A Christian Directory

Quest. 4. Whether it be necessary to believe that the Pope is the Antichrist?

IT is one question, Whether he be Antichrist, and another, Whether it be necessary to believe it? To the first I say, 1. There are many Antichrists: And we must remove the ambiguity of the name, before we can resolve the question. If by Antichrist be meant, [ One that usurpeth the Office of a Universal Vicar of Christ, and Constitutive and Governing Head of the whole Visible Church, and hereby layeth the ground of Schisms, and Contentions, and Bloodshed in the world, and would rob Christ of all his members, who are not of the Popes Kingdom, and that formeth a multifarious Ministry for this service, and corrupteth much of the Doctrine, Worship and Discipline of the Church, ] in this sense no doubt but the Pope is Antichrist.

But if by Antichrist be meant him particularly described in the Apocalypse and Thessalonians, then the controversy de re, is about the exposition of those dark Prophecies. Of which I can say no more but this, 1. That if the Pope be not He; he had ill luck to be so like him. 2. That Dr. Moors Moral Arguments, and Bishop Downhams and many others expository arguments, are such as I cannot answer. 3. But yet my skill is not so great in interpreting those obscure Prophecies, as that I can say, I am sure that it is the Pope they speak of, and that Lyra, learned Zanchi and others that think it is Mahomet, or others that otherwise interpret them, were mistaken.

II. But to the second Question, I more boldly say, 1. That everyone that indeed knoweth this to be the sense of those Texts, is bound to believe it.

2. But that God who hath not made it of necessity to salvation to understand many hundred plainer Texts, nor absolutely to understand more than the Articles and fundamentals of our Religion, hath much less made it necessary to salvation to understand the darkest Prophecies.

3. And that as the suspicion should make all Christians cautelous, what they receive from Rome, so the obscurity should make all Christians take heed, that they draw from it no consequences destructive to Love or order, or any truth, or Christian duty. And this is the advice I give to all.

Quest. 5. Whether we must hold that a Papist may be saved?

THis question may be resolved easily from what is said before.

1. A Papist as a Papist, that is, by Popery, will never be saved, no more than a man's life by a Leprosy.

2. If a Papist be saved, he must be saved against, and from Popery, either by turning from the opinion, and then he is no Papist, or by preserving his heart from the power of his own opinions. And the same we may say of every error and sin. He that is saved, must be saved from it, at least from the Power of it on the heart, and from the guilt of it by forgiveness.

3. Everyone that is a true sincere Christian in Faith, Love and true Obedience shall be saved, what error soever he hold that doth consist with these.

4. As many Antinomians and other erroneous persons, do hold things which by consequence subvert Christianity; and yet not seeing the inconsistence, do hold Christianity first and faster, in heart and sincere practice, and would renounce their error if they saw the inconsistence, so is it with many Papists. And that which they hold first and fastest and practically, doth save them from the power, operations, and poison of their own opinions: As an Antidote or the strength of nature may save a man from a small quantity of poison.

5. Moreover we have cause to judge that there are millions among the Papists, corrupted with many of their lessor errors, who yet hold not their greater; that believe not that none are Christians but the Popes subjects, and that Christ's Kingdom and the Popes are of the same extent, or that he can remit men's pains in another world, or that the Bread and Wine are no Bread and Wine, or that men merit of God in point of Commutative Justice, or that we must adore or worship the Bread, or yet the Cross or Image itself, &c. Or that consent to abundance of the Clergies tyrannical usurpations and abuses: And so being not properly Papists, may be saved, if a Papist might not. And we the less know how many or few among them are really of the Clergies Religion and mind, because by terror they restrain men from manifesting their judgment, and compel them to comply in outward things.

6. But as fewer that have Leprosies, or Plagues, or that take poison scape, than of other men, so we have great cause to believe, that much fewer Papists are saved, than such as escape their errors. And therefore all that love their souls should avoid them.

7. And the trick of the Priests who persuade people that theirs is the safest Religion, because we say that a Papist may be saved, and they say that a Protestant cannot, is so palpable a cheat, that it should rather deter men from their way. For God is Love, and he that dwelleth in Love dwelleth in God: And all men must know us to be Christ's Disciples, by loving one another; And he that saith he loveth God, and loveth not his Brother, is a liar: And charity believeth all things, credible: That Religion is likest to be of God which is most charitable, and not that which is most uncharitable, and malicious, and like to Satan.

To conclude, no man shall be saved for being no Papist, much less for being a Papist. And all that are truly holy, heavenly, humble, lovers of God, and of those that are his servants, shall be saved. But how many such are among the Papists, God only knoweth who is their Judge.

THe Questions whether the Greeks, Abbyssinians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Antinomians, Anabaptists, &c. may be saved, must be all resolved as this of the Papists, allowing for the different degrees of their corruption: And therefore I must desire the Reader to take up with this answer for all, and excuse me from unnecessary repetition.

As for such disputers as my Antagonist Mr. Johnson, who insisteth on that of Tit. 3. 10. A man that is an Heretic—is condemned of himself; when he hath proved that the word Heretic hath but one signification, I will say as he doth. Till then, if he will try who shall be damned by bare equivocal words, without the definition, let him take his course, for I will be none of his imitators.

Quest. 6. Whether those that are in the Church of Rome, are bound to separate from it? And whether it be lawful to go to their Mass or other Worship?

THese two also for brevity I join together.

I. To the first, we must distinguish of separation: 1. It is one thing to judge that evil which is evil, and separate from it in Judgment. 2. It is another thing to express this by forbearing to subscribe, swear, or otherwise approve that evil. 3. And another thing to forbear communion with them in the Mass and Image Worship, and gross or known sins. 4. And another thing to forbear all communion with them, even as to Baptism, and other lawful things. 5. And another thing to use some open detestations or protestations against them.

2. And we must distinguish much of persons, whether they be Ministers or people, free or bound, as Wives, Children, &c. And now I answer.

1. There is no question but it is a duty to judge all that evil which is evil, among the Papists or any other.

2. It is the duty of all to forbear subscribing, swearing to, or otherwise approving evil.

3. It is the duty of all Mass-Priests to renounce that part of their calling, and not to administer their Mass, or any other unlawful thing.

4. It is the duty of all private Christians to forbear communion in the Mass, because it is a kind of Idolatry, while they worship a piece of Bread as God: As also Image-Worship and all other parts of their Religion, in which they are put upon sin themselves, or that which is notorious scandal and symbolizing with them in their Bread-worship, or other corruptions of the substance of God's Ordinances.

5. It is their duty who have fit opportunity, (when it is like to do more good than harm) to protest against the Papal corruptions where they are, and to declare their detestation of them.

6. It is the duty of those that have children to be baptized, or catechized, to make use of more lawful and sound Ministers, when they may be had; rather than of a Papist Priest.

7. But in case they cannot remove or enjoy better, I think it is lawful, 1. To let such baptize their children, rather than leave them unbaptized. 2. To let their children be taught by them to read, or in Arts and Sciences, or the Catechism, and common principles of Religion, so they will mix no dangerous errors. 3. And to hear those of them preach, who preach soundly and piously (such as were Gerrhard Zu • phaniensis, Thaulerus, Ferus, and many more). 4. And to read such good Books as these now mentioned have written. 5. And to join with them in such Prayers as are • ound and pious, so they go no further.

8. And Wives, Children, and such other as are bound, and cannot lawfully remove, may stay among them, and take up with th • se helps, dealing faithfully in abstaining from the rest.

II. The second Question is answered in this. Only I add, that it is one thing to be present as Elias was, in a way of opposition to them; or as Disputants are, that open their errors; or as a wise man may go to hear or see what they do without compliance, as we read their Books: And it is another thing to join with them in their sinful worship, or scandalously to encourage them in it by seeming so to do. See Calv. Contr. Nicod. &c.

Quest. 7. Whether the true Calling of the Minister by Ordination or Election, &c. be necessary to the Essence of the Church?

BY a Church here we mean a Political Society of Christians, and not any Assembly or Community. And no doubt but Pastor and Flock are the constitutive parts of such a Church; And where either of them are notoriously wanting, it is notorious that there is no true Church. Therefore all the doubt is, whether such parts of his Call be necessary to the being of the Ministry, or not? And here we must conclude, that the word [ Ministry ] and [ Church ] are ambiguous: By a Mister or Pastor is meant either one that God so far owneth as to accept and justify his administrations as for himself, even his own good and salvation; or one whose administrations God will own, accept and bless to the people.

I. In the former sense 1. He is no true Minister that wanteth the essential qualifications of a Minister, viz. that hath not, 1. The understanding and belief of all the essential Articles of faith, without Heresy. 2. Tolerable Ability to teach these to the people, and perform the other essentials of his office. 3. Sincere Godliness, to do all this in Love and obedience to God as his Servant, in order to life eternal. 2. And he is thus no true Pastor as to God's acceptance of himself, who hath not a lawful Calling; that is, 1. Ordination, when it may be had; 2. The Consent or Reception of that Church of which he pretendeth to be Pastor, which is still necessary, and must be had, if Ordination cannot.

II. But in the second sense, he is a Pastor so far as that God will own his Administrations as to the Peoples Good, who 1. Hath possession, 2. And seemeth to them to have necessary qualifications, and a lawful call, though it prove otherwise, so be it, it be not through their willful fault, that he is culpable or they mistaken in him. If he be not a true Believer but an Infidel, or Heretic, he is no Minister as to himself, that is, God will use him as an Usurper that hath no title: But if he profess to be a believer when he is not, he is a true Pastor visibly to the people; Otherwise they could never know when they have a Pastor: Even as real faith makes a real Christian, and Professed faith maketh a visible Christian, so is it as to the Ministry. If he seem to understand the Articles of faith and do not, or if he seem to have due ordination when he hath not, if he be upon this mistake Accepted by the people, he is a true Visible Pastor as to them, that is, as to their Duty and Benefit, though not as to himself. Yea, the people's consent to his entrance is not necessary ad esse, nor to his Relation neither, so far as to justify himself, but to his Administrations and to his Relation, so far as their own Right and benefit is interested in it. So that two things are necessary to such a Visible Pastor as shall perform valid administrations to the Church, 1. Seeming necessary qualifications and Calling to it. 2. Possession, by the people's Reception or Consent to his Administrations and Relation so far as to their benefit.

And II. Thus also we must distinguish of the word [ Church ] It is, 1. Such an entire Christian society as hath a Minister or Pastor whose office is valid as to himself and them; Or it is such a society only as hath a Pastor whose office is valid to them but not to himself: Let us not confound the question de re and de nomine. These societies differ as is said. Both may fitly be called True Churches.

As it is with a Kingdom which hath a Rightful Prince, and one that hath an Usurper, so is it here, 1. If it have a Rightful King accepted, it is a Kingdom in the fullest sense: 2. If it have an Usurper accepted as King, it is a Kingdom, but faulty. 3. If the Usurper be only so far accepted as that the people consent not to his entrance, no nor his Relation so as to justify his title, but wish him cast out if they could procure it; but yet consent to receive that Protection and Justice which is their own due from the possessor, and consent to his Relation only thus far, this is a Kingdom truly, but more defective or maimed than the first. 4. But if the people do not so much as Receive him, nor submit to his Administrations, he is but a Conqueror, and not a King, and it is (in respect to him) no Kingdom, (though in respect to some other that hath title and consent without actual possession of the Administration, it may be a Kingdom.) And this is the true and plain solution of this question, which want of distinction doth obscure.

Quest. 8. Whether sincere faith and Godliness be necessary to the Being of the Ministry? And whether it be lawful to hear a wicked man, or take the Sacrament from him, or take him for a Minister.

THis question receiveth the very same solution with the last foregoing, and therefore I need not say much more to it.

I. The first part is too oft resolved mistakingly on both extremes. Some absolutely saying that Godliness or Faith is not necessary to the Being of the Ministry; And some that it is necessary. Whereas the true solution is as aforesaid; Sincere faith and Godliness is necessary to make a man a Minister so far as that God will own and justify him as sent by himself, as to his own Duty and Benefit: For he cannot be Internally, and Heartily a Christian Pastor that is no Christian, nor a Minister of God, who is not Godly, that is, • s not truly Resigned to God, obeyeth him not and Loveth him not as God. But yet the Reality of these are not necessary to make him a Visible Pastor, as to the Peoples Duty and Benefit.

2. But the Profession of true Faith and Godliness is necessary so far, as that without it the people ought not to take him for a Visible Minister, (as the profession of Christianity is to a visible Christian.)

3. And in their choice they ought to prefer him caeteris paribus, whose profession is most credible.

Obj. That which maketh a Minister is Gifts and a Calling, which are distinct from Grace and real Christianity.

Answ. Every Minister is a Christian, though every Christian be not a Minister or Pastor: Therefore he that is a Visible Pastor must Visibly or in Profession have both.

Obj. But a man may be a Christian without saving Grace or Godliness.

Answ. As much as he may be Godly without Godliness. That is, he may be Visibly a Christian and Godly, without sincere faith or Godliness, but not without the profession of both. It is not possible that the profession of Christianity in the Essentials, can be without the profession of Godliness: For it includeth it.

II. To the other question I answer, 1. A man that Professeth Infidelity or Impiety, yea that Professeth not faith and Godliness is not to be taken for a Minister or heard as such.

2. Everyone that professeth to stand to his Baptismal Covenant professeth faith and Godliness.

3. He that by a vicious life or bad application of doctrine contradicteth his profession, is to be lawfully accused of it, and heard speak for himself, and to be cast out by true Church-justice, and not by the private censure of a private person.

4. Till this be done, though a particular private member of the Church be not bound to think that the Minister is Worthy, nor that the Church which suffereth him and receiveth him doth well, yet they are bound to judge him one who by the Churches reception is in possession; and therefore a visible Pastor, and to submit to his public Administrations: Because it is not in a private man's power, but the Churches, to determine who shall be the Pastor.

5. But if the case be past Controversy and notorious, that the man is not only scandalous and weak and dull and negligent, but also either 1. Intolerably unable, 2. Or an Infidel, or gross Heretic, 3. Or certainly ungodly, a private man should admonish the Church and him, and in case that they proceed in impenitency, should remove himself to a better Church and Ministry: And the Church itself, should disown such a man, and commit their souls to one that is fitter for the trust.

6. And that Church or person who needlessly owneth such a Pastor, or preferreth him before a fitter, doth thereby harden him in his usurpation, and is guilty of the hurt of the people's souls, and of his own, and of the dishonor done to God.

Quest. 9. Whether the people are bound to Receive or Consent to an ungodly, intolerable, heretical Pastor, yea or one far less fit and worthy than a competitor, if the Magistrate command it, or the Bishop impose him?

FOr the deciding of this take these Propositions.

1. The Magistrate is authorized by God to Govern Ministers and Churches, according to the orders and Laws of Christ (and not against them:) But not to ordain or degrade, nor to make Ministers or unmake them, nor to deprive the Church of the Liberty settled on it by the Laws of Christ.

2. The Bishops or Ordainers are authorized by Christ, to judge of the fitness of the person to the office in general, and solemnly to invest him in it, but not to deprive the people of their freedom, and exercise of the natural care of their own salvation, or of any Liberty given them by Christ.

3. The people's Liberty in choosing, or consenting to their own Pastors to whom they must commit the • are of their souls, is partly founded in nature, (it being they that must have the benefit or loss, and no man being authorized to damn or hazard men's souls, at least against their wills): And partly settled by Scripture, and continued in the Church above a thousand years after Christ, at least in very many parts of it. See Blondels Full proof de jure plebis in regim. Eccles. Hildebertus Caenoman. (alias Turonensis ) even in his time showeth that though the Clergy were to lead and the people to follow, yet no man was to be made a Bishop, or put upon the people without their own consent: Epist. 12. Bibl. Pet. To. 3. p. 179. Filesacus will direct you to more such testimonies: But the thing is past Controsie. I need not cite to the learned the commonly cited testimony of Cyprian, Plebs maximam habet potestatem indignos recusandi, &c. And indeed in the nature of the thing it cannot be: For though you may drench a mad man's body by force, when you give him physic, you cannot so drench men's souls, nor cure them against their wills.

4. Not that the Peoples consent is necessary to the general office of a Gospel Minister, to Preach and Baptize; but only to the appropriation or relation of a Minister to themselves; that is, To the Being of a Pastor of a particular Church as such, but not of a Minister of Christ as such.

5. A man's soul is of so great value above all the favor of man, or treasures of this world, that no man should be indifferent, to what man's care he doth commit it; nor should he hazard it upon the danger of everlasting misery, for fear of displeasing man, or being accused of schism or disorder.

