Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘New England Puritanism’ Category

The following are two passages from Samuel Rutherford’s The Due Right of Presbyteries (1644), in which he engages with the congregationalist “New England Way” of church government. These particular sections are revealing especially for how they illustrate the classic presbyterian model of church planting. The Church of Scotland operated programmatically as a “gathering church” versus the self-styled independent “gathered church” model. Or, if we may put it anachronistically in the language of Thomas Chalmers two generations later, we ought to operate on the “aggressive,” not the “attractive” scheme.

* * * *

 7. Argum. A multitude of unwarrantable wayes partly goeth before, partly conveyeth this Church-covenant, As. 1. It is a dreame that all are converted by the meanes of private Christians, without the Ministery of sent Pastors, by hearing of whom Faith commeth; all are made materialls and converts in private without Pastors; judge if this be Christs order and way. 2. How it is possible a Church shall be gathered amongst Infidells? this way Infidells cannot convert Infidells, and Pastors as Pastors cannot now be sent, by our Brethrens Doctrine, for Pastors are not Pastors but in relation to a particular congregation, therefore Pastors as Pastors cannot be sent to Indians. 3. They must be assured in conscience, at least satisfied in every one anothers salvation, and sound conversion: were the Apostles satisfied anent the conversion of Ananias, Saphira, Simon Magus, Alexander, Hymeneus, Philetus, Demas and others? 4. By what warrant of the word are private Christians, not in office, made the ordinary and onely converters of Soules to Christ? conversion commeth then ordinarily and solely by unsent Preachers, and private persons Ministery. 5. What warrant have the sister Churches, of the word, to give the right hand of fellowship to a new erected Church? for, to give the hand of fellowship is an authoritative and pastoriall act, as Gal. 2.9. When James, Cephas, and John perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave unto me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that is, saith Pareus, (a) they received us to the colledge of the Apostles; so Bullinger (b) and (c) Beza, now this is to receive them in amongst the number of Churches, as Pareus, and members of the catholick Church, but Churches being all independent, and of a like authority, the Sister Churches having no power over this new erected Church, what authority hath Sister Churches, to acknowledge them as Sister Churches? For 1. They cannot be upon two or three houres sight of them, hearing none of them speak, satisfied in their consciences of their Regeneration. 2. By no authority can they receive them as members of the catholick Church, for this receiving is a Church-act and they have no Church-power over them. 3. What a meeting is this of diverse Churches for the receiving of a new Sister Church? It is a Church (I believe) meeting together, and yet it is not a congregation, and it is an ordinary visible Church, for at the admitting of all converts to the Church-order, this meeting must be: surely here our brethren acknowledge that there is a Church, in the New Testament made up of many congregations, which hath power to receive in whole Churches, and members of Churches unto a Church-fellowship; this is a visible provinciall, or nationall Church, which they other wayes deny.

[100-101]

* * * *

Quest. 1. If Pastors may performe Ministeriall Acts in any other Congregation than their owne.

This is answered unto, by a Manuscript, If you take a Ministeriall act improperly, when a Minister doth exercise his gift of praying and preaching, being required so to doe, so hee may exercise some Ministeriall acts; but this he doth not by vertue of any calling, but only by his gifts and occasionally. But if you meane by a Ministeriall act, an act of authority and power in dispensing of Gods Ordinances, as a Minister doth performe to the Church whereunto he is called to be a Minister, then we deny that he can so performe any Ministeriall act in any other Church, than his owne.

Hence though he may preach to another congregation, yet may he not administer the Sacraments to an other then to his owne.

Answ. First, We hold that by a calling or ordination he is made a Pastor, by election he is restricted to be Ordinarily the Pastor of his flocke.

Secondly, A Pastor is a Pastor of the Catholike Church, but he is not a Catholike Pastor of the Catholike Church, as were the Apostles.

Thirdly, The Reformed Churches may send Pastors to the Indians, for that which Acosta saith of Jesuites, wee may with better reason say it of our selves: That Pastors are as Souldiers, and some Souldiers are to keepe order, and remaine in a certaine place, others run up and downe in all places; So some are affixed to a Congregation, to feed them, others may be sent to those people, who have not heard of the Gospel. Which sending is ordinary and lawfull, in respect of Pastors sending, and the Pastors who are sent, because in Pastors, even after the Apostles be dead, there remaineth a generall Pastorall care for all the Churches of Christ. Thus sending is not ordinary, but extraordinary, in respect of those to whom the Pastors are sent, yet is it a Pastorall sending.

This opinion of our Brethren, is against the care of Christ, who hath left no Pastorall care in earth by his way, now since the Apostles dyed, to spread the Gospel to those Nations who have not heard of the name of Christ; but a Pastorall care for the Churches, is not proper to Apostles onely, but onely such a Pastorall care by speciall direction from Christ immediately to Preach to all. 2. Backed with the gift of tongues and of miracles; and this essentially differenceth the Apostle from the ordinary Pastor; but the former Pastorall care to Preach the Gospel to all Nations, and to convert, is common both to the Apostle and Pastor.

