When Sir Rowland Cotton, his good friend, went to reside at London with his family, he followed him in a short time, and having been with him there some space, he returned again to the country, and visited his parents at Stoke. He had formed a design of going into foreign countries for his improvement, but he was persuaded to change his resolution, to the great joy of his parents and friends, upon being chosen and importuned by the inhabitants of Stone in Staffordshire to be their minister. He continued there about two years. During that time, May 21, 1628, he married Joice, the daughter of William Crompton of Stone Park, Esq. and widow of George Copwood of Dilverne in the county of Stafford. He removed from Stone to Hornsey, near London, with a view to enjoy the benefit of Sion college library, in prosecuting his studies. To that famous library, he frequently resorted. Afterward, in the spring of the year 1630, he and his family having gone to Stoke, they remained there until the following September, when Sir Rowland Cotton preferred him to the rectory of Ashley, in the county of Stafford, where he continued in great esteem for twelve years, carefully discharging the duties of his office, and pursuing his Rabbinical studies with indefatigable application. By his unremitting diligence, his stock of knowledge very much increased.-The hand of the diligent maketh rich. In the month of June 1642, he went up to London, and was chosen minister of St Bartholomew's behind the Exchange, and next year he was nominated a member of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. He is marked in Neal's list, as giving constant attendance during the session. He was appointed one of the select committee for the examination and approbation of ministers who petitioned for livings which had been sequestered. He had a fair opportunity, in that famous Assembly, of dis playing his eminent abilities, and extraordinary learning; and of both he gave good specimens. He was then not much above forty years of age; and yet he discovered a very extensive knowledge in divinity, in Oriental learning, and in church-government. He very often spake, when enquiries into the primitive constitution of the Christian church were under consideration; and also when places of the Holy Scriptures were produced to stand for proof of such points of doctrine or discipline as were under decision. He often gave very remarkable interpretations of controverted places; I say not whether he was right or wrong, leaving the reader to judge for himself. When some divines in the Assembly were for gathered churches, consisting only of Saints, and produced for that purpose, Rev. xv. 3.-Thou King of Saints; Dr Seaman objected to it, because the reading was doubtful, some copies reading, Thou King of Ages, or Everlasting. And Lightfoot backed him, by shewing, that the Syriac and Arabic read to the same import, King of the World, or of Ages.-When a debate commenced respecting the persons who should read the Holy Scriptures in public, and some were for the pastors doing it themselves, and Gouge and Marshall seemed to be for some expert and sober persons of the laity, Lightfoot shewed at large, that none in the Jewish synagogue read the law and the prophets, but public officers, and of the Levitical order. He produced the following arguments for the support of his assertion: Their multitude of universities for the education of the Levites for such purposes, viz. forty-eight; and their curiosity, that not a tittle of the law should be mistaken by those persons who read it. But Mr Reyner urged, that the Levites were not types of the pastors, but the priests were. To this Lightfoot answered, that the Levites in the Temple were one thing, and in the Synagogues another; for though these at the Temple were servants to the priests, yet in their Synagogues they were their pastors. When the bishops, who had been employed to ordain, were voted out of the House, and their jurisdiction laid aside, the Assembly brought in this position respecting Ordination, That in extraordinary cases, some things extraordinary may be done, until a settled order may be had. Lightfoot was of this mind, shewing, that even some positive laws of God gave place not only to necessity, but even to convenience; as the steps to Solomon's altar, and many candlesticks and tables in the Temple. But when - as a proof of it, that place was produced, 2 Chron. xxix. 34, The priests were too few, so that they could not flay all the burnt-offerings; wherefore their brethren the Levites did help them till the work was ended, and until the other priests had sanctified themselves. And Bathurst spake to that place to prove it pregnant; and also out of Numb. xviii. 