is read.

2. But if I live where rulers peremptorily command it, (I suppose not forbidding us to stand up at the gospel read in chapters, but selecting this as an instance of their signified consent to the gospel, who will do no more,) I would obey them rather than give offence, by standing up at the reading of the chapters and all; which I suppose will be no violation of their laws.

Quest. LXXXVIII. Is it lawful to kneel when the decalogue is read?

Answ. 1. If I lived in a church that mistook the commandments for prayers, as many ignorant people do, I would not so harden them in that error. 2. And if I knew that many of the people present are of that mind, I had rather do nothing that might scandalize or harden them in it.

But, 1. That the thing in itself is lawful, is past doubt: as we may kneel to the king when we hear him or speak to him; so it is lawful to kneel to God, when we read a chapter or hear it read, and specially the decalogue so terribly delivered, and written by his own finger in stone. 2. And if it be peremptorily commanded, and the omission would be offensive, I would use it though mistaking persons are present, (1.) Because I cannot disobey, and also differ from the whole assembly, without a greater hurt and scandal, than seeming to harden that mistaking person. (2.) And because I could and would by other means remove that person's danger, as from me, by making him know that it is no prayer. (3.) And the rather in our times, because we can get the minister in the pulpit publicly to tell the people the contrary. (4.) And in catechising it is his appointed duty so to do. (5.) And we find that the same old silly people who took the commandments for a prayer, took the creed to be so too; when yet none kneeled at the creed; by which it appeareth that it is not kneeling which deceived them.

Quest. LXXXIX. What gestures are fittest in all the public worship?

Answ. 1. The customs of several countries, putting several significations on gestures, much varieth the case.

2. We must not lightly differ from the customs of the churches where we live in such a thing.

3. According to the present state of our churches, and the signification of gestures, and the necessities of men's bodies, all considered, I like best, (1.) To kneel in prayer and confession of sin (unless it be in crowded congregations where there is not room). (2.) To stand up in actions of mere praise to God, that is, at the singing and reading of the psalms of praise, and at the other hymns. (3.) To sit at the hearing of the word read and preached (because the body hath a necessity of some rest).

4. Had I my choice, I would receive the Lord's supper sitting; but where I have not, I will use the gesture which the church useth. And it is to be noted that the church of England requireth the communicant only to receive it kneeling; but not to eat or drink it kneeling when they have received it. The ancient churches took it for a universal custom, established by many general councils, (and continued many hundred years,) that no churches should kneel in any act of adoration upon any Lord's day in the year, or any week day between Easter and Whitsuntide; but only stand all the time. But because the weariness of the body is apt to draw the mind into consent, and make God's service burdensome to us, it seemeth a sufficient compliance with their custom and the reasons of it, if we stand up only in acts of praise (and at the profession of our assent to the christian faith and covenant).[331]

5. And because there is so great a difference between the auditors in most assemblies, some being weak and not able to stand long, &c. therefore it is utterly unmeet to be too rigorous in urging a uniformity of gesture, or for any to be too censorious of other men for a gesture.

Quest. XC. What if the pastor and church cannot agree about singing psalms, or what version or translation to use, or time or place of meeting, &c.?

I meddle not here with the magistrate's part.

Answ. 1. It is the office of the pastor to be the guide and ruler in such things, (when the magistrate interposeth not,) and the people should obey him. 2. But if the pastor injure the church by his misguidance and mal-administration, he ought to amend and give them satisfaction; and if he do not, they have their remedy before mentioned. 3. And if the people be obstinate in disobedience upon causeless quarrels, the pastor must first labour to convince them by reason and love, and his authority; and if no means will bring them to submission, he must consider whether it be better as to the public good of the church of Christ that he comply with them, and suffer them, or that he depart and go to a more tractable people; and accordingly he is to do. For they cannot continue together in communion if one yield not to the other: usually or ofttimes it will be better to leave such an obdurate, self-willed people, lest they be hardened by yielding to them in their sin, and others encouraged in the like by their example; and their own experience may at last convince them, and make them yield to better things, as Geneva did when they revoked Calvin. But sometimes the public good requireth that the pastor give place to the people's folly, and stay among them, and rather yield to that which is not best, (so it be otherwise lawful,) as a worse translation, a worse version, liturgy, order, time, place, &c. than quite forsake them. And he that is in the right, may in that case yield to him that is in the wrong, in point of practice.

Quest. XCI. What if the pastor excommunicate a man, and the people will not forbear his communion, as thinking him unjustly excommunicated?

Answ. 1. Either the pastor or the people are in the error. 2. Either the person is a dangerous heretic, or grossly wicked, or not. 3. Either the people do own the error or sin, for which he is excommunicated, or only judge the person not guilty. 4. The pastor's and the people's part in the execution must be distinguished. And so I conclude,

1. That if the pastor err and wrong the people, he must repent and give them satisfaction; but if it be their error and obstinacy, then, 2. If the pastor foreknow that the people will dissent, in some small dispensable cases he may forbear to excommunicate one that deserveth it; or if he know it after, that they will not forbear communion with the person, he may go on in his office, and be satisfied that he hath discharged his own duty, and leave them under the guilt of their own faults. 3. But if it be an intolerable wickedness or heresy, (as Arianism, Socinianism, &c.) and the people own the error or sin as well as the person, the pastor is then to admonish them also, and by all means to endeavour to bring them to repentance; and if they remain impenitent to renounce communion with them and desert them. 4. But if they own not the crime, but only think the person injured, the pastor must give them the proof for their satisfaction; and if they remain unsatisfied, he may proceed in his office as before.

Quest. XCII. May a whole church, or the greater part, be excommunicated?

Answ. 1. To excommunicate is by ministerial authority to pronounce the person unmeet for christian communion, as being under the guilt of impenitence in heinous sin; and to charge the church to forbear communion with him, and avoid him, and to bind him over to the bar of God.

2. The pastor of a particular church may pronounce all the church uncapable of christian communion and salvation till they repent, e. g. If they should all be impenitent Arians, Socinians, blasphemers, &c. for he hath authority, and they deserve it. But he hath no church that he is pastor of, whom he can command to avoid them. 3. The neighbour pastors of the churches about them, may, upon full proof, declare to their own churches, that such a neighbour church that is fallen to Arianism, &c. is unmeet for christian communion and to be owned as a church of Christ; and therefore charge their flocks not to own them, nor to have occasional communion with their members when they come among them. For there is authority, and a meet object, and necessity for so doing; and therefore it may be done. 4. But a single pastor of another church may not usurp authority over any neighbour church, to judge them and excommunicate them, where he hath neither call nor full proof, as not having had opportunity to admonish them all, and try their repentance.[332] Therefore the pope's excommunications are rather to be contemned, than regarded. 5. Yet if many churches turn heretics notoriously, one single neighbour pastor may renounce their communion, and require his flock for to avoid them all. 6. And a pastor may as lawfully excommunicate the major part of his church, by charging the minor part to avoid them, as he may do the minor part; except that accidentally the inconveniences of a division may be so great, as to make it better to forbear; and so it may oft fall out also, if it were the minor part.

Quest. XCIII. What if a church have two pastors, and one excommunicate a man, and the other absolve him, what shall the church and the dissenter do?