    2. Our Brethren distinguish betwixt office and the calling, and they say that the office extendeth no further then the call, and by office he is onely a Pastor of this determinate flocke. But if he be a Pastor essentially in relation to none, but to his owne Congregation from which he hath all his calling, as is supposed, by that same reason a Christian, is a Baptized Christian to none but in relation to that particular Church in whose society he is admitted, and he doth partake of Christs body and blood in the Lords Supper in relation to no visible professors on earth, but onely to the Parish Church whereof he is a Member, 1 Cor. 10.17. for they expone that onely of a Parishionall Communion within one single independant Congregation. And he must be a Heathen, or as a Pagan in all Congregations on earth, but in his owne, yea and he is a visible professor of the Covenant of grace, which is one in substance, (as they say) with the Church-Covenant, and hath claime to Christ and all his Ordinances in no Congregation save in his owne. I prove the consequence, for by Baptisme the Baptized person is incorporated in Christ’s visible Church. 1 Cor. 12.13. If this be true when one removeth from one Congregation to another, hee must be re-baptized and incorporated a visible member of a body visible with them. And I see not how one can be in-churched to another Congregation, and made one body therewith, while he eate of one bread with them, as they expone, 1 Cor. 10.17. if he be not also a member of all visible Churches on earth.

    3. If a Pastor can exercise no Pastorall acts toward any Congregation, save toward his owne, then a Pastor as a Pastor cannot pray for the whole visible Churches of God: but the latter is absurd: Ergo, so is the former. I prove the major, The praying for the whole visible Churches is a Pastorall Act, due to a Pastor as a Pastor. Because every visible Church is obliged, as it is a Church, to pray for all the visible Churches on earth: for as a Christian is obliged to pray for all Churches visible, so farre more is a Church: now a visible Church doth not pray but by the Pastor, who is the mouth of the People to God; and that this is a Pastorall duty due to a Pastor, I thinke is said Isa. 62.6. I have set watchmen on thy Towers, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night: Yee that make mention of the Lord, keepe no silence till he establish, and till he make Jerusalem the praise of the whole earth.

    Also Pastors as Pastors are to pray for the King, though the King be no member of that Congregation, whereof they be Pastors. 1 Tim. 2.1, 2. every Pastor as a Pastor is to Preach against the sinnes of the Land, else how can the People mourne for these sinnes? Ergo, the Pastor doth exercise Pastorall acts upon all the visible Churches on earth, upon the King, and upon the whole Land, to which he is not a Pastor by speciall election.

    4. If a Pastor be obliged to Preach in season and out of season, and that as a Pastor, and because he is a Pastor. 2 Tim. 4.2. Ergo he is to Preach as a Pastor in any Congregation where he shall be desired.

    They answer, He may Preach the word in another Congregation, not by vertue of a calling or office, but by vertue of his gifts.

    I answer, First, if he Preach by vertue of a gift onely, he Preacheth in that case, not as sent of God, and so intrudeth himselfe, and runneth unsent, and a meere gift to be a King or a Magistrate, maketh not a Magistrate, as (a) Master Robinson, of Grantham. Ergo, one cannot warrantably exercise a Pastorall act by vertue of a meere gift. 2. He may in another Congregation preach with Pastorall authority, and use the keyes by binding and loosing sinnes, according as hearers doe repent and harden their neckes against the Gospel. Ergo, he may preach as a Pastor to another Congregation. 3. There shall be no Communion betwixt Sister Churches in Pastorall acts as Pastorall, which is absurd; the Communion shall onely be of Pastorall acts as Christian acts, but in no sort betwixt them as Pastorall acts.

    5. The Scriptures for this opinion are weake, Ergo the opinion it selfe is weake, I prove the antecedent. Act. 20.28. Feed the flocke, over which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers, &c. there is no ground to feede even by Preaching, or by vertue of a gift, the flockes over which the holy Ghost hath not set you: Obey them that are over you in the Lord, Heb. 13.17. &c. there is no warrant to submit to other Pastors that are not over you in the Lord, though they command by vertue of a gift, not by vertue of an office or calling: these be loose consequences.

    6. All reciprocation of mutuall duties amongst sister Churches, whereby they exhort, rebuke, comfort one another, must be unlawfull, for these be Church acts, and this Author saith, The office extendeth no further then the calling, but there is no calling of Church-membership betwixt sister-Churches, and therefore all these duties are not acts of the Communion of Churches, as they are such Churches or incorporations in a Church-state, but onely duties of Churches as they are Saints, but communion of Churches as Churches in the act of Church-dispensing of the Word and Seales reciprocally one to another, is not in the Word of God, as this opinion will inferre, which is a weighty absurd.

    7. The Authors of this opinion hold; That if the Congregation, for no fault, reject the Pastor, whom they once called and elected to be their Pastor, though in so doing they sinne, and reject God in rejecting him, yet they take nomen & esse, the name and nature of a Pastor from him, yet (say they) hee still remaineth a Minister of Christ, till he accept a call from another Congregation.