6. There is as great difference between an Able, Learned, Judicious, Orthodox, Godly, diligent, lively Teacher, and an ignorant, Heretical, ungodly, dull and slothful man, as is between a skillful and an Ignorant Pilot at Sea; or between an Able, experienced, faithful Physician, and an ignorant, rash and treacherous one, as to the saving men's lives. And he that would not take a Sot or Emperick for his Physician who were like to kill him, and refuse the counsel of an able Physician, in obedience to a Magistrate or Bishop, hath as little reason to do the like by his soul; nor should he set less by that than by his life. And, if Paul said, we have this power for Edification and not for destruction, we may say so of all Magistrates and Bishops. Sober Divines have lately shown their error who teach men that they must be ready to submit to damnation if God require it, or to suppose that his Glory and our salvation are separable ends; because damnation is a thing which nature necessitateth man not to desire or intend! And shall we ascribe more to a Magistrate than to God? and say that we must cast our souls on a likelihood of damnation to keep order, and in obedience to man? No man can be saved without knowledge and Holiness; An ignorant, dead, ungodly Minister, is far less likely to help us to Knowledge and Holiness, than an Able holy man. To say God can work by the unfittest instrument is nothing to the purpose; Till you prove that God would have us take him for his instrument, and that he useth equally to work by such as well as by the fit and worthy, or that we expect wonders from God, and that ordinarily without tempting him! Yea, when such an Usurper of the Ministry is like to damn himself, as well as the people.

And here to lenifie the minds of Ithacian Prelates towards those that seek their own Edification, in such a case as this, or that refuse unworthy Pastors of their imposing I will entreat them to censure those near them no more sharply than they do the persons in these following instances. Yea if a separatist go too far, use him no more uncharitably, than you would do these men.

1. Gildas Brit. is called Sapiens, and our eldest writer; And yet he calleth the multitude of the lewd British Clergy whom he reprehendeth in his Acris Correptio, Traitors and no Priests; and concludeth seriously, that he that calleth them Priests, is not eximius Christianus, any excellent Christian. Yet those few that were pious he excepteth and commendeth. Shall he account them no Priests, for their sinfulness, and will you force others, not only to call them Priests, but to commit their souls to such men's conduct? When Christ hath said, If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the ditch? And Paul, Take heed unto thyself and unto the doctrine; for in so doing, thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee?

The second is our second (and first English) Historian Beda, and in him the famous Johannes Episc. Hagustaldensis Eccles. who as he reporteth wrought many very great miracles, as Eccles. hist. l. 5. cap. 2, 3, 4, and 5. is to be read: This man had one Herebaldus in his Clergy, after an Abbot; who himself told Beda as followeth. That this Johannes Ep. cured him miraculously of a perilous hurt, taken by disobedient Horsemanship; And when he recovered, he asked him, whether he were sure that he was Baptized? who answered, That he knew it past doubt, and named the Presbyter that Baptized him. The Bishop answered him; If thou wast baptized by that Priest, thou art not rightly baptized: For I know him, and that when he was ordained Presbyter, he was so dull of wit, that he could not learn the Ministry of Catechizing and Baptizing. Wherefore I commanded him altogether to give over the presumption of this Ministry, which he could not regularly fulfill. And having thus said he himself took care to Catechize me the same hour; And—being cured—vitali etiam unda perfusus sum, I was baptized.

I commend not this example of re-baptizing, the rather because, it seems the Priest was not deposed till after he had Baptized Herebaldus: But if he went so far as to re-baptize and account the Baptism a Nullity, which was done by an unable insufficient Presbyter, though rightly ordained, judge but as favourably of men that avoid such Presbyters in our age.

The third instance shall be that of Cyprian and all the worthy Bishops in the Councils of Carthage in his time, who re-baptized those Baptized by Heretics! And consider with all that in those times many were called Heretics whom we call but Schismatics, that drew Disciples after them into separated bodies and parties, speaking perverse things, though not contrary to the very Essentials of Religion. I justify not their opinion. But if so many holy Bishops counted the very Baptism of such a nullity, be not too severe and censorious against those that go not all so far from an insufficient or ungodly, or grossly scandalous man, for the me • preservation of their own souls.

To these I will add the saying of one the honester sort of Jesuits, Acosta; and in him of an ancienter than he: Lib. 4. c. 1. p. 354. de reb. Indic. He extolleth the words of Diony • ius Epist. 8. ad Demoph. which are [ Si igitur quae illuminate sacerdotum est sancta distinctio, proculdubio ill à sacerdotali ordine & virtute omnino prolapsus est, qui illuminans non est, multoque sane magis qui neque illuminatus est. Atque mihi quidem videtur audax nimium bujusmodi est, si sacerdotalia • unia sibi assumit; neque metuit, neque veretur ea quae sunt Divina praeter meritum persequi; put • tque ea latere Deum, quorum sibi ipse conscius sit; & se Deum fallere existimat, quem falso nomine appellate Patrem; audetque scelestas blasphemias suas (neque enim preces dixerim) sacris aris infer; easque super signa illa Divina, ad Christi similitudinem dicere. Non est iste sacerdos; non est; sed infestus, atrox, dolosus, illusor sui, & lupus in dominicam gregem ovina pelle armatus. ] His plura aut majora de evangelici ministry, & culmine & praecipitio qui expectat, cuique ad resipiscendum non ista sufficiunt, infatuatum se juxta Domini sententiam, & nullo unquam sale saliri posse demonstrate. I will not English it, lest those take encouragement by it, who are bent to the other extreme.

7. Yet it will be a great offense, if any censorious self-conceited person, shall on this pretence, set up his judgment of men's parts, to the contempt of Authority, or to the vilifying of worthy men; and especially if he thereby make a stir and Schism in the Church, instead of seeking his own edification.

8. Yea, if a Minister be weaker, yea, and colder and worse than another, yet if his Ministry be competently fitted to edification, he that cannot leave him and go to a better, without apparent hurt to the Church, and the souls of others, by division, or exasperating Rulers, or breaking family order or violating Relation duties, must take himself to be at present, denied the greater helps that others have, and may trust God in the use of those weaker means, to accept and bless him; because he is in the station where he hath set him. This case therefore must be Resolved by a prudent comparing of the Good or Hurt which is like to follow, and of the accidents or circumstances whence that must be discerned.

Quest. 10. What if the Magistrate command the people to receive one Pastor, and the Bishops or Ordainers another, which of them must be obeyed?

1. THe Magistrate and not the Bishop or people, (unless under him) hath the power and disposal of the Circumstantials or Accidents of the Church; I mean of the Temple, the Pulpit, the Tythes, &c. And he is to determine what Ministers are fit either for his own Countenance or Toleration and what not. In these therefore he is to be obeyed before the Bishops or others.

2. If a Pope or Prelate of a foreign Church, or any that hath no lawful Jurisdiction or Government over the Church that wanteth a Pastor, shall command them to receive one, their command is null, and to be contemned.

3. Neither Magistrate nor Bishop, as is said, may deny the Church or people any Liberty which God in Nature, or Christ in the Gospel hath settled on them, as to the Reception of their proper Pastors.

4. No Bishop, but only the Magistrate can compel by the Sword, the obedience of his commands.

5. If one of them command the reception of a worthy person, and the other of an intolerable one, the former must prevail, because of obedience to Christ, and care of our souls.

6. But if the persons be equal, or both fit, the Magistrate is to be obeyed, if he be peremptory in his commands, and decide the case in order to the peace or protection of the Church; both because it is a lawful thing, and because else he will permit no other.

7. And the rather because the Magistrates Power is more past controversy, than Whether any Bishop, Pastor or Synod can any further than by counsel and persuasion, oblige the People to receive a Pastor.

Quest. 11. Whether an uninterrupted Succession either of right Ordination or of Conveyance by Jurisdiction, be necessary to the Being of the Ministry, or of a true Church?

THe Papists have hitherto insisted on the necessity of successive right Ordination: But Vo • tius de desperata Causa Papatus hath in this so handled them, and confuted Jansen, as hath indeed shown the desperateness of that Cause: And they perceive that the Papacy itself cannot be upheld by that way; and therefore Johnson, alias Terret, in his Rejoinder against me now concludeth, that it is not for want of a successive Consecration that they condemn the Church of England, but for want of true Jurisdiction, because other Bishops had title to the places whilst they were put in: And that successive Consecration (which we take to include Ordination) is not necessary to the being of Ministry or Church. And it is most certain to any man acquainted in Church History, that their Popes have had a succession of neither. Their way of Election hath been frequently changed, sometimes being by the people, sometimes by the Clergy, sometimes by the Emperors, and lastly by the Cardinals alone. Ordination they have sometime wanted, and a Lay-man been chosen: And oft the Ordination hath been by such as had no power according to their own Laws. And frequent intercisions have been made, sometime by many years vacancy, when they had no Church, (and so there was none on Earth, if the Pope be the Constitutive Head) for want of a Pope; sometime by long Schisms, when of two or three Popes, no one could be known to have more right than the other, nor did they otherwise carry it, than by power at last: Sometimes by the utter incapacity of the possessors, some being Lay-men, some Heretics and Infidels, so judged by Councils at Rome, Constance, Basil; and Eugenius the fourth continued after he was so censured and condemned and deposed by the General Council. I have proved all this at large elsewhere.

And he that will not be cheated with a bare sound of words, but will ask them, whether by a succession of Jurisdiction, they mean Efficient Conveying Jurisdiction in the Causers of his Call, or Received 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 Jurisdiction in the Office received, will find that they do but hide their desperate Cause in Confusion and an insignificant noise. For they maintain that none on earth have an Efficient Jurisdiction in making Popes. For the former Pope doth not make his successor; And both Electors, Ordainers and Consecrators, yea, and the people Receiving, they hold to be subjects of the Pope when made, and therefore make him not by Jurisdiction giving him the power. Therefore Johnson tells me, that Christ only, and not man, doth give the power, and they must needs hold that men have nothing to do but design the person Recipient by Election and Reception, and to Invest him ceremonially in the possession. So that no Efficient Jurisdiction is here used at all by man. And for Received Jurisdiction, 1. No one questioneth but when that Office is received which is Essentially Governing, he that receiveth it receiveth a Governing power, or else he did not receive the Office. If the question be only, whether the Office of a Bishop, be an Office of Jurisdiction, or contain essentially a Governing power, they make no question of this themselves. So that the noise of Successive Jurisdiction is vanished into nothing. 2. And with them that deny any Jurisdiction to belong to Presbyters, this will be nothing as to their case, who have nothing but Orders to receive.

They have nothing of sense left them to say but this, That though the Efficient Jurisdiction which maketh Popes be only in Christ, because no men are their Superiors, yet Bishops and Presbyters who have Superiors, cannot receive their power but by an Efficient Power of man, which must come down by uninterrupted succession.

Answ. 1. And so if ever the Papal Office have an intercision, (as I have proved it hath had as to lawful Popes) the whole Catholic Church is nullified; and it is impossible to give it a new being, but by a new Pope.

But the best is, that by their Doctrine indeed they need not to plead for an uninterrupted succession either of Popes, Bishops or Presbyters, but that they think it a useful cheat to perplex all that are not their subjects. For if the Papacy were extinct an hundred years, Christ is still alive: And seeing it is no matter ( ad esse ) who be the Electors or Consecrators, so it be but made known conveniently to the people, and Men only Elect and Receive the person, and Christ only giveth the power (by his stated Law) what hindereth after the longest extinction or intercision, but that somebody, or some sort of persons may choose a Pope again, and so Christ make him Pope? And thus the Catholic Church may die and live again by a new Creation, many times over.

And when the Pope hath a Resurrection after the longest intercision, so may all the Bishops and Priests in the world, because a new Pope can make new Bishops, and new Bishops can make new Priests. And where then is there any show of necessity of an uninterrupted succession of any of them. All that will follow is, that the particular Churches die, till a Resurrection: And so doth the whole Church on earth every time the Pope dieth, till another be made, if he be the Constitutive Head.

2. But as they say that Christ only Efficiently giveth the Power to the Pope, so say we to the Bishops or Pastors of the Church. For there is no act of Christ's Collation to be proved, but the Scripture Law or Grant: And if that standing Law give Power to the Pope, when men have but designed the Person, the same Law will do the same to Bishops or Pastors: For it establisheth their Office in the same sort. Or rather in truth there is no word, that giveth power to any such Officer as an Universal Head or Pope, but the Law for the Pastoral Office is uncontrovertible.

And what the Spanish Bishops at Trent thought of the Divine Right of the Bishops Office, I need not mention.

I shall therefore thus truly resolve the question.

1. In all Ordinations and Elections man doth but first choose the Recipient person: 2. And Ceremoniously and Ministerially Invest him in the Possession when God hath given him the power: But the efficient Collation or Grant of the Power is done only by Christ, by the Instrumentality of his Law or Institution. As when the King by a Charter saith, Whoever the City shall choose, shall be their Mayor, and have such and such power, and be Invested in it by the Recorder or Steward: Here the person elected receiveth all his Power from the King by his Charter, (which is a standing Efficient, conveying it to the Capable Chosen person,) and not from the Choosers or Recorder; only the last is as a servant to deliver possession. So is it in this case.

2. The regular way of entrance appointed by Christ to make a person capable, is the said Election, and Ordination. And for order sake where that may be had, the unordained are not to be received as Pastors.

3. If any get Possession, by false pretended Ordination or Mission, and be Received by the Church, I have before told you that he is a Pastor as to the Churches use and benefit, though not to his own. And so the Church is not extinct by every fraudulent usurpation or mistake, and so not by want of a true Ordination or Mission.

4. If the way of regular Ordination fail, God may otherwise (by the Churches necessity and the notorious aptitude of the person ) notify his will to the Church, what person they shall receive: (As if a Lay-man were cast on the Indian shore and converted thousands, who could have no Ordination) And upon the people's Reception or Consent, that man will be a true Pastor.

And seeing the Papists in the conclusion (as Johnson ubi supra ) are fain to cast all their cause on the Churches Reception of the Pope, they cannot deny reasonably but ad esse the Churches reception may serve also for another Officer. And indeed much better than for a Pope. For 1. The Universal Church is so great, that no man can know when the Greater part Receiveth him, and when not, except in some notorious declarations. 2. And it is now known, that the far greater part of the Universal Church (the Greeks, Armenians, Abbyssinians, Copties, Protestants, &c. ) do not receive the Roman Head. 3. And when one part of Europe received one Pope, and another part another Pope for above forty years together, who could tell which of the parties was to be accounted the Church? It was not then known, nor it is not known yet to this day: And no Papist can prove it, who affirmeth it.

As a Church e. g. Constantinople may be gathered, or oriri de novo where there is none before, so may it be restored where it is extinct. And possibly a Lay-man (as Frumentius and Edesi • s in the Indies ) may be the instrument of men's conversion. And if so, they may by consent become their Pastors, when regular Ordination cannot be had.

I have said more of this in my Disputations of Church-Government Disp. 2. The truth is, this pretence of a Necessity of uninterrupted successive Ordination, Mission, or Jurisdictional Collation ad esse, to the being of Ministry or Church, is but a cheat of men that have an interest of their own which requireth such a plea, when they may easily know, that it would overthrow themselves.

Quest. 12. Whether there be, or ever was such a thing in the world, as one Catholic Church, Constituted by any Head besides or under Christ?

THe greatest and first controversy between us and the Papists, is not What man, or Politick person, is the Head of the whole Visible Church: But, Whether there be any such Head at all, eiPersonal or Collective, Monarchical, Aristocratical or Democratical under Christ, of his appointment or allowance? Or any such thing as a Catholic Church so Headed or Constituted? Which they affirm and we deny. That neither Pope nor General Council is such a Head, I have proved so fully in my Key for Catholics and other Books, that I will not here stay to make repetition of it. That the Pope is no such Head, we may take for granted, 1. Because they bring no proof of it; whatever they vainly pretend •• 2. Because our Divines have copiously disproved it, to whom I refer you. 3. Because the Universal Church never received such a Head, as I have proved against Johnson. 4. And whether it be the Pope their Bishop of Calcedon ubi sup. & Sancta Clara System. • id. say is not de fide.

That a Council is no such Head, I have largely proved as aforesaid Part 2. Key for Cath. And 1. The use of it being but for Concord proveth it. 2. Most Papists confess it. 3. Else there should be seldom any Church in the world for want of a Head (yea, never any.)

For I have proved there and to Johnson, that there never was a true General Council of the Universal Church: But only Imperial Councils of the Churches under one Emperors power, and those that having been under it, had been used to such Councils: And that it is not a thing ever to be attempted or expected, as being unlawful and morally impossible.

