.
Order of Contents
Intro
Articles 2
Books 4
Quotes 6
.
Intro
Sometimes separatists make much of the doctrine of the evil of occasional hearing. This refers to it being morally evil to hear the sermons and writings of ministers that have certain corruptions that the particular separatists have separated from. While there is truth and legitimate applicability in this principle in certain circumstances, it is often taken way too far.
What is not well known are the writings and arguments for occasional hearing: that the priority of edification in the truth and the unity of Christ’s Church is of more binding weight than whatever corruptions such a minister may be involved in. Philip Nye, the Westminster divine, was an Independent (Independency is inherently separatistic). John Robinson was a founding father of Separatism. Yet hey both argue from Scripture below for Occasional Hearing.
See also ‘On Occasional & Partial Conformity without Sin, or Moderate Puritanism’.
.
Articles
1600’s
Durham, James – ch. 1, Lecture 9, ‘Of Reading & Hearing’ in A Commentary upon the Book of the Revelation… (Edinburgh, 1658), pp. 64-66
Durham is moderate in what he says, not going into great detail; his parameters (with some ambiguous language or flexibility in applicaton of his words) allows for some occassional hearing, as such is often defined.
“In matter of hearing, it is not so hard to discern who are to be accounted to speak without God’s commission: because ordinarily, such have either no warrantable call at all (no not in the outward form; and so cannot be accounted but to run unsent) or, by palpable defection from the truth, and commission given them in that call, they have forfeited their commission, and so no more are to be accounted ambassadors to Christ, or watchmen of His flock, than a watchman of the city, is to be accounted an observer thereof, when he has publicly made defection to the enemy, and taken on with him.
For we are here to rest in the external call, and not to dispute that which is inward: because it passes our reach; and Christ has furnished his House with external ordinances, for the warranting of his people’s peace in reference to these things: there is therefore great difference to be placed here between one that is called, and one whom we think not worthy to be called: it’s the first that warrants hearing…”
Baxter, Richard – ch. 3 in Schism Detected in both Extremes, or Two Sorts of Sinful Separation… (London: 1684), pp. 19-20
.
1700’s
Walker, Patrick – pp. 172-75 in Six Saints of the Covenant: Peden, Semple, Welwood, Cameron, Cargill, Smith, ed. D. Hay Fleming (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1901; rep. Edinburgh: Blue Banner Productions, 1999), vol. 1, Peden’s Life, Postscript
.
Books
1600’s
Robinson, John – A Treatise on the Lawfulness of Hearing of the Ministers in the Church of England (1634) 19 pp. in Works, vol. 3, pp. 339-78
John Robinson was one of the founding fathers of Separatism, and he still argues for the lawfulness of occasional hearing. This treatise is good.
Tombes, John – Theodulia, or a Just Defence of Hearing the Sermons & other teaching of the present Ministers of England against a Book unjustly entitled, ‘A Christian Testimony against them that Serve the Image of the Beast’… (London: E. Cotes, 1667) 333 pp. ToC
Tombes (c. 1603–1676) was a student of William Pemble and an Anglican clergyman, who came to develop baptist views. In church government he is said to have been presbyterian. Towards the end of his life he was a communicating Anglican layman.
This book is learned and much of it is good. In respect to the date of this publication and those below, the four government indulgences to ministers began to be offered in 1669, 1672, 1679 and 1687.
Philip Nye was a Westminster divine that exhorted at the taking of the Solemn League and Covenant. He was also an Independent, and still argues for Occasional Hearing. This work is very good.
Nye, Philip & Robinson et al. – The Lawfulness of Hearing the Public Ministers of the Church of England Proved, by Mr. Philip Nye & Mr. John Robinson, Two Eminent Congregational Divines. Together with the Judgment of Dr. Goodwin, Dr. Owen & Other Independents, as well Ancient as Modern (London, 1683) The Addenda contains the testimonies of other Independents, namely: H. Jacob, Brownists, Norton, Goodwin, Bridge, Nye, Greenhill, Simpson, Firmin, Owen, Tombes and Baxter.
.
Quotes
Order of
English Puritans
Ames
Baxter
A’Brakel
Hamilton
Wodrow
.
1600’s
English Partially Conforming Puritans
A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025)
pt. 1, p. 217
“First, that we might be counted a true Church though it could not appear that we were at the first rightly gathered:
For even as the disciples might be well assured of Christ’s bodily presence when they saw and felt Him though they could not perceive which way or how He could possibly come in [Lk. 24:36–37; Jn. 20:19–20, 26–27], so may we esteem them a true Church of whose present profession and Faith we are well assured, though we cannot see by what means they were first gathered, else we may still doubt whether Melchizedek [Gen. 14:18–20] and the families of Job [Job 1:1–5] were true churches and members of the Church, because how they were first gathered and made a Church, or of whom, we know not; and yet we are now certainly persuaded that they are a Church.
Nay, we find good warrant in the Word to the contrary, for we read of many who, having by that which they heard and saw, perceived evidently that a people were the Church of God, did join themselves willingly unto them without enquiring how they were gathered or converted, as Abraham to Melchizedek [Gen. 14:18–20], Rahab to Israel [Josh. 2], the eunuch to Philip [Acts 8:31–38], the gaoler [jailer] to Paul and Silas [Acts 16:27–34].”
.
pt. 2, p. 254
“First, that the people may lawfully accept us to be true ministers, whom the Church so esteems, though they cannot see how we first entered, and that by no commandment or example in the Word are they bound to inquire thereinto.”
.