    Hence 1. such a one is a Pastor, and yet the people have taken name and nature of a Pastor from him, as they gave him name and nature: Ergo, he is either a Pastor without a calling, which is absurd, or he remaineth a person in relation to another flocke, who never choosed him, nor gave him any calling. 2. To adde by the way, if he be capable of a calling to another Church, Ergo, for the time he is no Minister, else they must say, he may be a Minister capable of two callings, to two sundry Ministeries, which yet maketh him a Pastor not in relation to one single congregation onely.

    It is true, they object that the Apostles, Matth. 18. were commanded to preach to all Nations, but Pastors are not so now, but are commanded to feed the flocke over which God hath appointed them, Act. 20.28. but it is as true the Apostles were commanded to preach to all Nations, in opposition to the charge that the Prophets of old were to speake to the people of Israel onely, and the Apostles Matth. 10. forbidden to preach to the Samaritans and Gentiles; and it is as true that Gods Spirit limited the Apostles to Preach to Macedonia, not to Bithynia; now because this particular direction for places is wanting in the Church, it is certaine that a man is yet a Pastor in office in relation to as many as Gods hand of providence shall send him unto, though he be chosen by a people to feed ordinarily one determinate flocke, and though he be not an extraordinary and immediately inspired planter of Churches, or the first planter, as were the Apostles, yet is he a Pastor in relation to all. And if this be not said, 1. It were simply unlawfull for Pastors now to plant Churches, and spread the Gospell to those nations, who have not heard it, because all Pastors now are ordinary, and none are immediately inspired Apostles: but it is certaine what the Apostles did, by an extraordinary gift, as such immediately called pastors, it is unlawfull for ordinary Pastors to attempt to doe, as to attempt to speake with tongues, and to plant Churches by speaking with tongues and confirming it with miracles, is unlawfull. Papists, as Bellarmine, Suarez, Acosta, ascribe this to the Pope and his Apostles. Our Divines answer that the Apostles that way have no successors; But what the Apostles did by an ordinary pastorall gift, as to preach the word, administrate the Sacraments, to erect and plant Churches by ordinary gifts, where the Pastors can speake to the Churches by an ordinary gift in their owne language, they are obliged both within and without the Congregation, to preach as Pastors, because where God giveth gifts pastorall to pastors, he commandeth them to exercise these gifts, else they digge their Lords talent in the earth: but God giveth to Pastors pastorall gifts to preach to others then their owne Congregation, and to administrate the seales to them also, and to plant Churches. Ergo, it is presumed that the Church doth give authoritie and an externall ministeriall calling to the exercise of these gifts.

    2. It is an unwarrantable point of Divinitie that the Apostles and the Pastors succeeding to them doe differ essentially in this, that Apostles might preach as Pastors to more Congregations then one, and might plant Churches, but pastors succeeding to them may not as Pastors preach to more Congregations then their owne, and may not plant Churches, for then planting of Churches now were utterly unlawfull, because it is certaine there be no Apostles on earth, and it is not lawfull for a Pastor, yea nor is it lawfull for any other gifted person to doe that which is essentiall to an Apostle and agreeth to an Apostle as to an Apostle. It is then unlawfull for our brethren, seeing they be not Apostles, to plant Churches in India.

    Nor is that comparison to be regarded much; A Magistrate or an Alderman of a Citie may not lawfully exercise his office of Magistracie in another Citie whereof he is not a Maior, and therefore a Pastor cannot preach, ex officio, as a Pastor in another Congregation, whereof he is not a Pastor, nor can he exercise discipline in another Congregation then his owne, seeing another Congregation hath not by voluntary agreement, oath or paction submitted themselves to his ministry, nor chosen him for their Pastor.

    For I answer, the comparison halteth and doth not prove the point, for by one and the same act the citie hath chosen such a man both for to be a Magistrate, and to be their Magistrate, and have given him thereby authority over themselves onely, so he cannot exercise the office of a Magistrate over another Citie who hath not chosen him to be their Maior or ruler. But the flocke doth not both call such a man, in one and the same act to be a pastor, and to be their pastor, but hee is made by the laying on of the hands of the Elders, a Pastor, and a Pastor in relation to all to whom God in his providence shall send him to speake, the Congregation by election doth give him no authority pastorall, but onely appropriate his pastorall authoritie to themselves in particular; and when they refuse him againe and cast him off, they take not pastorall authoritie from him, for they cannot take away that which they cannot give; he remaineth a Pastor though they cast him off, as a Colledge of Physicians do promote a man to be a Doctor of Physicke, to cure diseases, a towne calleth him to be their Physician, he may yet exercise acts of his calling, and ex officio, as a Doctor, upon other cities and inhabitants of the countrey; and when the city who choosed him for their Physician doth cast him off, they take not from him the office of doctorship which the Colledge of Physicians conferred upon him, for they cannot take from him that which they cannot give to him. Yea if any of another flocke shall come and heare the word, the Pastor offereth all in one pastorall sacrifice to God in prayer, though there be many of another Congregation in the Church hearing; yea strangers beleevers communicate with him at the same Table, yet is he not their Pastor. If a Pastor of a Congregation die or be sicke, shall the children of beleevers, yea shall converted Pagans being desirous to be baptized be defrauded of the comfort of Baptisme, and of the Lords Supper; for no fault in them, but onely because their Pastor is dead, may not the Congregation by their desires and requests appropriate the office of Pastors of another Congregation in some particular acts to their necessitie? yea is not their receiving of his ministry in that act (when their Pastor is dead) a calling warranting him to officiate, hic & nunc? even as the desires and choise of his owne flocke electing him to be their constant Pastor, gave him a calling to be their Pastor constantly, and in all the ordinary acts of his calling? yea and it is sure as the holy Ghost set him over his owne flocke in ordinary, because they choosed him to be their Pastor, so that same holy Ghost set him over this other Congregation, in this act, to preach and administrate the sacraments to them, in this exigence of the death of their Pastor; for God who ruleth officers and disposeth of them in his house, disposeth of particular Acts of his owne officers, and he is sent as a pastor from God to speake to the stranger hic & nunc, and to worke his heart to the love of Christ, and that as a Pastor no lesse then to his owne flocke, except we destroy communion of gifts, and of Pastorall gifts. Paul by the holy Ghost was made the Apostle of the Gentiles; Peter of the Jewes, Gal. 2.8. yet Peter as an Apostle preached to, and baptized the uncircumcised Gentiles, Act. 10.11. and Paul exercised his office of an Apostle upon the Jewes also, both by preaching and baptizing, as the history of the Acts, chap. 16. chap. 17. and other places may cleare; Rom. 1. so that the contrary doctrine is a new conceite, not of God, and against the pastorall care of bringing in soules to Christ.