Answ. It was such cases that made the churches of old choose bishops, and ever have but one bishop in one church. But, 1. He that is in the wrong is first bound to repent and yield to the other. 2. If he will not, the other in a tolerable ordinary case may for peace give way to him, though not consent to his injurious dealing. 3. In a dubious case they should both forbear proceeding till the case be cleared. 4. In most cases, each party should act according to his own judgment, if the counsel of neighbour pastors be not able to reconcile them. And the people may follow their own judgments, and forbear obeying either of them formally till they agree.

Quest. XCIV. For what sins may a man be denied communion, or excommunicated? Whether for impenitence in every little sin; or for great sin without impenitence?

Answ. 1. I have showed before that there is a suspension which is but a forbearance of giving a man the sacrament, which is only upon an accusation till his cause be tried; and an innocent person may be falsely accused, and so tried.

2. Some sins may be of so heinous scandal, that if the person repent of them this day, his absolution and reception may be delayed till the scandal be removed. 1. Because the public good is to be preferred before any man's personal good. 2. And the churches, or enemies about, cannot so suddenly know of a man's repentance. If they hear of a man's murder, perjury, or adultery to-day, and hear that he is absolved to-morrow, they will think that the church consisteth of such, or that it maketh very light of sin. Therefore the ancient churches delayed and imposed penances, partly to avoid such scandal. 3. And partly because that some sins are so heinous, that a sudden profession is not a sufficient evidence of repentance, unless there be also some evidence of contrition.

3. But ordinarily no man ought to be excommunicated for any sin whatsoever, unless impenitence be added to the sin.[333] Because he is first to be admonished to repent, Matt. xviii. 15, 16; Tit. iii. 10. And repentance is the gospel condition of pardon to believers.

4. A man is not to be excommunicated for every sin which he repenteth not of. Because, 1. Else all men should be excommunicated. For there are in all men some errors about sin and duty, and so some sins which men cannot yet perceive to be sin. 2. And ministers are not infallible, and may take that for a sin which is no sin, and so should excommunicate the innocent. 3. And daily unavoidable infirmities, though repented of, yet awaken not the soul sometimes to a notable contrition; nor are they fit matter for the church's admonition.[334] A man is not to be called openly to repentance before the church for every idle word, or hour.

4. Therefore to excommunication these two must concur: 1. A heinousness in the sin. 2. Impenitence after due admonition and patience.

Quest. XCV. Must the pastors examine the people before the sacrament?

Answ. 1. Regularly they should have sufficient notice after they come to age that they own their baptismal covenant, and that they have that due understanding of the sacrament and the sacramental work, and such a christian profession as is necessary to a due participation.

2. But this is fitliest done at their solemn transition out of their infant church state into their adult: and it is not necessarily to be done every time they come to the Lord's table (unless the person desire help for his own benefit); but only once, before their first communicating: if it be the satisfaction of the pastor or church that is intended by it.

Quest. XCVI. Is the sacrament of the Lord's supper a converting ordinance?

Answ. You must distinguish, 1. Between the conversion of infidels without the church, and of hypocrites within it. 2. Between the primary and the secondary intention of the institutor. 3. Between the primary duty of the receiver, and the event. And so I conclude,

1. That God did not command ministers to give infidels the Lord's supper to convert them to christianity.

2. He requireth us to give it to none but those that profess themselves converted from infidelity and a state of wickedness, and to none that profess not true saving faith and repentance.

3. God never commanded or allowed any infidel to demand or receive it to his conversion.

4. God commandeth the pastors of the church to deliver it to hypocrites, (who at the heart are infidels, or impenitent and ungodly,) if they profess faith and repentance, and desire or require it.[335]

5. There is much in the nature of the sacrament, which tendeth to the conversion of a hypocrite.

6. And God often blesseth it to the conversion of hypocrites; so that it may thence be said to be his secondary intention.

7. But yet he that knoweth himself to be a mere hypocrite, or void of saving faith and repentance, should not come first and immediately to the sacrament, to be converted by it; but should first so long hear, read, meditate, and pray, till he repent and believe, and his heart consent to the covenant of God; and then he should come with penitent contrition, and solemnly renew his covenant in this sacrament, and there receive a sealed pardon.

Quest. XCVII. Must no man come to the sacrament, that is uncertain or doubtful of the sincerity of his faith and repentance?

Answ. 1. He that is sure of his unsoundness and hypocrisy should not come.[336]

2. He that upon trial is not sure, but yet as far as he can understand his own heart and life, doth judge himself an impenitent hypocrite, should use other means to know himself certainly, and fullier to repent before he cometh. And though some melancholy and timorous persons be falsely persuaded that they are impenitent, yet it is better that such forbear the sacrament, while they use other means for their better acquaintance with themselves, than that all the hypocrites, and wicked, impenitent people be told that it is their duty to come, if they can but make themselves uncertain whether they be impenitent or not.

3. But he that after the best endeavours he can use to know himself, can say, I am not certain that I truly repent, but as far as I can know my heart I do; is not to be hindered from the sacrament by that uncertainty. 1. For few of the best attain to a full certainty of their own sincerity. 2. And all that can be expected from us is, that we proceed according to the best of our understandings, and the best acquaintance with ourselves that we can get. 3. And otherwise it would keep us from all other duties proper to true christians; as from thanksgiving for our justification, sanctification, adoption, &c.

4. He that only erreth about the nature of true faith and repentance, and not about the reality of it in himself, should not be kept away by that error; as if he can say, As far as I know my heart, I am willing to part with every known sin, and to know every sin that I may part with it; but I am afraid this is not true repentance; or he that saith, I believe the gospel to be true, and I am willing to have Christ upon his covenant terms, and wholly to resign myself unto him; but I am afraid yet that I am not a true believer. This person is truly penitent, and is a true believer, and therefore ought to come.

5. The case de esse, whether a man be a true christian or not, is in order before the case de scire, whether he be certain of it, or not.[337] He that is a hypocrite is bound by God first to know that he is so, and then to repent, and then to communicate. He that is sincere, is bound by God to know that he is sincere, and to be thankful, and to communicate; and man's neglect of one duty will not make God change his laws, which still bind them to all this at once.

Quest. XCVIII. Is it lawful or a duty to join oblations to the sacrament, and how?

Answ. 1. There is no question but a christian must give up himself, soul and body, with all that he hath, to God for his service; and this oblation is christianity itself.[338]

2. It is undoubted that the Lord's day is a fit time for our depositing what we have to spare for charitable and pious uses, and this is partly of divine appointment, 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2.

3. No doubt but what we give to the poor, should be for God's sake, and from our love to God; and therefore must first be devoted or given up to God, and but secondarily to the poor.[339]

4. It is certain that the Lord's supper is as fit a season as any part of that day, for such oblations and collections. The ancient christians did therefore call it the communion, because in it they showed their love and communion, and feasted in common to that end. There are two several sorts of oblations which may lawfully be made (and fitly) at the communion. 1. The creatures of bread and wine should be offered or presented before God, as acknowledging him to be the Creator and Giver of all, and to desire his acceptance and benediction of them for that holy use. 2. Our alms or charitable contribution may be then fitly offered to God, that he may first accept it, and so it may be communicated to the church and poor. When we receive from God the most obliging benefits, when we return our greatest thanks, when we resign ourselves and all to God, it is then sure a seasonable time, to express all by the oblation of our benevolence: that hypocrites may not pretend that they are charitable in secret, but the church may have due notice of it, and the pastors be duly intrusted with it.[340]

Quest. XCIX. How many sacraments are there appointed by Christ?