4, 5, 6. and Levit. i. would prove that the Levites had nothing to do in slaying the sacrifices. Lightfoot answered them, and so did Coleman and Selden, who declared the contrary. When voted, it was carried that it was a pregnant place; but Lightfoot gave his negative. When some in the Assembly called in question the equality of Matthias with the rest of the apostles, because he was chosen by lot, and not immediately called by Christ, he answered, That the lot did argue his immediate call. Because the apostles could not ordain him for an apostle by imposition of their hands, but sought to the immediate imposition of Christ's hands by a lot A question arose in the Assembly, whether excommunication should be done in a Presbytery, or in the presence of the whole church. Some were for it done in the presence of the whole church, bringing as proof, 1 Cor. v. 4. -When ye are gathered together, &c. Lightfoot said, That the gathering together here respected the heartburnings among them. That they triumphed one against another in the very act of the incestuous person; and, therefore, he commands them to convene, unite in affection, and agree among themselves. And after two or three debates upon the case of the incestuous person, Lightfoot said again, That this case of the Corinthians was such as cannot be among us; for they were hedged in with the heathen, and the apostle plainly tells, that there was an iniquity among them more than heathenish, v. 1. Therefore, if he would have the whole church to come together, and cast out this member, for the vindication of the whole church, it is a singular example, and cannot be paralleled among us-Several members offered Cor. v. 2. for excommunication, and for excluding from the communion; where direction is given that the incestuous person be taken away from among them. But Lightfoot's judgment was, that this place did not at all respect excommunication. The dispute continued the whole day. And when the place was carried for a proof of excommunication, he gave his denial. Nor did he relish Mat. xviii. 17. which was also brought for excommunication. He considered it as speaking of offence given from a member to his pastor.-That it spake of shaming an offender, and not of censuring. For that the two or three, ver. 16. not the church, had to do with the offender.-That the Heathen and Publicans had access to sacred things; but the Jews abhorred their civil society. And this was to be as an heathen man and a publican, to have no society with such: but to be as a publican included not excommunication. Again, after Herle and Reynolds had spoken for that passage as proving excommunication, he answered them, 1. with the question, Are the two or three here named witnesses, as they would have them? For it is plain, that these must be admonishers. 2. He shewed that the text and speech of our Saviour was upon occasion of the disciples quarreling. Now how improper is it, when he is speaking of offence between brother and brother, to conclude what such an one shall be to the church, and not to the party offended? When the dispute came on between the Independents and the other party respecting Congregations, whether there were more than one in a city, especially in Jerusalem? and Dr Temple doubted whether there were many fixed congregations in that city, and it seemed to him there were not; Lightfoot answered in several particulars. 1. That such a multitude of pastors as were there at Jerusalem could not suit with one congregation. 2. That there were divers languages, that understood not one another; therefore there could not be but divers congregations. 3. That one part of the church had deacons, the other not; therefore we must make a distinction of their congregations. 4. In Acts xii. 12, we are informed that Many were gathered together praying; and yet James and the brethren were not there. Burroughs and Lightfoot had a controversy respecting the five thousand who were added to the church, Acts iv. whether they were new converts, which Lightfoot positively declared, and Burroughs denied. And when Lightfoot had done, Palmer supported him in that.Lightfoot contended, in the Assembly, for general admission unto the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, explaining the institution of it from the passover, and using the following arguments in support of his opinion. 1. That though the law forbid the unclean to come to sacred things, yet it gave not power unto any person to repel those who offered themselves to come: nor find we any such example. 2. Circumcision was indifferently administered to all the seed of Abraham; and therefore all ought to be admitted unto the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. 3. Judas received that sacrament; and there fore the admission should be general. When an instance was produced against his opinion, in his first argument, in the repulsion of Uzziah, 2 Chron. xxvi. he replied, that Uzziah's repulsion was from office and place, and not from the use of holy things. And he added, Grant that the priest then did and might repel the unclean, yet the case was now different; for that uncleanness was external, and it might be known whether the persons were purified or not. But a minister cannot now so judge of a man's conscience; for though he were scandalous yesterday, yet his repentance may be unfeigned to-day, for aught he knows. When the Assembly opposed to his opinion, Mat vii. 6. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you, he replied, That this was spoken respecting the safety of the apostles.-That the Jews themselves, who use this proverb, by dogs and swine understand the bitter enemies and prsecutors of the truth. And so our Saviour hereby warrants his disciples, though they preach not to persecutors and enemies, lest it cost them their lives. Respecting Judas, it was urged against his opinion, That though Christ knew the heart, yet the villany of Judas was not known among the disciples. He replied, That Christ had publicly marked him out for a traitor before. |