[204-210]

* * * *

 …Indians and Turks may heare the Word as well as the excommunicated person, and therefore hearing of the word is no note of Church communion.

    I answer, the Turke and Indian must heare the word, but at hee by, and not professedly; but the excommunicated person by the vertue of his Covenant made in baptisme, and that relation he hath to the Church under whose cure he is, for the saving of his spirit, and to that Gospel which he professeth, is obliged to the Church-communion of publique hearing the Word; yea, and according to his oath given, to be subject to the ministery of such a man whom he chose for his Pastor, to give obedience to him in the Lord, however in that one particular for which he is cast out, he hath failed against all the foresaid obligations. 2. The Church, as a visible Church, exerciseth no medicinall acts upon Turkes or Heathen persons, and doth not repute them as Heathen, but doth repute them to be Heathen. Nor hath the Pastor any pastorall charge of Turkes and Heathens, except they would desire to be baptized and professe the faith. But the Church as the Church exerciseth medicinall acts of shunning Christian fellowship with the excommunicated, and that with a continuated intention even when he is excommunicated, that his spirit may be saved in the day of God, and the Pastor hath a pastorall, and so a ministeriall care and obligation of pastorall teaching, admonishing and perswading him to returne to God.

[274-275]

* * * *

 2. You make the spirit of love in a pastorall care over other Churches to be dead, because none have any pastorall care over any other Churches, but the particular Congregation over which they are Pastors, and pastorall love to unconverted ones, as pastorall, you utterly deny.

    The last way of communion (saith the Author) is by propagation or multiplication, which is, as the Apostles had immediate calling from God to travell through the world, and to plant Churches, so have particular Churches given to them immediately from Christ, the fulnesse of measure of grace, which the enlargement and establishment of Christs kingdome doth require, that is, when the Bee-hive a parishionall congregation is surcharged, they have power to send forth their members, to enter, by Covenant, in Church-state amongst themselves, and may commend to them such able gifted Ministers, as they thinke may bee Ministers in that young Church.

    Answ. 1. This way of inlarging Christs kingdome is defective. 1. It sheweth the way of inlarging the number of invisible Churches, and multitudes of converts into new incorporations, but doth shew no way how to plant soules who were non-converts, and branches of the wild Olive in Christ Jesus, and to make new visible Churches; but it is certaine that the Apostles as Apostles, and as Pastors, by vertue of their office converted obstinate sinners to the faith of Christ, and planted them in a visible Church, consisting of professors of the faith, partly converted, partly not converted; but the pastors by your doctrine have no power as Pastors, or by any Pastorall authoritie, to plant the Gospel where it hath never beene, that pastorall spirit is dead with the Apostles; and in this, contrary to all reason and sense, and contrary to the Scriptures, you make private Christians the successors of the Apostles to plant Churches, and to convert soules, and to make them fit materials for the visible Church of regenerate persons; for Pastors as Pastors, and visible Churches as visible Churches doe nothing at all to the multiplying of Churches, seeing Pastors and visible Churches as they are such, by your doctrine, are but nurses to give suck to those who are already converted, but not fathers to convert them; for private Christians, or pastors as Christians gifted to prophesie, not as Pastors, doe multiply Churches, and convert men to Christ, as you teach, now wee all know that nurses as nurses doe not propagate, or by generation multiply people in the Common-wealth, that fathers and mothers onely can doe; your Churches have no ministeriall breasts, but to give suck to babes who are already borne: but wee see by your doctrine, no ministeriall power of Pastors or Churches to send forth members to enter in a Church covenant, or to enter in a new Church relation of a daughter, or a sister visible Church; if they send a number to bee a new Church, your Pastors or visible Church did not multiply them, it is presumed they were converts, before they were members of the visible Church, which now sendeth them out, and if they bee multiplied in the bosome of your visible Church and converted, they were not truely members of that visible Church before their conversion, and also that they were not converted by any publike ministery, but by private Christians gifted to prophesie, who are the onely successors of the Apostles to plant visible Churches: but what pastorall authoritie have you to send them forth to bee a new visible Church? none at all? they have as beleevers power to remove from you, and because of multiplication, to make themselves a new Church, and this ministeriall power of making themselves a new Church they have not from you, but from their fathers who converted them, so that you make a visible Church within a visible Church, but not a Church begotten or borne of a visible Church, as a child of the mother; and wee desire a word of God, either precept, promise, or practise of such a Church multiplication, mans word is not enough.