Quest. 13. Whether there be such a thing as a Visible Catholic Church? And what it is?

THe Ancients differently used the terms [ A Catholic Church ] and [ The Catholic Church ]—By the first they meant any particular Church which was part of the Universal; By the second they meant the Universal Church itself. And this is it that we now mean. And I answer Affirmatively, There is a Visible Universal Church, not only as a Community, or as a Kingdom distinct from the King, but as a Political Society.

2. This Church is the Universality of Baptized Visible Christians Headed by Jesus Christ himself.

There is this, and there is no other upon earth. The Papists say, that this is no Visible Church because the Head is not Visible.

I answer, 1. It is not necessary that he be seen, but visible: And is not Christ a Visible person?

2. This Church consisteth of two parts, the Triumphant part in Glory, and the Militant part: And Christ is not only Visible but seen by the triumphant part. As the King is not seen by the ten thousandth part of his Kingdoms, but by his Courtiers and those about him, and yet he is King of all.

3. Christ was seen on earth for above thirty years: and the Kingdom may be called visible in that the King was once visible on earth, and is now visible in Heaven. As if the King would show himself to his people, but one year together in all his life.

4. It ill becometh the Papists of any men, to say that Christ is not visible, who make him, see him, taste him, handle him, eat him, drink him, digest him, in every Church, in every Mass throughout the year, and throughout the world: And this not as divided, but as whole Christ.

Object. But this is not quatenus Regent.

Answ. If you see him that is Regent, and see his Laws and Gospel which are his Governing instruments, together with his Ministers who are his Officers, it is enough to denominate his Kingdom visible.

5. The Church might be fitly denominated Visible secundum quid, if Christ himself were invisible; Because the Politick Body is visible, the dispersed Officers, Assemblies and Laws are visible. But sure all these together may well serve for the denomination.

Quest. 14. What is it that maketh a Visible Member of the Universal Church? And who are to be accounted such?

1. BAptism maketh a Visible member of the Universal Church; and the Baptized, (as to entrance, unless they go out again) are to be accounted such.

2. By Baptism we mean, open devotion or dedication to God by the Baptismal Covenant, in which the adult for themselves, and Parents for their Infants, do Profess Consent to the Covenant of Grace; which includeth a Belief of all the Essential Articles of the faith, and a Resolution for sincere obedience▪ and a Consent to the Relations between God and us, viz. that he be our Reconciled Father, our Savior and our Sanctifier.

3. The Continuance of this Consent, is necessary to the continuance of our visible membership.

4. He that through ignorance, or incapacity for want of water, or a Minister, is not baptized, and yet is solemnly, or notoriously dedicated and devoted to God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, in the same Covenant, though without the outward Sign, and professeth openly the same Religion, is a visible Christian, though not by a complete and regular visibility; As a Soldier not listed nor taking his Colours, or a Marriage not regularly solemnized, &c.

5. He that forsaketh his Covenant, by Apostasy, or is totally and duly excommunicated, ceaseth to be a visible member of the Church.

Quest. 15. Whether besides the Profession of Christianity, either Testimony or Evidence of Conversion, or Practical Godliness be necessary to prove a man a Member of the Universal Visible Church?

1. AS the Mediator is the way to the Father, sent to recover us to God, so Christianity includeth Godliness; And he professeth not Christianity who professeth not Godliness.

2. He that professeth the Baptismal Covenant, professeth Christianity and Godliness, and true Conversion. And therefore cannot be rejected for want of a Profession of Conversion or Godliness.

3. But he that is justly suspected not to understand his own profession, but to speak general words, without the sense, may and ought to be examined by him that is to baptize him: And therefore though the Apostles among the Jews who had been bred up among the Oracles of God, did justly presume of so much understanding, as that they baptized men the same day that they professed to believe in Christ; yet when they baptized converted Gentiles, we have reason to think, that they first received a particular account of their Converts, that they understood the three essential Articles of the Covenant: 1. Because the Creed is fitted to that use, and hath been ever used thereunto by the Churches, as by tradition from the Apostles practice. 2. Because the Church in all ages, as far as Church History leadeth us upward, hath used catechizing before baptizing; yea, and to keep men as Catechumens some time for preparation. 3. Because common experience telleth us, that multititudes can say the Creed, that understand it not.

If any yet urge the Apostles example, I will grant that it obligeth us when the case is the like: (And I will not fly to any conceit of their heart-searching, or discerning men's sincerity.) When you bring us to a people that before were the Visible Church of God, and were all their life time trained up in the knowledge of God, of sin, of duty, of the promised Messiah, according to all the Law and Prophets, and want nothing, but to know the Son and the Holy Ghost, that this Jesus is the Christ, who will reconcile us to God, and give us the sanctifying Spirit, then we will also baptize men, the same day, that they profess to believe in Jesus Christ, and in the Father as reconciled by him, and the Holy Ghost as given by him. But if we have those to deal with who know not God, or sin, or misery, or Scripture Prophecies, no nor natural verities, we know no proof that the Apostles so ha •• ily baptized such.

Of this I have largely spoken in my Treatise of Confirmation.

4. It is not Necessary to a man's Baptism and first Church-membership, that he give any testimony of an antecedent godly life: Because it is Repentance and future obedience professed that is his title; and we must not keep men from Covenanting, till we first see whether they will keep the Covenant which they are to make. For Covenanting goeth before Covenant-keeping: And it is any the most impious sinner who Repenteth, that is to be Washed and Justified as soon as he becometh a Believer.

5. Yet if any that Professeth Faith and Repentance, should commit Whoredom, Drunkenness, Murder, Blasphemy, or any mortal sin, before he is baptized, we have reason to make a stop of that man's baptism, because he contradicteth his own profession, and giveth us cause to take it for hypocritical, till he give us better evidence that he is penitent indeed.

6. Heart-Covenanting maketh an invisible Church-member, and Verbal Covenanting and Baptism make a Visible Church-member. And he that maketh a Profession of Christianity, so far as to declare that he believeth all the Articles of the Creed particularly and understandingly (with some tolerable understanding though not distinct enough and full) and that he openly devoteth himself to God the Father, Son, and Spirit, in the Vow and Covenant of Baptism, doth produce a sufficient title, to the Relation of a Christian and Church-member; and no Minister may reject him, for want of telling, when, and by what arguments, means, order, or degrees he was converted.

7. They that forsake these terms of Church entrance, left us by Christ and his Apostles, and used by all the Churches in the world, and reject those that show the Title of such a Profession, for want of something more, and set up other stricter terms of their own, as necessary to discover men's conversion and sincerity, are guilty of Church tyranny against men, and usurpation against Christ: And of making Engines to divide the Churches; seeing there will never be agreement on any human devised terms, but some will be of one size, and some of another, when they forsake the terms of Christ.

8. Yet if the Pastor shall see cause upon suspicion of hypocrisy, ad melius esse, to put divers questions to one man more than to another, and to desire further satisfaction, the Catechumens ought in conscience to answer him, and endeavor his satisfaction. For a Minister is not tied up to speak only such or such words to the penitent: And he that should say, I will answer you no further than to repeat the Creed, doth give a man reason to suppose him either Ignorant, or Proud, and to suspend the reception of him, though not to deny it. But still ad esse no terms must be imposed as necessary on the Church, but what the Holy Ghost by the Apostles hath established.

Quest. 16. What is necessary to a man's reception into Membership in a particular Church, over and above this foresaid title? Whether any other Trials, or Covenant, or what?

1. A Particular Church is a regular Part of the Universal, as a City of a Kingdom, or a Troop of an Army.

2. Every man that is a member of the particular Church, is a member of the Universal; but everyone that is a member of the Universal Church, is not a member of a particular.

3. Every particular Church hath its own particular Pastor (one or more), and its own particular place or bounds of habitation or residence: Therefore he that will be a member of a particular Church, 1. Must cohabite, or live in a proximity capable of Communion. 2. And must Consent to be a member of that particular Church, and to be under the Guidance of its particular Pastors in their Office work. For he cannot be made a member without his own Consent and Will; nor can he be a member, that subjecteth not himself to the Governor or Guide.

4. He therefore that will intrude into their Communion and privileges without expressing his consent before hand to be a member, and to submit to the Pastoral oversight, is to be taken for an invader.

5. But no other personal qualification is to be exacted of him as necessary, but that he be a member of the Church Universal. As he is not to be baptized again, so neither to give again all that account of his Faith and Repentance particularly which he gave at Baptism: Much less any higher proofs of his sincerity: But if he continue in the Covenant and Church-state which he was Baptized into, he is capable thereby of reception into any particular Church upon particular Consent. Nor is there any Scripture proof of any new examinations about their Conversion or sincerity, at their removals or entrance into a particular Church.

6. But yet because he is not now looked on only as a Covenant-maker, as he was at Baptism, but also as a Covenant-keeper or performer, therefore if any can prove that he is false to his Baptismal Covenant, by Apostasy, Heresy, or a wicked life, he is to be refused till he be Absolved upon his renewed repentance.

7. He that oft professeth to Repent, and by oft revolting into mortal sin, (that is, sin which showeth a state of death) doth show that he was not sincere, must afterward show his Repentance by actual amendment, before he can say, it is his due to be believed.

8. Whether you will call this Consent to particular Church Relation and • ury by the name of a Conant or not, is but lis de nomine: It is no more than mutual Consent that is necessary to be expressed: And mutual Consent expressed may be called a Covenant.

9. Ad melius esse, the more express the Consent or Covenant is, the better: For in so great matters men should know what they do, and deal above board: Especially when experience telleth us, that ignorance and Imagery is ready to eat out the heart of Religion in almost all the Churches in the world. But yet ad esse Churches must see that they feign or make no more Covenants necessary than God hath made▪ because human unnecessary inventions have so long distracted and laid waste the Churches of Christ.

10. The Pastors Consent must concur with the persons to be received: For it must be mutual Consent: And as none can be a member, so none may be a Pastor against his will. And though he be under Christ's Laws what persons to receive, and is not arbitrary, to do what he list, yet he is the Guide of the Church, and the discerner of his own duty. And a Pastor may have reasons to refuse to take a man into his particular Charge, without rejecting him as unworthy. Perhaps he may already have more in number than he can well take care of. And other such Reasons may fall out.

11. In those Countries where the Magistrates Laws and common consent, do take every qualified person for a member of that Church where his habitation is, (called a Parish,) and to which he ordinarily resorteth, the Pastor that undertaketh that charge, doth thereby seem to consent to be Pastor to all such persons in that Parish. And there Cohabitation and ordinary conjunction with the Church, may go for a signification of consent, and instead of more particular Contract or Covenant, by virtue of the exposition of the said Laws and Customs. Yet so, that a man is not therefore to be taken for a member of the Church, merely because he liveth in the Parish; For so Atheists, Infidels, Heretics and Papists may do: But because he is, 1. A Parishioner, 2. Qualified, 3. Joyning with the Church, and actually submitting to the Ministry.

12. Where there is this much only, it is a sinful slander to say that such a Parish is no true Church of Christ; however there may be many desirable orders wanting to its better being. Who hath the power of trying and receiving we shall show anon.

Quest. 17. Wherein doth the Ministerial Office essentially consist?

THe Office of the Sacred Ministry is a mixed Relation (not a simple) 1. As the Minister is related to Christ he is His Servant or Minister by Office, that is, one Commissioned by him for that sacred work, where there is, 1. The Commission itself, (which is not Particular, but General, in a General Law, applicable to each singular person when qualified,) 2. The determination of the individual person who is to receive it: which consisteth in the Call, which I have opened before, and therefore repeat not. Only note again, that by virtue of the General Commission or Institution of the Office in specie, the power is conveyed from Christ to the Individual person, and that the Church (Electors or Ordainers) are not the Donors, Authorizers or Obligers, but only instruments of designing an apt recipient, and delivering him possession. 2. That by virtue of this Institution, Charter, or Law-Commission, it is that the acts of a man seemingly or visibly called, are valid to the Church, though really he were not ordained, or truly called, but deceived them by hypocritical intrusion.

2. The Causation or Efficiency of Christ in the making any one a Minister, is 1. Dispositive, making him a qualified fit recipient; 2. Then Applying the General Commission to him, or giving him the Function itself.

1. The Dispositive acts of Christ are, 1. Giving him competent Knowledge for a Minister: 2. Giving him competent Goodness, that is, Love to God, Truth and Souls, and willingness for the work. 3. Giveing him competent Power or Abilities for Execution, which is principally in Vtterance; and so qualifying his Intellect, Will and Executive Power.

2. The Immediate Conveyance or act of Collation, is 1. An Obligation laid on the person to do the work. 2. Authority given him to warrant him, and to oblige others: That is, a Ius docendi, gubernandi, &c.

3. The form of the Relation is denominated, 1. From the Reception of these Efficiencies in general▪ 2. From the subordination which hereby they are placed in to Christ, as their Relation is denominated a Termino.

1. Formally the Office consisteth in 1. An Obligation to do the work of the Office. 2. Authority to do it, and to oblige others to submit to it.

2. These make up an Office which being denominated also from the Terminus, is considered, 1. As to the nearest term, which is the work to be done. 2. The remote, which is the object of that work.

The work is 1. Teaching: 2. Ruling: 3. Worshipping. And so it is essentially [ An Obligation and Power, of Ministerial Teaching, Ruling and Worshipping God. ]

2. As to the object it is, 1. The world to be Converted. 2. The Converted to be Baptized and Congregated or ordered into particular Societies, (so far as may be). 3. The Baptized and Congregate, to be 1. Taught, 2. Ruled, 3. Guided in Worship.

From all which resulteth an Office, which is Ministerially subordinate to Christ, as 1. The Prophet or Teacher 2. The Ruler, 3. The High Priest and Lover of his Church; And it may be aptly called both, a Teaching Ministry, a Ruling Ministry (not by the Sword, but by the Word) and a Priesthood or Priestly Ministry.

II. As the Pastor is related to the Church, he is 1. A Constitutive part of particular Political Churches: 2. He is Christ's Minister for the Church and for Christ; that is, to Teach, Rule and Worship with the Church. He is Above the Church, and Greater than it, as to Order and Power, and not the Minister of the Church as the Efficient of the Ministry: But he is less and worse than the Church Finally and Materially; and is finally the Churches Minister, as the Physician is the Patients Physician; not made a Physician by him, but chosen and used as his Physician for his cure: So that to speak properly, he is not from them, but for them. He is Christ's Minister for their good; As the Shepherd is his Masters Servant, for his Flock, and so finally only the servant of the Sheep.

The whole uncontrovertible work of the Office is laid down in my small Book called Universal Concord, to which I must refer you.

Quest. 18. Whether the Peoples Choice or Consent is necessary to the Office of a Minister in his first work, as he is to Convert Infidels, and Baptize them? And whether this be a work of Office? And what Call is necessary to it?

I Conjoyn these three distinct Questions for expedition.

I. That it is part of the Ministers Office-work to Teach, Convert and Baptize men, to bring them out of the world into the Church, is undeniable, 1. In Christ's express Commission, Mat. 28. 19, 20. Go disciple me all Nations, baptizing them —2. In the execution of this Commission.

2. That this was not peculiar to the Apostles or their age is proved, 1. Because not an extraordinary work, like Miracles, &c. but the first great business of the Gospel and Ministry in the world. 2. Because others as well as the Apostles did it in that age, and ever since. 3. Because the promise is annexed to the Office thus described [ I am with you always to the end of the world ]: Or if you translate it [ Age ] it is the Age of the Church of the Messiah incarnate, which is all one. 4. Because it was a small part of the world comparatively that heard the Gospel in the Apostles days: And the far greatest part of the world is without it at this day, when yet God our Savior would have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5. Even where the Gospel hath long continued, for the most part there are many still that are in infidelity. And so great a work is not left without an appointed suitable means for its performance: And if an Office was necessary for it in the first age, it is not credible that it is left to private men's charity ever since. 6. Especially considedering that private men are to be supposed insufficient, 1. Because they are not educated purposely for it, but usually for something else: 2. Because that they have other Callings to take them up. 3. Because they have no special obligation. And that which is no man's peculiar work, is usually left undone by all.

II. The people's Call or Consent is not necessary to a Ministers reception of his Office in General, nor for this part of his work in special: But only to his Pastoral Relation to themselves.

1. It is so in other functions that are exercised by skill. The Patients or People make not a man a Physician, or a Lawyer, but only choose what Physician shall be their Physician, and what Lawyer shall be their Counselor.

2. If the people's Call or Consent be necessary, it is either the Infidels or the Churches. Not the Infidels to whom he is to preach: for 1. He is Authorized to preach to them (as the Apostles were) before he goeth to them. 2. Their Consent is but a Natural-consequent-requisite for the Reception and success of their Teaching, but not to the Authority which is pre-requisite. 3. Infidels cannot do so much towards the making of a Minister of Christ. 4. Else Christ would have few such Ministers. 5. If it be Infidels, either all or some? If some, why those rather than others? Or is a man made a Minister by every Infidel auditory that heareth him?

2. Nor is it Christian people that must do this much to the making of a General Minister; For, 1. They have no such Power given for it, in Nature or the Word of God. 2. They are generally unqualified and unable for such a work: 3. They are nowhere obliged to it, nor can fitly leave their Callings for it; Much less to get the abilities necessary to judge: 4. Which of the people have this power? Is it any of them, or any Church of private men? Or someone more than the rest? Neither one nor all can lay any claim to it. There is some reason why this Congregation rather than another should choose their own Pastors: But there is no Reason (nor Scripture) that this Congregation choose a Minister to convert the World.

III. I conclude therefore that the Call of a Minister in General doth consist, 1. Dispositively in the due Qualifications and • nablement of the person: 2. And the Necessity of the people, with opportunity, is a providential part of the Call. 3. And the ordainers are the Orderly Electors and determine • s of the person that shall receive the power from Christ.

1. For this is part of the power of the Keys or Church-Government; 2. And Paul giveth this direction for exercising of this power to Timothy, which showeth the ordinary way of Calling, 2 Tim. 2. 2. And the things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. Act. 13. 1, 2, 3. There were in the Church at Antioch certain Prophets,——As they ministered to the Lord, the Holy Ghost said, separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them; And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. And they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed. In this (whether it be to be called an Ordination, or rather a Mission ) there is somewhat Ordinary (that it be by men in office) and somewhat extraordinary (that it be by a special inspiration of the Holy Ghost.)

And Timothy received his Gifts and Office by the Imposition of the hands of Paul and of the Presbytery. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1. 6. 1 Tim. 5. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man.

These instances make the case the clearer, 1. Because it is certain that all that Governing power which is given by Christ to the Church under the name of the Keys, is given to the Pastors: 2. Because there are no other competitors, to lay a reasonable claim to it.

Quest. 19. Wherein consisteth the Power and Nature of Ordination? And to whom doth it belong? And is it an Act of Jurisdiction? And is Imposition of hands necessary in it?

I. THis is resolved on the by before. 1. Ordination performeth two things; 1. The designation, election or determination of the person who shall receive the Office: 2. The Ministerial Investiture of him in that office: which is a Ceremonial delivery of Possession; As a servant doth deliver possession of a house by delivering him the Key, who hath before received the power or Right from the Owner.

2. The office delivered by this Election and Investiture, is the sacred Ministerial office in General to be after exercised according to particular Calls and opportunities; As Christ called the Apostles, and the Spirit called the ordinary general Teachers of those times; such as Barnabas, Silas, Silvanus, Timothy, Epaphroditus, Apollo, &c. And as is before cited, 2 Tim. 2. 2. As a man is made in General a Licensed Physician, Lawyer, &c.

3. This Ordination is Ordinis gratiâ, necessary to order: and therefore so far necessary as Order is necessary: which is Ordinarily, when the greater interest of the substantial duty, or of the Thing Ordered is not against it. As Christ determined the case of Sabbath keeping, and not eating the Shewbread. As the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, and the end is to be preferred before the separable means: so ordination was instituted for order, and order for the thing ordered and for the work of the Gospel, and the good of souls, and not the Gospel and men's souls for that Order: Therefore when, 1. The death, 2. Distance, 3. Or malignity of the Ordainers depriveth a man of Ordination, these three substitutes may notify to him the Will of God, that he is by him a person called to that office: 1. Fitness for the works, in Understanding, Willingness and Ability; 2. The Necessity of souls, 3. Opportunity.

II. The power of ordaining belongeth not, 1. To Magistrates, 2. Or to private men, either single or as the body of a Church; but 3. To the Senior Pastors of the Church (whether Bishops or Presbyters of a distinct order, the Reader must not expect that I here determine):

For, 1. The Power is by Christ given to them, as is before proved; and in Tit. 1. 5.

2. None else are ordinarily able to discern aright the Abilities of a man for the sacred Ministry. The people may discern a profitable moving Preacher, but whether he understand the Scripture, or the substance of Religion, or be • ound in the faith and not Heretical, and delude them not with a form of well uttered words, they are not ordinarily able to judge.

3. None else are fit to attend this work, but Pastors who are separated to the sacred office. It requireth more time to get fitness for it, and then to perform it faithfully, than either Magistrates or people can ordinarily bestow.

4. The power is nowhere given by Christ to Magistrates or people.

5. It hath been exercised by Pastors or Church-officers only both in, and ever since the Apostles days, in all the Chu • ches of the World. And we have no reason to think that the Church hath been gathered from the begin •••• till now, by so great an error, as a wrong conveyance of the Ministerial power.

III. The word Jurisdiction as applied to the Church officers, is no Scripture Word, and in the common sense soundeth too bigg, as signifying more power than the servants of all must claim; For there is One Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy. But in a moderate sense it may be tolerated As Jurisdiction signifieth in particular, 1. Legislation, 2. Or Judicial Process or Sentence, 3. Or the Execution of such a sentence, strictly taken, so Ordination is no part of Jurisdiction. But as Jurisdiction signifieth the same with the power of Government, Ius Regendi in general, so Ordination is an Act of Jurisdiction: As the placing or choosing of Inferior officers may belong to the Steward of a Family or as the Calling or authorizing of Physicians belongeth to the College of Physicians, and the authorizing of Lawyers to the Judges or Society, or the authorizing of Doctors in Philosophy, to the Society of Philosophers or to particular rulers. Where note that in the three last instances, the Learning or Fitness of the said Persons or Societies, is but their Dispositio vel aptitudo ad potestatem exercendam; but the actual Power of conveying authority to others, or designing the Recipient person, is received from the supreme power of the Land, and so is properly an Act of Authority, here called Jurisdiction.

So that the common distinguishing of Ordination from Jurisdiction or Government, as if they were totâ specie different, is unsound.

IV. Imposition of hands was a sign (like the Kiss of peace, and the anointing of persons, and like our kneeling in Prayer, &c. ) which having first somewhat in their nature, to invite men to the use, was become a common significant sign, of a superiors benediction of an inferior, in those times and Countries. And so was here applied ordinarily for its antecedent significancy and aptitude to this use; and was not purposely Instituted, nor had its significancy newly given it by Institution; And so was not like a Sacrament necessarily and perpetually affixed to Ordination.

Therefore we must conclude, 1. That Imposition of hands in Ordination is a decent, apt, significant sign, not to be scrupled by any, nor to be omitted without necessity, as being of Scripture, ancient, and common use.

2. But yet that it is not essential to Ordination; which may be valid by any fit designation and separation of the person. And therefore if it be omitted, it nullifieth not the action. And if the Ordainers did it by Letters to a man a thousand miles off, it would be valid: And some persons of old were ordained when they were absent.

V. I add as to the need of Ordination, 1. That without this Key, the office and Church doors would be cast open, and every Heretic or Self-conceited person intrude.

2. It is a sign of a proud unworthy person, that will judge himself fit for so great a work, and intrude upon such a conceit, when he may have the Judgment of the Pastors, and avoideth it.

3. Those that so do, should no more be taken for Ministers by the people, than any should go for Christians that are not Baptized, or for married persons whose marriage is not solemnized.

Quest. 20. Is Ordination necessary to make a man a Pastor of a particular Church as such? And is he to be made a General Minister and a particular-Church-Elder or Pastor at once, and by one Ordination?

I Have proved that a man may be made a Minister in general, yea and sent to exercise it in Converting Infidels, and baptizing them, before ever he is the Pastor of any particular Church. To which I add, that in this General Ministry, he is a Pastor in the universal Church, as a Licensed Physician that hath no Hospital or Charge, is a Physician in the Kingdom.

And, 1. As Baptism is as such our Enterance into the universal Church, and not into a particular; so is Ordination to a Minister an entrance only on the Ministry as such.

2. Yet a man may at once be made a Minister in general, and the Pastor of this or that Church in particular: And in Kingdoms wholly enchurched and Christian, it is usually fittest so to do; Lest many being ordained sine titulo, idleness and poverty of supernumeraries, should corrupt and dishonor the Ministry: Which was the cause of the old Canons in this case.

3. But when a man is thus called to both at once, it is not all done by Ordination as such; but his complicate Relation, proceedeth from a complication of Causes. As he is a Minister, it is by Ordination. And as he is The Pastor of this People, it is by the conjunct causes of appropriation; which are, 1. Necessarily the Peoples Consent; 2. Regularly, the Pastors approbation and recommendation, and reception of the person into their Communion. 3. And sometimes the Magistrate may do much •• oblige the people to consent.

4. But when a man is made a Minister in general before, he needeth no 〈◊〉 Ordination to fix him in a particular charge; but only an Approbation, recommendation, particular Investiture, and Reception. For else a man must be oft ordained, even as oft as he removeth. But yet Imposition of hands may fitly be used in this particular Investiture, though it be no proper ordination, that is, no collation of the office of a Minister in general, but the fixing of one that was a Minister before.

Quest. 21. May a man be oft or twice Ordained?

IT is supposed, that we play not with an ambiguous word, that we remember what Ordination is. And then you will see Cause to distinguish, 1. Between entire true Ordination, and the external act or words or ceremony only. 2. Between one that was truly ordained before, and one that was not. And so I answer.

1. He that seemed Ordained, and indeed was not, is not Re-ordained when he is after Ordained.

2. It is needful therefore to know the Essentials of Ordination, from the Integrals and Accidentals.

3. He that was truly Ordained before may in some cases receive again the Repetition of the bare words and outward Ceremonies of Ordination (as Imposition of hands). Where I will, 1. Tell you in what Cases. 2. Why.

1. In case there wanted sufficient witnesses of his Ordination; and so the Church hath not sufficient means of notice or satisfaction, that ever he was ordained indeed: Or if the witnesses die before the notification. Whether the Church should take his word or not, in such a case, is none of my question, but Whether he should submit to the Repetition if they will not.

2. Especially in a time and place (which I have known) when written and sealed Orders are often counterfeited, and so the Church called to extraordinary care.

3. Or if the Church or Magistrate be guilty of some causeless culpable incredulity, and will not believe it was done till they see it done again.

4. Or in case that some real or supposed Integral (though not essential) part was omitted, or is by the Church or Magistrate supposed to be omitted; And they will not permit or receive the Minister to exercise his office, unless he repeat the whole Action again, and make up that defect.

5. Or if the person himself do think that his ordination was insufficient, and cannot exercise his Ministry to the satisfaction of his own Conscience, till the defect be repaired.

1. In these cases (and perhaps such others) the outward Action may be repeated.

2. The Reasons are, 1. Because this is not a being twice ordained. For the word Ordination, signifieth a Moral action, and not a Physical only: As the word Marriage doth, &c. And it essentially includeth the new Dedication and Designation to the Sacred office; by a kind of Covenant between the Dedicated person and Christ to whom he is consecrated and devoted. And the external words are but a part, and a part only as significant of the action of the mind. Now the oft expressing of the same mental dedication doth not make it to be as many distinct dedications. For, 1. If the Liturgy or the persons words were tautological, or at the Ordination should say the same thing often over and over, or for confirmation should say often, that which else might be said but once, this doth not make it an often or multiplied Ordination: It was but one Love which Peter expressed, when Christ made him say thrice, that he Loved him▪ nor was it a threefold Ordination which Christ used, when he said thrice to him, Feed my Lambs and Sheep.

2. And if thrice saying it that hour make it not three Ordinations, neither will thrice saying it, at more hours days or months (or years) distance, in some Cases. For the Time maketh not the Ordinations to be many. It is but one Moral Action. But the common error ariseth from the custom of calling the outward action alone by the name of the whole moral Action (which is ordinarily done to the like deceit in the case of the Baptismal Covenant, and the Lord's Supper.)

3. The common judgment and custom of the World confirmeth what I say. If persons that are married▪ should for want of witness or due solemnity be forced to say and do the outward action all over again; it is by no wise man taken in the proper moral full sense, for a second Marriage: but for one marriage twice uttered.

And if you should in witness bearing be put to your Oath, and the Magistrate that was absent should say, [Reach him the Book again, I did not hear him swear], The doing it twice is not Morally two witnessings no • Oaths, but one only twice Physically uttered.

If you Bind your Son Apprentice, or if you make any Indentures or Contract, and the Writings being lost or faulty, you write and sign, and seal them all again, this is not morally another Contract, but the same done better, or again recorded. And so it is plainly in this case.

4. But Re-ordination morally and properly so called, is unlawful: For, 1. It is (or implieth) a lie • ▪ viz. that we were not truly Dedicated and Separated to this office before.

2. It is a Sacrilegious renunciation of our former dedication to God: whereas the Ministerial dedication and Covenant is for Life, and not for a trial; which is the meaning of the Indelible Character, which is a perpetual Relation and obligation.

3. It is a taking the Name of God in vain; thus to do and undo and do again: and to promise and renounce and promise again, and to pretend to receive a power which we had before.

4. It tendeth to great confusions in the Church; As to make the people doubt of their Baptism, or all the Ministerial Administrations of such as are re-ordained, while they acted by the first Ordination.

5. It hath ever been condemned in the Churches of Christ, as the Canons called the Apostles, and the Churches constant practice, testify.

5. Though the bare Repetition of the outward Action and words be not Re-ordination, yet he that on any of the forementioned occasions is put to repeat the said words and actions, is obliged so to do it, as that it may not seem to be a Re-ordination, and so be a scandal to the Church. Or if it outwardly seem so by the action, he is bound to declare that it is no such thing, for the counterpoising that appearance of evil.

6. When the Ordainers or the common estimation of the Church, do take the Repetition of the words and Action for a Re-ordination, though the Receiver so intend it not, yet it may become unlawful to him by this accident, because he scandalizeth and hardeneth the erroneous, by doing or receiving that which is Interpretative Re-ordination.

7. Especially when the Ordainers shall require this Repetition on notoriously wicked grounds, and so put that sense on the action by their own doctrines and demands: As for instance.

1. If Heretics should (as the Arians,) say that we are no Ministers, because we are not of their Heresy, or Ordained by such as they.

2. If the Pope or any proud Papal Usurpers shall say, You are no Ministers of Christ, except we ordain you; And so do it to establish a traiterous usurped Regiment in the Church; It is not lawful to serve such an usurpation. As if Cardinals or Arch-bishops should say, none are true Ministers but those that we Ordain: Or Councils or Synods of Bishops or Presbyters should say, None are true Ministers but those that we Ordain. Or if one Presbyter or one Bishop without Authority would thus make himself master of the rest, or of other Churches, and say, You are no Ministers unless I Ordain you; we may not promote such Tyranny and Usurpation.

3. If Magistrates would usurp the power of the Keys, in Ecclesiastical Ordination, and say that none but they have power to Ordain, we may not encourage such pretences by repetition of the words and Action.

4. If they would make something necessary to Ordination which is not, as if it were a false Oath, or false subscription or profession, or some unlawful Ceremony (as if it were Anointing, wearing Horns, or any the like) and say, You are no Ministers without these, and therefore you must be Reordained to receive them.

5. Yea if they declare our former Ministry causelessly to be Null, and say, You are no Ministers till you are Ordained again, and so publicly put this sense upon our Action, that we take it as Re-ordination; All these Accidents make the Repetition of the words and actions to be unlawful, unless when Greater Accidents notoriously preponderate.

Quest. But if such Church Tyrants should have so great power, as that without their Repetition of Ordination on those terms, the Ministry might not be exercised, is it lawful so to take it in a case of such necessity?

Answ. 1. Every seeming necessity to you, is not a necessity to the Church: 2. Either you may publicly declare a contrary sense in your Receiving their new orders or not.

1. If you may not as publicly declare that you renounce not your former Ministry and Dedication to God in that office, as the Ordainers declare their sense of the Nullity of it, so that your open declaration may free you from the guilt of seeming consent, I conceive it is a sinful compliance with their sin. 2. Yea if you may so declare it, yet if there be no necessity of your Ministerial liberty in that place, I think you may not take it on such terms. As, 1. If there be worthy men enough to supply the Churches wants there without you. 2. And if you may serve God successfully in a persecuted state, though to the suffering of your flesh; 3. Or if your imprisonment for Preaching be like to be as serviceable to the Church and Gospel as your continued Preaching on those scandalous terms. 4. Or if you may remove and Preach in another Country.

9. When any such case doth fall out, in which the Repetition of the outward Action and Words is lawful, It is not lawful to mix any false or scandalous expressions: As if we were required to say falsely, I accept this Ordination as confessing myself no Minister of Christ till now: or any such like.

10. In a word, A peaceable Christian may do much as to the mere outward Action and Submission, for obedience, peace, order, or satisfaction to his own or other men's Consciences. But, 1. He may do nothing for good ends which is false and injurious to the Church. 2. And he may not do that which otherwise were lawful, when it is for evil ends, or tendeth to more hurt than good; As to promote Heresy, or Church-Tyranny and Usurpation; whether in Pope, Prelates, Presbyters or People.

Quest. 22. How many Ordainers are necessary to the validity of Ordination by God's institution? Whether one or more?

MY Question is not of the ancient Canons, or any human Laws, or customs: For those are easily known. But of Divine Right: Now either God hath determined the case as to the number of Ordainers necessary, or not: If not, either he hath given the Church some General rule to determine it by, or not. If not, then the number is not any part of the Divine Order or Law, And then, if we suppose that he hath determined the case as to the Ordaining office and not to the Number, then it will follow that one may serve. The truth I think may be thus explained.

1. There is Ordo officialis primarius, and ordo ordinis, vel exercitii, vel secundarius; An Order of Office primary, and an Order of Exercise secondary, in the Church. As to the first, the Order of office, God hath determined, that the Ordaining officers, and no others, shall ordain officers, or give Orders. And having not determined whether one or more, it followeth that the ordination of one sole lawful ordainer is no nullity on that account because it is but one, unless somewhat else nullify it.

2. God hath given General Rules to the ordainers for the due exercise of their office, though he have not determined of any set number. Such as are these: That all things be done in Judgment, Truth, Love, Concord, to the Churches Edification, Unity and peace, &c.

3. According to these General Laws, sometimes the ordination of one sole ordainer, may not only be valid but regular: As when there are no other to concur, or none whose concurrence is needful to any of the aforesaid Ends. And sometimes the concurrence of Many is needful, 1. To the Receivers satisfaction: 2. To the Churches or people's satisfaction. 3. To the Concord of Pastors, and of Neighbor Churches, &c. And in such cases such Consem or Concourse is the Regular way.

4. Where there are many Neighbor Pastors and Churches so near, as that he that is ordained in one of them, is like oft to pass and Preach and officiate obiter in others, and so other Churches must have some communion with him, it is meetest that there be a concurrence in the Ordination.

5. The ordainer is certainly a superior to the person that cometh to be ordained while he is a private man; And therefore so far his ordination is (as is said) an Act of Jurisdiction in the large sense, that is, of Government: But whether he be necessarily his superior after he is ordained, hath too long been a Controversy. It is certain that the Papists confess, that the Pope is ordained such by no superior: And it is not necessary that a Bishop be ordained by one or more of any superior order (or Jurisdiction either.) And though the Italian Papists hold that a superior Papal Jurisdiction must needs be the secondary fountain of the ordaining power, though the ordainer himself be but of the same Order; yet Protestants hold no such thing. And all acknowledge that as Imposition of hands on a Lay man to make him a Minister of Christ or an officer, is a kind of official Generation*, so the Ordained is as a Junior in Office, is as it were a Son to the Ordainer as the Convert is said to be peculiarly to his Converter: And that a proportionable honor is still to be given him. But whether he that ordaineth a Presbyter and not he that ordaineth or Consecrateth a Bishop, must needs be of a superior order or office is a question which the Reader must not expect me here to meddle with.

Quest. 23. What if one Bishop ordain a Minister, and three or many or all the rest protest against it, and declare him no Minister, or degrade him? Is he to be received as a true Minister or not?

SUpposing that the person want no necessary personal Qualification for the office, There are two things more in question; 1. His Office whether he be a Minister. 2. His Regularity, whether he came Regularly to it; and also his Comparative relation, whether this man or another is to be preferred. I answer therefore.

1. If the person be utterly uncapable, the one Bishop or the many whosoever taketh him for uncapable, is for the Truth sake to be believed and obeyed.

2. If the man be excellently qualified, and his Ministry greatly Necessary to the Church, whoever would deprive the Church of him be it the One or the Many, is to be disobeyed, and the ordainers preferred.

Obj. But who shall judge?

Answ. The Esse is before the Scire: The thing is first True or false before I judge it to be so: And therefore whoever judgeth falsely in a case so notorious and weighty, as that the welfare of the Church and souls is ( consideratis considerandis ) injured and hazarded by his error; is not be believed nor obeyed on pretence of order. Because all Christians have judicium discretionis, a discerning judgment.

3. But if the case be not thus to be determined by the persons notorious qualifications, then either it is, 1. The man ordained, 2. Or the People that the case is debated by, whether they should take him for a Minister; 3. Or the neighbor Ministers.

1. The person himself is caeteris paribus more to regard the judgment of many concordant Bishops, than of one singular Bishop; And therefore is not to take orders from a singular Bishop, when the Generality of the wise and faithful are against it; unless he be sure that it is some notorious faction or error that perverteth them, and that there be notorious necessity of his labor.

2. The Auditors are either Infidels to be converted, (and these will take no man upon any of their Authorities), or else Christians converted. These are either of the particular charge of the singular Bishop who ordaineth, or not: If they be, then pro tempore for orders sake, they owe him a peculiar obedience, till some further process or discovery disoblige them, (Though the most be on the other side). But yet they may be still bound in Reason most to suspect the Judgment of their singular Bishop, while for orders sake they submit to it. But if they are not of his flock, then, I suppose the Judgment and Act of many is to prevail so much against the Act of a single and singular person, as that both neighbor Ministers and people are to disown such an ordained person as unfit for their Communion under the notion of a Minister, (Because Communion of Churches is maintained by the Concord of Pastors ). But whether the ordained man's Ministry, be by their contradictory declaration or degradation, made an absolute nullity, to himself and those that submit to him, neither I will determine, nor should any other Strangers to the particular case: For if he be rejected or degraded without such cause and proof as may satisfy other sober persons, he hath wrong; But if he be so degraded, on proved sufficient cause, to them that it is known to, it giveth the degraders the advantage.

And as 1. All particular members are to be obedient to their proper Pastor.

2. And all particular Churches are to hold correspondency and communion according to their capacity; so must men act in this and such like cases respectively according to the Laws of Obedience to their Pastor, and of Concord of the Churches.

Quest. 24. Hath one Bishop power by Divine right to Ordain, Degrade, or Govern, or Excommunicate, or Absolve in another's Diocese or Church, either by his consent, or against it? And doth a Minister that officiateth in another's Church, act as a Pastor, and their Pastor, or as a private man? And doth the Ministerial office cease when a man removeth from his flock.

I Thrust these questions all together for their affinity, and for brevity.

1. Every true Minister of Christ, Bishop or Pastor is related to the universal Church by stronger obligations than to his particular charge; As the whole is better than the parts, and its welfare to be preferred.

2. He that is no Pastor of a particular Church, may be a Pastor in the universal, obliged as a consecrated person to endeavor its good, by the works of his office, as he hath particular opportunity and call.

3. Yet he that hath a particular charge is specially and neerlyer related and obliged to that charge or Church, than to any other part of the universal (though not then to the whole: ) And consequently hath a peculiar Authority, where he hath a peculiar obligation and work.

4. He that is (without degrading ) removed from a particular Church doth not cease to be a General Minister and Pastor related to the Universal Church; As a Physician put out of a Hospital charge, is a Physician still. And therefore he needeth no new ordination, but only a special Designation, to his next particular charge.

5. No man is the Bishop of a Diocese as to the measure of ground, or the place, by divine right, that is, by any particular Law or determination of God: But only a Bishop of the Church or people: For your office essentially containeth a Relation to the People, but Accidentally only to the Place.

6. Yet natural Convenience, and God's General Laws of Order and Edification, do make it usually (but not always) best, and therefore a duty, to distinguish Churches by the people's habitation: Not taking a man for a Member eo nomine, because he liveth on that ground; But for order sake taking none for members that live not on that ground; and not intruding causelessly into each others bounds.

7. He that by the Call or Consent of a Neighbor Pastor and people doth officiate (by Preaching, Sacraments, Excommunication or Absolution) in another's special charge for a day, or week, or month, or more, without a fixed relation to that flock, doth neither officiate as a Lay-man, nor yet unlawfully or irregularly; But, 1. As a Minister of Christ in the Church Universal. 2. And as the Pastor of that Church for the present time only, though not statedly: Even as a Physician called to help another in his Hospital, or to supply his place for the time, doth perform his work, 1. As a Licensed Physician, 2. And as the Physician of that patient or Hospital for that time, though not statedly.

8. No man is to intrude into another's Charge without a Call; Much less to claim a particular stated Oversight and Authority. For though he be not an Usurper as to the Office in General, he is an Usurper as to that particular flock. It is no error in Ordination to say [ Take thou authority to preach the Word of God, and administer the holy Sacraments when thou shalt be thereto lawfully called, ] that is, when thou hast a particular call to the exercise, and to a fixed Charge, as thou hast now a Call to the Office in general.

9. Yet every Bishop or Pastor by his Relation to the Church Universal, and to mankind, and the interest of Christ, is bound not only as a Christian, but as a Pastor, to do his best for the common good; and not to cast wholly out of his care, a particular Church, because another hath the oversight of it. Therefore if an Heretic get in, or the Church fall to Heresy, or any pernicious error or sin, the neighbor Pastors are bound both by the Law of Nature and their Office, to interpose their Counsel as Ministers of Christ, and to prefer the substance before pretended order, and to feek to recover the people's souls, though it be against their proper Pastors will. And in such a case of necessity, they may ordain, degrade, excommunicate and absolve in another's charge, as if it were a vacuity.

10. Moreover it is one thing to excommunicate a man out of a particular Church, and another thing for many associated Churches or Neighbors to renounce Communion with him. The special Pastors of particular Churches, having the Government of those Churches, are the special Governing Judges, who shall or shall not have Communion as a member in their Churches: But the neighbor-Pastors of other Churches have the power of Judging with whom they and their own flocks will or will not hold Communion. As e. g. Athanasius may as Governor of his flock declare any Arian-member excommunicate: and require his flock to have no Communion with him. And all the neighbor Pastors (though they excommunicate not the same man as his special Governors, yet) may declare to all their flocks, that if that man come among them, they will have no Communion with him, and that at distance they renounce that distant Communion which is proper to Christians one with another, and take him for none of the Church of Christ.

Quest. 25. Whether Canons be Laws? And Pastors have a Legislative Power?

ALL men are not agreed what a Law is, that is, what is to be taken for the proper sense of that Word. Some will have the name confined to such Common Laws as are stated durable Rules for the subjects actions: And some will extend it also to personal temporary verbal Precepts and Mandates, such as Parents and Masters use daily to the children and servants of their families. And of the first sort, some will confine the name [ Laws ] to those acts of Sovereignty which are about the common matters of the Kingdom, or which no interior Officer may make: And others will extend it to those Orders which by the Sovereigns Charter, a Corporation, or College, or School may make for the subregulation of their particular societies and affairs.

I have declared my own opinion de nomine fully elsewhere, 1. That the definition of a Law in the proper general sense, is, To be A sign or signification of the Reason and Will of the Rector as such, to his subjects as such, instituting or antecedently determining what shall be Due from them, and to them; Jus efficiendo, Regularly making Right.

2. That these Laws are many more ways diversified and distinguished (from the efficient, sign, subjects, matter, end, &c. ) than is meet for us here to enumerate. It is sufficient now to say, 1. That stated Regulating Laws as distinct from temporary Mandates and Proclamations: 2. And Laws for Kingdoms and other Common-wealthy, in regard of Laws for Persons, Schools, Families &c. 3. And Laws made by the Supreme Power, as distinct from those made by the derived authority of Colleges, Corporations, &c. called By-Laws or Orders, (For I will here say nothing of Parents and Pastors, whose Authority is directly or immediately from the efficiency of Nature in one, and Divine Institution in the other, and not derived efficiently from the Magistrate, or any man). 4. That Laws about great substantial matters, distinct from those about little and mutable circumstances, &c. I say the first sort as distinct from the second, are Laws so called by Excellency above other Laws. But that the rest are univocally to be called Laws, according to the best definition of the Law in Genere. But if any man will speak otherwise, let him remember that it is yet but lis de nomine, and that he may use his liberty, and I will use mine. Now to the Question.

1. Canons made by Virtue of the Pastoral Office and God's General Laws (in Nature or Scripture) for regulating it, are a sort of Laws to the subjects or flocks of those Pastors.

2. Canons made by the Votes of the Laity of the Church, or private part of that society as private, are no Laws at all, but Agreements; Because they are not acts of any Governing power.

3. Canons made by Civil Rulers about the circumstantials of the Church, belonging to their Office, as orderers of such things, are Laws, and may be urged by moderate and meet civil or corporal penalties, and no otherwise.

4. Canons made by Princes or inferior Magistrates, are no Laws purely and formally Ecclesiastical, which are essentially Acts of Pastoral power: But only Materially Ecclesiastical, and formally Magistratical.

5. No Church Officers as such, (much less the people ) can make Laws with a Co-active or Co • rcive sanction; that is, to be enforced by their Authority with the Sword or any corporal penalty, mulct or force: This being the sole privilege of Secular Powers, Civil or O • conomical, or Scholastic.

6. There is no obligation ariseth to the subject for particular obedience of any Law, which is evidently against the Laws of God (in Nature or holy Scripture).

7. They are no Laws which Pastors make to people out of their power: As the Popes, &c.

8. There is no power on earth under Christ, that hath Authority to make Universal Laws; to bind the whole Church on all the earth, or all mankind. Because there is no Universal Sovereign, Civil or Spiritual, Personal or Collective.

9. Therefore it is no Schism but Loyalty to Christ, to renounce or separate from such a society of Usurpation; nor no disobedience or rebellion, to deny them obedience.

10. Pastors may and must be obeyed in things Lawful as Magistrates, if the King make them Magistrates: Though I think it unmeet for them to accept a Magistracy with the Sword, except in case of some rare necessity.

11. Is Pope, Patriarchs or Pastors shall usurp any of the Kings Authority, Loyalty to Christ and him, and the Love of the Church and State, oblige us to take part with Christ and the King against such Usurpation, but only by lawful means, in the compass of our proper place and Calling.

12. The Canons made by the Councils of many Churches, have a double nature; As they are made for the people and the subjects of the Pastors, they are a sort of Laws: That is, They oblige by the derived Authority of the Pastors: Because the Pastors of several Churches do not Lose any of their Power by their Assembling, but exercise it with the greater advantage of Concord. But as they are made only to oblige the present or absent Pastors who separatedly are of equal Officepower, so they are no Laws, except in an equivocal sense, but only Agreements or Contracts. So Bishop Usher professed his judgment to be: And before him the Council of Carthage in Cyprians time: But it needs no proof, no more than that a Convention of Kings may make no Laws to bind the Kings of England, but Contracts only.

13. But yet we are aliunde obliged even by God, to keep these Agreements in things lawful, for the Churches peace and concord, when greater contrary reasons, à fine, do not disoblige us. For when God saith, You shall keep Peace and Concord, and keep Lawful Covenants; The Canons afford us the Minor; [But these are Lawful Contracts or Agreements, and means of the Churches Peace and Concord: ] Therefore (saith God's Law) you shall observe them. So though the Contracts (as of Husband and Wife, Buyer and Seller, &c. ) be not Laws, yet that is a Law of God which bindeth us to keep them.

14. Seeing that even the obliging Commands of Pastors may not by them be enforced by the Sword, but work by the power of Divine Authority or Commission manifested, and by holy Reason, and Love, therefore it is most modest and fit for Pastors (who must not Lord it over God's heritage, but be examples to all) to take the Lower name of Authoritative Directions, and persuasions, rather than of Laws: Especially in a time when Papal Usurpation maketh such ruinating use of that name, and Civil Magistrates use to take it in the nobler and narrower sense.

THe Questions, 1. [If one Pastor make Orders for his Church, and the multitudes or Synods be against them: which must be obeyed ] you may gather from what is said before of Ordination. And 2. [ What are the particulars proper Materially to the Magistrates decision, and what to the Pastors, ] I here pass by.

Quest. 26. Whether Church-Canons, or Pastors Directive Determinations of matters pertinent to their Office, do bind the Conscience? And what accidents will disoblige the people; you may gather before in the same case about Magistrates Laws, in the Political Directions: As also by an impartial transferring the Case to the Precepts of Parents and Schoolmasters to Children; without respect to their Power of the Rod (or supposing that they had none such.) Quest. 27. What are Christ's appointed means of the Unity and Concord▪ of the Universal Church, and consequently of its preservation, if there be no Human Universal Head and Governor of it upon Earth? And if Christ have instituted none such, Whether Prudence and the Law of Nature oblige not the Church to set up and maintain an Universal Ecclesiastical Monarchy or Aristocracy? Seeing that which is Every man's work, is as No man's, and omitted by all?

I. TO the first question I must refer you in part to two small popular yet satisfactory Tractates written long ago, that I do not one thing too oft. Briefly now,

1. The Unity of the Universal Church, is founded in, and maintained by their Common Relation to Christ the Head, (as the Kingdom in its Relation to the King).

2. A Concord in Degrees of Goodness, and in Integrals and Accidentals of Christianity, will never be obtained on earth, where the Church is still imperfect: And perfect Holiness and Wisdom, are necessary to Perfect Harmony and Concord, Phil. 3. 12, 13, 14.

3. Experience hath long taught the Church, if it will learn, that the claim of a Papal Headship and Government over the Church Universal, hath been the famous incendiary, and hinderer of Concord in the Christian world.

4. The means to attain such a measure of concord and harmony which is to be hoped for, or endeavored upon earth, I have so distinctly, fully, and yet briefly described (with the contrary Impediments) in my Treatise of the Reasons of Christian Religion Part 7. Chap. 14. pag. 470, 471. in about two leaves, that I will not recite them. If you say, You are not bound to read the Books which I refer you to; I answer, Nor thi • .

II. To the latter Question I answer, 1. To set up such an Universal Head on the supposition of natural Reasons and Human Policy is, 1. To cross Christ's Institution, and the Laws of the Holy Ghost, as hath been long proved by Protestants from the Scripture.

2. It is Treason against Christ's Sovereign Office to usurp such a Vicegerency without his Commission.

3. It is against the notorious light of Nature, which telleth us of the Natural Incapacity of Mortal man, to be such an Universal Governor through the world.

4. It is to sin against long, and dreadful common experience, and to keep in that fire that hath destroyed Euperours, Kings and Kingdoms, and set the Churches Pastors and Christian world in those divisions, which are the great and serviceable work of Satan, and the impediment of the Churches increase, purity and peace, and the notorious shame of the Christian profession in the eyes of the Infidel world.

And if so many hundred years sad experience, will not answer them that say [If the Pope were a good man, he might unite us all,] I conclude that such deserve to be deceived, 2 Thess. 2. 10, 11, 12.

Quest. 28. Who is the Judge of Controversies in the Church? 1. About the Exposition of the Scripture, and Doctrinal points in themselves: 2. About either Heresies, or wicked Practices, as they are charged on the persons who are accused of them: That is, 1. Antecedently to our Practice, by way of Regulation, 2. Or Consequently, by Judicial Sentence (and Execution) on Offenders.

I Have answered this question so oft, that I can persuade myself to no more than this short, yet clear solution.

The Papists use to cheat poor unlearned persons that cannot justly discern things that differ, by puzzling them with this confused ambiguous question. Some things they cunningly and falsely take for granted, As that there is such a thing on Earth, as a Political Universal Church, headed by any Mortal Governor. Some things they shuffle together in equivocal words. They confound, 1. Public Judgment of Decision, and private judgment of discerning. 2. The Magistrates Judgment of Church-controversies, and the Pastors, and the several Cases, and Ends, and Effects of their several judgments. 3. Church-judgment as Directive to a particular Church, and as a means of the Concord of several Churches. Which being but distinguished, a few words will serve to clear the difficulty.

1 As there is no Universal Human Church (Constituted or Governed by a Mortal Head ) so there is no Power set up by Christ to be an Universal Judge of either sort of Controversies, by decisive Judicial • entence: Nor any Universal Civil Monarch of the world.

2. The public Governing Decisive judgment, obliging others, belongeth to public persons, or Officers of God, and not to any private man.

3. The public decision of Doubts or Controversies about Faith itself, or the true sense of God's Word and Laws, as obliging the whole Church on Earth to believe that decision, or not gainsay it, because of the Infallibility or Governing authority of the Deciders, belongeth to none but Jesus Christ; Because as is said, he hath made no Universal Governor, nor Infallible Expositor. It belongeth to the Law-giver only to make such an Universally obliging Exposition of his own Laws.

4. True Bishops or Pastors in their own particular Churches are Authorized Teachers and Guides, in Expounding the Laws and Word of Christ: And the people are bound as Learners to reverence their Teaching, and not contradict it without true cause: yea, and to believe them fide humanâ, in things pertinent to their Office: For oportet discentem credere.

5. No such Pastors are to be Absolutely believed, nor in any case of notorious Error or Heresy, where the Word of God is discerned to be against them.

6. For all the people as Reasonable creatures, have a judgment of private discerning to judge what they must Receive as Truth, and to discern their own duty, by the help of the Word of God, and of their Teachers.

7. The same power of Governing-Judgment Lawful Synods have over their several flocks, as a Pastor over his own, but with greater advantage.

8. The power of Judging in many Consociate Churches, who is to be taken into Communion as Orthodox, and who to be refused by those Churches as Heretics, in specie, that is, what Doctrine they will judge sound or unsound, as it is Iudicium discernendi; belongeth to everyone of the Council • ingly: As it is a Judgment obliging themselves by Contract, (and not of Governing each other) it is in the Contracters and Consenters: And for peace and order usually in the Major Vote. But with the Limitations before expressed.

9. Every true Christian believeth all the Essentials of Christianity, with a Divine faith, and not by a mere human belief of his Teachers, though by their Help and Teaching, his faith is generated and confirmed, and preserved. Therefore no essential Article of Christianity is left to any obliging decision of any Church, but only to a subservient obliging Teaching: As whether there be a God, a Christ, a Heaven, a Hell, an Immortality of souls; whether God be to be believed, loved, feared, obeyed before man? Whether the Scripture be God's Word, and true? Whether those that contradict it are to be believed therein? Whether Pastors, Assemblies, public Worship, Baptism, Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, be Divine institutions? And the same I may say of any known Word of God; No mortals may judge in partem utramli • et, but the Pastors are only Authorized Teachers and helpers of the people's faith. (And so they be partly to one another.)

10. If the Pope or his Council, were the Infallible, or the Governing Expositors of all God's Laws, and Scriptures, 1. God would have enabled them to do it by an Universal Commentary which all men should be obliged to believe, or at least not to contradict. For there is no Authority and Obligation given to men (yea, to so many successively) to do that (for the needful decision of Controversies) which they never have Ability given them to do. For that were to oblige them to things impossible. 2. And the Pope and his Council would be the most treacherous miscreants on earth, that in so many hundred years, would never write such an Infallible, nor Governing Commentary, to end the differences of the Christian world. Indeed they have judged (with others) against Arius, that Christ is true God, and one with the Father in substance, &c. But if they had said the contrary, must we have taken it for God's truth, or have believed them?

11. To judge who for Heresy or Seandal, shall be punished by the Sword, belongeth to none but the Magistrate in his own dominions: As to judge who shall have Communion or be excommunicated from the Church, belongeth, as aforesaid, to the Pastors. And the said Magistrate hath first as a man his own Judgment of discerning what is Heresy, and who of his subjects are guilty of it, in order to his public Governing Judgment.

12. The Civil Supreme Ruler may Antecedently exercise this Judgment of Discerning (by the Teaching of their proper Teachers) in order to his consequent sentences on offenders: And so in his Laws may tell the subjects, what Doctrines and practices he will either Tolerate or punish. And thus may the Church Pastors do in their Canons to their several flocks, in relation to Communion or non-communion.

13. He that will condemn particular persons as Heretics or offenders, must allow them to speak for themselves, and hear the proofs, and give them that which justice requireth, &c. And if the Pope can do so at the Antipodes, and in all the world either per se, or per alium without giving that other his essential claimed power, let him prove it by better experience than we have had.

14. As the prime and sole-universal Legislation belongeth to Jesus Christ, so the final Judgment universal and particular, belongeth to him, which only will end all Controversies, and from which there is no appeal.

Quest. 29. Whether a Parents power over his Children, or a Pastor or many Pastors or Bishops over the same Children, as parts of their flock, be greater, or more obliging in matters of Religion and public Worship?

THis being touched on somewhere else, I only now say, 1. That if the case were my own, I would 1. Labor to know their different Powers, as to the matter commanded, and obey each in that which is proper to his place.

2. If I were young and ignorant, Natural necessity, and natural obligation together, would give my Parents with whom I lived such an advantage above the Minister (whom I seldom see or understand) as would determine the case de eventu, and much de jure.

3. If my Parents commanded me to hear a Teacher who is against Ceremonies or certain Forms, and to hear none that are for them, natural necessity here also (ordinarily) would make it my duty first to hear and obey my Parents: And in many other cases, till I came to understand the greater power of the Pastors, in their own place and work.

4. But when I come to Church, or know that the judgment of all Concordant Godly Pastors, condemneth such a thing as damnable Heresy or Sin, which any Father commandeth me to receive and profess, I would more believe and follow the Judgment of the Pastors and Churches.

Quest. 30. May an Office Teacher or Pastor be at once, in a stated Relation of a Pastor and a Disciple to some other Pastor?

1. THat Timothy was still Paul's Son in point of Learning and his Disciple, and so that under Apostles the same persons might be stated in both relations at once, seemeth evident in Scripture.

2. But the same that is a Pastor is not at once a mere Lay-man.

3. That men in the same Office may so differ in Age, Experience, and degrees of knowledge as that young Pastors may and often ought, many years to continue, not only in occasional reception of their help, but also in an ordinary stated way of receiving it, and so be Related to them as their ordinary Teachers, by such gradual advantages, is past all doubt. And that all Juniors and Novices owe a certain reverence and audience, and some obedience to the elder and wiser.

4. But this is not to be a Disciple to him as in lower Order or Office, but as of lower Gifts and Grace.

5. It is lawful and very good for the Church, that some Ordained persons continue long as Pupils to their Tutors in Schools or Academies, ( e. g. to learn the holy Languages, if they have them not, &c. ) But this is a relation left to voluntary Contractors.

6. In the ancient Churches the particular Churches had one Bishop and some Presbyters and Deacons, usually of much lower parts, who lived all together (single or chaste) in the Bishops or Church-house, which was as a College, where he daily edified them by Doctrine and Example.

7. The Controversy about different Orders by Divine Institution, belongeth not to me here to meddle with: But as to the Natural and Acquired Imparity of age and gifts, and the unspeakable benefit to the Juniors and the Churches that it is desirable that there were such a way of their education and edification, I take to be discernible to any that is impartial and judicious.

Ambrose was at once a Teacher and a Learner: Beda Eccl. Hist. mentioneth one in England, that was at once a Pastor and a Disciple. And in Scotland some that became Bishops were still to be under the Government of the Abbot of their Monasteries according to their first devotion, though the Abbot was but a Presbyter.

8. Whether a settled private Church-member, may not at once continue his very formal Relation, to the Pastor of that Church, and yet be of the same Order with him in another Church, as their Pastor, at the same time (As he may in case of necessity continue his Apprenticeship, or civil service,) is a case that I will not determine. But he that denieth it, must prove his opinion, (or affirmation of its unlawfulness) by sufficient evidence from Scripure or Nature; which is hard.

Quest. 31. Who hath the power of making Church Canons?

THis is sufficiently resolved before. 1. The Magistrate only hath the power of making such Canons or Laws for Church matters as shall be enforced by the Sword.

2. Every Pastor hath power to make Canons for his own Congregation; that is, to determine what hour and at what place they shall meet; what Translation of Scripture, or Version of Psalms shall be used in his Church: what Chapter shall be read: what Psalm shall be sung, &c. Except the Magistrate contradict him, and determine it otherwise, in such points as are not proper to the Ministerial Office.

3. Councils or Assemblies of Pastors have the power of making such Canons for many Churches, as shall be Laws to the people, and Agreements to themselves.

4. None have power to make Church Laws or Canons, about anything, save 1. To put God's own Laws in execution, 2. To determine to that end, of such Circumstances as God hath left undetermined in his Word.

5. Canon-making under pretence of Order and Concord, hath done a great deal of mischief to the Churches: whilst Clergy men have grown up from Agreements, to Tyrannical Usurpations and Impositions, and from Concord about needful Accidents of Worship, to frame new Worship Ordinances, and to force them on all others; but especially 1. By encroaching on the power of Kings, and telling them that they are bound in Conscience to put all their Canons into execution by force: 2. And by laying the Union of the Churches, and the Communion of Christians upon things needless and doubtful, yea, and at last on many sinful things; whereby the Churches have been most effectually divided, and the Christian world set together by the Ears; and Schisms, yea, and Wars have been raised: And these maladies cannot possibly be healed, till the tormenting tearing Engines be broken and cast away, and the Voluminous Canons of numerous Councils, (which themselves also are matter of undeterminable Controversy) be turned into the primitive simplicity; and a few necessary things made the terms of Concord. Doubtless if every Pastor were left wholly to himself for the ordering of Worship Circumstances and Accidents in his own Church, without any Common Canons, save the Scriptures, and the Laws of the Land, there would have been much less division, than that is, which these numerous Canons of all the Councils, obtruded on the Church, have made.

Quest. 32. Doth Baptism as such enter the Baptized into the Universal Church, or into a particular Church, or both? And is Baptism the Particular-Church Covenant as such?

Answ. 1. BAptism as such doth enter us into the Universal Church, and into it alone; and is no particular Church-Covenant, but the solemnizing of the great Christian Covenant of Grace, between God and a believer and his seed.

For, 1. There is not essentially any mention of a particular Church in it.

2. A man may be baptized by a general unfixed Minister, who is not the Pastor of any particular Church: And he may be baptized in solitude, where there is no particular Church. The Eunuch Act. 8. was not baptized into any particular Church.

3. Baptism doth but make us Christians: But a man may be a Christian who is no member of any particular Church.

4. Otherwise Baptism should oblige us necessarily to a man, and be a Covenant between the Baptized and the Pastor and Church into which he is baptized: But it is only our Covenant with Christ.

5. We may frequently change our particular Church relation; without being baptized again. But we never change our relation to the Church which we are baptized into, unless by Apostasy.

2. Yet the same person at the same time that he is baptized may be entered into the universal Church, and into a particular; And ordinarily it ought to be so where it can be had.

3. And the Covenant which we make in baptism with Christ, doth oblige us to obey him, and consequently to use his instituted means, and so to hear his Ministers, and hold due Communion with his Churches.

4. But this doth no more enter us into a particular Church, than into a particular family. For we as well oblige ourselves to obey him in family relations as in Church relations.

5. When the baptized therefore is at once entered into the universal and particular Church, it is done by a double consent, to the double relation. By baptism he professeth his consent to be a member of Christ and his universal Church; and additionally he consenteth to be guided by that particular Pastor in that particular Church; which is another Covenant or Consent.

Quest. 33. Whether Infants should be Baptized?

I have answered long ago in a Treatise on that Subject.

Also What Infants should be Baptized? And who have Right to Sacraments? And whether Hypocrites are univocally or equivocally Christians and Church-members, I have resolved in my Dispute. of Right to Sacraments.

Quest. 34. Whether an unbaptized person who yet maketh a public profession of Christianity, be a member of the Visible Church? And so of the Infants of Believers unbaptized.

Answ. 1. SUch persons have a certain Imperfect irregular kind of profession, and so of Membership; Their Visibility or Visible Christianity is not such as Christ hath appointed. As those that are Marryed, but not by Legal Celebration, and as those that in cases of necessity are Ministers without Ordination; so are such Christians as Constantine and many of old without Baptism.

2. Such persons ordinarily are not to be admitted to the Rights and Communion of the Visible Church, because we must know Christ's sheep by his own mark: But yet they are so far visible Christians, as that we may be persuaded nevertheless of their salvation. As to visible Communion, they have but a remote and incomplete jus • d rem, and no jus in re, or legal investiture and possession.

3. The same is the case of unbaptized Infants of believers, because they are not of the Church merely as they are their natural seed; but because it is supposed that a person himself devoted to God, doth also devote his Children to God: Therefore not nature only, but this supposition arising from the true nature of his own dedication to God, is the reason why believers Children have their right to Baptism: Therefore till he hath Actually devoted them to God in Baptism, they are not legally members of the Visible Church, but only in fieri and imperfectly as is said. Of which more anon.

Quest. 35. Is it certain by the Word of God that all Infants Baptized, and dying before actual sin are undoubtedly saved? Or what Infants may we say so of?

Answ. I. 1. WE must distinguish between certainty objective and subjective, or plainlyer, the Reality or Truth of the Thing, and the certain apprehension of it.

2. And this certainty of apprehension, sometime signifieth only the Truth of that apprehension, when a man indeed is not deceived, or more usually that clearness of apprehension joined with Truth, which fully quieteth the mind and excludeth doubting.

3. We must distinguish of Infants as Baptized Lawfully upon just title, or unlawfully without title.

4. And also of Title before God, which maketh a Lawful claim and Reception at his bar; and Title before the Church, which maketh only the Administration lawful before God, and the Reception lawful only in foro ecclesiae or externo.

5. The word Baptism signifieth either the external part only, consisting in the words and outward action, or the Internal Covenanting of the heart also.

6. And that internal Covenant is either sincere which giveth right to the benefits of God's Covenant, or only partial, reserved, and unsound, such as is common to hypocrites.

Conclus. 1. God hath been pleased to speak so little in Scripture of the case of Infants, that modest men will use the words [ Certainly and Undoubtedly ] about their case, with very great Caution. And many great Divines have maintained that their very Baptism itself, cannot be [ Certainly and undoubtedly ] proved by the Word of God, but by Tradition: Though I have endeavored to prove the contrary in a special Treatise on that point.

2. No man can tell what is objectively certain or revealed in God's Word, who hath not subjective certainty or knowledge of it.

3. A man's apprehension may be True, when it is but a wavering opinion, with the greatest doubtfulness. Therefore we do not usually by a Certain apprehension, mean only a True apprehension, but a clear and quieting one.

4. It is possible to baptize Infants unlawfully, or without any Right, so that their Reception and baptizing shall be a great sin, as is the misapplying of other Ordinances. For instance; one in America where there is neither Church to receive them, nor Christian Parents nor Sponsors, may take up the Indians Children and Baptize them against the Parents wills; Or if the Parents consent to have their Children outwardly Baptized, and not themselves, as not knowing what Baptizing meaneth, or desire it only for outward advantages to their Children. Or if they offer them to be Baptized only in open derision and scorn of Christ; such Children have no Right to be received. And many other instances nearer may be given.

5. It's possible the person may have no Authority at all from Christ who doth Baptize them. And Christ's part in Reception of the person, and Collation and Investiture in his benefits, must be done by his Commission, or else how can we say that Christ doth it? But open Infidels, Women, Children, madmen, scorners, may do it that have none of his Commission.

6. That all Infants baptized without title or right by mis-application, and so dying, are not undoubtedly saved, nor any word of God doth certainly say so, we have reason to believe on these following grounds.

1. Because we can find no such Text, nor could ever prevail with them that say so, to show us such an ascertaining Word of God.

2. Because else gross sin would certainly be the way to salvation. For such mis-application of Baptism, by the demanders at least, would certainly be gross sin, as well as mis-applying the Lord's Supper.

3. Because it is clean contrary to the tenor of the new Covenant which promiseth salvation to none but penitent Believers and their seed: What God may do for others unknown to us, we have nothing to do with: But his Covenant hath made no other promise that I can find; 〈…〉 d we are • ertain of no man's salvation by Baptism, to whom God never made a promise of it. If by the Children of the faithful, be meant not only their Natural seed, but the Adopted or bought also of which they are true Proprietors, yet that is nothing to all others.

4. To add to God's words, Especially to his very Promise or Covenant, is so terrible a presumption, as we dare not be guilty of.

5. Because this tieth Grace or salvation so to the outward washing of the body or opus operatum as is contrary to the nature of God's Ordinances, and to the tenor of Scripture, and the judgment of the Protestant Divines.

6. Because this would make a strange disparity between the two Sacraments of the same Covenant of Grace: When a man Receiveth the Lord's Supper unworthily (in scorn, in drunkenness, or impenitency) much more without any right (as Infidels,) he doth eat and drink damnation or judgment to himself; and maketh his sin greater: Therefore he that gets a Child Baptized unworthily and without right, doth not therefore infallibly procure his salvation.

7. Because the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children unclean but now are they holy; and the Scripture giveth this privilege to the Children of the faithful above others: whereas the contrary opinion levelleth them with the seed of Infidels and Heathens, as if these had right to salvation by mere Baptism, as well as the others.

8. Because else it would be the greatest act of Charity in the world, to send Soldiers to catch up all Heathens and Infidels Children and Baptize them; which no Christians ever yet thought their duty. Yea it would be too strong a temptation to them to kill them when they had done, that they might be all undoubtedly saved.

Obj. But that were to do evil that good might come by it.

Answ. But God is not to be so dishonored as to be supposed to make such Laws, as shall forbid men the greatest good in the World, and then to tempt them by the greatness of the benefit to take it to be no evil: As if he said, [If Soldiers would go take up a million of Heathens Children and Baptize them, it will put them into an undoubted state of salvation: But yet I forbid them doing it: And if they presently kill them, lest they sin after, they shall undoubtedly be saved; but yet I forbid them doing it.] I need not aggravate this temptation to them that know the power of the Law of nature, which is the Law of Love and good works, and how God that is most Good is pleased in our doing good: Though he tried Abraham 's obedience once, as if he should have killed his Son, yet he stopped him before the execution: And doth he ordinarily exercise men's obedience, by forbidding them to save the souls of others, when it is easily in their power? Especially when with the adult the greatest labor and powerfullest Preaching, is frequently so frustrate, that not one of many is converted by it.

9. Because else God should deal with unaccountable disparity with Infants and the Adult in the same ordinance of Baptism. It is certain that all Adult persons Baptized, if they died immediately, should not be saved. Even none that had no right to the Covenant and to Baptism; such as Infidels, Heathens, Impenitent persons, Hypocrites, that have not true Repentance and faith: And why should Baptism save an Infant without title, anymore than the Adult without title? I still suppose that some Infants have no title, and that now I speak of them alone.

Obj. But the Church giveth them all right by Receiving them.

Answ. This is to be farther examined anon. If you mean a particular Church, perhaps they are Baptized into none such: Baptism as such is a Reception only into the Universal Church, as in Eunuchs case, Act. 8. appeareth. If you mean the Universal Church, it may be but one single ignorant man in an Infidel Country that Baptizeth; And he is not the Universal Church? Yea perhaps is not a lawfully called Minister of that Church? However this is but to say, that Baptism giveth Right to Baptism. For this Receiving is nothing but Baptizing? But there must be a Right to this Reception, if baptism be a distinguishing Ordinance, and all the world have not right to it. Christ saith, Matth. 28. 19. Disciple me all Nations, baptizing them: They must be initially made Disciples first, by Consent, and then be Invested in the visible state of Christianity by Baptism.

10. If the Children of Heathens have right to baptism and salvation thereby it is either, 1. As they are men, and all have right, or 2. Because the parents give them right, 3. Or because remote ancestors give them right, 4. Or because the universal Church gives them right, 5. Or because a particular Church giveth them right, 6. Or because the Sponsors give them right, 7. Or the Magistrate, 8. Or the Baptizer. But it is none of all these, as shall anon be proved.

II. But as to the second question, I answer: 1. It will help us to understand the case the better if we prepare the way by opening the case of the Adult, because in Scripture times, they were the most famous subjects of Baptism. And it is certain of such, 1. That everyone outwardly Baptized is not in a state of salvation. That no hypocrite that is not a true penitent believer is in such a state. 2. That every true penitent believer is before God in a state of salvation, as soon as he is such; And before the Church, as soon as he is baptized. 3. That we are not to use the word Baptism as a Physical term only, but as a moral Theological term. Because words (as in Law, physic, &c. ) are to be understood according to the art or science in which they are treated of. And Baptism taken Theologically doth as Essentially include the Wills consent or Heart-Covenanting with God, as Matrimony includeth marriage consent, and as a man containeth the soul as well as the body. And thus it is certain that all truly Baptized persons are in a state of salvation; that is, All that sincerely consent to the Baptismal Covenant when they profess consent by Baptism, (but not hypocrites.) 4. And in this sense all the Ancient Pastors of the Churches, did concur that Baptism did wash away all sin, and put the baptized into a present right to life eternal; as he that examineth their Writings will perceive: not the outward washing and words alone, but when the inward and outward parts concur, or when by true faith and repentance, the Receiver hath right to the Covenant of God. 5. In this sense it is no unfit language to imitate the Fathers, and to say that the truly baptized are in a state of Justification, adoption and salvation, unless when men's misunderstanding maketh it unsa • e. 6. The sober Papists themselves say the same thing, and when they have said that even ex opere operato Baptism saveth, they add that it is only the meet Receiver; that is, the penitent believer, and no other of the adult. So that hitherto there is no difference.

2. Now let us by this try the case of Infants; concerning which there are all these several opinions among Divines.

1. Some think that all Infants (baptized or not) are saved from Hell and positive punishment, but are not brought to Heaven as being not capable of such joys.

2. Some think that all Infants (dying such) are saved as others are, by actual felicity in Heaven, though in a lower degree. Both these sorts suppose that Christ's death saveth all that reject 〈…〉 not, and that Infants reject it not.

3. Some think that all unbaptized Infants do suffer the poenam damni and are shut out of Heaven and happiness, but not sensibly punished or cast into Hell. For this Jansen hath wrote a Treatise; and many other Papists think so.

4. Some think that all the Children of sincere believers dying in infancy are saved (that is Glorified) whether baptized or not; and no others.

5. Some think that God hath not at all revealed what he will do with any Infants.

6. Some think that he hath promised salvation as aforesaid to believers and their seed, but hath not at all revealed to us what he will do with all the rest.

7. Some think that only the Baptized Children of true believers are certainly (by promise) saved.

8. Some think that all the adopted and bought Children of true Christians, as well as the natural, are saved (if baptized, say some; or if not, say others.)

9. Some think that Elect Infants are saved, and no other, but no man can know who those are. And of these, 1. Some deny Infant Baptism; 2. Most say that they are to be baptized, and that thereby the non-elect are only received into the visible Church, and its privileges, but not to any promise or certainty of Justification, or a state of salvation.

10. Some think that all that are baptized by the Dedication of Christian Sponsors are saved.

11. Some think that all that the Pastor Dedicateth to God are saved, (because so dedicated by him say some; or because baptized ex opere operato say others.) And so all baptized Infants are in a state of salvation.

12. Some think that this is to be limited to all that have right to Baptism coram Deo; which some think the Churches reception giveth them, of which anon.

13. And some think it is to be limited to those that have right 〈…〉 m Ecclesia, or are rightfully baptized ex parte Ministrantis, where some make the Magistrates command sufficient, and some the Bishops and some the baptizers will.

Of the title to Baptism I shall speak anon. Of the salvation of Infants, it is too tedious to confute all that I dissent from: not presuming in such darkness and diversity of opinions to be peremptory, nor to say, I am certain by the Word of God who are undoubtedly saved, nor yet to deny the undoubted certainty of wiser men, who may know that which such as I do doubt of, but submitting what I say to the judgment of the Church of God and my superiors, I humbly lay down my own thoughts as followeth.

1. I think that there can no promise or proof be produced that all unbaptized Infants are saved, either from the poena damni or sensus or both.

2. I think that no man can prove that all unbaptized Infants are damned, or denied Heaven. Nay I think I can prove a promise of the contrary.

3. All that are rightfully baptized in foro externo are visible Church members, and have Ecclesiastical right to the privileges of the visible Church.

4. I think Christ never instituted Baptism for the collation of these outward Privileges alone, unless as on supposition that persons culpably fail of the better ends.

5. I think Baptism is a solemn mutual contract or Covenant between Christ and the Baptized person. And that it is but one Covenant, even the Covenant of Grace which is the sum of the Gospel, which is sealed and received in baptism; And that this Covenant essentially containeth our saving relation to God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and our Pardon, Justification and Adoption or right to life everlasting: And that God never made any distinct Covenant of outward Privileges alone, to be sealed by Baptism: But that outward mercies are the second and lesser gift of the same Covenant which giveth first the great and saving blessings.

6. And therefore that whoever hath right before God, to claim and Receive Baptism, hath right also to the benefits of the Covenant of God, and that is, to salvation: Though I say not so of everyone that hath such right before the Church, as that God doth require the Minister to Baptize him. For by Right before God, or in foro coeli I mean, such a Right as will justify the claim before God immediately, the person being one whom he commandeth in that present state to claim and receive baptism. For many a one hath no such right before God to claim or receive it, when yet the Minister hath right to give it them if they do claim it.

The case stands thus. God saith in his Covenant, [ He that believeth shall be saved, and ought to be Baptized to profess that belief and be invested in the benefits of the Covenant; And he that Professeth to believe (whether he do or not) is by the Church to be taken for a visible believer, and by Baptism to be received into the Visible Church. ] Here God calleth none but true believers (and their seed) to be Baptized, nor maketh an actual promise or Covenant with any other; and so I say that no other have right in foro coeli. But yet the Church knoweth not men's hearts, and must take a serious Profession for a credible sign of the faith professed, and for that outward title upon which it is a duty of the Pastor to Baptize the claimer. So that the most malignant scornful hypocrite that maketh a seemingly serious profession, hath right coram Ecclesia, but not coram Deo, save in this sense, that God would have the Minister Baptize him. But this I have largelyer opened in my Disputations of Right to Sacraments.

7. I think therefore that all the Children of true Christians, do by Baptism receive a public Investiture by God's appointment into a state of Remission, Adoption and right to salvation at the present: Though I dare not say that I am undoubtedly certain of it, as knowing how much is said against it. But I say as the Synod of Dort, Art. 1. that Believing Parents have no cause to doubt of the salvation of their Children that die in infancy, before they commit actual sin; that is, not to trouble themselves with fears about it.

The Reasons that move me to be of this judgment (though not without doubting and hesitancy) are these, 1. Because whoever hath right to the present Investiture, delivery and possession of the first and great benefits of God's Covenant made with man in Baptism, hath right to Pardon and Adoption and everlasting life: But the Infants of true Christians have right to the present investiture, delivery and possession of the first and great benefits of God's Covenant made with man in Baptism. Therefore they have right to pardon and everlasting life.

Either Infants are in the same Covenant (that is, are subjects of the same promise of God) with their believing Parents, or in some other Covenant, or in no Covenant: If they be under no Covenant (or promise) or under some other promise or Covenant only, and not the same; they are not to be Baptized. For Baptism is a mutual Covenanting; where the Minister by Christ's Commission in his name acteth his part, and the believer his own and his Infants part: And God hath but one Covenant, which is to be made, sealed and delivered in baptism. Baptism is not an equivocal word, so as to signify divers Covenants of God.

Obj. But the same Covenant of God hath divers sorts of benefits, The special God giveth to the sincere, and the Common to the common and hypocritical receiver.

Answ. 1. God indeed requireth the Minister to take Profession for the Visible Church-title; And so it being the Ministers duty so far to believe a liar, and to Receive dissemblers wh 〈…〉 had no right to lay that claim, you may say that God indirectly and improperly, giveth them Church-privileges: But properly, that is, by his promise or Covenant-deed of gift, he giveth them nothing at all; For his Covenant is one, and undivided in its action, though it give several benefits, and Though Providence may give one and not another, yet the Covenant giveth all or none. God saith that Godliness hath the promise of this life and of that to come: but he never said (that I know of) [ To the bypocrite or unsound believer I promise or give right to common mercies. ]

2. But suppose it were otherwise, yet either the Children of true believers have the true Condition of Right to the special blessings of the Covenant, or they have not the condition of any at all. For there can no more be required of an Infant as to any special blessings of the Covenant, than that he be the Child of believing Parents and by them Dedicated to God. Either this condition entitleth them to all the Covenant promises which the adult believer is entitled to (as far as their natures are capable) or it entitleth them to none at all: Nor are they to be baptized: For God hath in Scripture instituted but one baptism (to profess one faith ) And that one is ever for the remission of sins: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, Mark 16. 16.

3. Or if all the rest were granted you, yet it would follow that all Infants in the World, even of true believers, are left out of God's Covenant of Grace, that is, the Covenant or promise of pardon of life; and are only taken in to the Covenant of Church-privileges. And so 1. You will make two Covenants (which you denied) and not only two sorts of benefits of one Covenant. 2. And two species of Baptism: while all Infants in the World are only under a Covenant of outward privileges, and have no baptism, but the seal of that Covenant, while believers have the Covenant, promise and seal of pardon and life.

2. And this is my second Reason, Because then we have no promise or certainty, or ground of faith, for the pardon and salvation of any individual Infants in the World. And so Parents are left to little comfort for their Children. And if there be no promise there is no faith of it, nor no Baptism to seal it; and so we still make Antipaedobaptism unavoidable. For who dare set God's seal to such as have no promise? Or pretend to Invest any in a near and saving Relation to God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (which is the very nature of Baptism) when God hath given no such commission?

Obj. Yes: Baptism and the Covenant of special promises are for all the Elect, though we know not who they are.

Answ. 1. I deny not God's Eternal antecedent Election; But I deny that the Scripture ever mentioneth his pardoning or Glorifying any, upon the account of Election only, without certain spiritual conditions, which may be given as the reason of the difference in judgment. God may freely give the Gospel to whom he will, and also faith or the first grace by the Gospel, without any previous condition in man, but according to his free Election only: But he giveth pardon and Heaven as a Rector by his equal Laws and judgment; and always rendereth a reason of the difference, from the qualifications of man.

2. And if this were as you say, it would still overthrow Infant baptism. For either we must baptize all indifferently, or none, or else know how to make a difference. All must not be baptized indifferently: And Election is a secret thing to us, and by it no Minister in the World can tell whom to baptize; Therefore he must baptize none, if there be no other differencing note to know them by.

Obj. God hath more elect ones among the Infants of true believers than among others: And therefore they are all to be baptized.

Answ. 1. It will be hard to prove that much (that he hath more) if there be no promise to them all as such. 2. If he have more, yet no man knoweth how many, and whether the Elect be one of ten, twenty, forty or an hundred in comparison of the non-elect: For Scripture tells it not. So that no Minister of a Church is sure that any one Infant that he ever baptized is elect. 3. And God hath given no such rule for sealing and delivering his Covenant with the benefits, as to cast it hap hazard among all, because it is possible or probable it may belong to some.

Object. You have no certainty what adult professor is sincere, nor to which of them the special benefits belong; no not of any one in a Church, And yet because that there is a probability that among many there are some sincere, you baptize them all. Take then the birth privilege but as equal to the profession of the adult.

Answ. This partly satisfied me sometimes: But I cannot forget that A visible, false or hypocritical profession is not the condition of God's own Covenant of Grace, nor that which he requireth in us, to make us partakers of his Covenant-benefits, Nay, he never at all commandeth it; but only commandeth that profession of Consent, which followeth the real consent of the heart; He that condemneth lying, maketh it neither the condition of our Church-membership, as his gift by promise, nor yet our duty.

And mark well, that it is a Professed Consent to the whole Covenant that God requireth, as the condition of our true right to any part or benefit of it. He that shall only say, I consent to be a visible Church-member, doth thereby acquire no right to that membership; no not in foro Ecclesiae: But he must also profess that he consenteth to have God for his God, and Christ for his Lord and Savior, and the Holy Spirit for his Sanctifier. So that he must be a liar or a sound believer that maketh this profession.

But for an Infant to be born of true believers, and sincerely by them dedicated in Covenant to God, is all the Condition that ever God required to an Infant-title to his Covenant; And it is not the failure of the true Condition as a false profession is.

Indeed if the proportion were thus laid, it would hold good; [As we know not who sincerely covenanteth for himself, and yet must baptize all that soberly profess it; so we know not who doth sincerely Covenant for his Infant, and yet we must baptize all whom the Parents bring with such a profession, for themselves and them.]

But if the sincere dedication of a sound believer, shall be accounted but equal to the lying profession of the adult, which is neither commanded, nor hath any promise, then Infants are not in the Covenant of Grace, nor is their sincerest dedication to God either commanded or hath any promise.

If I were but sure that the profession of the Adult for himself were sincere, I were sure that he were in a state of Grace. And if I am not sure of the same concerning the Parents dedication of his Infant, I must conclude that this is not a condition of the same Covenant, and therefore that he is not in the same Covenant (or Conditional promise of God) unless there be some other Condition required in him or for him: But there is no other that can be devised.

Object. Election is the Condition.

Answ. Election is God's act and not man's; and therefore may be an Antecedent but no Condition, required of us. And man is not called to make Profession that he is Elected, as he is to make profession of his faith and consent to the Covenant. And God only knoweth who are his by Election, and therefore God only can baptize on this account.

And what is the probability which the objectors mean that many of the Infants of the faithful are elected? Either it is a promise, or but a prediction: If no promise it is not to be sealed by baptism. If a promise, it is absolute o • conditional. If any absolute promise [As, I will save many children of believers] 1. This terminateth not on any singular person, as baptism doth, and 2. It is not the absolute promise that baptism is appointed by Christ to seal. This is apparent in Mark 16. 16. and in the case of the adult. And it is not one Covenant which is sealed to the adult by baptism, and another to infants. Else baptism also should not be the same. But if it be any conditional Covenant, what is it, and what is the condition?

And what is it that baptism giveth to the seed of believers, if they be not justified by it from original sin? You will not say, that it conveyeth Inherent sanctifying Grace, no not into all the Elect themselves, which many are many years after without. And you cannot say, that it sealeth to them, any promise, so much as of visible Church-privileges. For God may suffer them presently to be made Ianizaries, and violently taken from their Parents, and become strangers and despisers of Church-privileges, as is ordinary with the Greeks Children among the Turks. Now God either promised such Church-privileges absolutely, or conditionally, or not at all? Not absolutely, for then they would possess them. If conditionally, what is the Condition? If not at all, what promise then doth baptism seal to such, and what benefit doth it secure? God hath instituted no baptism, which is a mere present delivery of possession of a Church-state, without sealing any Promise at all. True baptism first sealeth the promise, and then delivereth possession of some benefits.

Yea, indeed outward Church-privileges are such uncertain blessings of the promise, that as they are but secondary, so they are but secondarily given and sealed, so that no man should ever be baptized, if these were all that were in the promise. The holiest person may be cast into a Wilderness, and deprived of all visible Church-communion: And doth God then Break his promise with him? Certainly no: It is therefore our saving Relations to God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, which the promise giveth, and baptism sealeth; and other things but subordinately and uncertainly as they are means to these. So then its plain, that believers Infants have a promise of salvation, or no promise at all which baptism was instituted to seal.

I have said so much more of this in my Appendix to the Treatise of Infant Baptism, to Mr. Bedford, in defense of Dr. Davenants judgment, as that I must refer the Reader thither.

8. I think it very probable that this ascertaining promise belongeth not only to the natural seed of believers, but to all whom they have a true power and right to dedicate in Covenant to God: which seemeth to be all that are properly their Own, whether Adopted or bought; But there is more darkness and doubt about this than the former, because the Scripture hath said less of it.

9. I am not able to prove, nor see any probable reason for it, that any but sound believers have such a promise for their children: nor that any hypocrite shall certainly save his child, if he do but dedicate him to God in baptism. For, 1. I find no promise in Scripture made to such. 2. He that doth not sincerely believe himself, nor consent to God's Covenant, cannot sincerely believe for his child, nor consent for him. 3. And that faith which will not save the owner, as being not the condition of the promise, cannot save another. Much more might be said of this. I confess, that the Church is to receive the children of hypocrites as well as themselves: And their baptism is valid in foro externo Ecclesiae; and is not to be reiterated. But it goeth no further for his child, than for himself.

10. Therefore I think that all that are Rightfully baptized by the Minister, that is, baptized so as that its well done of him, are not certainly saved by baptism, unless they be also rightfully baptized, in regard of their right to claim and receive it. Let them that are able to prove more do it, for I am not able.

11. Whereas some mis-interpret the words of the old Rubric of Confirmation in the English Liturgy, as if it spake of all that are baptized, whether they had Right or not, the words themselves may serve to rectify that mistake, [ And that no man shall think any detriment shall come to children by deferring of their Confirmation, he shall know for truth, that it is certain by God's Word, that children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation, and be undoubtedly saved, ] Where it is plain that they mean, they have all things necessary ex parte Ecclesiae, or all God's applying Ordinances necessary, though they should die unconfirmed, supposing that they have all things necessary to just baptism on their own part. Which is but what the ancients were wont to say of the Baptized Adult; But they never meant that the Infidel and Hypocrite and Impenitent person was in a state of life, because he was baptized; But that all that truly consent to the Covenant, and signify this by being baptized are saved. So the Church of England saith, that they receive no detriment by delaying Confirmation, but it never said, that they receive no detriment by their Parents or Sponsors Infidelity and Hypocrisy, or by their want of true Right Coram Deo to be baptized.

12. But yet before these Questions (either of them) be taken as resolved by me, I must first take in some other questions which are concerned in the same Cause; as

Quest. 36. What is meant by this speech, that Believers and their seed are in the Covenant of God; which giveth them right to Baptism?

Answ. THough this was opened on the by before, I add, 1. The meaning is not that they are in that Absolute promise of the first and all following grace, supposed ordinarily to be made of the Elect as such (unknown) viz. [ I will give them Faith, Repentance, Conversion, Justification and Salvation and all the Conditions of the Conditional promise, without any Condition on their part ] which many take to be the meaning of [ I will take the hard heart out of them, &c.] For 1. This promise is not now to be first performed to the adult who Repent and believe already: And no other are to be baptized at age: If that Absolute promise be sealed by baptism, either it must be so sealed as a promise before it be performed, or after: If before, either to all, because some are elect, or only to some that are elect. Not to all: for it is not common to Infidels: Not to some as elect; for 1. They are unknown, 2. If they were known, they are yet supposed to be Infidels. Not after performance, for then it is too late.

2. The meaning is not only that the Conditional Covenant of Grace is made and offered to them: For so it may be said of Heathens and Infidels and all the world that hear the Gospel.

But 1. The Covenant meant is indeed this Conditional Covenant only, Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.

2. To be in this Covenant is, to be a Consenting believer, and so to be one that hath by Inward Heart Consent, the true Conditions of right to the benefits of the Covenant, and is thereby prepared solemnly by baptism to Profess this Consent, and to receive an Investiture and seal of God's part, by his Minister given in his name.

3. Infants are thus in Covenant with their Parents, because Reputatively their Parents Wills are th •• rs, to dispose of them for their good. And therefore they Consent by their Parents, who Consent for them.

Quest. 37. Are Believers Children certainly in Covenant before their Baptism, and thereby in a state of Salvation? Or not till they are baptized?

Answ. DIstinguish between 1. Heart-Covenanting, and Mouth-Covenanting: 2. Between being in Covenant before God, and Visibly before the Church.

1. No person is to be baptized at age, whose Inward Heart Consent before professed, giveth him not Right to baptism. Therefore all the adult must be in Covenant, that is, Consent on their part to the Covenant, before they are baptized.

2. Therefore it is so with the seed of the faithful, who must Consent by their Parents, before they have right: Otherwise all should have right, and their baptism be essentially another baptism, as sealing some other Covenant, or none.

3. If there be no promise made to the seed of the faithful more than to others, they have no right more than others to baptism or salvation. But if there be a promise made to them as the seed of believers, then are they as such within that promise, that is, performers of its conditions by their Parents, and have right to the benefit.

4. If the Heart Consent or faith of the Adult, do put themselves into a state of salvation, before their baptism, then it doth so by their children: But &c. —

5. But this Right to salvation in Parents and Children upon Heart Consent before baptism, is only before God. For the Church taketh no Cognizance of secret heart-transactions: But a man then only consenteth in the Judgment of the Church, when he openly professeth it, and desireth to signify it by being baptized.

6. And even before God, there is a necessitas praecepti obliging us to open baptism after heart consent: And he that heartily consenteth, cannot refuse God's way of uttering it, unless either through ignorance he know it not to be his duty, (for himself and his child,) or through want of ability or opportunity cannot have it. So that while a man is unbaptized, somewhat is wanting to the completeness of his right to the benefits of the Covenant, viz. A reception of Investiture and possession in God's appointed way; though it be not such a want, as shall frustrate the salvation of those that did truly consent in heart.

7. I take it therefore for certain, that the children of true believers, Consent to the Covenant by their Parents, and are as certainly saved if they die before baptism, as after; Though those that despise baptism when they know it to be a duty, cannot be thought indeed to believe or consent for their children or themselves.

Quest. 38. Is Infants title to Baptism and the Covenant-benefits given them by God in his Promise, upon any proper Moral Condition, or only upon the Condition of their Natural Relation, that they be the Seed of the Faithful?

Answ. THat which is called a mere Natural Condition is properly in Law sense no condition at all; nor doth make a Contract or Promise to be called Conditional in a Moral sense. But it is matters of Morality and not of Physicks only that we are treating of; and therefore we must take the terms in a Moral sense. For a Physical Condition is either past; or present, or future, or not-future: If it be past or present, the proposition may indeed be hypothetical, but it is no such conditional promise as we are speaking of: For instance, if you say, [If thou wast born in such a City, or if thy name be John, I will give thee so much] These are the words of an uncertain promiser; but the Promise is already either equivalent to an Absolute Gift, or Null. So if the Physical condition be de futuro, e. g. [If thou be alive tomorrow, I will give thee this or that; or if the Sun shine tomorrow, &c. ] This indeed suspendeth the gift or event; but not upon any Moral being which is in the power of the Receiver, but upon a Natural Contingency or uncertainty. And God hath no such Conditional Covenants or promises to be sealed by baptism. He saith not, If thou be the child of such or such a man, thou shalt be saved, as his natural offspring only. If the Papists that accuse us for holding that the mere natural progeny of believers are saved as such, did well understand our doctrine, they would perceive that in this we differ not from the understanding sort among them, or at least, that their accusations run upon a mistake.

I told you before that there are three things distinctly to be considered in the title of Infants to baptism and salvation. 1. By what right the Parent covenanteth for his child? 2. What right the child hath to baptism? 3. What right he hath to the benefits of the Covenant sealed and delivered in baptism?

To the first, two things concur to the title of the Parent to Covenant in the name of his child: One is his Natural Interest in him, The child being his own is at his dispose. The other is God's gracious will and consent that it shall be so; that the Parents Will shall be as the child's for his good, till he come at age to have a Will of his own.

To the second, The child's right to baptism is not merely his Natural or his Birth relation from such Parents, but it is in two degrees as followeth, 1. He hath a Virtual Right, on condition of his Parents faith: the Reason is, because that a believers consent and self-dedication to God death Virtually contain in it a dedication with himself of all that is his: And it is a contradiction to say that a a man truly dedicateth himself to God, and not all that he hath, and that he truly consenteth to the Covenant for himself, and not for his child, if he understand that God will accept it. 2. His Actual title-condition is his Parents (or Owners) Actual Consent to enter him into God's Covenant, and his Actual mental dedication of his child to God, which is his title before God, and the Profession of it is his title before the Church. So that it is not a mere Physical but a Moral title-condition, which an Infant hath to baptism, that is, His Parents Consent to dedicate him to God.

3. And to the third, His title-condition to the Benefits of baptism, hath two degrees, 1. That he be really dedicated to God by the heart-consent of his Parent as aforesaid: And 2. That his Parent express this by the solemn engaging him to God in baptism; The first being necessary as a Means sine quo non, and the second being necessary as a Duty without which he sinneth, (when its possible,) and as a Means coram Ecclesia to the privileges of the Visible Church.

The sum of all is, that our mere natural interest in our children is not their title-condition to baptism or to salvation, but only that presupposed state which enableth us by God's Consent to Covenant for them: But their title-condition to baptism and salvation, is our Covenanting for them, or Voluntary dedicating them to God; which we do 1. Virtually when we dedicate ourselves, and all that we have or shall have, 2. Actually when our Hearts consent particularly for them, and Actually devote them to God, before Baptism: 3. Sacramentally, when we express this in our solemn baptismal covenanting and dedication.

Consider exactly of this again; And if you loath distinguishing, confess ingenuously that you loath the truth, or the necessary means of knowing it.

Quest. 39. What is the true meaning of Sponsors, Patrimi or God-fathers as we call them? And is it lawful to make use of them?

Answ. I. TO the first question; All men have not the same thoughts either of their Original, or of their present use.

1. Some think that they were Sponsors or Sureties for the Parents rather than the child at first: And that when many in times of Persecution, Heresy and Apostasy, did baptize their children this month or year, and the next month or year apostatize and deny Christ themselves, that the Sponsors were only credible Christians witnessing that they believed that the Parents were credible firm believers, and not like to apostatize. 2. Others think that they were undertakers, that if the Parents did apostatize or die, they would see to the Christian Education of the child themselves. 3. Others think that they did both these together: (which is