William Ames
On Conscience [d. 1633; 1639], bk. 1, ch. 4, last section:
“If any man through errour of conscience should hold it to be an unlawful thing to go to the Church and serve God there (which otherwise he is tied to do) because he knows the preacher to be a lewd and naughty man, and thinks that he shall be partaker with him in his wickedness, his sin is greater in staying away than if he were present there: because it is a greater sin to neglect God’s service than to communicate with an others’ personal wickedness in that service.
But if he should think it unlawful to be present at holy duties for idolatry which he judges will be committed there, he should sin more heinously if he should be present there: because the sin of idolatry is greater than a neglect of true worship. In the first instance he sins more that follows his conscience than he that does against it; but in this [latter case], his sin is greater that does contrary to it.”
.
Richard Baxter
as quoted in Isaac Chauncy, A Theological Dialogue: containing the Defence & Justification of Dr. John Owen from the Forty-Two Errors Charged upon Him by Mr. Richard Baxter… (London: Author, 1684), pp. 5-6
“God put it into the disciples’ power to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and hear them [Mt. 16:6, 11-12; 23:2-3]… Prove all things [1 Thess. 5:21], is not approving all things.”
.
Schism Detected in both Extremes… (London: 1684), pt. 2
pp. 9-10
“It’s the common trap of the Papists to put ignorant people to prove the calling of the ministers, or forsake them. They that preach the Gospel and do the office (though faultily), and are in possession [of it], have a calling sufficient to justifie the hearers, when it may not be enough to justify themselves: [they have] a better call than the high priests that Christ did send men to.”
.
pp. 14-15
“He command∣ed the lepers cleansed to go to the priests, and offer their due, and his disciples to hear the scribes and pharisees in moses’s chair, etc. And yet:
1. The high priests were not of Aaron‘s line according to institution.
2. They bought the office of heathen Romans.
3. They had it not for life, according to institution.
4. Doctrine, worship, discipline and manners were heinously corrupted, so that the hearers were to beware of the leaven of their doctrine and not to imitate their lives.
4. They were bitter enemies of Christ and persecutors: yet Christ never bid his disciples to separate from anything but their errors; but says, ‘They shall cast you out of the synagogues.’ And doubtless Christ committed no sin; nor can we be so holy as He.”
.
Wilhelmus A’Brakel
Maurice Grant, Preacher to the Remnant: The Story of James Renwick (Blue Banner Productions, 2009), pp. 140-41
“If I were with [the Cameronian minister] Mr. [James] Renwick, I would put him to call to mind the saying which at his parting I said to him, while he was requiring of me some memorable token, ‘Be not righteous over much, neither make thyself over wise; why shouldest thou destroy thyself?’ Now you understand not this; but remember that this I said to you, that sometime it shall be useful. Now it is time to live according to that word. Oh what need has he now of that admonition!
If I were present with them that do adhere to Mr. Renwick, these that refuse to hear ministers, I would show them how great a sin schism is; and that the wrath of God is not far off from them who make and cherish separation. I with tears in the name of Jesus would beg that, leaving schism, they might live with their brethren in peace, love and unanimity. To decline union in every truth is nothing but pride and lordliness… if there be any that in his conscience thinks other ministers ought not to be heard, he errs in simplicity, and it is necessary that most quickly he leave that error.”
.
1700’s
Gavin Hamilton
Just Reflections upon a Pamphlet entitled, ‘A Modest Reply to a Letter from a Friend to Mr John M’millan’ ([Edinburgh?], 1712), p. 17
“15… As for the differences which arose about the public resolutions [in the late-1640’s], they made a division indeed in the Church, but no schism, at lest in worship (of which we speak), but only in government, except by accident in some places where presbyteries divided themselves, whereupon followed opposite ordinations, which brought in division among the people, some adhering to one minister, some to another. But I never heard that any held it unlawful to hear ministers on either side, though comparatively they judged it duty rather to hear others. By the way I wish the question about hearing of curates had never come a greater length. See below.
However (as dogs, they say, gars swine ‘gree (make to agree)) by the reintroduction of prelacy [in 1661] this difference was buried, as fire under ashes.” Ministers, who had before been putting and thrusting at one another, being, by this, put all an one condition, that is, thrust all out together [in 1662, for 30% of the ministry], except those who complied with Prelacy [or rather a relatively low form of episcopacy]. These, and others whom the prelates and tey put in, occupying the room of pastors, debates arose among presbyterians, ministers and others, anent the lawfulness or unlawfulness, duty or sin of hearing them. Some pleading compliance in hearing, to prove it sinful; some pleading separation in withdrawing to prove hearing to be duty: Some pleading soundness in doctrine to prove it lawful and duty to hear, some pleading corruption in government to prove it unlawful and sinful. And though these different pleadings, accompanied with different practices, in hearing or not hearing curates, as they were called, made no schism among presbyterians. In regard, ministers, who heard and who heard not, preached sometimes privately; and people of either practice heard any of them indifferently. Yet, in these debates, some laid down principles, which, if followed out, would oblige them to hear none that were not of their mind or way, in all matters whether of judgment or practice, which were too much improven afterward. (See Dr. [Gilbert] Rule’s Rational Defence of Non-Conformity, and Mene Tekel)”
.
Robert Wodrow
History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland (d. 1734; Glasgow: Blackie, 1842), 2.210
“Several of them [common Scottish people, after the second indulgence in 1672] were taught to believe, and urge a position, in itself of most dangerous consequences, that it is unlawful to hear a minister who was guilty of failures in his entry upon ministerial work, or mistakes in his management of it. I wish the remains of this dangerous position may be entirely out from among us;”
.
.
.
Related Pages