    2. Wee hold that the sending of the Apostles to all the world was not in it selfe, that which essentially distinguisheth the Apostle from the now ordinary Pastor, who is fixed to a single Congregation, but the gift of tongues to preach to all the world upon the Lords intention to send the Gospel to all nations, that as many as were chosen to life, might beleeve, was that which essentially differenceth the Apostle from the ordinary pastor, together with a speciall revelation of God, to goe to such and such people, to Macedonia, and not yet to Bythinia. And now seeing these two are taken away, the ordinary Pastors which now are, have as Pastors a sufficient calling to preach the Gospel to all nations, to whom by Gods providence they shall come, and can understand their language, whether of their owne Congregation or not. Neither is a Pastor tied as a Pastor by Gods Word, to one onely Congregation, for then it should bee unlawfull for a Pastor as a Pastor to plant a new Church; but shall it bee lawfull for private Christians to plant new Churches, who are not the Apostles successors, and yet it shall bee unlawfull for Pastors, who are the undoubted successors of the Apostles, to plant new Churches? I would thinke that admirable doctrine; for so you give to private Christians that which you make essentiall to the Apostles, and you deny it to the undoubted successors of the Apostles, to wit, to Pastors. But we hold a lawfull Pastor is a Pastor in relation to all the world, with this distinction, hee is by Christs appointment and the Churches a Pastor to all congregations, to plant and water, and preach, but by speciall designation of Gods providence, and the Churches appointment designed and set apart for such a determinate flocke, just as the Apostles in generall were made Pastors to all the world, Matth. 28.19. Go teach all nations, but by speciall revelation and Apostolick appointment, Peter was appointed the Apostle of the Jewes, Paul of the Gentiles, Gal. 2.9. yet Paul was a Pastor in relation to the Jewes, and Peter also in relation to the Gentiles: so by speciall revelation, Act. 16. they are forbidden to preach the word in Bythinia, and commanded to preach it elsewhere; and for this cause, pious antiquity, as Morton (a) observeth, called some learned fathers Pastors of the World, (b) Athanasius is saluted Pontifex maximus, as Ruffinus saith, and Origen magister ecclesiarum, master of the Churches, so (c) Hieronymus, and Cyprian totius orbis praeses, Cyprian the Bishop of all the world, yea and Pope, so (d) Nazianzen. Hilarius is called by (e) Augustine insignis ecclesiae doctor, a renowned teacher of the Church, and (f) Nazianzenus calleth Basilius the light of the world, and (g) Damascenus the light of the whole world, and (h) Theodoret saith Chrysostome is called totius orbis terrarum doctor, the Doctor and teacher of the whole world: all which titles saith evidently that antiquitie beleeved never a Pastor, or Bishop, not to bee a Pastor onely in relation to the one single Congregation, whereof hee is Pastor, but a Pastor in relation to the whole visible Church, though by designation of the Church his ministery bee appropriated to one particular Church. Thus it is cleare that our brethren deny all communion of Churches, while they confine a visible Church to one onely single and independent Congregation, subjected in its visible government to Christ Jesus immediately, and to no universall visible Church or Synod on earth.

[pp. 348-351]

Read Full Post »

Where all, or the most considerable part of free Planters profess their desire and purpose of enjoying, and securing to themselves and their Posterity, the pure and peaceable enjoyment of the Ordinances of Christ in Church-fellowship with his People and have liberty to cast themselves into that Mold or Form of a Common-wealth, which shall appear to be best for them. Tending to prove the Expediency and Necessity in that case of entrusting free Burgesses which are members of Churches gathered amongst them according to Christ, with the power of Choosing from among themselves Magistrates, and men to whom the Managing of all Public Civil Affairs of Importance is to be committed. And to vindicate the same from an Imputation of an Under-Power upon the Churches of Christ, which hath been cast upon it through a Mistake of the true state of the Question.

Reverend Sir,

The Sparrow being now gone, and one days respite from public Labors on the Lords-day falling to me in course, I have sought out your Writing, and have reviewed it, and find (as I formerly expressed to your self) that the Question is mis-stated by you; and that the Arguments which you produce to prove that which is not denied, are (in reference to this Question) spent in vain, as arrows are when they fall wide of the Marks they should bit, though they strike in a White which the Archer is not called to shoot at.

The terms wherein you state the Question, are these:

Whether the Right and Power of Choosing Civil Magistrates belongs unto the Church of Christ?