Answ. The word sacrament hath so many significations, that it is not fit for the question till it be explained.[341] Passing all others now, we must take notice, 1. That our use of it is not so large as the Latin interpreter who putteth it for Mystery, but for A solemn dedication of man to God by a vow expressed by some sacred ceremony, signifying mutually our covenant to God, and God's reception of us and his covenant with us. And it is brought into the church from the Roman military oath called a sacrament, in which, as Tertul. "de Cor. Mil." showeth, the soldier sware fidelity and obedience to Cæsar, renouncing father, mother, &c. for his service, and swearing to prefer it, and its safety, before them all: see Martinius's reciting the oath out of divers authors. This is our sense of the word; let no man now that taketh it in other sense, pretend therefore that we differ in doctrine.

2. Seeing it is no Scripture word, it is not of necessity to the faith or peace of the church; but when disputers agree not of the sense of the word, they had best lay it by, and use such terms whose sense they can agree on.

3. The name sacrament is either taken from the covenant sworn to, or from the sign or ceremony of consent, by which we oblige ourselves, or from both together.

4. The covenant of christianity is different from a particular covenant of some office; and accordingly the sacrament is to be distinguished.

5. As civil, economical, and ecclesiastical offices are distinct, so are their several sacraments.

6. The solemn renewing of the sacred vow or covenant, without any instituted, obliging sign, is to be distinguished from the renewing it by such a sign of God's institution: and now I conclude,

1. As the word sacrament is taken improperly secundum quid, from the nobler part only, that is, the covenant, (as a man's soul is called the man,) so there are as many sacraments as covenants; and there is in specie but one covenant of christianity, and so but one sacrament of christianity, variously expressed.

2. As the word sacrament is taken properly and fully according to the aforesaid description; so there are properly two sacraments of christianity, or of the covenant of grace; that is, baptism, the sacrament of initiation, (most fully so called,) and the Lord's supper, or the sacrament of confirmation, exercise, and progress.

3. As the word sacrament is taken less properly, defectively, secundum quid, for the same covenant of grace or christianity renewed by any arbitrary sign of our own, without a solemn ceremony of divine institution, so there are divers sacraments of christianity or the covenant of grace, that is, divers solemn renewals of our covenant with God. As, 1. At our solemn transition from the state of infant membership unto that of the adult, when we solemnly own our baptismal covenant, which Calvin and many protestants (and the English rubric) call confirmation. 2. The solemn owning the christian faith and covenant, in our constant church assemblies, when we stand up at the creed or profession of our faith, and all renew our covenant with God, and dedication to him. 3. At solemn days of fasting or humiliation, and of thanksgiving when this should be solemnly done. Especially upon some public defection. 4. Upon the public repentance of a particular sinner before his absolution. 5. When a man is going out of the world, and recommending his soul to God by Christ; all these are solemn renewings of our covenant with God, in which we may use any lawful, natural, or arbitrary signs or expressions, to signify our own minds by, as speaking, subscribing, standing up, lifting up the hand, laying it upon a book, kissing the book, &c. These sacraments are improperly so called; and are divine as to the covenant renewed, but human as to the expressing signs.

4. Ordination is not improperly or unfitly called a sacrament, because it is the solemnizing of a mutual covenant between God and man, for our dedication to his special service, and his reception of us and blessing on us, though imposition of hands be not so solemn a ceremony by mere institution, as baptism and the Lord's supper. But then it must be noted, that this is not sacramentum christianitatis, a sacrament of the christian covenant; but sacramentum ordinis vel officii particularis, a sacrament of orders, or a particular office; but of divine institution.

5. The solemn celebration of marriage, is an economical sacrament; that is, a solemn obligation of man and woman by vow to one another, and of both to God in that relation, which may be arbitrarily expressed by lawful signs or ceremonies.

6. The solemn covenant of a master with his servant, is on the same account an economical sacrament.

7. The inauguration of a king, in which he is sworn to his subjects, and dedicated to God in that office, and his subjects sworn or consent to him, is a civil sacrament, whether unction be added or not. And so is a judge's entrance on his office, when it is done so solemnly by an obliging vow or covenant.

8. Confirmation in the papists' sense, as conferred by chrism on infants for giving them the Holy Ghost, is but an unwarrantable imitation of the old miraculous operation by the apostles, and neither a christian sacrament, nor a warrantable practice, but a presumption.

9. The same may be said of their sacrament of extreme unction.

10. Their sacrament of marriage is no otherwise a sacrament, than the inauguration of a king is; which is approved by God as well as marriage, and signifieth also an honourable collation of power from the universal King.

11. Their sacrament of penance is no otherwise a sacrament than many other forementioned renewings of our covenant are.

12. Therefore the papists' seven sacraments, or septenary distribution, is confused, partly redundant, partly defective, and unworthy to be made a part of their faith or religion, or the matter of their peevish and ignorant contendings. And they that peremptorily say, without distinguishing, that there are but two sacraments in all, do but harden them by the unwarrantable narrowing of the word.

Quest. C. How far is it lawful, needful, or unlawful for a man to afflict himself by external penances for sin?

Answ. 1. Not to the destroying of his body, life, or health, or the disabling or unfitting body or mind, for the service of God.

2. Not to be the expression of any sinful, inordinate dejection, despondency, sorrow, or despair.

3. Not so as may be an outward appearance of such inordinate passions, or as may be a scandal to others, and deter them from religion as a melancholy, hurtful thing.

4. Nor as if God would accept the mere external self-afflicting for itself, or as if he loved our hurt, or as if we merited of him by our unprofitable, voluntary troubles.

But, 1. It is a duty to express true godly sorrow by its proper exercise and signs, so far as either the acting of it, or the increase or continuance by the means of those expressions is profitable to ourselves.

2. And also so far as is needful to the profiting of others, by showing them the evil of sin, and drawing them to repentance.[342]

3. And so far as is necessary to the satisfying of the church of the truth of our repentance, in order to our absolution and communion.

4. Especially so far as is necessary to subdue our fleshly lusts, and tame our bodies, and bring them into a due subjection to our faith, and to avoid our sin for the time to come. And also by the exercise of sober mortification, prudently, to keep under all our worldly phantasies, and love of this present world, without unfitting ourselves for duty.

5. And so far as is needful by such mortification, to fit us for fervent prayer, especially by fasting on days of humiliation; and to help us in our meditations of death and judgment, and to further our heavenly contemplations and conversation.

6. The greatest difficulty is, Whether any self-revenge be lawful or due; which is answered by what is said already; none such as disableth us for God's service is lawful. But true repentance is an anger or great displeasure with ourselves for sin, and a hatred of sin, and loathing of ourselves for it; and to judge, condemn, and afflict our own souls by a voluntary self-punishing, is but that exercise of justice on ourselves, which is fit for pardoned sinners that are not to be condemned by the Lord, and indeed the just exercise of repentance and displeasure against ourselves.[343] On which accounts of sober self-revenge we may cherish such degrees of godly sorrow, fasting, coarse clothing, (as sackcloth,) and denying ourselves the pleasures of this world, as shall not be hurtful but helpful to our duty. And if great and heinous sinners have of old on these terms, exceeded other men in their austerities, and self-afflictings, we cannot condemn them of superstition, unless we more particularly knew more cause for it. But popishly to think that self-afflicting without respect to such causes or necessities is a meritorious perfection, fit for others, is superstition indeed.[344] And to think, as many of the melancholy do, that self-murder is a lawful self-revenge, is a heinous sin, and leadeth to that which is more heinous and dangerous.

Quest. CI. Is it lawful to observe stated times of fasting imposed by others, without extraordinary occasions? And particularly Lent?

Answ. Remember that I here meddle not with the question, how far is it lawful for rulers to impose such fasts on others? save only to say, 1. That it is undoubtedly fit for kings to do it by precepts, and churches by consent, in extraordinary cases of defection, sin, or judgments.[345] 2. That it is undoubtedly sinful usurpation, for either pope or any pretended ecclesiastical, universal rulers, to impose such on the universal church (because there are no universal rulers). Or for a neighbour bishop by usurpation to impose it on a neighbour church. 3. And that it is sinful in all or many churches, to make by their agreements such things to be necessary to their union or communion with their neighbour churches, so that they will take all those for schismatics that differ from them in such indifferent things. But as to the using of such fasts (omitting the imposing) I say,

I. 1. That so great and extraordinary a duty as holy fasting, must not be turned into a mere formality or ceremony.[346]

2. No particular man must be so observant of a public, commanded, anniversary fast, as for it to neglect any duty commanded him by God which is inconsistent with it. As to rejoice or keep a thanksgiving in Lent, upon an extraordinary obliging cause; to keep the Lord's day in Lent, as a day of thanksgiving and rejoicing; to preserve our own health, &c. It is not lawful in obedience to man, to fast so much, or use such diet, as is like to destroy our lives or health; these being not so far put into the power of man; nor can man dispense with us as to the duty of self-preservation. If God himself require us not to offer him our lives and health needlessly, as an acceptable sacrifice, nor ever maketh self-destruction our duty, no nor any thing that is not for man's own good; then we are not to believe without very clear proof that either prince or prelates have more power than ever God doth use himself.

3. Such an anniversary fast as is meet for the remembrance of some great sin or judgment, if commanded, is to be kept, both for the reason of it, and for the authority of the commander. For, 1. It is not unlawful as anniversary. (For, (1.) It is not forbidden, and, (2.) There may be just occasion. Some arbitrarily keep an anniversary fast on the day of their nativity (as I have long done); and some on the day that they fell into some great sin; and some on the day of the death of a friend, or of some personal, domestic, or national calamity; and none of this is forbidden.) 2. And that which is not unlawful in itself, is not therefore unlawful to be done because it is commanded; seeing obedience to superiors is our duty and not our sin, unless in sinful things.

4. Whether it be lawful or meet to commemorate Christ's sufferings by anniversary fasts, is next to be considered.

II. As for Lent in particular, we must distinguish, 1. Between the ancient Lent, and the later Lent. 2. Between keeping it on a civil account, and on a religious. 3. Between true fasting, and change of diet. 4. Between the imitation of Christ's forty days' fasting, and the mere commemoration of it. Which premised I conclude,

1. The keeping a true fast or abstinence from food, for forty days, on what account soever, being impossible, or self-murder, is not to be attempted.

2. The imitation of Christ in his forty days' fasting is not to be attempted or pretended to; because his miraculous works were not done for our imitation. And it is presumption for us to pretend to such a power as is necessary to miracles; or yet to make any essays at such an imitation, any more than at the raising of the dead.

3. The pretending of a fast when men do but change their diet, flesh for fish, fruit, sweetmeats, &c. is but hypocritical and ridiculous; most poor labourers, and temperate ministers, do live all the year on a more flesh-denying diet, and in greater abstinence, than many papists do in Lent, or on their fasting days. And what a ridiculous dispute is it to hear, e. g. a Calvin that never eateth but one small meal a day for many years, to plead against the keeping of the popish fasts, and their clergy call him voracious, and carnal, and an epicure, and plead for fasting as holy mortification, who eat as many meals and as much meat on a Lent day or fasting day, as Calvin did in three feasting days; and drink as much wine in a Lent, as he in twenty years! Sure I am I know many such on both sides; some that eat but a small meal a day, and never drink wine at all, and others that drink wine daily, and eat of many dishes at a meal, and that to the full, and of the sweetest, as fish, fruits, &c. yet rail at the former for not fasting as they do. So delusory are the outward appearances, and so false the pretensions of the carnal sort!

4. The ancient Lent consisted first of one day (Good Friday) alone; and after that of three days, and then of six, and at last it came up to forty. (Of which read Dallæus ubi supra at large.)

5. None can question the lawfulness of and obedient keeping of such a civil Lent fast as our statutes command, for the vending of fish, and for the breed of cattle; so be it no bodily necessity or greater duty be against it.

6. It is not unlawful for those that cannot totally fast, yet to use more abstinence and a more mortifying sort of diet than ordinary, for the exercises of repentance and mortification, in due time.

7. If authority shall appoint such a mortifying, abstemious course upon lawful or tolerable grounds and ends, I will obey them, if they peremptorily require it, when my health or some greater duty forbiddeth it not.

8. As for the commanding such an abstinence, as in Lent, not in imitation, but bare commemoration of Christ's forty days' fast, I would not command it if it were in my power; but being peremptorily commanded, I cannot prove it unlawful to obey, with the afore-mentioned exceptions.

9. It was anciently held a crime to fast on the Lord's day, even in Lent; and I take that day to be separated by Christ and the Holy Ghost for a church festival or day of thanksgiving; therefore I will not keep it as a fast, though I were commanded, unless in such an extraordinary necessity, as aforesaid.

Of pilgrimages, saints, relics, and shrines, temples, of their miracles, of praying to angels, to saints, for the dead, purgatory, of the pope's pardons, indulgences, dispensations; of the power of true pastors to forgive sins, with a multitude of such cases, which are commonly handled in our controversial writers against the papists, I must thither refer the reader for a solution, because the handling of all such particular cases would swell my book to a magnitude beyond my intention, and make this part unsuitable to the rest.

Quest. CII. May we continue in a church, where some one ordinance of Christ is wanting, as discipline, prayer, preaching, or sacraments, though we have all the rest?

Answ. Distinguish, 1. Of ordinances. 2. Of a stated want, and a temporary want. 3. Of one that may have better, and one that cannot.

1. Teaching, prayer, and praise, are ordinances of such necessity that church assemblies have not their proper use without them.

2. The Lord's supper is of a secondary need, and must be used when it may, but a church assembly may attain its ends sometimes without it, in a good degree.

3. Discipline is implicitly exercised when none but the baptized are communicants, and when professed christians voluntarily assemble, and the preaching of the word doth distinguish the precious from the vile; much more when notorious, scandalous sinners are by the laws kept from the sacrament (as our rubric and canons do require).

4. But for the fuller, explicit, and exacter exercise of discipline, it is very desirable for the well-being of the churches; but it is but a stronger fence or hedge, and preservative of sacred order; and both the being of a church, and the profitable use of holy assemblies, may subsist without it; as in Helvetia and other countries it is found.

I conclude then, 1. That he that, consideratis considerandis, is a free man, should choose that place where he hath the fullest opportunities of worshipping God, and edifying his soul.

2. He is not to be accounted a free man that cannot remove, without a greater hurt than the good, either to the church or country, or to his family, his neighbours, or himself.

3. Without teaching, prayer, and divine praises we are not to reckon that we have proper church assemblies and communion.

4. We must do all that is in our power to procure the right use of sacraments and discipline.

5. When we cannot procure it, it is lawful and a duty to join in those assemblies that are without it, and rather to enjoy the rest than none. Few churches have the Lord's supper above once a month, which in the primitive church was used every Lord's day and ofter; and yet they meet on other days.[347]

6. It is possible that preaching, prayer, and praise, may be so excellently performed in some churches that want both discipline and the Lord's supper, and all so coldly and ignorantly managed in another church that hath all the ordinances, that men's souls may much more flourish and prosper under the former than the latter.

7. If forbearing or wanting some ordinances for a time, be but in order to a probable procurement of them, we may the better forbear.[348]

8. The time is not to be judged of only by length, but by the probability of success. For sometimes God's providence, and the disturbances of the times, or the craft of men in power, may keep men so long in the dark, that a long expectation or waiting may become our duty.

Quest. CIII. Must the pastors remove from one church to another whenever the magistrate commandeth us, though the bishop contradict it, and the church consent not to dismiss us; and so of other cases of disagreement?

Answ. As in man's soul, the intellectual guidance, the will, and the executive power do concur, so in church cases of this nature, the potestative government of the magistrate, the directive guidance of the senior pastors, and the attractive love of the people (who are the chief inferior, final cause) should all concur; and when they do not, it is confusion: and when God's order is broken which commandeth their concurrence, it is hard to know what to do, in such a division which God alloweth not; as it is to know whether I should take part with the heart against the head, or with the head against the stomach and liver, on suppositions of cross inclinations or interests; whenas nature supposeth either a concord of inclination and interest, or else the ruin, sickness, or death of the person; and the cure must be by reconciling them, rather than by knowing which to side with against the rest.

But seeing we must suppose such diseases frequently to happen, they that cannot cure them must know how to behave themselves, and to do their own duty. For my own part, in such cases I would do thus:

1. I would look at my ultimate end, God's glory, and at the next end, the good of souls and welfare of the church; and so at the people's interest as it is the end of the order of magistracy and ministry: and I would take myself to be so obliged to that end, as that no point of mere order could disoblige me, the end being better than the means as such; therefore I would do all things to edification, supposing that all power of man is as Paul's was, for edification and not for destruction.[349]

2. But in judging of what is best for the church, I must take in every accident and circumstance, and look to many, more than to a few, and to distant parts as well as to those near me, and to the time and ages to come, as well as to the present, and not go upon mistaken suppositions of the church's good; he that doth not see all things that are to be weighed in such a case, may err by leaving out some one.

3. I would obey the magistrate formally for conscience sake in all things which belong to his office; and particularly in this case, if it were but a removal from place to place, in respect to the temple, or tithes, or for the civil peace, or for the preservation of church order in cases where it is not grossly injurious to the church and gospel.

4. In cases which by God's appointment belong to the conduct of bishops, or pastors, or the concord of consociate churches, I would formaliter follow them. And in particular, if they satisfy me that the removal of me is an apparent injury to the church, (as in the Arian's times, when the emperors removed the orthodox from all the great churches to put in Arians,) I would not obedientially and voluntarily remove.

5. If magistrates and bishops should concur in commanding my remove in a case notoriously injurious and pernicious to the church, (as in the aforesaid case, to bring in an Arian,) I would not obey formally for conscience sake; supposing that God never gave them such a power against men's souls and the gospel of Christ; and there is no power but of God.

6. But I would prefer both the command of the magistrate, and the direction of the pastors, before the mere will and humour of the people, when their safety and welfare were not concerned in the case.

7. And when the magistrate is peremptory, usually I must obey him materially, when I do it not formally (in conscience to his mere command). Because though in some cases he may do that which belongeth not to his office, but to the pastor's, yet his violence may make it become the church's interest, that I yield and give place to his wrath; for as I must not resist him by force, so if I depart not at his command, it may bring a greater suffering on the churches: and so for preventing a greater evil he is to be submitted to in many cases, where he goeth against God and without authority; though not to be formally obeyed.

8. Particular churches have no such interest in their ministers or pastors, as to keep them against their wills and the magistrate's, and against the interest of the universal church, as shall be next asserted.

I have spoken to this instance as it taketh in all other cases of difference between the power of the magistrate, the pastor's and the people's interest, when they disagree, and not as to this case alone.

Quest. CIV. Is a pastor obliged to his flock for life? Or is it lawful so to oblige himself? And may he remove without their consent? And so also of a church member, the same questions are put.

These four questions I put together for brevity, and shall answer them distinctly.

I. 1. A minister is obliged to Christ and the universal church for life, (durante vita,) with this exception, if God disable him not. 2. But as a pastor he is not obliged to this or that flock for life. There is no such command or example in God's word.

II. To the second: 1. It is lawful to oblige ourselves to a people for life in some cases, conditionally; that is, if God do not apparently call us away. 2. But it is never lawful to do it absolutely: 1. Because we shall engage ourselves against God; against his power over us, and interest in us, and his wisdom that must guide us. God may call us whither he please; and though now he speak not by supernatural revelation, yet he may do it by providential alterations. 2. And we shall else oblige ourselves against the universal church, to which we are more strictly bound, than to any particular church, and whose good may oblige us to remove. 3. Yea, we may bind ourselves to the hurt of that church itself; seeing it may become its interest to part with us. 4. And we should so oblige ourselves against our duty to authority, which may remove us.

III. To the third question I answer, 1. A pastor may not causelessly remove, nor for his own worldly commodity when it is to the hurt of the church and hinderance of the gospel. 2. When he hath just cause, he must acquaint the people with it, and seek their satisfaction and consent. 3. But if he cannot procure it, he may remove without it: as, 1. When he is sure that the interest of the gospel and universal church require it: 2. Or that just authority doth oblige him to it.

The reasons are plain from what is said; and also, 1. He is no more bound to the people, than they are to him; but they are not so bound to him, but they may remove on just occasion. 2. If he may not remove, it is either because God forbids it, or because his own contract with them hath obliged him against it. But, 1. God no where forbids it: 2. Such a contract is supposed not made, nor lawful to be made.

IV. As to the people's case, it needs no other answer; 1. No member may remove without cause. 2. Nor abruptly and uncharitably to the church's dissatisfaction, when he may avoid it. But, 3. He may remove upon many just causes, (private or public,) whether the church and pastors consent or not, so the manner be as becometh a christian.

Quest. CV. When many men pretend at once to be the true pastors of a particular church against each other's title, through differences between the magistrates, the ordainers, and the flocks, what should the people do, and whom should they adhere to?

What pastor to adhere to.

Answ. This case is mostly answered before in Quest. LXXXII. &c. I need only to add these rules of caution. 1. Do not upon any pretence accept of a heretic, or one that is utterly unfit for the office.

2. Do not easily take a dividing course or person, but keep as much as may be in a way of concord with the united, faithful pastors and churches in your proximity or country.

3. Look to the public good and interest of religion, more than to your particular congregation.

4. Neglect not the greatest advantages for your own edification; but rather take them by a removal of your dwelling, though you suffer by it in your estates, than by any division, disturbance of the church's peace, or common detriment.

5. Do not easily go against the magistrate's commands; unless they be apparently unlawful, and to the church's detriment or ruin, in the reception of your pastors.

6. Do not easily forsake him that hath been justly received by the church, and hath possession, that is, till necessity require it.

Quest. CVI. To whom doth it belong to reform a corrupted church? to the magistrates, pastors, or people?

Answ. A church is reformed three several ways: 1. By the personal reformation of every member: 2. By doctrinal direction: and, 3. By public, forcible execution, and constraint of others.

1. Every member, whether magistrates, pastors, or people, must reform themselves, by forsaking all their own sins, and doing their own duties. If a ruler command a private person to go to mass, to own any falsehood, or to do any sin, he is not to be obeyed, because God is to be first obeyed.

2. The bishops or pastors are to reform the church by doctrine, reproof, and just exhortations, and nunciative commands in the name of Christ to rulers and people to do their several duties; and by the actual doing of his own.[350]

3. The king and magistrates under him, only, must reform by the sword, that is, by outward force, and civil laws and corporal penalties: as forcibly to break down images, to cast out idolaters, or the instruments of idolatry from the temples, to put true ministers in possession of the temples, or the legal public maintenance; to destroy, punish, or hurt idolaters, &c. Supposing still the power of parents and masters in their several families.

Quest. CVII. Who is to call synods? princes, pastors, or people?

The question of the power of synods is sufficiently answered before.

Answ. 1. There are several ways of calling synods: 1. By force and civil mandates; 2. By pastoral persuasion and counsel; and, 3. By humble entreaty and petition.

1. Magistrates only (that is, the supreme by his own power, and the inferior by power derived from him) may call synods by laws and mandates, enforced by the sword or corporal penalties, or mulcts.

2. Bishops or pastors in due circumstances may call synods by counsel and persuasive invitation.

3. The people in due circumstances and necessity, may call synods by way of petition and entreaty.

But what are the due circumstances?

Answ. 1. The magistrate may call them by command at his discretion, for his own counsel, or for the civil peace, or the church's good.

2. The pastors and people may not call them, nor meet when the magistrate forbiddeth it, except when the necessity of the church requireth it: synods may profitably be stated for order, when it may be lawfully obtained (both as to limits of place, numbers, and time). But these prudential orders are not of stated necessity, but must give place to weightier reasons on the contrary.

3. Synods themselves are not ordinarily necessary, by nature or institution; (let him that affirmeth it, prove it;) but that which is statedly necessary is, The concord of the churches as the end, and a necessary correspondency of the churches as the means, and synods when they may well be had, as a convenient sort of means.

4. When synods cannot be had, or are needless, messengers and letters from church to church may keep up the correspondency and concord.

5. In cases of real necessity, (which are very rare, though usefulness be more frequent,) the bishops and people should first petition the king for his consent: and if that cannot be had, they may meet secretly and in small numbers, for mutual consultation and advice about the work of God; and not by keeping up the formality of their set numbers, times, places, and orders, provoke the king against them.

6. The contempt of synods by the separatists, and the placing more power in synods than ever God gave them by others, yea, and the insisting on their circumstantial orders, making them like a civil senate or court, have been the two extremes which have greatly injured and divided the churches, throughout the world.

Quest. CVIII. To whom doth it belong to appoint days and assemblies for public humiliation and thanksgiving?

Answ. The answer of the last question may serve for this. 1. The magistrate only may do it by way of laws, or civil mandate enforced by the sword.

2. The pastors may do it in case of necessity, by pastoral advice and exhortation, and nunciative command in the name of Christ.

3. The people may do it by petition.

4. As ordinary church assemblies must be held if the magistrate forbid them, (of which next,) so must extraordinary ones, when extraordinary causes make it a duty.

5. When the magistrate forcibly hindereth them, natural impossibility resolveth the question about our duty.

Quest. CIX. May we omit church assemblies on the Lord's day, if the magistrate forbid them?

May we omit church assemblies on the Lord's day, if forbidden by magistrates.

Answ. 1. It is one thing to forbid them for a time, upon some special cause, (as infection by pestilence, fire, war, &c.) and another to forbid them statedly or profanely.

2. It is one thing to omit them for a time, and another to do it ordinarily.

3. It is one thing to omit them in formal obedience to the law; and another thing to omit them in prudence, or for necessity, because we cannot keep them.

4. The assembly and the circumstances of the assembly must be distinguished.

(1.) If the magistrate for a greater good, (as the common safety,) forbid church assemblies in a time of pestilence, assault of enemies, or fire, or the like necessity, it is a duty to obey him. 1. Because positive duties give place to those great natural duties which are their end: so Christ justified himself and his disciples' violation of the external rest of the sabbath. "For the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." 2. Because affirmatives bind not ad semper, and out-of-season duties become sins. 3. Because one Lord's day or assembly is not to be preferred before many, which by the omission of that one are like to be obtained.

(2.) If princes profanely forbid holy assemblies and public worship, either statedly, or as a renunciation of Christ and our religion; it is not lawful formally to obey them.

(3.) But it is lawful prudently to do that secretly for the present necessity, which we cannot do publicly, and to do that with smaller numbers, which we cannot do with greater assemblies, yea, and to omit some assemblies for a time, that we may thereby have opportunity for more: which is not formal but only material obedience.

(4.) But if it be only some circumstances of assembling that are forbidden us, that is the next case to be resolved.

Quest. CX. Must we obey the magistrate if he only forbid us worshipping God in such a place, or country, or in such numbers, or the like?

What if we be forbidden only place, numbers, &c.

Answ. We must distinguish between such a determination of circumstances, modes, or accidents, as plainly destroy the worship or the end, and such as do not. For instance, 1. He that saith, You shall never assemble but once a year, or never but at midnight, or never above six or seven minutes at once, &c. doth but determine the circumstance of time: but he doth it so as to destroy the worship, which cannot so be done, in consistency with its ends. But he that shall say, You shall not meet till nine o'clock, nor stay in the night, &c. doth no such thing.

So, 2. He that saith, You shall not assemble but at forty miles' distance one from another; or you shall meet only in a room, that will hold but the twentieth part of the church; or you shall never preach in any city or populous place, but in a wilderness far from the inhabitants, &c. doth but determine the circumstance of place: but he so doth it, as tends to destroy or frustrate the work which God commandeth us. But so doth not he that only boundeth churches by parish bounds, or forbiddeth inconvenient places.

3. So he that saith, You shall never meet under a hundred thousand together, or never above five or six, doth but determine the accident of number: but he so doth it as to destroy the work and end. For the first will be impossible; and in the second way they must keep church assemblies without ministers, when there is not so many as for every such little number to have one. But so doth not he that only saith, You shall not meet above ten thousand, nor under ten.

4. So he that saith, You shall not hear a Trinitarian, but an Arian; or you shall hear only one that cannot preach the essentials of religion, or that cries down godliness itself; or you shall hear none but such as were ordained at Jerusalem or Rome, or none but such as subscribe the council of Trent, &c. doth but determine what person we shall hear: but he so doth it as to destroy the work and end. But so doth not he that only saith, You shall hear only this able minister, rather than that.

I need not stand on the application. In the latter case we owe formal obedience. In the former we must suffer, and not obey.

For if it be meet so to obey, it is meet in obedience to give over God's worship. Christ said, "When they persecute you in one city, flee to another;" but he never said, If they forbid you preaching in any city, or populous place, obey them. He that said, "Preach the gospel to every creature, and to all nations, and all the world," and that "would have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,"[351] doth not allow us to forsake the souls of all that dwell in cities and populous places, and preach only to some few cottagers elsewhere; no more than he will allow us to love, pity, and relieve the bodies only of those few, and take none for our neighbours that dwell in cities, but with priest and Levite to pass them by.

Quest. CXI. Must subjects or servants forbear weekly lectures, reading, or such helps, above the Lord's day's worship, if princes or masters do command it?

Answ. 1. There is great difference between a mere subject, or person governed, and a servant, slave, or child.

2. There is great difference between such as are hindered by just cause and real necessities, and such as are hindered only through profane malignity.

(1.) Poor people have not so much leisure from their callings, as the rich; and so providing for their families may, at that time, by necessity become the greater and the present duty.

(2.) So may it be with soldiers, judges, and others, that have present urgent work of public consequence; when others have no such impediment.

(3.) He that is the child or slave of another, or is his own by propriety, is more at his power, than he that is only a subject, and so is but to be governed in order to his own and the common good.

(4.) A servant that hath absolutely hired himself to another, is for that time near the condition of a slave; but he that is hired but with limitations, and exceptions of liberty, (expressed or understood,) hath right to the excepted liberty.

(5.) If the king forbid judges, soldiers, or others, whose labours are due to the public, to hear sermons at that time when they should do their work, or if parents or masters so forbid children and servants, they must be obeyed, while they exclude not the public worship of the Lord's own day, nor necessary prayer and duty in our private daily cases.

(6.) But he that is under such bondage as hindereth the needful helps of his soul, should be gone to a freer place, if lawfully he can. But a child, wife, or such as are not free, must trust on God's help in the use of such means as he alloweth them.

(7.) A prince, or tutor, or schoolmaster, who is not a proprietor of the person, but only a governor, is not to be obeyed formally and for conscience sake, if he forbid his subjects or scholars such daily or weekly helps for their salvation as they have great need of, and have no necessity to forbear; such as are hearing or assembling with the church on the week days at convenient time, reading the Scriptures daily, or good books, accompanying with men fearing God, praying, &c.; because God hath commanded these when we can perform them.

Quest. CXII. Whether religious worship may be given to a creature? and what?

Answ. While the terms of the question remain ambiguous, it is uncapable of an answer.

1. By worship is meant either cultus in genere, any honour expressed to another; or some special act of honour. We must understand the question in the first general sense, or else we cannot answer it, till men tell us, what acts of honouring they mean.

2. By religious is meant, either in general, that which we are bound to by God, or is done by virtue of a religious, that is, a divine obligation, and so is made part of our religion; that is, of our obedience to God: or else by religious is meant divine, or that which is properly due to God. The question must be taken in the first general sense; or else it is no question, but ridiculous (to ask whether we may give God's proper worship to a creature).

And so I answer, 1. By way of distinction. 2. Of solution.

(1.) We must distinguish between the honour of worshipping acts of the mind, and of the body. (2.) Between idolatry as against the first commandment, and idolatry or scandal as against the second.

Af. Prop. 1. There is due to every creature, a true estimation of it according to the degree of its dignity or goodness; and a love proportionable: as also a belief, a trust, a fear, proportionable to every man's credibility, fidelity, power, &c.

2. There is an eminent degree therefore of estimation, reverence, and love, and trust, due to good men above bad, and to those in heaven above those on earth; and a peculiar honour to rulers as such, which is not due to their inferiors.[352]

3. This is to be expressed by the body, by convenient actions.

4. The highest honour which we owe to any, is for the image of God in them; viz. 1. His natural image, as men. 2. His moral image, as saints. 3. His relative image of supereminency, as superiors. And so it is God in them first, and they next as the images of God, who are to be honoured.

5. There is no honour to be given to any creature, but that of which God himself is the end; viz. as it referreth to his glory.

6. Therefore all honour given to men must be thus far religious honour (or worship); for as all things are sanctified to and by saints, so all things that religious men do, must be religiously done.[353]

7. As persons, so places, books, words, utensils, times, &c. must be honoured for God's sake, as they are related to God, with such estimations and expressions as are suitable to their relations.

Neg. 1. No creature must be esteemed to be a god; nor any of God's proper attributes or honour given to any creature whatsoever.

2. No creature must be esteemed better, or greater, or wiser, than it is (as far as we have means to know it).

3. Whatsoever outward expressions of honour (by word or deed) are appropriated to the true God, 1. By divine institution; 2. Or by nature; 3. Or by received usage, that expression of honour ought not to be used to a creature, were the heart never so free from honouring it. (1.) Because it is bodily idolatry: (2.) And scandal as being idolatry interpretatively, in the just sense of others.[354]

4. Whatsoever outward expressions of honour idolaters have used, and do use, to signify their inward idolatry, or taking a creature or a fiction to be God, and so make it a tessera, or symbol, or professing sign of that their idolatry, if those actions are so used or esteemed among us, or within the notice of our actions, it is unlawful for us to use the like to any creature. Because the use of their expression maketh it to be a profession of idolatry by us, and so to be interpretative idolatry and scandal; for to use professing symbols is to profess.

Except when there is some notorious reason to use the same words or actions to another lawful signification, which is of greater weight than the scandal; and we make it as public to obviate the scandal, that we do it not to the idolater's intents.

For example, If the Mahometans make it a symbol of their religion, to say, God is but one, upon a false supposition that the christians make more gods than one; yet it is lawful for us to use that symbolical word to a better end. But if they add to their symbol, and Mahomet is his prophet, we may not use that, because it is, 1. Symbolical of a false religion; 2. And a falsehood of itself.

So if they make it a distinctive note of their religious meetings, to congregate the people by voice and not by bells, when it will be taken for a professing their religion to do the same, we must avoid it; but not when there is great cause for it, (as if we have no other means,) and the reason against it or scandal may be well avoided.

5. Image worship, (or bowing or otherwise worshipping towards an image as an object,) in the time of divine worship, or when we otherwise pretend to be worshipping God, is so gross an appearance of inward idolatry, (either as visibly describing God to be like a creature, or else as seeming to mean what idolaters did by that action,) that God hath thought meet to forbid it to all mankind by a special law. (Command. 2.)

6. The scandal of seeming idolatry is a heinous sin, and not to be excused by the contrary meaning of the heart, no more than lying, idolatrous professions are. Because to blaspheme God as if he were like a creature, or to tell the world by our actions that a creature is God, are both very heinous. And so is it to murder our brethren's souls, by tempting them to the like.[355]

7. It is no appearance of idolatry to kneel to a king, or a father, or superior, when we are professing nothing but to honour them with due honour. But when the church assembleth professedly to worship God, if then they mix expressions of veneration to angels, and saints in heaven, or to a king, or any creature, in their worshipping of God, without a very notorious signification of sufficient difference, it will seem a joining them in part of the same divine honour.[356]

8. So we may put off our hats to the chair of state, or king's image, yea and kneel towards it as to him, if the command is in due time and place, when it is human worship only which we profess. But to kneel or bow as an act of honour towards the image of king, saints, or angels, in the time of our professed worshipping of God, is scandalous, and an appearance that we give them a part of that which we are giving to God.

9. Yet it is not unlawful even in the sacred assemblies, to bow to our superior at our entrance, or going out, or in the intervals of God's worship; because the time, and custom, and manner may sufficiently notify the distinction, and prevent the scandal.

10. If any presumptuous clergyman on pretence of their authority, will bring images into the churches, and set them before us in divine worship, as objects only of remembrance, and means of exciting our affections to God, that they may show quam proxime se accedere posse ad peccatum sine peccato, how near they can come to sin without sin, it is not meet for any good christians to follow them in their presumption, nor by obeying them to invite them to proceed in their church tyranny.[357] Though I now determine not, whether in case of necessity, a man may not be present with such a church, if their worship of God himself be sound, supposing him sufficiently to notify his dissent, and that he do not himself scandalously direct his worship toward such images. (As in the Lutheran churches we may suppose they do not.)

Quest. CXIII. What images, and what use of images, is lawful or unlawful?

Answ. 1. It is unlawful to make any image of God. Because it would be a blaspheming of him, as pretending him to be like to that which he is not like to, that is, a creature.[358]

Object. Man is God's image: it is lawful to make an image of man; and so an image of God's image, and that may be a secondary image of God.

Answ. 1. It is the soul of man, of which no image can be drawn or made, which is the image of God, and not the body. 2. The image of him who secundum quid as to the soul is God's image, is not God's image, but man's quoad corpus as to another part. We need not contend much about the name, whether this may be called a remote image of God (though undoubtedly unfit). But we must not really take it to be like him, or use it for his image.

Object. God hath imprinted his image on the whole creation; e. g. he is called a consuming fire; therefore fire may be pictured as his image.

Answ. The same answer serveth as to the former objection. And it is not all the impressions and vestigia of God's power, wisdom, and goodness, which are called his image; as the house is not the image of the builder, or a clock of a clock-maker, &c. And if God be metaphorically called fire, as he is called a lion, &c. because of the similitude of some operation or effect, it followeth not that these are his image; much less that the image of these is his image.

2. No image may be made to be a teacher of lies; as we may not lie by words, so neither by images. Therefore false stories, or false images of realities, when made as true, and pretended to be true images or representations, are unlawful.

3. Therefore it is unlawful to make an image of a spirit, pretending it to be a true image. Because it will be a lie.

4. It is unlawful so to make, place, or use any image, as is like to do more harm than good.

5. Therefore it is unlawful so to make, place, or use them, as that they are like to tempt a man to any sin, unless necessity for some greater good require it. (Of which more anon.)

6. Therefore all images of such idols or feigned deities are unlawful, as are like to be any temptation to any to believe in them, or worship them.

7. Therefore also all images of such creatures as others use to give unlawful worship or honour to, are unlawful when they are like to be a temptation to us or others to do the like. As among papists the image of the crucifix, the virgin Mary, and angels may not be made, placed, or used so as may tempt any to worship them sinfully as they use to do.

8. The image of an over-honoured or falsely honoured person, (though not adored,) may not be so made, placed, or used, as tendeth to tempt others also to such honour. As of Mahomet, or Apollonius (as Alexander Severus placed him and others, with Abraham and Christ, in his lararium or chapel). And many give too much honour by images to Alexander, Cæsar, and such other great thieves and murderers of mankind.

9. It is unlawful to make lascivious images of naked persons, and place or use them so, as tendeth to be a temptation to lust or immodesty. A common sin of persons of unclean imaginations.

10. It is also unlawful so to represent plays, pompous honours, splendid clothing or buildings, as tendeth more to tempt the beholders to sinful desires, than to any good.

11. It is unlawful to place images in churches or in secret before our eyes when we are worshipping God, when it tendeth to corrupt the imagination, or by possessing it, to hinder the spiritual exercise of the mind. Which is the ordinary effect of images.

12. It is unlawful to use images scandalously, as any of the aforesaid sinners use them, though we do it not with the same intent. That is, so to use them, as is interpretatively or in outward appearance the same with their use; because by so doing we shall dishonour God as they do, and harden them in sin. Therefore images in churches or oratories, in those countries where others use them sinfully, or near such countries where the same may harden men in their sin, is evil.

13. It is unlawful to make talismans or shapes, upon false suppositions that the very shape naturally disposeth the matter to receive such influences of the stars, by which it shall preserve men from plagues, fire, wild beasts, serpents, diseases, or shall otherwise work wonders; for which Gaffarel vainly pleadeth at large; such as they call naturally magical and charming shapes.

14. Much more unlawful is it purposely to make shapes to be symbols or instruments by which the devil shall operate, whether it be for good or evil; it being unlawful so far to use him.

15. So is it to make such shapes, on conceit that God or good angels will operate in or by them. As some use the cross or other images, to defend them from devils, to cure the tooth-ache or other diseases, or such like use; when God hath neither appointed any such means to be used, for such ends, nor promised any such blessing or operation by them.

16. It is unlawful to place the image of a tutelary saint or angel in house, church, or town, on supposition that we shall be the safer while that image is there placed; or else to profess our trust in that particular guardian. Because no man knoweth what angel God doth make his guardian, nor can we distinguish them; much less that he maketh such or such a saint our guardian. And men's own (foolish) choosing such a one to be their guardian, will not make them so. Nor hath God appointed or promised to bless any such imagery.

17. It is sinful to use such amorous images of the persons towards whom your lust is kindled, as tendeth to increase or keep up that lust, or to make profession or ostentation of it. As lustful persons use to carry or keep the pictures of those on whom they dote.

18. It is unlawful to make such use of the pictures of our deceased friends, as tendeth to increase our inordinate sorrow for them.

19. It is unlawful to make such images, monuments, or memorials of the best and holiest persons or martyrs, as may endanger or tempt men to any inordinate veneration of, or confidence in the persons honoured.

20. Inward images of God imprinted on the fantasy are sinful: and so are other such false and sinful images as afore-mentioned, though they be not made externally for the use of the eye.

21. I think it is unlawful to make an image, or any equal instituted sign, to be the public common symbol of the christian religion (though it be but a professing sign); because God having already instituted the symbols or public tesseræ of our christian profession or religion, it is usurpation to do the like without his commission. As the king having made the wearing of a George and star the badge of the order of the garter, would take it ill, if any shall make another badge of the order, much more if they impose it on all of the order: though I presume not to condemn it.

1. All images painted or engraven are not unlawful; for God himself commanded and allowed the use of many in the Old Testament. And Christ reprehendeth not Cæsar's image on his coin.[359]

2. The civil use of images in coins, sign-posts, banners, ornaments of buildings, or of books, or chambers, or gardens, is not unlawful.

3. As the word image is taken in general for signs, there is no question but they are frequently to be used; as all a man's words are the images, that is, the signifiers of his mind; and all a man's writings are the same made visible. It is therefore a blind, confounding error of some now among us (otherwise very sober, good men) who accuse all forms of prayer and of preaching as sinful, because (say they) they are idols, or images of prayer and of preaching; they are neither engraven nor painted images of any creature; but all words are or should be signs of the speaker's mind. And if you will secundum quid call only the inward desires by the name of prayer, then the words are the signs of such prayer. But because prayer in the full sense is desire expressed, therefore the expressions are not the signs of such prayer, but part of the prayer itself, as the body is of the man: nor is a form, that is fore-conceived or premeditated words, (whether in mind or writing,) any more an image of prayer, than extemporate prayer is. All words are signs, but never the more for being premeditated or written. And according to this opinion, all books are sinful images, and all sermon notes, and the printing of the Bible itself, and all pious letters of one friend to another, and all catechisms: strangers will hardly believe, that so monstrous an opinion as this, should in these very instances be maintained, by men otherwise so understanding and truly godly, and every way blameless, as have and do maintain it at this day.

4. The making and using of the image of Christ, as born, living, preaching, walking, dying, (a crucifix,) rising, ascending, is not unlawful in itself, though any of the forementioned accidents may make it so in such cases. As Christ was man like one of us, so he may be pictured as a man.

Object. His divine nature and human soul are Christ, and these cannot be pictured; therefore an image of Christ cannot be made.