To omit all critical Inquiries, in your thus stating the Question, I utterly dislike two things.

* * * * *

Read the rest here or view a facsimile of the original below. I have also recorded it in audio here. Also view all our audio resources at WPE Audio. This discourse is especially meaningful to me personally, since my ancestor, William Ives came over the Atlantic with John Davenport and eventually signed his name to the original town covenant of the New Haven Colony in Connecticut.

Read Full Post »

As we turn in deep gratitude to the Most High for all His blessings towards us, let us remember especially the unique favor He has shown to our fathers and mothers of the faith who first came to these shores on a holy “errand into the wilderness.” In the words of the Mayflower Compact (1620), their cause was “undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country.”

Let me encourage you to listen to our Pilgrim and Puritan fathers. In addition to other amateur recordings, I’ve been steadily adding to this collection of sermons, treatises, and narratives from the pen of these giants of the faith, who helped found this “City on a Hill.” And if you’d like to hear an early account of the Pilgrim colony, check out Cotton Mather’s, “Magnalia Christi Americana 1.1: Discoveries of America.” Also, John Winthrop’s original sermon where he speaks of the “city on an hill,” is available under “A Modell of Christian Charity.”

And as we thank the Lord today, lest us with humility and earnestness implore Him to restore the former glory through national repentance. He did it before, and He can do it again! “Wilt thou not revive us again: that thy people may rejoice in thee” (Psalm 85:6)?

Visit the WPE Audio page for our full audio library.

Read Full Post »

This is an academic article from the earlier 20th century on New England Puritan, Cotton Mather, on his zealous concern for the salvation of the Jews. He develops the account from Mather’s notable journal entry in 1696: “This day, from the dust, where I lay prostrate, before the Lord, I lifted up my cries: For the conversion of the Jewish Nation, and for my own having the happiness, at some time or other, to baptize a Jew, that should by my ministry, bee brought home unto the Lord.”

Read Full Post »

Continuing to follow with interest Timon Cline et al over at American Reformer. Still parsing the field of contemporary “Christian nationalism” and trying to discern the good and the not-so-good; so I share this with some tentativeness, yet general appreciation thus far. Classical Protestant ethics and socio-political ethics fascinates me, so anyone participating in a retrieval has my attention.

Have enjoyed reading this article about John Witherspoon and the colonial Presbyterian iteration of establishmentarianism, contra Kevin DeYoung’s pluralistic take of the American revision of the WCF 23. Looks like others there have also written on the same. I still wonder to what degree Witherspoon may have been influenced by Enlightenment liberalism and what bearing that may have had on how he approached Christian magistracy. But that there is more continuity with the original WCF 23 than not just seems to sync with what I’ve understood about public religion in colonial America. Absolute separation just seems laughable on so many counts. I am also reminded how Dr. William Young opined that the American revision of WCF 23 did not technically contradict the original 1646 statement. While my denomination is the only NAPARC body committed to the original edition, I am at least coming to appreciate that we may have more of a genetic connection with colonial Presbyterian than I had first thought.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

The following is the text of a rather insightful, inspiring, and challenging firsthand vignette of English Puritanism, by John Geree, “The Character of an Old English Puritan, or Non-Conformist.” Listen to a recording of it here; and visit the entire WPE audio library. A digital facsimile is below.

* * * *

The Old English Puritan was such an one, that honored God above all, and under God gave every one his due. His first care was to serve God, and therein he did not what was good in his own, but in God’s sight, making the word of God the rule of his worship. He highly esteemed order in the House of God: but would not under color of that submit to superstitious rites, which are superfluous, and perish in their use. He reverenced Authority keeping within its sphere: but durst not under pretence of subjection to the higher powers, worship God after the traditions of men. He made conscience of all God’s ordinances, though some he esteemed of more consequence. He was much in prayer; with it he began and closed the day. It is he was much exercised in his closet, family and public assembly. He esteemed that manner of prayer best, whereby the gift of God, expressions were varied according to present wants and occasions; yet did he not account set forms unlawful. Therefore in that circumstance of the church he did not wholly reject the liturgy, but the corruption of it. He esteemed reading of the word an ordinance of God both in private and public but did not account reading to be preaching. The word read he esteemed of more authority, but the word preached of more efficiency. He accounted preaching as necessary now as in the Primitive Church, God’s pleasure being still by the foolishness of preaching to save those that believe. He esteemed the preaching best wherein was most of God, least of man, when vain flourishes of wit and words were declined, and the demonstration of God’s Spirit and power studied: yet could he distinguish between studied plainness and negligent rudeness. He accounted perspicuity the best grace of a preacher: And that method best, which was most helpful to the understanding, affection, and memory. To which ordinarily he esteemed none so conducible as that by doctrine, reason and use. He esteemed those sermons best that came closest to the conscience: yet would he have men’s consciences awakened, not their persons disgraced. He was a man of good spiritual appetite, and could not be contented with one meal a day. An afternoon sermon did relish as well to him as one in the morning. He was not satisfied with prayers without preaching: which if it were wanting at home, he would seek abroad: yet would he not by absence discourage his minister, if faithful, though another might have quicker gifts. A lecture he esteemed, though not necessary, yet a blessing, and would read such an opportunity with some pains and loss. The Lord’s Day he esteemed a divine ordinance, and rest on it necessary, so far as it conduced to holiness. He was very conscientious in observance of that day as the mart day of the soul. He was careful to remember it, to get house, and heart in order for it and when it came, he was studious to improve it. He redeems the morning from superfluous sleep, and watches the whole day over his thoughts and words, not only to restrain them from wickedness, but worldliness. All parts of the day were like holy to him, and his care was continued in it in variety of holy duties: what he heard in public, he repeated in private, to whet it upon himself and family. Lawful recreations he thought this day unseasonable, and unlawful ones much more abominable: yet he knew the liberty God gave him for needful refreshing, which he neither did refuse nor abuse. The sacrament of baptism he received in infancy, which he looked back to in age to answer his engagements, and claim his privileges. The Lord’s Supper he accounted part of his soul’s food: to which he labored to keep an appetite. He esteemed it an ordinance of nearest communion with Christ, and so requiring most exact preparation. His first care was in the examination of himself: yet as an act of office or charity, he had an eye on others.

He endeavored to have the scandalous cast out of communion: but he cast not out himself, because the scandalous were suffered by the negligence of others. He condemned that superstition and vanity of Popish mock-fasts; yet neglected not an occasion to humble his soul by right fasting: He abhorred the popish doctrine of opus operatum in the action. And in practice rested in no performance, but what was done in spirit and truth. He thought God had left a rule in his word for discipline, and that aristocratical by elders, not monarchical by bishops, nor democratical by the people. Right discipline he judged pertaining not to the being, but to the well-being of a church. Therefore he esteemed those churches most pure where government is by elders, yet unchurched not those where it was otherwise. Perfection in churches he thought a thing rather to be desired, than hoped for. And so he expected not a church state without all defects. The corruptions that were in churches he thought his duty to bewail, with endeavors of amendment: yet he would not separate, where he might partake in the worship, and not in the corruption. He put not holiness in churches, as in the temple of the Jews; but counted them convenient like their synagogues. He would have them kept decent, not magnificent: knowing that the gospel requires not outward pomp. His chief music was singing of psalms wherein though he neglected not the melody of the voice, yet he chiefly looked after that of the heart. He disliked such church music as moved sensual delight, and was as hinderance to spiritual enlargements. He accounted subjection to the higher powers to be part of pure religion, as well as to visit the fatherless and widows: yet did he distinguish between authority and lusts of magistrates, to that he submitted, but in these he durst not be a servant of men, being bought with a price. Just laws and commands he willingly obeyed not only for fear but for conscience also; but such as were unjust he refused to observe, choosing rather to obey God than man; yet his refusal was modest and with submission to penalties, unless he could procure indulgence from authority. He was careful in all relations to know, and to duty, and that with singleness of heart as unto Christ. He accounted religion an engagement to duty, that the best Christians should be best husbands, best wives, best parents, best children, best masters, best servants, best magistrates, best subjects, that the doctrine of God might be adorned, not blasphemed. His family he endeavors to make a church, both in regard of persons and exercises, admitting none into it but such as feared God; and laboring that those that were borne in it, might be born again unto God. He blessed his family morning and evening by the word and prayer and took care to perform those ordinances in the best season. He brought up his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and commanded his servants to keep the way of the Lord. He set up discipline in his family, as he desired it in the church, not only reproving but restraining vileness in his. He was conscientious of equity as well as piety knowing that unrighteousness is abomination as well as ungodliness. He was cautious in promising, but careful in performing, counting his word no less engagement than his bond. He was a man of tender heart, not only in regard of his own sin, but others misery, not counting mercy arbitrary, but a necessary duty wherein as he prayed for wisdom to direct him, so he studied for cheerfulness and bounty to act. He was sober in the use of things of this life, rather beating down the body, than pampering it, yet he denied not himself the use of God’s blessing, lest he should be unthankful, but avoid excess lest he should be forgetful of the Donor. In his habit he avoided costliness and vanity, neither exceeding his degree in civility, nor declining what suited with Christianity, desiring in all things to express gravity. He own life he accounted a warfare, wherein Christ was his captain, his arms, prayers, and tears. The Cross his banner, and his word, Vincit qui patitur.

He was immovable in all times, so that they who in the midst of many opinions have lost the view of true religion, may return to him and find it.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Just finished recording part 2 of 2 of Daniel Cawdrey’s “Of the Festivals of the Church, and Especially Christmas.” Listen to the audio here. This is the third part of a larger work, attached below. The University of Michigan has digitized the text here.

Visit the complete WPE Audio library.

Cawdrey (1588–1664) was a member of the Westminster Assembly, which produced the Westminster Confession of Faith, as well as the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. Like the rest of the Puritans of England and New England, as well as the Presbyterians of Scotland, these godly men rejected all holy days of men’s devising based on what has become called the ‘regulative principle of worship,’ which requires us to have clear and undoubted certainty about the divine, scriptural origin of any worship practice, and that any worship falling short of this standard must be set aside.

The Puritans were not kill-joys or men of bigoted, narrow minds. Anyone who reads their sermons and devotional writings will find them to be the warmest lovers of God, of Christ, and of their fellow men. They were also as a rule generous, catholic-minded men who embraced all those who called upon the Lord in sincerity, even among those who might disagree with them. And above all, they were men who passionately wanted to please God, even if that went against the flow of the opinions of men. I offer these recordings in that spirit.

The following is a sample from Cawdrey, in particular on his contention that the observation of Christmas is ultimately hostile to the proper, apostolic practice of Lord’s day observance:

“[It is said that] The Birth of Christ, is a mercy of such excellent quality, that it can never be overvalued, &c. This is granted; ​But to Institute a day as Holy, without command of Christ, for an Annual commemoration of this, is above the power of any Church, and a Superstitious presumption: and [altogether] needless; considering that the Lord’s day, (which includes the commemoration, not only of his Birth, but his Resurrection, and the whole works of our Redemption by him) was instituted by himself, or his Apostles, by him authorized and inspired, for this very end; & comes [around] once in every week. To limit it therefore to one day in a year, to remember that Mercy, is not an exaltation, but a derogation from it. If this were done, on his own design[ated] Day, wee need not fixe another day.”

Friend, let appeal to you not to brush off this position. You may in the end disagree with it; by all means, search the Scriptures, and be a Berean. But none of us “have attained,” and we should always be willing to bring any of our views or practices to the touchstone of Scripture. Embracing this position would naturally involve sacrifices, hurt feelings, and misunderstandings. But I can assure you from close to 30 years of experience after becoming convinced, and after raising four children in these principles, it is well worth it. “Them that honor me, I will honor.” And you don’t have to be a Grinch! I’m not—and I keep up many, many friendships with dear brothers who aren’t persuaded.

But of course, they’ll understand sooner or later (1 Cor. 13:12)!

Read Full Post »

I’ve recorded several chapters of Cotton Mather’s great Magnalia Christi Americana: Or, The Ecclesiastical History of New-England: from Its First Planting, in the Year 1620, Unto the Year of Our Lord 1698. Here are the opening words of the first chapter, “Discoveries of America.”

* * * * *

“It is the opinion of some, though ’tis but an opinion, and but of some learned men, that when the sacred oracles “of Heaven assure us, the things under the earth are some of those, whose knees are to bow in the name of Jesus, by those things are meant the inhabitants of America, who are Antipodes to those of the other hemisphere. I would not quote any words of Lactantius, though there are some to countenance this interpretation, because of their being so ungeographical: nor would I go to strengthen the interpretation by reciting the words of the Indians to the first white invaders of their territories, we hear you are come from under the world to take our world from us. But granting the uncertainty of such an exposition, I shall yet give the Church of God a certain account of those things, which in America have been believing and adoring the glorious name of Jesus; and of that country in America, where those things have been attended with circumstances most remarkable. I can contentedly allow that America (which, as the learned Nicholas Fuller observes, might more justly be called Columbina) was altogether unknown to the penmen of the Holy Scriptures, and in the ages when the Scriptures were penned. I can allow, that those parts of the earth, which do not include America, are, in the inspired writings of Luke and of Paul, stiled all the world. I can allow, that the opinion of Torniellus and of Pagius, about the apostles preaching the gospel in America, has been sufficiently refuted by Basnagius. But I am out of the reach of Pope Zachary’s excommunication. I can assert the existence of the American Antipodes: and I can report unto the European churches great occurrences among these Americans. Yet I will report every one of them with such a Christian and exact veracity, that no man shall have cause to use about any one of them the words which the great Austin (as great as he was) used about the existence of Antipodes; it is a fable, and nulla ratione credendum.

Read Full Post »

John Cotton gives an extremely helpful list of biblical considerations for the Christian who is trying to decide whether or not to move. This is taken from “God’s Promise to His Plantations” (1630). I’ve left the archaic formatting in place.

* * * * *

Quest. But how shall I know whether God hath appointed me such a place, if I be well where I am, what may warrant my removeall?

Answ. There be foure or five good things, for procurement of any of which I may remove. Secondly, there be some evill things, for avoiding of any of which wee may transplant our selves. Thirdly, if withall we find some speciall providence of God concurring in either of both concerning our selves, and applying general grounds of removall to our personall estate.

First, wee may remove for the gaining of knowledge. Our Saviour commends it in the Queene of the south, that she came from the utmost parts of the earth to heare the wisdom of Solomon: Matth. 12. 42. And surely with him she might have continued for the same end, if her personall calling had not recalled her home.

Secondly, some remove and travaile for merchandize and gaine-sake; Daily bread may be sought from farre, Prov. 31. 14. Yea our Saviour approveth travaile for Merchants, Matth. 13. 45, 46. when hee compareth a Christian to a Merchantman seeking pearles: For he never fetcheth a comparison from any unlawful thing to illustrate a thing lawfull. The comparison from the unjust Steward, and from the Theefe in the night, is not taken from the injustice of the one, or the theft of the other; but from the wisdome of the one, and the sodainnesse of the other; which in themselves are not unlawfull.

To read further, see below. To access the entire sermon and an audio recording, click here.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »