A Christian Directory
1. There is no such word in the Liturgy, Doctrine or Canons of the Church of England: And that is not to be feigned and fathered on them, which they never said.
2. It would be against the Law of Nature to force all Parents to give the sole propriety, or joyntpropriety in their children to others. Nature hath given the propriety to themselves, and we cannot rob them of it.
3. It would be heinously injurious to the children of Noble and Learned persons, if they must be forced to give them up to the propriety and education of others, even of such as perhaps are lower and more unfit for it than themselves.
4. It would be more heinously injurious to all God-fathers and God-mothers, who must all make other men's children their own, and therefore must use them as their own.
5. It would keep most children unbaptized; Because if it were once understood that they must take them as their own, few would be Sponsors to the children of the poor, for fear of keeping them; and few but the Ignorant that know not what they do, would be Sponsors for any, because of the greatness of the charge, and their averseness to adopt the children of others.
6. It would make great confusion in the State, while all men were bound to exchange children with another.
7. I never knew one man or woman that was a God-father or God-mother on such terms, nor that took the child to be their own: And if such a one should be found among ten thousand, that is no rule to discern the judgment of the Church by.
8. And in Confirmation the God-father and God-mother is expressly said to be for this use, to be Witnesses that the Party is Confirmed.
9. And in the Priests speech to the Adult that come for baptism, in the Office of baptism of those of riper years, it is the persons themselves that are to promise and covenant for themselves, and the God-fathers and God-mothers are only called [ these your Witnesses. ] And if they be but Witnesses to the adult, its like they are not Adopters of Infants.
II. Those that doubt of the Lawfulness of using Sponsors for their children, do it on these two accounts: 1. As supposing it unlawful to make so promiscuous an Adoption of children, or of choosing another to be a Covenanter for the child instead of the Parent, to whom it belongeth; or to commit their children to another's either propriety, or education, or formal promise of that which belongeth to education, when they never mean to perform it, nor can do. 2. Because they take it for an Adding to the Ordinance of God, a thing which Scripture never mentioneth. To which I answer.
1. I grant it unlawful to suppose another to be the Parent or proprietor that is not: Or to suppose him to have that power and interest in your child which he hath not: O • to desire him to undertake what he cannot perform, and which neither he nor you intend he shall perform: I grant that you are not bound to alienate the propriety of your children, nor to take in another to be joint-proprietors; nor to put out your children to the God-fathers education. So that if you will misunderstand the Use of Sponsors, then indeed you will make them unlawful to be so used.
But if you take them but as the ancient Churches did, for such as do attest the Parents fidelity (in their persuasion,) and do promise first to mind you of your duty, and next to take care of the children's pious education if you die, I know no reason you have to scruple this much.
Yea more, it is in your own power to agree with the God-fathers, that they shall represent your own persons, and speak and promise what they do, as your deputies only, in your names? And what have you against this? Suppose you were sick, lame, imprisoned or banished, would you not have your child baptized? And how should that be done, but by your deputing another to represent you in entering him into Covenant with God?
Object. But when the Church-men mean another thing, this is but to juggle with the world.
Answ. How can you prove that the authority that made or imposed the Liturgy, meant any other thing? And other individuals are not the Masters of your sense. 2. Yea, and if the Imposers had meant ill, in a thing that may be done well, you may discharge your conscience by doing it well, and making a sufficient profession of your better sense.
2. And then it will be no sinful addition to God's Ordinance, to determine of a lawful circumstance, which he hath left to human prudence: As to choose a meet Deputy, Witness or Sponsor, who promiseth nothing but what is meet.
Quest. 40. On whose account or right is it that the Infant hath title to Baptism and its benefits? Is it on the Parents, Ancestors, Sponsors, the Churches, the Ministers, the Magistrates, or his own?
Answ. THe titles are very various that are pretended: Let us examine them all.
I. I cannot think that a Magistrates Command to baptize an Infant, giveth him right, 1. Because there is no proof of the validity of such a title: 2. Because the Magistrate can command no such thing if it be against God's Word, as this is, which would level the case of the seed of Heathens and believers. And I know but few of that opinion.
II. I do not think that the Minister as such giveth title to the Infant: For 1. He is no proprietor, 2. He can show no such power or grant from God: 3. He must baptize none but those that antecedently have right. 4. Else he also might level all, and take in Heathens children with believers: 5. Nor is this pretended to by many, that I know of.
III. I cannot think that it is a particular Church that must give this Right, or perform the condition of it. For 1. Baptism (as is aforesaid) as such, doth only make a Christian, and a member of the Universal Church, and not of any particular Church. And 2. The Church is not the proprietor of the child. 3. No Scripture Commission can be shown for such a power. Where hath God said, All that any particular Church will receive, shall have right to baptism? 4. By what act must the Church give this right? If by baptizing him; the question is of his antecedent right? If by willing that he be baptized, 1. If they will that one be baptized that hath no right to it, their will is sinful, and therefore unfit to give him right. 2. And the baptizing Minister hath more power than a thousand or ten thousand private men, to judge who is to be baptized. 5. Else a Church might save all Heathens children that they can but baptize, and so level Infidels and Christians seed. 6. It is not the Church in general, but someone person, that must educate the child: Therefore the Church cannot so much as promise for its education: The Church hath nothing to do with those that are without: but only with her own; And Heathens children are not her own, nor exposed to her occupation.
IV. I believe not that it is the Universal Church that giveth the Infant title to baptism: For, 1. He that giveth title to the Covenant and baptism, doth it as a performer of the Moral Condition of that title. But God hath nowhere made the Churches faith, to be the condition of baptism or salvation, either • o Infidels or their seed. 2. Because the Universal Church is a body that cannot be consulted with to give their Vote and Consent: Nor have they any Deputies to do it by. For there is no Universal Visible Governor: And if you will pretend every Priest to be commissioned to act and judge in the name of the Universal Church, you will want proof, and thats before confuted. 3. If all have right that the Universal Church offereth up to God, or any Minister or Bishop be counted its Deputy or Agent to that end, it is in the power of that Minister (as is said) to level all, and to baptize and save all; which is contrary to the Word of God.
V. I believe that God-fathers as such, being no Adopters or Proprietors, are not the performers of the condition of salvation for the Infant, nor give him right to be baptized. 1. Because he is not their Own, and therefore their will or act cannot go for his: Because there is no Word of God for it that all shall be baptized or saved that any Christians will be Sponsors for. God's Church blessings be not tied • o such inventions, that were not in being when God's Laws were made. Where • here is no promise or word, there is no faith. 3. No Sponsors are so much as lawful (as is shown before) who are not Owners, or their Deputies, or mere secondary subservient parties, who suppose the principal Covenanting party. 4. And as to the Infants salvation, the Sponsors may (too oft) be ignorant Infidels and Hypocrites themselves, that have no true faith for themselves; and therefore not enough to save another. 5. And it were strange if God should make no promise to a wicked Parent for his own child, and yet should promise to save by baptism all that some wicked and hypocrite God-fathers will offer him. 6. And that thus the seed of Heathens and Christians should be levelled, and yet an ignorant bold undertaker to carry away the privilege of saving persons from them both. All this is but men's unproved imaginations. He that never commandeth God-fathers; but forbiddeth the Usurping sort, and only alloweth human prudence to use the Lawful sort, did never put the souls of all children, Christians and Heathens into their hands, (no more than into the hands of the Priest that baptizeth them.)
VI. I do not find that remote ancestors that are dead, or that are not the proprietors of the children, are the performers of the Condition by which they have right to baptism or salvation. 1. Because God hath put that power and work in the hands of others, even the Parents, which they cannot nullify. 2. Because the promise of mercy to thousands is no supposition that the successors make no intercision. 3. Else the threatenings to the seed of the wicked would signify nothing, nor would any in the world be excluded from right, but all be levelled; Because Noah was the common Father of mankind: And if you lay it on dead Ancestors, you have no rule where to stop till you come to Noah.
VII. I conclude therefore that it is, elearly the Immediate Parents, (both or one) and probably any true domestic Owner of the Child, who hath the power to Choose or Refuse for him; and so to enter him into Covenant with God, and so by Consent to perform the Condition of his Right. For 1. Abundance of promises are made to the faithful and their seed, of which I have spoke at large in my Book of Infant Baptism. And besides the punishment of Adams sin, there is scarce a Parent infamous for sin in Scripture, but his posterity falleth under the punishment, as for a secondary Original sin or guilt. As the case of Cain, Cham, the Sodomites, the Amalekites, the Jews, Achan, Gehazi, &c. show. And 1 Cor. 7. 14. it is expressly said, Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy (of the sense of which I have spoke as aforecited).
Object. But if Owners may serve, one may buy multitudes, and a King or Lord of slaves, whose Own the people are, may cause them all to be baptized and saved.
Answ. 1. Remember that I say, that the Christian Parents Right is clear, but I take the other as more dark: For it is principally grounded on Abraham and the Israelites circumcising their children born to them in the house or bought with money: And how far the parity of reason here will reach is hard to know. All that I say is, that I will not deny it, because favores sunt ampliandi. 2. If such a Prince be an hypocrite, and not a sincere Christian himself, his faith or consent cannot save others, that cannot save himself. 3. It is such a propriety as is conjunct with a Divine Concession only that giveth this power of Consenting for an Infant: Now we find clear proof of God's Concession to Natural Parents, and probable proof of his Concession of it to Domestic Owners; but no further that I know of. For, 1. It is an Act of God's Love to the child for the Parents sake; and therefore to such children as we are supposed to have a special Nearness to, and Love for. 2. And it is a Consent and Covenanting which he calls for, which obligeth the promiser to, consequent pious education, which is a domestic act. 3. They are comprised in the Name of Parents, which those that adopt them and educate them may be called. 4. And the Infants are their Children, not their Slaves. But now if the Emperor of Moscovy, Indostan, &c. had the propriety in all his people as slaves, this would not intimate paternal interest and love, but tyranny, nor could he be their domestical educater. Therefore I must limit it to a pro-parent, or domestical educating proprietor.
Quest. 41. Are they really baptized who are baptized according to the English Liturgy and Canons, where the Parent seemeth excluded, and those to Consent for the Infant who have no power to do it?
Answ. I Find some puzzled with this doubt, Whether all our Infants baptism be not a mere Nullity: For, say they, the outward washing without Covenanting with God, is no more baptism than the body or Corpse is a man. The Covenant is the chief essential part of baptism. And he that was never entered into Covenant with God was never baptized. But Infants according to the Liturgy, are not entered into Covenant with God: which they would prove thus: They that neither ever covenanted by themselves, or by any authorized person▪ for them, were never entered into Covenant with God (For thats no act of theirs which is done by a stranger that hath no power to do it) But, &c—That they did it not themselves is undeniable: That they did it not by any person empowered by God to do it for them they prove, 1. Because God-fathers are the persons [ by whom ] the Infant is said to promise: But God-fathers have no power from God, 1. Not by Nature, 2. Not by Scripture. 2. Because the Parents are not only not in • luded as Covenanters, but positively excluded, 1. In that the whole Office of Covenanting for the child from first to last is laid on others: 2. In that the twenty ninth Canon saith, [ No Parent shall be urged to be Present; nor admitted to Answer as God-father for his own child: ] by which the Parent that hath the power is excluded: Therefore our children are all unbaptized.
To all this I answer, 1. That the Parents Consent is supposed, though he be absent: 2. That the Parent is not required to be absent, but only not to be urged to be present; but he may if he will: 3. That the reason of that Canon seems to be their jealousy, lest any would exclude God-fathers. 4. While the Church hath nowhere declared what person the Sponsors bear, nor any further what they are to do, than to speak the Covenanting words, and promise to see to the pious education of the child, the Parents may agree that the God-fathers shall do all this as their deputies, primarily, and in their steads, and secondarily as friends that promise their assistance. 5. While Parents really consent, it is not their silence that nullifieth the Covenant. 6. All Parents are supposed and required to be themselves the choosers of the Sponsors or Sureties, and also to give notice to the Minister before hand; By which it appeareth that their Consent is presupposed. And though my own judgment be, that they should be the principal Covenanters for the child expressly, yet the want of that expressness, will not make us unbaptized persons.
Quest. 42. But the great Question is, How the Holy Ghost is given to Infants in Baptism? And whether all the Children of true Christians have inward sanctifying Grace? Or whether they can be said to be justified, and to be in a state of salvation, that are not inherently sanctified? And whether any fall from this Infant state of salvation?
Answ. OF all these great difficulties I have said what I know, in my Appendix to Infant Baptism to Mr. Bedford and Dr. Ward, and of Bishop Davenants judgment. And I confess that my judgment agreeth more in this with Davenants than any others, saving that he doth not so much appropriate the benefits of baptism to the children of sincere believers as I do. And though by a Letter in pleading Davenants cause, I was the occasion of good Mr. Gatakers printing of his answer to him, yet I am still most inclined to his judgment; Not that all the baptized, but that all the baptized seed of true Christians are pardoned, justified, adopted, and have a title to the Spirit and salvation.
But the difficulties in this case are so great, as driveth away most who do not equally perceive the greater inconveniencies which we must choose, if this opinion be forsaken: that is, that all Infants must be taken to be out of the Covenant of God, and to have no promise of salvation. Whereas surely the Law of Grace as well as the Covenant of Works included all the seed in their capacity.
1. To the first of these Questions, I answer, 1. As all true believers, so all their Infants do receive initially by the promise, and by way of obsignation and Sacramental Investiture in Baptism, a Ius Relationis, a right of peculiar Relation to all the three persons in the blessed Trinity: As to God, as their reconciled Adopting Father, and to Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and actual Head and Justifier, so also to the Holy Ghost as their Regenerater and Sanctifier. This Right and Relation adhereth to them, and is given them in order to future actual operation and communion. As a Marriage Covenant giveth the Relation and Right to one another, in order to the subsequent Communion and duties of a married life: And as he that sweareth allegiance to a King, or is listed into an Army, or is entered into a School, receiveth the Right and Relation, and is so correlated, as obligeth to the mutual subsequent Offices of each, and giveth right to many particular benefits. By this Right and Relation, God is his own God and Father; Christ is his own Head and Savior; and the Holy Spirit is his own Sanctifier, without asserting what operations are already wrought on his soul, but only to what future ends and uses these Relations are. Now as these Rights and Relations are given immediately, so those Benefits which are Relative, and the Infant immediately capable of them, are presently given by way of communion: He hath presently the pardon of Original sin, by virtue of the Sacrifice, Merit and Intercession of Christ. He hath a state of Adoption, and Right to Divine Protection, Provision and Church-communion according to his natural Capacity, and Right to everlasting life.
2. It must be carefully noted, that the Relative Union between Christ the Mediator and the baptized persons, is that which in Baptism is first given in order of nature, and that the rest do flow from this. The Covenant and Baptism deliver the Covenanter 1. From Divine Displicency by Reconciliation with the Father, 2. From Legal Penalties by Justification by the Son; 3. From sin itself by the operations of the Holy Ghost. But it is Christ as our Mediator-Head, that is first given us in Relative Union: And then, 1. The Father▪Loveth us with Complacency as in the Son, and for the sake of his first beloved. 2. And the Spirit which is given us in Relation is first the Spirit of Christ our Head; and not first inherent in us: So that by Union with our Head, that Spirit is next united to us, both Relatively, and as Radically Inherent in the Human Nature of our Lord, to whom we are united. As the Nerves and Animal Spirits which are to operate in all the body, are Radically only in the Head, from whence they flow into, and operate on the members as there is need (though there may be obstructions); So the Spirit dwelleth in the Human Nature of our Head; and there it can never be lost; And it is not necessary that it dwell in us by way of Radication, but by way of Influence and Operation.
These things are distinctly and clearly understood but by very few; and we are all much in the dark about them. But I think (however doctrinally we may speak better,) that most Christians are habituated to this perilous misapprehension (which is partly against Christianity itself,) that the Spirit floweth immediately from the Divine Nature of the Father and the Son (as to the Authoritative or Potestative conveyance) unto our souls. And we forget that it is first given to Christ in his Glorified Humanity as our Head, and radicated in Him, and that it is the Office of this Glorified Head, to send or communicate to all his members from Himself, that Spirit which must operate in them as they have need.
This is plain in many Texts of Scripture, Rom. 8. 32. He that spared not his own Son, but gave him up for us all, how shall be not also with him freely give us all things? (when he giveth him particularly to us.)
1 John 5. 11, 12. And this is the record that God hath given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son: He that hath the Son hath the life, and he that hath not the Son hath not the life.
Rom. 8. 9. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, the same is none of his.
Eph. 1. 22, 23. And gave him to be the Head over all things to the Church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.
John 15. 26. The Advocate or Comforter whom I will send unto you from the Father, &c.
John 16. 7. If I depart, I will send him unto you.
John 14. 26. The Comforter whom the Father will send in my Name.
Gal. 4. 6. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your Hearts, crying Abba, Father.
Gal. 2. 20. I live: yet not I, but Christ liveth in me (I know that is true of his Living in us Objectively and Finally, but that seemeth not to be all. )
Col. 3. 3, 4. For ye are dead, and your life is bid with Christ in God; when Christ who is our life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in Glory. I know that in verse 3. by Life is meant Felicity or Glory; But not only; as appeareth by verse 4. where Christ is called Our Life.
Matth. 28. 19. All power is given unto me in Heaven and Earth —ver. 20. I am with you always —Joh. 13. 3. The Father hath given all things into his hands.
Joh. 17. 2, 3. Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him, And this is life eternal to know thee, &c.
Joh. 5. 21. The Son quickeneth whom he will: v. 26. For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.
Joh. 6. 27. Labor for that meat which endureth to everlasting life, which the son of man shall give unto you, For him • ath God the Father sealed.
V. 32. 33. He giveth Life unto the World. V. 53, 54, 55, 56. Whos • eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life—dwelleth in me and I in him—my flesh is meat indeed—At the Living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. V. 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.
Joh. 7. 39. This spake he of the spirit which they that believe in him should receive. Joh. 3. 34. God giveth not the spirit to him by measure.
1 Cor. 6. 17. He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit.
2 Cor. 3. 17. The Lord is the spirit, and where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
Phil. 1. 19. Through the supply of the spirit of Jesus Christ.
Joh. 15. 4. Abide in me and I in you: As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the Vine, no more can ye except ye abide in me. V. 5. I am the Vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: For without me (or, out of me, or, severed from me) ye can do nothing.
I will add no more: All this is proof enough that the spirit is not given radically or Immediately from God to any believer, but to Christ, and so derivatively from him to us. Not that the Divine nature in the third person is subject to the human nature in Christ; But that God hath made it the office of our Mediators Glorified Humanity, to be the Cistern that shall▪ first receive the Waters of life, and convey them by the pipes of his appointed means to all the offices of his house: Or to be the Head of the Animal spirits, and by nerves to convey them to all the members.
3. We are much in the dark concerning the degree of Infants Glory: And therefore we can as little know, what degree of grace is necessary to prepare them for their Glory.
4. It is certain that Infants before they are Glorified, shall have all that Grace that is prerequisite to their preparation and fruition.
5. No sanctified person on earth is in an Immediate capacity for Glory: Because their sin and imperfection must be done away, which is done at the dissolution of soul and body. The very accession of the soul to God doth perfect it.
6. Infants have no actual faith or hope or Love to God to exercise; And therefore need not the influence of the spirit of Christ to exercise them.
7. We are all so very much in the dark, as to the clear and distinct apprehension of the true nature of Original inherent pravity or sin, that we must needs be as much ignorant of the true nature of that Inherent sanctity or Righteousness which is its contrary, or cur • . Learned Illirious thought it was a Substance, which he hath in his Clavis pleaded for at large. Others call it a Habit, Others a nature, or natural Inclination and a privation of a Natural Inclination to God: Others call it an Indisposition of the mind and will, to holy Truth and Goodness, and an Ill disposition of them to error and evil. Others call it only the Inordinate Lust of the sensitive faculties, with a debility of Reason and Will to resist it. And whilst the nature of the soul itself and its faculties, are so much unknown to itself, the nature of Original pravity and Righteousness must needs be very much unknown.
8. Though an Infant be a distinct natural person from his Parents, yet is he not actually a distinct person Morally, as being not a moral Agent, and so not capable of moral Actions good or evil. Therefore his Parents Will goeth for his.
9. His first acceptance into the Complacencial Love of God (as distinct from his Love of Benevolence ) is not for any inherent Holiness in himself; but 1. As the Child of a believing Parent who hath Dedicated him to Christ, and 2. As a member of Christ, in whom he is well pleased.
10. Therefore God can complacencially as well as benevolently Love an Infant in Christ, who only believeth and Repenteth by the Parents, and not by himself, nor is not yet supposed to have the spirit of sanctification.
11. For the spirit of sanctification is not the presupposed Condition of his acceptance into Covenant with God, but a gift of the Covenant of God itself, following both the Condition on our part, and our right to be Covenanters or to God's promise upon that condition.
12. So the adult themselves have the operation of the spirit by which they Believe and Repent, by which they come to have their Right to God's part in the Covenant of Baptism; (for this is antecedent to their baptism): But they have not that gift of the spirit, which is called in Scripture, the spirit of sanctification, and of Power, Love and a sound mind, and is the benefit given by the Covenant of Baptism, till afterward; Because they must be in that Covenant before it can be made good to them. And their Faith or Consent is their Infants right also, antecedent to the Covenant gift.
13. There is therefore some notable difference between that work of the spirit by which we first Repent and believe and so have our title to the promise of the spirit, and that gift of the spirit which is promised to believers: which is not only the spirit of Miracles given in the first times, but some notable degree of Love to our Reconciled Father, suitable to the Grace and Gospel of Redemption and Reconciliation, and is called the spirit of Christ, and the spirit of Adoption, which the Apostles themselves seem not to have received till Christ's ascension: And this seemeth to be not only different from the Gifts of the spirit common to Hypocrites and the unbelievers, but also from the special gift of the spirit which maketh men believers: So that Mr. Tho. Hooker saith trulyer than once I understood, that V • cation is a special Grace of the spirit, distinct from Common Grace on one side, and from sanctification on the other side. Whether it be the same degree of the spirit which the faithful had before Christ's Incarnation, which causeth men first to believe, distinct from the higher following degree I leave to enquiry: But the certainest distinction is from the different effects.
14. Though an Infant cannot be either disposed to a holy life, or fit for Glory immediately, without an inward Holiness of his own, yet by what is said it seemeth plain, that merely on the account of the Condition performed by the Parent, and of his Union Relatively with Christ thereupon, and his title to God's promise on these Grounds, he may be said to be in a state of salvation; that is, to have the pardon of his Original sin, deliverance from hell (in right,) adoption, and a right to the needful operations of the Holy Ghost, as given to him in Christ, who is the first receiver of the spirit.
15. But when and in what sort and degree Christ giveth the actual operations of the spirit to all Covenanted Infants, it is wonderful hard for us to know. But this much seemeth clear, 1. That Christ may when he please work on the soul of an Infant to change its disposition, before he come to the use of Reason. 2. That Christ and his spirit as in Covenant with Infants, are ready to give all necessary assistance to Infants for their inherent sanctification, in the use of those means, and on those further conditions, on which we must wait for it and expect it. For the Holy Ghost is not so engaged to us in our Covenant or Baptism, as to be obliged presently to give us all the grace that we want; But only to give it us on certain further conditions, and in the use of certain means. But because this leadeth me up to another question, I will suspend the rest of the answer to this, till that be handled. Only I must answer this objection.
Obj. It is contrary to the Holy nature of God, complacenically to Love an unsanctified Infant, that is yet in his Original Corruption unchanged, and he justifieth none relatively from the guilt of sin, whom he doth not at once inherently sanctify.
Answ. 1. God's complacencial Love respecteth everyone as he is; For it is Goodness only that he so Loveth. Therefore he so Loveth not those that either Actually or Habitually Love not Him, under any false supposition that they do Love him when they do not. His Love therefore to the Adult and Infants differeth as the objects differ. But there is this Lovely in such Infants, 1. That they are the Children of believing sanctified Parents, 2. That they are by his Covenant Relatively United to Christ, and so are Lovely as his members; 3. That they are pardoned all their original sin; 4. That they are set in the way to Actual Love and holiness; being thus dedicated to God.
2. All imperfect Saints are sinners; And all sinners are as such abhorred of God, whose pure eyes cannot behold iniquity. As then it will stand with his purity to accept and love the Adult upon their first believing, before their further sanctification, and notwithstanding the remnant of their sins, so may it do also to accept their Infants through Christ upon their Dedication.
3. As the actual sin imputed to Infants was Adams, and their Parents only by Act, and not their own, it is no wonder if upon their Parents faith and repentance, Christ wash and justify them from that guilt which arose only from another's act.
4. And then the inherent pravity was the effect of that Act of their Ancestors, which is forgiven them. And this pravity or inherent Original sin may two ways be said to be mortified radically or Virtually or inceptively before any inherent change in them, 1. In that it is mortified in their Parents from whom they derived it, who have the power of choosing for them, and 2. In that they are by Covenant engraffed into Christ, and so related to the cause of their future sanctification; yea, 3. In that also they are by Covenant and their Parents promise, engaged to use those means which Christ hath appointed for sanctification.
5. And it must be remembered that as this is but an inceptive preparatory change, so the very pardon of the Inherent vitiosity is not perfect (as I have elsewhere largely proved) (however some Papists and Protestants deny it). While sin remaineth sin, and corruption is still indwelling, besides all the unremoved penalties of it, the very being of it, proveth it to be so far unpardoned, in that it is not yet abolished, and the continuance of it being not its smallest punishment, as permitted, and the spirit not given so far as to cure it. Imperfect pardon may consist with a present right both to further sanctification by the Spirit, and so to Heaven.
Obj. Christ's body hath no unholy members.
Answ. 1. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Now are your Children holy: They are not wholly unholy who have all the fore-described holiness. 2. As Infants in Nature want memory and actual reason, and yet initially are men; so, as Christ's members, they may want actual and habitual faith and Love, and yet initially be sanctified, by their Union with him and his spirit, and their Parents Dedication, and be in the way for more, as they grow fit; And be Christians and Saints in fieri, or initially only, as they are men.
Quest. 43. Is the right of the Baptized (Infants or adult) to the sanctifying operations of the Holy Ghost, now Absolute, or suspended on further Conditions? And are the Parents further duty for their Children such conditions of their Children's reception of the Actual assistances of the Spirit? Or are Children's own actions such Conditions? And may Apostate Parents forfeit the Covenant benefits to their Baptized Infants? or not?
Answ. THE question is great and difficult, and few dare meddle with it. And almost all Infant-cases are to us obscure.
I. 1. It is certain that it is the Parents great duty to bring up their Children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
2. It is certain that God hath appointed this to be the means of their actual knowledge, faith and holiness.
3. And God doth not appoint such means unnecessarily or in vain: nor may we ordinarily expect his grace but in the use of the means of Grace, which he hath appointed us to use.
4. It is certain that God's receiving the Children of the faithful is an act of God's Love to the Parents as well as the Children, and promised as a part of his blessing on themselves.
5. It is certain that these Parents hold their own mercies upon the condition of their own continued fidelity: And (let their Apostasy be on other reasons never so impossible, or not future, yet) the promise of continuance and consummation of the personal felicity of the greatest Saint on earth, is still conditional, upon the condition of • his persevering sidelity.
6. Even before Children are capable of Instruction, there are certain duties imposed by God on the Parents for their sanctification; viz. 1. That the Parents pray earnestly and believingly for them. 2. That they themselves so live towards God as may invite him still to bless their Children for their sakes, as he did Abraham's, and usually did to the faithful's seed.
7. It is certain that the Church ever required Parents; not only to enter their Children into the Covenant, and so to leave them, but to do their after duty for their good, and to pray for them, and educate them according to their Covenant.
8. It is plain that if there were none to promise so to educate them, the Church would not baptize them. And God himself who allowed the Israelites, and still alloweth us to bring our Children into his Covenant, doth it on this supposition, that we promise also to go on to do our duty for them, and that we actually do it.
9. All this set together maketh it plain, 1. That God never promiseth the adult in Baptism, though true believers, that, he will work in them all graces further by his sanctifying spirit, let them never so much neglect or resist him: or that he will absolutely see that they never shall resist him: nor that the spirit shall still help them, though they neglect all his means; or that he will keep them from neglecting the means ( Election may secure this to the Elect as such; but the Baptismal Covenant as such, secureth it not to the baptized, nor to believers as such. ) 2. And consequently that Infants are in Covenant with the Holy Ghost still conditionally as their Parents are: And that the meaning of it is, that the Holy Ghost as your sanctifier will afford you all necessary help, in the use of those means which he hath appointed you to receive his help in.
Obj. Infants have no means to use.
Answ. While Infants stand on their Parents account, or Wills, the Parents have means to use for the continuance of their grace, as well as for the beginning of it.
10. Therefore I cannot see but that if a believer should apostatize (whether any do so is not the question) and his Infant not be made another's Child, he forfeiteth the benefits of the Covenant to his Infant. But if the propriety in the Infant be transferred to another, it may alter the case.
11. And how dangerously Parents may make partial forfeitures of the spirits assistance to their Children, and operations on them, by their own sinful lives, and neglect of prayer, and of prudent and holy education, even in particular acts, I fear many believing Parents never well considered.
12. Yet is not this forfeiture such as obligeth God to deny his spirit: For he may do with his own, as a free benefactor, as he list; And may have mercy freely, beyond his promise (though not against his word) on whom he will have mercy. But I say that he that considereth the woeful unfaithfulness and neglect of most Parents, even the Religious, in the Great work of holy educating their Children, may take the blame of their ungodliness on themselves, and not lay it. on Christ or the spirit who was in Covenant with them as their sanctifier, seeing he promised but conditionally to give them the sanctifying Heavenly influences of his Life, Light, and Love, in their just use of his appointed means, according to their abilities.
13. Also as soon as Children come to a little use of Reason, they stand conjunctly on their Parents Wills and on their own. As their Parents are bound to teach and rule them, so they are bound to learn of them and be ruled by them for their good. And though every sin of a Parent or a Child be not a total forfeiture of grace, yet, both their notable actual sins, may justly be punished, with a denial of some further help of the spirit which they grieve and quench.
11. And now I may seasonably answer the former question, whether Infants Baptismal saving grace may be lost, of which I must for the most that is to be said refer the Reader to Davenant (in Mr. Bedford's Book) on this subject, and to Dr. Sam. Ward joined with it, (Though Mr. Gatakers answers are very Learned and considerable:) And to my small Book called, My Judgment of Perseverance.
Augustine who first rose up for the doctrine of perseverance, against its Adversaries, carried it no higher than to all the Elect as such, and not at all to all the Sanctified; but oft affirmeth that some that were justified, sanctified and Love God, and are in a state of salvation, are not elect, and fall away: But since the Reformation, great reasons have been brought to carry it further to all the truly sanctified; of which cause Zanchius was one of the first Learned and zealous Patrons, that with great diligence in long disputations maintained it. All that I have now to say is, that I had rather with Davenant believe that the fore-described Infant state of salvation, which came by the Parents, may be lost by the Parents and the Children, (though such a sanctified renewed nature in holy Habits of Love as the adult have, be never lost) than believe that no Infants are in the Covenant of Grace and to be baptized.
Obj. But the Child once in possession shall not be punished for the Parents sin.
Answ. 1. This point is not commonly well understood. I have by me a large Disputation proving from the current of Scripture, a secondary original sin, besides that from Adam, and a secondary punishment ordinarily inflicted on Children for their Parents sins, besides the common punishment of the World for the first sin. 2. But the thing in question is but a loss of that benefit which they received and hold only by another. It is not so properly called a punishment for another's Sin, as a non-deliverance, or a non-continuance of their deliverance, which they were to receive on the condition of another's duty.
Obj. But the Church retaineth them as her members, and so their right is not lost by the fault or apostasy of the Parents.
Answ. 1. Lost it is one way or other, with multitudes of true Christians Children, who never show any signs of grace, and prove sometimes the worst of men. And God breaketh not his Covenant.
2. How doth the Church keep the Greeks Children that are made Janizaries?
3. No man stayeth in the Church without title. If the Church or any Christians take them as their own, that's another matter: I will not now stay to discuss the question, whether Apostate's Baptized Infants be still Church-members? But what I have said of their right before God, seemeth plain.
4. And mark, that on whomsoever you build an Infants Right, you may as well say, that he may suffer for other men's default: For, if you build it on the Magistrate, the Minister, the Church, the God-fathers, any of them may fail: They may deny him Baptism itself: They may fail in his education: Shall he suffer then for want of baptism, or good education when it is their faults? Whoever a Child or man is to receive a benefit by, the failing of that person may deprive him of that benefit. More objections I must pretermit, to avoid prolixity.
Quest. 44. Doth Baptism always oblige us at the present, and give Grace at the present? And is the Grace which is not given till long after, given by Baptism? or an effect of Baptism?
Answ. I Add this Case for two Reasons, 1. To open their pernicious error who think that a Covenant or Promise made by us to God, only for a future distant duty (as to Repent and believe before we die, ) is all that is essential to our Baptismal Covenanting. 2. To open the ordinary saying of many Divines, who say, that baptism worketh not always at the present, but sometimes only long afterward. The truth I think may be thus expressed,
1. It is not baptism, if there be not the profession of a present belief, a present consent, and a present dedition, or resignation, or dedication of the person to God, by the adult for themselves, and by Parents for their Infants. He that only saith, [ I promise to believe, repent and obey only at twenty or thirty years of age, ] is not morally baptized; for it is another Covenant of his own which he would make, which God accepteth not.
2. It is not only a future, but a present Relation to God, as his Own, his Subjects, his Children by Redemption, to which the baptized person doth consent.
3. It is a present correlation and not a future only, to which God consenteth on his pa • t, to be their Father, Savior and S • nctifier, their Owner peculiarly, their Ruler graciously, and their chief Benefactor, and Felicity, and End.
4. It is not only a future but a present Remission of sin, and Adoption and right to temporal and eternal mercies, which God giveth to true Consenters by his Covenant and Baptism.
5. But those mercies which we are not at that present capable of, are not to be given at the present, but afterward when we are capable: As the particular assistances of the Spirit, necessary upon all future particular occasions, &c. The pardon of future sins; Actual Glorification, &c.
6. And the Duties which are to be performed only for the future, we must promise at present to perform only for the future, in their season, to our lives end. Therefore we cannot promise that Infants shall believe, obey or Love God, till they are naturally capable of doing it.
7. If any hypocrite do not indeed Repent, Believe or Consent when he is baptized, or baptizeth his child, he so far faileth in the Covenant professed: And so much of baptism is undone; And God doth not enter into the present Covenant-Relations to him, as being uncapable thereof.
8. If this person afterwards Repent and Believe, it is a doing of the same thing which was omitted in baptism, and a making of the same Covenant; But not as a part of his Baptism itself, which is long past.
9. Nor is he hereupon to be Re-baptized; Because the external part was done before, and is not to be twice done. But the Internal part which was omitted; is now to be done, not as a part of baptism (old or new); but as a Part of Penitence, for his omission.
Object. If Covenanting be a part of Baptism, then this person, whose Covenant is never a part of his Baptism, doth live and die unbaptized.
Answ. As baptism signifieth only the external Ordinance, heart-covenanting is no part of it, but the Profession of it, is: And if there was no Profession of faith made, by word or sign, the person is unbaptized. But as baptism signifieth the Internal part with the external, so he will be no baptized person while he liveth; that is, One that in baptism did truly Consent, and Receive the spiritual Relations to God: But he will have the same thing in another way of God's appointment.
10. When this person is after sanctified, it is by God's performance of the same Covenant in specie, which baptism is made to seal, that God doth pardon, justify and adopt him: But this is not by his past baptism as a Cause, but by after grace and Absolution. The same Covenant doth it, but not baptism. Because indeed the Covenant or Promise saith, [ When ever thou believest and repentest, I will forgive thee: But Baptism saith, Because thou now believest, I do forgive thee, and wash away thy sin; ] and maketh present application.
11. So if an Infant or adult person live without grace, and at age be ungodly, his Baptismal Covenant is violated; And his after Conversion (or faith and repentance) is neither the fulfilling of God's Covenant, nor of his baptism neither. The reason is, because though Pardon and Adoption be given by that Conditional Covenant of Grace which baptism sealeth▪ yet so is not that first Grace of Faith and Repentance which is the Condition of Pardon and Adoption, and the title to baptism itself. Else Infidels should have right to baptism, and thereby to faith and repentance. But these are only the free Gifts of God to the Elect, and the fulfilling of some Absolute predictions concerning the Calling of the Elect, and the fulfilling of God's Will or Covenant to Christ the Mediator, that He shall see the travail of his soul and be satisfied, and possess those that are given him by the Father.
12. But when the Condition of the Covenant is at first performed by the Parent for the Infant, and this Covenant never broken on this child's behalf, (notwithstanding sins of Infirmity,) in this case the first Actual faith and repentance of children as they grow up, is from God's fulfilling of his Baptismal Covenant with them. The reason is, because that God in that Covenant did give them a Right of Relation to the holy Spirit in Christ their Head, as their Sanctifier, to operate on them as they are capable. But if they first prove Apostates and be after converted, God is disobliged (yea, to hypocrites never was obliged) as to the engagement made by him in baptism: And doth now 1. Freely give them faith and repentance as a Benefactor to his elect, and then 2. As a Covenanter give them pardon and adoption, &c.
13. So to the adult, that truly made the Baptismal Covenant, and never apostatized from it, all the Grace that God giveth them through their lives, is his fulfilling of his promise made to them, and sealed by baptism, and a fruit of their baptism. But to Hypocrites and Apostates it is otherwise, as is before explained.
Quest. 45. What is a proper Violation of our Baptismal Covenant?
Answ. NOte well, that there is a wide difference between these questions, 1. When doth a man miss of, or lose his present part in the Covenant or Promise of God in the Gospel? (This is as long as he is Impenitent, an Unbeliever and Refuser. ) 2. When doth a man totally lose his part and hope in that Promise or Covenant of God, so as to be • yable to all the penalty of it? (That is only by final Impenitence, Unbelief and refusal, when Life is ended.) 3. And when doth a man violate his own Covenant or promise made to God in baptism? Which is our present question. To which I answer.
1. This Promise hath parts Essential and parts Integral: We promise not both these parts alike, nor on the same terms: Though both be promised. The essential parts, are our essential duties of Christianity, (Faith, Love, Repentance in the essential parts,) &c. The Integrals are the Integral duties of Christianity.
2. He that performeth not the essential duties is an Apostate, or Hypocrite.
3. He that performeth not the Integral duties is a sinner, not only against the Law of Nature, and Christ's Precepts, but his own Promise; (And in this sense we all confess our breach of Covenant with Christ) But he is no Apostate, Hypocrite, or out of Covenant.
Quest. 46. May not Baptism in some Cases be repeated? And when?
Answ. 1. YOu must distinguish between Baptism, taken Morally, or only Physically. 2. Between Baptism Morally, as it is a Church or Visible Covenant, and as a Heart▪Covenant. 3. Between Real baptism and seeming baptism, which is a Nullity. 4. Between certain reception of baptism, and that which is uncertain or justly doubted of. And so I answer,
1. Real and Certain Baptism as a visible Church-Ordinance may not be repeated. Though the Heart-Covenant was wanting. And though it wanted not only decent modes, but integral parts.
2. But in these cases Baptism may be used where it seemed to have been received before.
1. When the person made no profession of the Christian faith (nor his Parents for him, if an Infant). 2. If that profession notoriously wanted an Essential part; As if he only professed to believe in God the Father, and not in the Son, or the Holy Ghost. 3. If the Minister only baptized him into the name of the Father, or Son, or left out any essential part. 4. If the person or Minister only contracted for a distant futurity, (As I will be a Christian when I am old, &c. ) and not for the present: which is not to be christened, but only to promise to be christened hereafter. 5. If all application of water (or any watery element ) was omitted, which is the external sign. 6. Of the Baptizers power I shall speak anon. 7. If the Church or the person himself have just cause of doubting whether he was truly baptized or not, to do it again, with hypothetical expressions, [If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee] yea, or simply while that is understood, is lawful, and fit. And it is not to be twice baptized Morally, but only Physically, As I have fully opened in the Question of Re-ordination, to which I must refer the Reader.
3. And I confess I make little doubt but that those in Acts 19. were Re-baptized, notwithstanding the witty evasion invented by Phil. Marnixius Aldegondus and Beza 's improvement of it, and the now common reception of that interpretation; For 1. A new and forced exposition which no Reader dreameth of till it be put into his head, is usually to be suspected, lest art deceive us.
2. The omission of the Holy Ghost is an essential defect, and maketh Baptism specifically another thing: And he were now to be re-baptized who should be so baptized.
3. Whatever some say in heat against the Papists, John's baptism and our Christian baptism are so specifically distinct also, that he that had now but John's were to be yet baptized: The person of the M • ssiah himself being not determinately put into John's baptism as such: Nor can it be supposed that all the Jews that John baptized, were baptized into the profession of faith in this numerical person Jesus, but only to an unknown Savior undetermined: However he pointed to Christ in the hearing of some of his disciples. We must not run from plain truth in pievishness of opposition to Papists o • any other men.
4. The fifth Verse would not be true of John's baptism as the History showeth, that [ When Johns hearers heard this, they were baptized into the Name of the Lord Jesus ]. This is contrary to the Text that recordeth it.
5. In the fourth Verse the words, [ that is, on Christ Jesus ] are plainly Paul's expository words of John's, and • ot John's words: John baptized them [ into the Name of the Messiah that should come after him, ] which indeed saith Paul was Christ Jesus▪ though not then personally determined by John.
6. The connection of the fourth, fifth and sixth Verses puts all out of doubt: 1. In the fourth Verse the last words are Paul's, [ that is, on Christ Jesus ]. 2 In the next words, Ver. 4. [ When they heard this, they were baptized, &c. ] must refer to the last words, or to his that was speaking to them. 3. Ver. 6. The Pronoun [ Them ] ( when Paul had laid his hands on them ) plainly re •• erreth to them last spoken of, Ver. 5. which therefore was not John's hearers as such. 4. And the • ords [ they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus ] are plainly distinctive from John's baptism. Saith Grotius, Sic accepere Latinus, Syrus, Arabs, & Veteres omnes ante Marnixium ( • ut verba L • ucae). Yet I say not so hardly of John's baptism, as Tertuli •• on this Text ( de Baptis. ) [ Adeo pas •••• a in Actis Apostolorum invenimus, quoniam qui Johannes baptismum habebant, non accepissent Spiritum Sanctum, quem ne auditu quidem noverant: Ergo non erat coeleste, quod coelestia non exhibebat. ] See Dr. Hammond in loc.
Quest. 47. Is Baptism by Lay-men or Women Lawful in Cases of necessity? Or are they nullities, and the person to be re-baptized?
Answ. 1. I Know some of the Ancients allowed it in necessity. But I know no such necessity that can be: For 1. God hath expressly made it a part of the Ministerial Office by Commission, Mat. 28. 19, 20. 2. He hath nowhere given to any other either Command to oblige them to do it, or Commission to authorize them, or Promise to bless and accept them in it, or Threatning if they omit it. 3. He oft severely punisheth such as invade the Sacred Function, or usurp any part of of it. 4. Therefore it is a sin in the doer, and then there can be no necessity of it in such a case in the receiver. 5. He that is in Covenant by open professed Consent, wants nothing necessary to his salvation, either necessitate medii vel praecepti, when it cannot be had in a lawful way.
II. As to the nullity I will not determine so controverted a point any further than to say, 1. That if the Lay-man had the Counterfeit Orders of a Minister, and had possession of the place, and were taken for one, his deceit deprived not the Receiver of his right, nor made it his sin, and I should not re-baptize him, if after discovered.
2. But if he were in no possession or pretence of the Office, I would be baptized again, if it were my case: Because I should fear that what is done in Christ's name by one that notoriously had no authority from him to do it, is not owned by Christ as his deed, and so is a nullity. As if a deceiver go in my name to make bargains for me.
3. And if any that had after discovered a Minister to be indeed no Minister that baptized him, should doubt of the validity, and for certainty have it done again by an authorized Minister, I would not discommend him: Nor would I account it Morally twice baptizing, but a Physical repeating of that act which morally is but one: (As I explained before of Re-ordination).
Therefore if one that was a gross Heretic in the very Essentials, or an Infidel, or one that had not knowledge and parts essentially necessary to the Ministry baptize one (in right words) I would not blame him that for certainty would have an authorized person to do it: Especially if he was notoriously such a one when he did it. Let those that are angry with this resolution be as fair to me as they will be to Venerable Beda, and that great Miracle-working Bishop John, whom in his Ecclesiastical History he reporteth to baptize a man again in England, merely because the Priest that did it was so dull, ignorant and insufficient as in John's judgment to be uncapable of the Office, and therefore had been by him forbidden to use it, though the person baptized (at age) knew not this: viz. Herebaldus, ut Bed. l. 5. c. 6.
Quest. 48. May Anabaptists, that have no other error, be permitted in Churchcommunion?
Answ. YEs: And tolerated in their own practice also: For 1. They agree with us in all points absolutely necessary to communion.
2. The ancient Christians had liberty either to baptize, or to let them stay till age, as they thought best: And therefore Tertullian and Nazianzen speak against haste: And Augustine and many children of Christian Parents were baptized at age.
3. The Controversy is of so great difficulty, that if in all such cases none that differ be tolerated, we may not live together in the world or Church, but endlessly excommunicate or persecute one another.
4. Such sober Antipaedobaptists will consent, to profess openly, that they do devote their children to God according to all the power or duty which they can find communicated or laid upon them in the Word of God; And that if they believed that God would accept them into his Covenant upon their dedication, they would willingly do it. And that actually they do offer them to God according to their power, and promise to bring them up in his way. And who can force men's wills to choose aright for themselves or others?
Quest. 49. May one offer his Child to be baptized, with the Sign of the Cross, or the use of Chrysme, the White Garment, Milk and Honey, or Exorcisme, as among the Lutherans, who taketh these to be unlawful things?
Answ. I Am not now to meddle with the question, Whether they be lawful: But to this question I answer,
1. He that judgeth them unlawful, must first do his best to be •• rtain whether they be so or not.
2. If so, he must never approve of them, or consent to them.
3. He must not offer his child to be so baptized, when caeteris paribus, he may have it done in a better manner on lawful terms.
4. But when he cannot lawfully have better, he may and must offer his child, to them that will so baptize him, rather than to worse, or not at all: Because baptism is God's Ordinance and his privilege, and the sin is the Ministers and not his. Another man's sinful Mode will not justify the neglect of our duty: Else we might not join in any Prayer or Sacrament in which the Minister modally sinneth: that is, with none.
5. The Milk and Honey, White Garment and Chrysme, are so ancient (called by Epiphanius and others the Traditions and Customs of the Universal Church ) that the original of them is not known. And he that then would not be so baptized, must not have been baptized at all.
6. But in this case he that bringeth his child to baptism, should make known, that it is baptism only that he desireth; and that he disowneth and disalloweth the manner which he accounteth sinful: And then he is no consenter to it.
7. But where Law, scandal, or greater inconveniencies forbid him, he is not to make this profession openly in the Congregation, but in that prudent manner which beseemeth a sob • r peaceable person▪ whether to the Minister in private, or to his neighbors in converse: It being easy among neighbors to make known a man's dissent, without a disorderly troubling of the Church, or violating the Laws of Obedience, Civility and Peace.
8. But he must not; 1. Either offer his child to baptism, where the Ordinance is essentially corrupted, or worse than none. 2. Or where he cannot be admitted without an actual sin of his own; As by false professions, subscriptions, &c. For we must not do evil for good ends.
Quest. 50. Whence came the ancient universal custom of Anointing at Baptism, and putting on a White Garment, and tasting Milk and Honey? And whether they are lawful to us?
Answ. 1. WE must remember that the signification of these was not by a new institution of theirs, but by former custom of the Countries where they lived. As 1. Anointing in Judea was like Bathing at Rome: It was taken in those scorching Countries for a wholesome, and easing, and comforting thing; And therefore used to refresh the weary limbs of travellers, and to comfort the sick.
2. And it was the long accustomed Ceremony also used on Officers accounted sacred, Kings and Priests, who were anointed at their entrance and investiture.
3. White Cloathing and Purple were then and there taken for the noblest attire; Not appropriated to sacred things and persons; but as Scarlet lately in England, the garb only of great men: On which account, not as a Sacred Vestment, but as an honorable clothing, when the Bishops began to be advanced, they were allowed to wear White Cloathing, not only when they officiated, but at other times.
4. The Milk and Honey were there highly esteemed for food, and accounted the character of the Land of Promise.
2. Hereupon by application the Churches used these signs in the Sacred Ordinance of baptism: Not by new institution of the signification, I say, but by application of the old well known signification.
3. As Natural Signs are commonly allowed to be applied to holy things, so signs whose signification is of old and commonly stated and well known by Agreement or Custom, do seem in this not to be different from Natural Signs. Such are all Words, as signs of our minds; No word signifying anything Naturally, but by Agreement or Custom only. And such is kneeling in prayer; and being uncovered; and many the like: About some of which Paul appealeth to the custom of the Churches of God.
4. It is most probable that these two things together brought in Anointing; 1. The common use of Anointing then, in both the foresaid Cases, (Common Refreshment and Sacred Investiture ). 2. And the mistake of all those Scripture Texts, which command or mention Anointing Metaphorical; As 1 John 2. 27. The Anointing which you have received—teacheth you all things. Ezek. 16. 9. I washed thee, I anointed thee with Oil, &c. Psal. 105. 15. 1 Chron. 16. 22. Touch not mine anointed. Rev. 3. 18.
And withal reading that we are made Kings and Priests to God, and a Royal Priesthood, they thought this might be signified by the usual honourary signs of such, as well as by words to be called such. So that they took it as if in our age, the baptized should be set in a Chair of State, and sumptuously appareled, and a • east made to solemnize it, as they do at Weddings, and the baptized person set at the upper end, &c. which are significant Actions and Ceremonies; But they intended them not as new Sacraments, or any part of the Sacrament, but as a pompous celebration of the Sacrament by such additional ceremonial accidents.
5. And you must remember that they lived among Infidels, where their profession was made the common scorn, which tempted them by such ostentation and pomp to seek to make it honorable, and to show that they so accounted it, and to encourage those who were discouragable by the scorn. On which account also they used the Cross, and the Memorials of the Martyrs.
6. Yet some, yea, many afterwards did seem to take the Anointing for a Sacramental Action. When they read that the Laying on of hands was the sign of Giving the Holy Ghost, as distinct from baptism, and that the Spirit is called in Scripture the Anointing, they joined both together, and made that which they now call the Sacrament of Confirmation.
7. Whether the Anointing, Milk and Honey, and the White Garment, were then sinful in themselves to the users, I determine not. But certainly they proved very ill by accident, whilst at this door those numerous and unlawful Ceremonies have entered, which have so troubled the Churches, and corrupted Religion; and among the Papists, Greeks, Armenians, Abbyssinians, and many others, have made the sauce to become the meat, and the lace to go for clothing, and turned too much of God's Worship into Imagery, shadows and pompous shows.
Quest. 51. Whether it be necessary that they that are baptized in Infancy, do solemnly at age renew and own their Baptismal Covenant, before they have right to the state and privileges of adult members? And if they do not, Whether they are to be numbered with Christians or Apostates?
Answ. 1. CHurch-membership is the same thing in Infants and in the Adult.
2. Infants are naturally uncapable of doing all that in baptism which the adult must do: As to understand, profess, &c. themselves.
3. The baptism of the Adult, being the most complete, because of the maturity of the receivers, is made the standing pattern in Scripture: For God formeth his Ordinances to the most perfect ordinary receivers.
4. Though an Infant be devoted acceptably to God by his Parents will, yet when he is at age, it must be done by his own will.
5. Therefore a bare Infant title ceaseth when we come to age, and the persons title ceaseth, unless it be renewed by himself, or his own Consent. The reason is, because the Conditions of his Infant Title then cease. For his Parents will, shall go for his no longer.
6. Regularly and ad been esse the transition out of the state of Infant-membership into the state of Adult-membership should be very solemn; and by an understanding, personal owning of the Baptismal Covenant.
7. There needeth no other proof of this, than 1. That God in Scripture never gave adult persons title to his Covenant, but by their own personal consent: And at the first institution of baptism, both went together, (Personal profession and baptism) because the receivers were adult. 2. And that Infants are capable of baptism, but not of personal profession. 3. Therefore though they are not to repeat baptism, which was done before, yet they are bound to make that profession at age which they never made before.
8. Where this solemn Owning of their Covenant cannot be had (by reason of Church corruptions, and Magistrates prohibition) there the persons ordinary joining with the Church, in the public profession and worship, is to be taken for an owning it.
9. He that being baptized in infancy, doth no way at full age own his Baptismal Covenant, is to be taken for an Apostate: 1. Because his Infant title ceaseth: 2. And he notoriously violateth his Covenant: 3. Because he can be no adult Christian that no way owneth Christ.
10. But this is to be understood of those that have opportunity: For one in a Wilderness among Heathens only, cannot join in public Worship, nor give testimony of his Christianity to the Church.
11. Though the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper be appointed for the renewing of our Covenant at age, yet is it not the first owning of the Covenant, by the aged: For that Sacrament belongeth neither to Infants nor Infidels: And he that claimeth it, must be an adult Church-member or Christian; which those are not, who at full age no way ever owned their baptismal Covenant, nor made any personal profession of Christianity.
But of this I have written purposely in a Treatise of Confirmation long ago.
Quest. 52. Whether the Universal Church consist only of particular Churches and their members?
Answ. NO: Particular Churches are the most Regular and noble parts of the Universal Church; but not the whole: no more than Cities and Corporations be all the Kingdom. 1. Some may be as the Eunuch baptized before they can come to any particular Church; or as Paul, before they can be received.
2. Some may live where Church-tyranny hindereth them, by sinful impositions; As all that live among the Papists.
3. Some may live in times of doubting, distraction and confusion, and not know what Church ordinarily to join with, and may providently go promiscuously to many, and keep in an unfixed state for a time.
4. Some may be Wives, Children or Servants, who may be violently hindered.
5. Some may live where no particular Churches are: As Merchants and Ambassadors among M • hometans and Heathens.
Quest. 53. Must the Pastor first Call the Church, and aggregate them to himself, or the Church first Congregate themselves, and then choose the Pastor?
Answ. THe Pastors are in order of Nature, if not in time, first Ministers of Christ in general, before they are related to a particular Charge.
2. As such Ministers they first make men fit to be congregate, and tell them their duty therein.
3. But it is a matter variable and indifferent, Whether the Minister first say, [All that will join with me, and submit to me as their Pastor, shall be my particular Charge]: Or the people before Congregated do call a man to be their Pastor.
Quest. 54. Wherein doth a particular Church of Christ's institution differ from a Consociation of many Churches?
Answ. 1. IN that such a particular Church is a company of Christians associated for personal immediate Communion in God's worship and in holy living: Whereas Consociations of Churches, are combined for mediate distinct Communion, or by Delegates or Representatives (as in Synods.)
2. Such a particular Church is constituted of one or more Pastors with the people, officiating in the Sacred Ministry among them, in Doctrine, Worship and Discipline, in order to the said personal Communion. But a Consociation of Churches hath no particular Head as such, of divine institution, to Constitute and Govern them as one. In Ignatius 's time every particular Church was characterized or known by two marks of Unity, 1. One Altar, (that is, one place of assembling for holy communion): 2. One Bishop with the Presbyters and Deacons: And two Altars and two Bishops proved two Churches.
3. A particular Church under one Bishop, or the some Pastors, is a Political holy Society; But a combination of many Churches consociate, is not so, but only, 1. Either a Community agreeing to live in Concord, as neighbor Kingdoms may: 2. Or else a human Policy or Society, and not of Divine immediate institution. So that if this Consociation of Churches be called a Church, it must be either equivocally or in a human sense.
Quest. 55. Whether a particular Church may consist of more Assemblies than one? Or must needs meet all in one place?
Answ. 1. THe true distinguishing note of a particular Church is, that They be associated for holy Communion in Worship and holy living, not by Delegates, nor dist • ntly only, by owning the same faith, and loving one another, as we may do with those at the Antipodes; but Personally in presence.
2. Therefore they must necessarily be so near, as to be capable of personal present Communion.
3. And it is most convenient that they be no more than can ordinarily meet in the same Assembly, at least for Sacramental Communion.
4. But yet they may meet in many places or Assemblies, as Chapels, or Oratories, or other subordinate meetings which are appointed to supply the necessity of the weak and aged, and them that cannot travail far: And in times of persecution when the Church dare not all meet in one place, they may make up several smaller meetings, under several Pastors of the same Church. But they should come all together as oft as they can.
5. And it is to be considered that all the persons of a family can seldom go to the Assembly at one time, especially when they live far off. Therefore if a Church-place would receive but ten thousand, yet twenty thousand might be members, while half meet one day and half another, (or another part of the day).
6. Two Congregations distinctly associated for personal Worship, under distinct Pastors, or having statedly (as Ignatius speaketh) two Bishops and two Altars, are two particular Churches, and can no otherwise be one Church, than • s that may be called One which is a Conso • iation of divers.
Quest. 56. Is any Form of Church Government of Divine Institution
Answ. YEa: There are two Essentially different Policies or Forms of Church Government of Christ's own Institution, never to be altered by man. 1. The form of the Universal Church, as headed by Christ himself; which all Christians own as they are Christians in their Baptism.
2. Particular Churches which are headed by their particular Bishops or Pastors, and are parts of the Universal, as a Troop is of an Army, or a City of a Kingdom.
Here it is of Divine Institution, 1. That there be holy Assemblies for the Public Worship of God.
2. That these Assemblies be Societies, constituted of the people with their Pastors, who are to them as Captains to their Troops, under the General, or as Mayors to Cities under the King.
3. That these Pastors have the power of the Keys, or the special Guidance and Governance (by the Word, not by the Sword ) of their own particular charge, in the matters of Faith, Worship and holy living; and that the flocks obey them. And when all this is Iure divino, why should any say, that No form of Government is jure divino?
3. Moreover it is of Divine appointment, that these Churches hold the nearest Concord, and help each other as much as they can; whether by Synods, or other meet ways of correspondency. And though this be not a distinct Government, it is a distinct mode of Governing.
Object. But▪ that there be Pastors with fixed Churches or Assemblies is not of the Law of Nature.
Answ. 1. Hath Christ no Law but the Law of Nature? Wherein then differ the Christian Religion and the Heathenish? 2. Suppose but Christ to be Christ, and man to be what he is, and Nature itself will tell us that this is the fittest way for ordering the Worship of God: For Nature saith, God must be solemnly and ordinarily worshipped, and that qualified persons should be the official Guides in the performance: And that people who need such conduct and private oversight besides, should where they live have their own stated Overseers.
Object. But particular Congregations are not de primaria intention divina: For if the whole world could join together in the public Worship of God, no doubt that would be properly a Church: But particular Congregations are only accidental, in reference to God's intention of having a Church, because of the Impossibility of all men's joining together for Ordinances, &c.
Answ. 1. The question with me is not whether they be of primary Intention, but whether stated Churches headed with their proper Bishops or Pastors be not of God's institution in the Scripture?
2. This Objection confirmeth it, and not denieth it. For 1. It confesseth that there is a necessity of joining for God's Worship: 2. And an Impossibility that all the world should so join: 3. But if the whole world could so join, it would be properly a Church: So that it confesseth that [ to be a society joined for God's public Worship, ] is [ to be properly a Church. ] And we confess all this: If all the world could be one family, they might have one Master, or one Kingdom, they might have one King. But when it is confessed, that 1. A Natural Impossibility of an Universal Assembly necessitateth more particular assemblies: 2. And that Christ hath instituted such actually in his Word, what more can a considerate man require?
3. I do not understand this distinction, de primaria intention divina, and accidental, &c. The Primary Intention is properly of the Ultimate End only: And no man thinketh that a Law de mediis, of the means, is no Law, or that God hath made no Laws de mediis: For Christ as a Mediator is a Means. But suppose it be limited to the Matter of Church Laws: If this be the meaning of it, that it is not the principal means, but a subordinate means, or that it is not instituted only propter finem ultimum, no more than propter se, but also in order to a higher thing as its immediate end, we make no question of that. Assemblies are not only that there may be assemblies; but for the Worship and Offices there performed: And those for Man; And all for God. But what or all this? Hath God made no Laws for subordinate means? No Christian denieth it.
Therefore the Learned and Judicious Disputer of this point declareth himself for what I say, when he saith, [I engage not in the Controversy, Whether a particular Congregation be the first political Church or no: It sufficeth for my purpose, that there are other Churches besides—The thing in question is, Whether there be no other Church, but such particular Congregations. ] Where it seemeth granted, that such particular Churches are of Divine institution: And for other Churches I shall say more anon. In the mean time note, that the question is but de nomine here, whether the Name [Church] be fit for other societi • s, and not de re.
But lest any should grow to the boldness to deny that [ Christ hath instituted Christian stated Societies consisting of Pastors and flocks, associate for personal Communion in public Worship and holy living. ] (which is my detinition of a particular Church, as not so confined to one assembly, but that it may be in divers, and yet not consisting of divers such distinct stated assemblies with their distinct Pastors, nor of such as can have no personal communion, but only by Delegates): I prove it thus from the Word of God.
1. The Apostles were commissioned by Christ to deliver his commands to all the Churches, and settle them according to his will, John 20. 21.— Matth. 28. 19, 20, &c.
2. These commissioned persons had the promise of an infallible Spirit for the due performance of their work, John 16. 13, 14, 15. & 15. 26. & 14. 26. Matth. 28. 20.
3. These Apostles where ever the success of the Gospel prepared them materials, did settle Christian stated societies, consisting of Pastors or Elders with their flocks, associated for personal communion in public worship, and holy living. These settled Churches they gave orders to for their direction and preservation, and reformation: These they took the chief care of themselves, and exhorted their Elders to fidelity in their work. They gave command that none should forsake such assemblies, and they so fully describe them, as that they cannot easily be misunderstood. All this is proved, Acts 14. 23. Titus 1. 5. Rom. 16. 1. 1 Cor. 11. 18, 20. 22, 26. 1 Cor. 14. 4, 5, 12, 19, 23, 28, 33, 34. Col. 4. 16. Acts 11. 26. & 13. 1. 1 Cor. 16. 1, 2. Acts 14. 27. & 15. 3. to omit many more. Here are proofs enow that such particular Churches were de facto settled by the Apostles, Heb. 10. 25. Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together. So James 2. 2. they are called Synagogues.
2. It is confessed that there is a natural necessity of such stated Churches or Assemblies, supposing but the Institution of the Worship itself which is there performed: And if so, then we may say that the Law of Nature itself doth partly require them.
1. It is of the Law of Nature, that God be publicly worshipped as most Expositors of the fourth Commandment do confess.
2. It is of the Law of Nature that the people be taught to know God and their duty, by such as are able and fit to teach them.
3. The Law of Nature requireth, that man being a sociable creature, and conjunction working strongest affections, we should use our sociableness in the greatest matters, and by conjunction help the zeal of our prayers and praises of God.
4. God's institution of public Preaching, Prayer and Praise, are scarce denied by any Christians.
5. None of these can be publicly done but by assembling.
6. No Assembly can suffice for these without a Minister of Christ; Because it is only his Office to be the ordinary Teacher, and to go before the people in prayer and praise, and to administer the Lord's, Supper; which without a Minister may not be celebrated, because Christ's part cannot be otherwise performed, than by someone in his name, and by his warrant, to deliver his sealed Covenant to the receivers, and to invest them visibly in the benefits of it, and receive them that offer themselves in Covenant to him.
7. It is also a Ministerial duty to instruct the people personally, and watch over them, at other times, Acts 20. 20, 28. And to be examples of the flock, 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2, 3. To have the Rule over the people, and labor among them, and admonish them, 1 Thess. 5. 12. Heb. 13. 7, 17. 1 Tim. 5. 17. To exercise holy discipline among them, Titus 3. 10. Matth. 18. 17, 18. 1 Cor. 5. To visit the sick and pray over them, James 5. 14. Yea, to take care of the poor. See▪ Dr. Hammond on 1 Cor. 12. 28. And all this cannot possibly be well done by uncertain transient Ministers, but only by a resident stated Pastor, no more than transient strangers can rule all our families, or all the Christian Kingdoms of the world.
8. And as this cannot be done but by stated Pastors, so neither on transient persons, ordinarily: For who can teach them that are here today and gone tomorrow: When the Pastor should proceed from day today in adding one instruction to another, the hearers will be gone, and new ones in their place? And how can vigilancy and discipline be exercised upon such transient persons, whose faults and cases will be unknown? Or how can they mutually help each other? And seeing most in the world have fixed habitations, if they have not also fixed Church-relations, they must leave their habitations and wander, or else have no Church Communion at all.
9. And as this Necessity of fixed Pastors and flocks is confessed, so that such de facto were ordinarily settled by the Apostles is before proved, if any Scriptures may pass for proof.
The Institution and settlement then of particular worshipping Churches is out of doubt: And so that two Forms of Church Government are Iure Divino, the Universal Church Form, and the particular.
4. Besides this, in the Apostles days there were under Christ in the Church Universal, many General Officers that had the care of gathering and overseeing Churches up and down, and were fixed by stated relation unto none. Such were the Apostles, Evangelists, and many of their helpers in their days. And most Christian Churches think that though the Apostolical extraordinary Gifts, privileges and Offices cease, yet Government being an Ordinary part of their work, the same form of Government which Christ and the Holy Ghost did settle, in the first age, were settled for all following ages, though not with the same extraordinary Gifts and Adjuncts. Because 1. We read of the settling of that form, (viz. General Officers as well as particular) but we never read of any abolition, discharge or cessation of the institution. 2. Because if we affirm a cessation without proof, we seem to accuse God of mutability, as settling one form of Government for one age only, and no longer. 3. And we leave room for audacious Wits accordingly to question other Gospel Institutions, as Pastors, Sacraments, &c. and to say that they were but for an age. 4. It was General Officers that Christ promised to be with to the end of the world, Matth. 28. 20.
Now either this will hold true or not. If not, then this General Ministry is to be numbered with the human additions to be next treated of. If it do, then here is another part of the form of Government proved to be of Divine Institution. I say not, another Church, (For I find nothing called a Church in the New Testament, but the Universal Church and the particular ): But another part of the Government of both Churches, Universal and particular: Because such General Officers are so in the Universal, as to have a General Oversight of the particular: As an Army is Headed only by the General himself, and a Regiment by the Colonel, and a Troop by the Captain: But the General Officers of the Army (the Lieutenants General, the Majors General, &c. ) are under the Lord General in and over the Army, and have a General oversight of the particular bodies (Regiments and Troops.) Now if this be the Instituted form of Christ's Church Government, that he himself Rule absolutely as General, and that he have some General Officers under him (not any one having a charge of the whole, but in the whole unfixedly, or as they voluntarily part their Provinces,) and that each particular Church have its own proper Pastor (one or more), then who can say, that No form of Church Government is of Divine Appointment or Command?
Object. But the question is only, Whether any sole form be of God's commanding? And whether another may not have as much said for it as this?
Answ. Either you mean [ Another instead of this, as a Competitor, ] or [ Another part conjunct with these parts. ]
1. If the first be your sense, then you have two works to do: 1. To prove that these before mentioned were Mutable Institutions, or that they were settled but disjunctively with some other, and that the choice was left indifferent to men. 2. To prove the Institution of your other form (which you suppose left with this to men's free choice).
But I have already proved, that both the General and particular Church form are settled for continuance as unchangeable Ordinances of God. I suppose you doubt not of the continuance of Christ's Supremacy, and • o of the Universal form: And if you will prove that Church Assemblies with their Pastors may cease, and some other way supply the room, you must be strange and singular undertakers. The other two parts of the Government (by General Officers, and by Consociation of Churches ) are more disputed; But it is the Circumstances of the last only that is controverted and not the thing; And for the other I shall now add nothing to what I have said elsewhere.
2. But if you only mean that Another part of the form may be jure divino as well as this, that will but prove still that some form is jure divino.
But 3. If you mean, that God having instituted the forms now proved, hath left man at liberty to add more of his own, I shall now come to examine that Case also.
Quest. 57. Whether any Forms of Churches, and Church Government, or any new Church Officers, may lawfully be invented and made by man?
Answ. TO remove ambiguities, 1. By the word [ Forms ] may be meant either that Relative form of such aggregate bodies, which is their essence, and denominateth them essentially; or only some Accidental mode which denominateth them but accidentally.
2. By Churches is meant either holy societies related by the foundation of a Divine Institution; or else societies related by accident, or by human contract only.
3. By [ Church Government ] is meant, either that Government formally Ecclesiastical, which constituteth a Church, of Christ's making; or else some Government about the Matters of the Church, which is formally either Magistratical or human, (by contract), &c.
4. So by Church Officers are meant, either such as are accounted essential to a Church in the pure Christian sense; or Integral at least (as Deacons): Or else such as are accounted but Accidental to it, and Essential only to the human form. And so I answer.
1. As there are some things circa sacra, or Accidents of God's special Church Worship, which are left to human prudence to determine of, so the same human prudence may determine who shall do them. As e. g. Who shall repair the Buildings of the Church; the Windows, the Bells, the Pulpits, the Tables, &c. who shall keep the Clock; who shall keep the Cups, Cloaths, and other Utensils; who shall be the Porter, the keeper of the Books, &c. Who shall call the people to Church, or ring the Bells, or give them notice of Church assemblies: who shall make bread for the Sacrament, or provide Wine, or bring Water for baptism: who shall make the Graves, and bury the Dead, or attend Marriages, or Baptizings, &c. Who shall set the Tune of the Psalm, or use the Church-Music (if there be any): who shall summon any of the people on any just occasion to come to their Pastors; or who shall summon the Pastors to any Synod, or lawful Assembly, and give them notice of the time and place: When they are to meet, who shall be called first, and who second? Who shall sit highest, and who lowest? Who shall take the Votes, or moderate or guide the Disputations of the Assembly? Who shall be the Scribe, and record what is done? Who shall send abroad their Agreements; and who shall be the Church-messenger to carry them. The Agents of such Circumstantials may be chosen by the Magistrate: or by the Churches or Pastors, as is most convenient. Though I doubt not but in the beginning the Deacons were mere servants to the Pastors, to do as much of such circumstantial work, as they were able, of which serving at Tables, and looking to the poor, and carrying Bread and Wine to the absent, &c. were but parts: And all went under the name of Ministring to the Pastors or Churches. And therefore they seem to be but such an Accidental Office, appointed by the Apostles, on such common reasons, as Magistrates or Churches might have appointed them, if they had not.
2. If one will call all or many of th • se, [ Church-Officers ] and another will not; it is but a strife about Names, which one will use more largely, and the other more narrowly or strictly.
3. If Magistrates by authority, or the Churches by Agreement, shall distribute the Country for conveniency into Parishes (not making all to be Church-members that dwell in those Pr • cincts, but determining that all persons that are fit in those proximities, and they only, shall be members of that particular Church) and then shall denominate the Church from this accident of place, it is but what is left to their discretion.
4. And if the said Magistrates or Churches shall divide a Kingdom into Provinces, and say, that whereas God commandeth us the use of correspondencies, mutual advice and Synods, for the due help, concord and communion of Churches, and all things must be done in order and to edification; therefore we determine that so many Churches shall make up such a Synod, and the Churches of such a district shall make up another Synod, and so shall be specially related to each other for Concord as advisers, all this is but the prudent determining of Church circumstances or accidents left to man.
5. And if they shall appoint that either a Magistrate or one Pastor shall be for Order sake the appointer of the times and places of meeting, or the President of the Synod, to regulate and order proceedings, and keep peace, as is aforesaid, it is but an Accident of the Sacred Work which man may determine of. Therefore a Lay-man may be such a President or Regulater.
6. And if they will call this man by the Name of a Church-Governor, who doth but a common part therein, and from thence will call this Association or Province by the name of a Church, which is but a company of Churches associated for Concord and Counsel, the Name maketh it not another thing than it is without that name: And the name may be lawful or unlawful as times and probable consequents make it fit or unfit as to use.
7. So much of Church matters as is left to the Magistrates Government, may be under Monarchy, Aristocracy or Democracy, and under such subordinate Officers as the Supreme Ruler shall appoint.
8. And if the Magistrate will make Assemblies or Councils of Pastors, to be his Councils, and require them frequently to meet to advise him in the performance of his own trust and work about Religion and the Church, he may accordingly distribute them into Provinces for that use, or order such circumstances as he please.
9. And if a Province of Churches be called one Church, because it is under one Magistrate, or a Nation of Churches called a National Church, because it is under one King, or many Kingdoms or an Empire called one Catholic Church, because they are all under one Emperor, it must be confessed that this question is but de nomine, and not de re.
And further 1. That in sacred things that which is of Divine and primary institution is the famosius analogatum, and not that which is but formed by man. 2. That when such an ambiguous word is used without explication or explicating circumstances, it is to be taken for the famosius analogatum. 3. That in this case the word Church or Church-form is certainly ambiguous and not univocal. 4. That • National, Imperial, or Provincial Church as Headed by a King, Emperor, Magistrate, or any head of man's appointment, is another thing, from a Church of Christ's institution: and is but an Accident or adjunct of it; and the Head of the Human form, if called the Head of the Church of Christ, is but an Accidental Head, and not Constitutive. And if Christ's Churches be denominated from such a Head, they are denominated but from an accident, as a man may be denominated clothed or unclothed, clothed gorgeously or sordidly, a neighbor to this man or that, &c. It is no formal denomination of a Church in the first acception, as it signifieth the famosius analogatum; though otherwise many kind of societies may be called Ecclesiae or Coetus: But Divines should not love confusion.
10. It seemeth to me that the first distribution of Churches in the Roman Empire, into Patriarchal, Primates, Metropolitical, Provincial, Diocesan, were only the determination of •• ch adjuncts or extrinsic things, partly by the Emperors, and partly by Churches Consent upon the Emperors permission: And so that these new Church Governments were partly Magistratical, or by power derived from the Emperors, and partly mere Agreements or Contracts by degrees degenerating into Governments: And so the new forms and names are all but accidental, of adjuncts of the true Christian Churches. And though I cannot prove it unlawful to make such adjunctive or extrinsic constitutions, forms and names, considering the Matter simply itself, yet by accident these accidents have proved such to the true Churches, as the accident of sickness is to the body, and have been the causes of the Divisions, Wars, Rebellions, Ruines and Confusions of the Christian world: 1. As they have served the covetousness and ambition of carnal men: 2. And have enabled them to oppress simplicity and sincerity: 3. And because Princes have not exercised their own power themselves, nor committed it to Lay-Officers, but to Church-men: 4. Whereby the extrinsic Government hath so degenerated, and obscured the Intrinsic and been confounded with it, that both going under the equivocal name of Ecclesiastical Government, few Churches have had the happiness to see them practically distinct: Nay, few Divines do clearly in their Controversies, distinguish them: (Though Marsilius Patavinus and some few more have formerly given them very fair light, yet hath it been but slenderly improved.)
11. There seemeth to me no readier and directer way, to reduce the Churches to holy Concord, and true reformation, than for the Princes and Magistrates who are the extrinsic Rulers, to re-assume their own, and to distinguish openly and practically between the properly-Priestly or Pastoral intrinsic Office, and their extrinsic part, and to strip the Pastors of all that is not Intrinseeally their own (It being enough for them, and things so heterogeneous not well consisting in one person): And then when the people know what is claimed as from the Magistrate only, it will take off most of their scruples as to subjection and consent.
12. No mortal man may abrogate or take down the Pastoral Office, and the Intrinsic real power thereof, and the Church-form which is constituted thereby; seeing God hath instituted them for perpetuity on earth.
13. But whether one Church shall have one Pastor or many is not at all of the Form of a particular Church: but it is of the Integrity or gradual perfection of such Churches as need many, to have many, and to others not so: Not that it is left merely to the will of man, but is to be varied as natural necessity and cause requireth.
14. The nature of the Intrinsic Office or power (anon to be described) is most necessary to be understood as distinct from the power of Magistrates, by them that would truly understand this. The number of Governors in a Civil State make that which is called a variety of Forms of Commonwealths, Monarchy, Aristocracy or Democracy: Because Commanding Power is the thing which is there most notably exercised, and primarily magnified. And a wiser and better man, yea, a thousand, must stand by as Subjects, for want of Authority or true Power: which can be but in One Supreme, either Natural or Political person: because it cannot consist in the exercise with self-contradiction. If one be for War and another for Peace, &c. there is no Rule. Therefore the Many, must be one Collective or Political person, and must consent, or go by the major Vote, or they cannot govern. But that which is called Government in Priests or Ministers, is of another nature: It is but a secondary subservient branch of their Office: The first parts are Teaching, and Guiding the people as their Priests to God in public Worship: And they Govern them by Teaching, and in order to further Teaching and Worshipping God; And that not by Might, but by Reason and Love. Of which more anon. Therefore if a Sacred Congregation be Taught and conducted in public Worship, and so Governed as conduceth hereunto, whether by one, two, or many, it no more altereth the Form of the Church, than it doth the Form of a School, when a small one hath one Schoolmaster, and a great one four: Or of a Hospital, when a small one hath one Physician, and a great one many; seeing that Teaching in the one, and Healing in the other is the main denominating work, to which Government is but subservient in the most notable acts of it.
15. No mortal man may take on him to make another Church, or another Office for the Church, as a Divine thing, on the same grounds, and of the same nature pretendedly as Christ hath made those already made. The case of adding new Church Officers or Forms of Churches, is the same with that of making new Worship Ordinances for God, and accordingly to be determined (which I have largely opened in its place). Accidents may be added. Substantials of like pretended nature may not be added: Because it is an usurping of Christ's power, without derivation by any proved commission; and an accusing of him, as having done his own work imperfectly.
16. Indeed no man can here make a new Church Officer of this Intrinsic sort without making him new work, which is to make new Doctrine, or new Worship (which are forbidden): For to do God's work already made belongs to the Office already instituted. If every King will make his own Officers, or authorize the greater to make the less, none must presume to make Christ Officers and Churches without his Commission.
17. No man must make any Office, Church or Ordinance, which is corruptive or destructive, or contrary, or injurious to the Offices, Churches and O • dinances which Christ himself hath made. This Bellarmine confesseth, and therefore I suppose Pro • estants will not deny it. Those human Offices which usurp the work of Christ's own Officers, and take it out of their hands, do malignantly fight against Christ's institutions: And while they pretend that it is but Preserving and not Corrupting or Opposing additions which they make, and yet with these words in their mouths, do either give Christ's Officers work to others, or hinder and oppress his Officers themselves, and by their new Church-forms undermine or openly destroy the old, by this expression of their enmity they confute themselves.
18. This hath been the unhappy case of the Roman frame of Church innovations, as you may observe in the particulars of its degeneracy.
1. Council • were called General or Oecumenical in respect to one-Empire only: And they thence grew to extend the name to the whole world: when they may as well say, that Constantine, Martia • , &c. were Emperors of the whole world, seeing by their authority they were called.
2. These Councils at first were the Emperors Councils called to direct him what to settle in Church orders by his own power: But they were turned to claim an imposing authority of their own to command the Churches as by commission from God.
3. These Councils at first, were only for Counsel, or for Agreement by way of contractor mutual Consent to the particular Bishops: But they degenerated into a form of Government, and claimed a Ruling or Commanding power.
4. The Patriarchs, Primates and Metropolitans, at first claimed but a power about circumstantials, extrinsical to the Pastoral office, such as is the Timing and Placing of Councils, the si • ting above others, &c. And the exercise of some part of the Magistrates power committed to them, that is, the deposing of other Bishops or Pastors from their station of such Liberty and Countenance as the Magistrate may grant or deny as there is cause. But in time they degenerated to claim the spiritual power of the Keys, over the other Bishops; in point of Ordination, Excommunication, Absolution.
5. These Patriarchs, Primates and Metropolitans at first claimed their extrinsic power but from Man, that is, either the Consent and Agreement of the Churches, or the grant of the Emperors: But in time they grew to claim it as of Divine or Apostolical appointment, and as unalterable.
6. At first they were taken only for Adjuncts, ornaments, supports or conveniences to the Churches. But afterwards they pretended to be integral parts of the Church universal, and at last the Pope would needs be an Essential part? And his Cardinals must claim the power of the Church Universal in being the choosers of an Universal Head, or a King-Priest and Teacher for all the Christians of the World.
7. At first Lay men (now called Chancellors, &c. ) were only the Bishops Counselors, or officers to the Magistrate or them, in performing the extrinsical work about Church adjuncts, which a Lay man might do. But at last they came to exercise the Intrinsic power of the Keys, in Excommunications and Absolutions, &c.
8. At first a number of particular Churches consociated with their several Bishops, were taken to be a Community or company of true Churches prudentially cantonized or distributed and consociated for Concord. But after they grew to be esteemed proper political societies, or Churches of Divine appointment, if not the Ecclesiae minimae, having turned the particular Churches into Oratories or Chapels, destroying Ignatius his character of one Church, [ To every Church there is one Altar, and one Bishop with his Presbyters and Deacons. ] Abundance more such instances may be given.
Obj. Wherever we find the Notion of a Church particular, there must be Government in that Church: And why a national society incorporated into one civil Government, joining into the profession of Christianity, and having a right thereby to participate of Gospel Ordinances, in the convenient distributions of them in the particular Congregations, should not be called a Church, I confess I can see no reason.
Answ. 1. Here observe, that the question is only of the Name (whether it may be called a Church) and not of the thing (whether all the Churches in a Kingdom may be under one King, which no sober man denieth).
2. Names are at men's disposal much. But confess I had rather the name had been used no otherwise, or for no other societies than Scripture useth it. My Reasons are 1. Because when Christ hath appropriated or specially applied one name to the sacred societies of his institution, it seemeth somewhat bold to make that name common to other societies. 2. Because it tendeth to confusion, misunderstanding, and to cherish errors and controversies in the Churches, when all names shall be made common or ambiguous, and holy things shall not be allowed any name proper to themselves, nor anything can be known by a bare name without a description. If the name of Christ himself, should be used of every anointed King, it would seem not a little thus injurious to him. If the name, Bible, Scripture, Preachers. &c. be made common to all that the notation of the names may extend to, it will introduce the aforesaid inconveniences: so how shall we in common talk distinguish, between sacred societies of Divine institution and of human, if you will allow us no peculiar name, but make that common which Christ hath chosen?
3. And that the name is here used equivocally is manifest. For the body political, is informed and denominated from the pars imperans, the Governing part or Head: Therefore as a Head of Divine institution, authorized for the spiritual or Pastoral work, denominateth the society accordingly; so a civil Head can make but a civil society, and a head of man's making, but a human society. It is certain that Christ hath appointed the Episcopal or Pastoral office, and their work; and consequently Episcopal or Pastoral Churches: And it is certain that a King is no constitutive part of one of these Churches, but Accidental; And therefore that he is an Accidental Head to a Pastoral Church as such, to which the Pastor is essential.
Therefore if you will needs call both these societies [ Churches ] you must distinguish them into Pastoral Churches, and Regal Churches, or Magistratical Churches; for the word [ national ] notifieth not the Government which is the constitutive part; and may be used of Consociated Churches, though under many Civil Governors (as in the Saxon Heptarchy).
So that our question is much like this, Whether all the Grammar Schools in England, as under one King may be called one National School? Answ. Not without unfitness, and inconveniences: But rather than breed any quarrel, they may call them so that please: But, 1. They must confess that a particular School is the famosius significatum. 2. That the King is King of Schools, but not a Schoolmaster, nor a constitutive part of a School; 3. That if you will needs denominate them from the Regent part, as One, you must call them all one Royal School, if you will leave the well known sense of words for such uncouth phrases. But give us leave to call the Body which is essentiated by a King, by the name of a Kingdom only, though it have in it many Schools, Academies, Colleges, Cities, Churches, which they that please may call all one Royal School, Academy, College, City and Church, if they love confusion.
4. Christianity giveth men right to communion in particular Churches, when they also make known their Christianity to the Bishops of those Churches, and are received (as stated or transient) members by mutual consent; but not otherwise: nor doth mere Regal Government, give any subject right to Church Communion, except by a Church you mean a Kingdom.
Obj. A particular Church then I would describe thus [It is a society of men joined together in the visible profession of the true faith, having a right to, and enjoying among them, the ordinances of the Gospel.]
Answ. 1. When you tell us by your description what you will mean by [a particular Church ] we may understand your denomination: But yet while it is unusual, you must not expect that other men so use the Word. Had you called your description a definition, I would have asked you, 1. Whether by [ a society ] you mean not strictly [a Political society ] constituted by a Pars Gubernans, & gubernata? If not, it's no Church save equivocally. If so, should not the Pars regens which is constitutive have been put in? If private men join together, &c. it makes but a community. 2. A right to Gospel Ordinances is supposed, but need not be in the definition. 3. The enjoying of them, is not essential to a Church. The Relation may continue, when the enjoyment is a long time hindered. 4. [ Among them ] is a very ambiguous word: Is it among them in the same place? or in the same Country or Kingdom? or in the same world? If you difference and define them not, by Relation to the same Bishops or Pastors, and by intended Personal holy Communion, your description confoundeth the universal Church, as well as the National, with a Particular Church: For the whole Christian world, is [ a Society of men joining together in the visible profession of the true faith, having a right to, and enjoying among them the Ordinances of the Gospel. ]
Obj. A Nation joining in the profession of Christianity is a true Church of God: whence it evidently followeth, that there must be a form of Ecclesiastical Government over a Nation as a Church, as well as of Civil Government over it, as a society governed by the same Laws—For every society must have its Government belonging to it as such a society: And the same reason that makes Government necessary in any particular Congregation will make it necessary for all the particular Congregations, joining together in one visible society, as a particular national Church. For the unity and peace of that Church, ought much more to be looked after than of any one particular Congregation, &c.
Answ. 1. From one absurdity many follow: our Controversy before was but of the Name: If an Accidental Royal or Civil Head may equivocally denominate an ecclesiastical society, and we grant you the use of an equivocal name (or rather the abuse) you will grow too hard upon us, if thence you will gather a necessity of a real Ecclesiastical policy, besides the Civil. Names abused insert not the things signified by an univocal term.
2. You must first prove the form of Government, and thence infer the denomination, and not contrarily, first beg the name, and then infer the Government.
3. If yet by [ a form of Ecclesiastical Government ] you meant nothing but the Kings extrinsic Government (which you may as well call also a form of School-Government, of College Government, &c.) we would grant you all. But if I can understand you, you now speak of Ecclesiastical Government as distinct from that. And then,
4. You are now grown up from a may be, to a must be, and necessity: And a greater necessity of one National Ecclesiastical Government, than of a Particular Church Government; which being undeniably of Christ's Institution (by the Holy Ghost in the Apostles) you do not make all forms to be indifferent or deny this to be jure divino. What! necessary and more necessary than that which is jure divino, and yet indifferent and not jure divino? If you say, It is necessary only on supposition that there be a national Church: I answer, But your reasons evidently infer that it is also necessary that there be such a National Church, where it may be had: Though you deny the necessity of Monarchical Government by one High Priest in it? But I know you call not this a form of Government, unless as determinately managed by one, many or most. But why a national spiritual Policy as distinct from Congregational, may not be called [a form of Government ] as well as One man's distinct from two, over the same people, I see not. But this is at your liberty. But your Necessity of such a National Regiment is a matter of greater moment.
In these three senses I confess a National Church. 1. As all the Christians in a Nation are under one Civil Church Governor; 2. As they are Consociated for Concord and meet in Synods or hold correspondencies. 3. As they are all a part of the universal Church, cohabiting in one Nation. But all these are equivocal uses of the word Church; the denomination being taken in the first from an Accident; In the second the name of a Policy being given to a Community agreeing for Concord; In the third the name of the whole is given to a small integral part.
But the necessity of any other Church, headed by your Ecclesiastical national Governor, personal or Collective, Monarchical, Aristocratical or Democratical, I utterly deny, and find not a word of proof which I think I have any need to furnish the Reader with an answer to.
5. And your judgment in this is downright against the constitution, Canons and judgment of the National Church of England? For that they use the Word in the senses allowed by me, and not in yours is proved, 1. From the visible constitution in which there is (besides the King) no distinct Ecclesiastical Head. For the Arch-bishop of Canterbury is not the proper Governor of the Arch-bishop of York and his Province.
2. From the Canons. Can. 139. [ A National Synod the Church Representative; Whosoever shall affirm that the Sacred Synod of this Nation, in the name of Christ and by the Kings authority assembled, is not the true Church of England by representation, let him be excommunicated, &c.] so that the Synod is but the Representative Church: And therefore not the Political Head of the Church: whether it be the Laity, or the whole Clergy or both, which they Represent, Representation of those that are no National Head, maketh them not a National Head.
3. From the ordinary judgment of Episcopal Divines, (maintained by Bishop Bilson and many others at large against the Papists) that all Bishops jure divino are Equal and Independant, further than human Laws, or Agreements or difference of Gifts may difference them, or as they are bound to consociation for Concord.
6. How shall I deny not only the Lawfulness, but the necessity of such a Papacy as really was in the Roman Empire, on your grounds? I have proved against W. Johnson that the Pope was then actually but the Head of the Imperial Churches, and not of all the World. And if there must be one National Ecclesiastical Head under one King, why not one also in one Empire? And whether it be one Monarch, or a collective person, it is still one Political person which is now in question. (Either a Ruling Pope, or a Ruling Aristocracy or Democracy, which is not the great matter in Controversy.)
7. And why will not the same Argument carry it also, for one Universal visible Head of all the Churches in the World? at least as Lawful? At least as far as human capacity and converse will allow? And who shall choose this Universal Head? And who can lay so fair a claim to it as the Pope? And if the form be indifferent, why may not the Churches by consent at least, set up one man as well as many? Whether you carry it to an Imperial Church, or a Papal, to a Patriarchal, or Provincial, or National, till you have proved it to be of Divine institution, (and Particular Churches to be unnecessary, alterable and of human institution, ) I shall never grant you that it is to be preferred before that which▪ is unquestionably of God. For though I easily grant that all the Churches of a Nation, Empire or the World, are to be more esteemed and carefully preserved, than one Bishops or Pastors particular Church; yet I will not grant you that your human policy is more necessary to the safety of all these Churches than the Divine. For the safety of these Churches may be better preserved by God's three great means (1. The polity of particular Churches with the conduct of their present faithful Bishops or Pastors; 2. The loving Consociation of Neighbor Churches for Concord; 3. The protection and countenance of Magistrates) without any new Church-form, (or National or Imperial or Universal Pastor) than with it.
Nay when that sort of Usurpation hath been the very Engine of dividing, corrupting and undoing the Christian Churches above a thousand years, we are not easily persuaded now, that yet it is either necessary or desirable.
18. But the best and easiest way to discern how far the making new Churches or Church offices is lawful or unlawful, is by trying it by the quality of their office-work. For it is the work which giveth us the description of the office; and the office of the Ruling part, which giveth us the definition of the Church, which that office constituteth.
The work which the new human officer is to do, is either, 1. The same which God hath already appointed Bishops or Pastors to do, Or at least the unfixed Ministers in the universal Church; 2. Or it is such as he hath appointed Magistrates to do; 3. Or it is such as belongeth to private and lay men; 4. Or it is somewhat different from all these.
1. If it be of the first sort, it is a contradiction. For men that are by office appointed to do the same work which Ministers are already appointed to do, are not a new office, but Ministers indeed, such as Christ hath instituted: For the office is nothing but an Obligation and Authority to do the work.
2. If it be the same work which belongeth to the Magistrate, then it is no new office, for they are Magistrates.
3. If it be that which belongeth to private men, by God's appointment, they cannot disoblige themselves by transferring it to a new officer.
4. If it be none of all these, what is it? I doubt it may prove some needless or rather sinful work, which God committed to none of these three sorts, and therefore unfit to make a Church-office of. Unless it be such as I before described and granted. 1. I confess that the Magistrate may make new inferior officers, to do his own part (As Church-Justices, Church-wardens. &c. ) 2. I grant that the people may make an office for the better doing of some parts of their own work: They may make Collectors, Door-keepers, Artists by office, to keep the Clock, and Bells, and Church-buildings, &c. if the Magistrates leave it to them.
3. I grant that the Bishops or Pastors may do some circumstances of their work by human officers: As to facilitate their concord in Synods, by choosing one to preside, to choose time and place, to send messengers to take votes, to moderate disputes, to record agreements, &c. as aforesaid: And these circumstantials are the things that officers may be made for.
But the very modes and circumstances which are part of the work to which every Bishop or Pastor is obliged, he cannot commit to another; As to choose his text, subject, method, words, &c. These are parts of his own work: Though Concord in these is the work of many.
Now what is the work besides all these that we must have new Churches and offices made for? Is it to Govern all these Bishops and Churches? How? By the Word or by the Sword? If by the Sword, the Magistrate is to do it? If by the Word (or spiritual Authority ) either God hath made such an office as Arch-bishops or General Bishops over many, or he hath not: If he have, we need no new human office for it, God having provided for it already: If not, but God hath left all Bishops independent, and to learn of one another, as equals in Office, and unequal only in gifts, then either such an office is fit and necessary or not. If it be, you accuse God of omission in not appointing a Bishop over Bishops as well as a Bishop of the lowest order. If not, then by what reason or power will you make new needless officers in the Church? When Cyprian and his Carthage Council so vehemently disclaimed being Episcopy Episcoporum?
19. I would fain know whether those new made Churches of human and not of Divine fabrication, (whether Universal (or Papal) Patriarchal, Provincial, &c. ) were made by former Churches or by no Churches. If by no Churches, then either by other societies or by single persons: If by other societies, by what power do they make new Churches to Christ, who are themselves no Churches: If by single persons, either they are before Church-members or not. If not, how can those make new Churches that be not so much as members of Churches, without a Commission from Christ? But if either former Churches or their members made these new Churches, then 1. It followeth that there were another sort of Churches before these new or human Churches. And if so, either those other that made these were themselves made of God or not? And so the question will run up till you bring it either to some Church of God's making which made these other, or some person commissioned to do it. If you say the first, then he that will confess that there is a species of Churches of Christ's Institution, and a species not of his institution, must prefer the former, and must well prove the power of making the later. And so they must do, if they say that it was done by particular persons that were no particular Church-members. For if Christ commissioned them to settle any one species of Churches, those are to be esteemed settled by Christ. But if you say that Christ left them to vary the species of Churches as they saw cause, and so on to the end of the World, 1. You must well prove it, 2. It is before disproved: (unless you take the word Church equivocally.)
20. Lastly, all Christians are satisfied of Christ's Authority▪ And therefore in that they can agree: But so they are not, of any human Church-makers authority; And therefore in that there will never be an agreement: Therefore such new Churches, and Ecclesiastical Governments will be but (as they ever have been) the Engines of division and ruin in the Churches: And the species of God's making, with the mutability of mutable Adjuncts and Circumstances, will best preserve the Churches peace.
But if the true nature of Pastoral or Ecclesiastical Government were well understood, it would put an end to all these Controversies. Which may be mostly gathered from what is said before; To which I will add this little following.
Quest. Wherein consisteth the true nature of Pastoral Church Government?
Answ. 1. NOt in any use of the sword or corporal • orce.
2. Not in a power to contradict God's word.
3. Not in a power co-ordinate with Christ's, to do his proper work, or that which hath the same grounds, reasons, and nature.
4. Not in an unquestionable Empire, to command things which none must presume to examine, or judge of by a discerning judgment, whether they be forbidden by God or not.
5. Not now in making a new word of God, or new Articles of faith, or new universal Laws, for the whole Church.
6. Not in anything which derogates from the true power of Magistrates, or Parents, or Masters.
But 1. It is a Ministerial power, of a Messenger or Servant, who hath a commission to deliver his Masters commands and exhortations.
2. As it is over the Laity or flocks, it is a power in the sacred Assemblies to Teach the people by office, and to be their Priests or Guides in holy Worship. 3. And to Rule the Worship-actions for the time, length, method, and orderly performance of them.
3. As to particular persons, it is the power of the Church Keys, which is, 1. To judge who is meet to be by Baptism taken in to the Church, 2. To reprove, exhort and instruct those that by vice or ignorance, in order to Repentance, or Knowledge, or confirmation do need the Pastoral help. 3. To judge who is to be forbidden Church-communion as impenitent; or at • east, with whom that Church must be forbidden to communicate. 4. To judge who is meet for Absolution as a penitent. 5. To deliver men personally a sealed pardon from Christ in his two Sacraments. 6. To visit the sick, and comfort the sad, and resolve the doubting, and help the poor. This is the true Church Government, which is like a Philosophers or Schoolmasters in his School among volunteers, supposing them to have no power of the rod or violence, but only to take in or put out of their Schools: And what • eed is there of an Universal, Patriarchal or National Head, to do any of this work, which is but the Government of a personal Teacher and Conductor; and which worketh only on the Conscience?
4. But besides this there is a necessity of Agreeing in the right management of this work: which needeth no new Head, but only the Consultations of the several Bishops or Pastors, and the Magistrates civil rule, or extrinsic Episcopacy (as Constantine called it.)
5. And besides this there is need to Ordain Pastors and Bishops in the Church. And this is not done by any source neither; but 1. By Judging what men are fit, 2. By persuading the people to consent and receive them, and 3. By Investing them by a Delivery of possession by Imposition of hands. Now for all this, there needs no human species of Bishops or Churches to be made.
6. Besides this there is need of some oversight of these Pastors and Ministers and fixed Bishops when they are made; and of some General care of Pastors and people, if they decline to Heresies, errors, vices, or lukewarmness: But for this, 1. When Magistrates have done their part, 2. And neighbor Ministers to one another, 3. And the consociated Bishops to the particular ones: 4. And unfixed Ministers have done their part in the places where occasionally they come, If moreover any General Pastors or Arch-bishops are necessary, to rebuke, direct, and persuade the Bishops or their flocks, by messengers, Epistles or in presence, no doubt but God hath appointed such as the successors of the Apostles, Evangelists and other General Ministers of those first times. But if no such thing be appointed by Christ, we may be sure it is not necessary nor best.
If it were but considered that the Ruling power in the Church is so inseparable from the Teaching power, that it is exercised by Teaching and only by God's word, (either generally, or personally applied) and that upon none but those that willingly and by consent receive it, it would quiet the world about these matters. And O that once Magistrates would take the Sword wholly to themselves, and leave Church power to work only by its proper strength and virtue, and then all things would fall into joint again; Though the Ithacians would be displeased.
Quest. 58. Whether any part of the proper Pastoral or Episcopal power may be given or deputed to a Lay man, or to one of any other office, or the proper work may be performed by such?
Answ. 1. SUch Extrinsical, or Circumstantial, or Accidental actions as are afore-mentioned may be done by deputies or others (As calling the Church together, summoning offenders, recording actions, &c. )
2. The proper Episcopal or Pastoral work or office cannot be deputed, in whole or part, any other way than by Communication, which is, by Ordination, or making another to be of the same office. For if it may be done by a Lay man, or one that is not of the same order and office, then it is not to be called any proper part of the Pastoral or Episcopal office: If a Lay man, may Baptize, or administer the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood, or may ordain, or excommunicate (ecclesiastically) or Absolve, merely because a Bishop authorizeth or biddeth him, Then 1. What need Christ have made an office work of it, and persons be Devoted and Consecrated to it?
2. And why may not the people's election and the Kings Commission serve to enable a Lay man to do it? For if Commanding only be proper to the Bishop or Pastor, and executing be common to Lay men, it's certain that the King may Command all Bishops and Pastors to do their office work; And therefore he may command a Lay man to do that which a Bishop may command him to do.
3. And is it not a contradiction to say that a man is a Lay man, or of another Order, who is Authorized by a Bishop, to do a Bishops work or office? When as the office itself is nothing (as is oft said) but an Obligation and Authority to do the work. If therefore a Bishop authorize and oblige any other man to do the proper work of a Bishop or Pastor (to ordain, to baptize, to give the Sacrament of the Eucharist, to Excommunicate, to absolve, &c. ) he thereby maketh that man a Bishop or a Pastor, whatever he call him.
Obj. But doth not a Bishop preach per alios to all his Diocese? and give them the Sacraments per alios, &c?
Answ. Let not the phrase be made the Controversy instead of the Matter. Those other persons are either Ministers of Christ, or Lay men. If Lay men, their actions are unlawful. If Ministers, they are Commissioned officers of Christ themselves, and it is the work of their own office which they do, and it is they that shall have the reward or punishment. But if preaching to all these Churches or giving to all these persons in a thousand Parishes the Sacraments, &c. were the Bishops or Archbishops work, that is, which they are obliged to do, then they would sin in not doing it. But if they are the Governors only of those that are obliged 〈◊〉 do it, and are not obliged to do it themselves, then Governing the doers of it, is only their work; And therefore it is but equivocally said that the work is theirs, which others and not they are obliged to do; and that they do their work per alios, when they do but Govern those others in doing their own work.
Of this read the Lord Bacons Considerations, and Grotius de Imper. sum. Potest. Cir • a Sacra who soundly resolve the case, against doing the Pastoral work per alium.
Quest. 59. May a Lay man preach or expound the Scriptures? Or what of this is proper to the Pastors office?
Answ. 1. NO doubt but there is some Preaching or Teaching and Expounding which a Lay man may use. So did Origen; so did Constantine; so may a King or Judge on the Bench: so may a Parent to his Children, and a Master to his family, and a Schoolmaster or Tutor to his Scholars.
2. It is not any one Method or Sermon-fashion which is proper to a Minister and forbidden to a Lay man: That Method which is most meet to the Matter and hearers, may be used by one as well as by the other.
3. It is not the mere publicness of the Teaching, which must tell us what is unlawful for a Lay man. For Writing and Printing are the most public ways of Teaching; And these no man taketh to be forbidden the Laity. Scaliger, Causabon, Grotius, Erasmus, Constantine, King James, the Lord Bacon, and abundance more Lay men have done the Church great service by their Writings. And Judges on the Bench speak oft Theologically to many.
But that which is proper to the Ministers or Pastors of the Church is, 1. To make a stated office of it, and to be separated, set a part, devoted, or consecrated and appropriated to this sacred work; and not to do it occasionally only, or sometimes, or on the by; but as their Calling and the Employment of their lives.
2. To do it as Called and Commissioned Ministers of Christ, who have a special nunciative and Teaching Authority committed to them; And therefore are in a special manner to be heard, according to their special Authority.
3. To be the stated Teachers of particular Churches, as their Pastors and Guides; (Though they may sometime permit a Lay man when there is cause to Teach them pro tempore ) These three are proper to the Ministerial and Pastors office.
But for the regulating of Lay men's Teaching, 1. They must statedly keep in their families or within their proper bounds.
2. They must not presume to go beyond their abilities; especially in matters dark and difficult.
3. They must not thrust themselves without a just call and need into public or numerous meetings as Teachers, nor do that which savoreth of Pride or Ostentation, or which tendeth to cherish those vices in others.
4. They must not live, or Preach, as from under the Government of the Church Pastors: But being members of their flocks, must do all as under their lawful oversight and guidance: much less must they proudly and schismatically set up themselves against their lawful Pastors, and bring them into contempt to get themselves reputation, and to draw away Disciples after them.
5. Times and places must be greatly distinguished. In Infidel or grossly ignorant Countries, where through the want of Preachers there is a true necessity, men may go much further than in Countries where Teachers and knowledge do abound.
Quest. 60. What is the true sense of the distinction of Pastoral power, in foro interiore & exteriore, rightly used?
Answ. 1. NOt as if the Pastors had any power of the sword or outward force, or of men's Bodies or Estates immediately: For all the Pastoral power is Immediately on the soul, and but secondarily on the body, so far as the persuaded soul will move it. Reason and Love and the Authority of a messenger of Christ, are all the power by which Bishops or Pastors as such can work, in foro interiore vel exteriore; They Rule the body but by Ruling the soul.
2. But the true use of the distinction is only to serve instead of the usual distinction of Public, and personal obligation. It is one thing to satisfy a man's private Conscience about his own personal case or matters: And another thing to oblige the whole Church, or a particular person, of his duty as a member of the society to the rest. When the Pastor Absolveth a penitent person, in foro interiore, that is, in his own Conscience, he delivereth him a discharge in the name of Christ on Condition he be truly penitent: Else not. But in foro exteriore he actually and absolutely restoreth him to his visible state of Church Communion. The rest of the members perhaps may justly think this man unlike to prove a true penitent: And then in foro interiore they are not bound to believe him certainly penitent or pardoned by God: But in foro exteriore that he is restored to Church Communion, and that for order sake they are bound to hold Communion with him, they are bound (internally) to believe. So that it comes near the sense of the distinction of the secret Judgment (of God and Conscience) and Church judgment.
Quest. 61. In what sense is it true that some say, that the Magistrate only hath the External Government of the Church, and the Pastors the Internal?
Answ. 1. NOt as External and Internal are opposed in the nature of the Action. For the Voice of the Pastor in Preaching is External, as well as the Kings.
2. Not as they are opposed in the manner of Reception. For the Ears of the Auditors are external Recipients from the Preacher as well as from the King.
3. Not as distinguishing the parts that are to obey, the duties commanded, and the sins forbidden, as if the King ruled the Body only and the Pastor the soul. For the soul is bound to obey the King, or else the Body could not be bound to obey him; unless by cords. And the Body must obey the Preacher as well as the soul. Murder, drunkenness, swearing, lying, and such other external Vices, are under the Pastors power to forbid in Christ's name, as well as the Kings.
4. Not as if all the external parts or actions of Religion were exempted from the Pastors power. For preaching, praying, reading, Sacraments, Church-assemblies, are external parts of Religion, and under the Pastors care.
But in two respects the External power is only the Kings or Civil Magistrates. 1. As it is denominated from the sword or mulcts or Corporal penalties, which is the external means of execution: Though in this respect the distinction were far more intelligibly expressed by [ The Government by the sword, and by the sacred word. ]
2. But the principal sense of their distinction is the same with Constantine's, who distinguished of a Bishop without and within; or of our common distinction of Intrinsic and Extrinsick Government: And though Internal and External have the same signification, use maketh Intrinsic and Extrinsick more intelligible. And by Internal is meant that power which Intrinsecally belongeth to the Pastors • ffice as Instituted by Christ; and so is Intrinsical to the Pastorship and the Church (as preaching, praying, sacraments, the Keys of Admission and Exclusion, Ordination, &c. ) And by External is meant, that which is Extrinsical to the Pastorship and the Church; which Princes have sometimes granted them, but Christ hath made no part of their office. In this sense the assertion is good and clear and necessary; that the disposal of all things Circa Sacra all accidents and circumstances whatsoever, which by Christ's Institution are not Intrinsical to the Pastorship and Church, but extrinsical, do belong to the power of Kings and Magistrates.
Quest. 62. Is the trial, judgment, or consent of the Laity necessary to the admittance of a member into the Universal or particular Church?
Answ. 1. IT is the Pastors office to bear and exercise the Keys of Christ's Church: Therefore by office he is to Receive those that come in; and consequently to be the tryer and Judge of their fitness.
2. It belongeth to the same office which is to Baptize, to Judge who is to be baptized: Otherwise Ministers should not be rational Judges of their own actions, but the executioners of other men's judgment. It is more the Iudging who is to be baptized, which the Ministers office consisteth in, than in the bare doing of the outward act of Baptizing.
3. He that must be the ordinary Judge in Church-admissions, is supposed to have both Ability and Leisure to make him fit; and Authority and Obligation to do the work.
4. The ordinary body of the Laity have none of all these four qualifications; much less all. 1. They are not ordinarily Able; so to examine a man's faith and resolution with judgment and skill, as may neither tend to the wrong of himself nor of the Church. For it is great skill that is required thereunto. 2. They have not ordinarily Leisure from their proper callings and labors, to wait on such a work as it must be waited on; especially in populous places. 3. They are not therefore obliged to do that which they cannot be supposed to have Ability or Leisure for. 4. And where they have not the other three, they can have no Authority to do it.
5. It is therefore as great a crime for the Laity to usurp the Pastors office in this matter, as in preaching, baptizing or other parts of it.
6. And though Pride often blind men (both people and Pastors ) so as to make them overlook the burden and look only at the Authority and honor; yet is it indeed an intolerable injury to the Laity, if any would lay such a burden on them which they cannot bear, and consequently would make them responsible for the omissions or misdoing of it, to Christ their Judge.
7. There is not so much as any fair pretence for the Laity having power to judge who shall be received into the Universal Church: For who of the Laity should have this power? Not All, nor the Major Vote of the Church: For whoever sought the Votes of all the Christians in the World, before he baptized a man? Not any one particular Church or persons above the rest: For they have no Right to show for it, more than the rest.
8. It is not in the power of the Laity to keep a man out of their own particular Church Communion, whom the Pastor receiveth; Because, as is said, it is his Office to judge and bear the Reyes.
9. Therefore if it be ill done, and an unworthy person be admitted, the Consciences of the people need not accuse themselves of it, or be disturbed, because it is none of their employment.
10. Yet the Liberty of the Church or people must be distinguished from their Governing power, and their Executing duty from the power of Iudging. And so, 1. The people are to be Guided by the Pastors as Volunteers, and not by Violence: And therefore it is the Pastors duty, in all doubtful cases, to give the people all necessary satisfaction, by giving them the Reasons of his doings, that they may understandingly and quietly obey and submit. 2. And in case the people discern any notable appearance of danger, by introducing Heretics and grossly impious men to corrupt the Church, and by subverting the order of Christ, they may go to their Pastors to desire satisfaction in the case. 3. And if by open proof or notoreity it be certain, that by Ignorance, fraud or negligence the Pastors thus corrupt the Church, the people may seek their due Remedy from other Pastors and Magistrates; 4. And they may protest their own dissent from such proceedings; 5. And in case of extremity may cast off Heretical and Impious and Intolerable Pastors, and commit their souls to the conduct of fitter men; As the Churches did against the Arian Bishops, and as Cyprian declareth it his people's duty to do; as is aforesaid.
Quest. 63. What power have the people in Church Censures and Excommunication?
Answ. THis is here adjoined, because it requireth but little more than the foregoing answer.
1. As it is the Pastors office to judge who is to be received, so also to judge who is to be excluded.
2. But the Execution of his sentence belongeth to the people as well as to himself. It is they that either hold Communion with the person, or avoid him.
3. Therefore though ordinarily they must acquiesce in the Pastors judgment, yet if he grossly offend against the Law of God, and would bring them e. g. to communion with heretics and openly impious, and excommunicate the Orthodox and Godly, they may seek their remedy as before.
Quest. 64. What is the people's remedy in case of the Pastors male-administration?
Answ. THis also is here annexed for dispatch, as being almost sufficiently answered already.
1. It must be supposed that all Church disorders and male-administrations cannot be expected to be remedied; but many while we are sinners and imperfect must be born.
2. The first Remedy is to speak submissively to the Pastor of his faults, and to say to Archippus, Take heed to the Ministry which thou hast received: And if he hear not more privately, for the people more openly to warn and entreat him; not as his Governors, but as Christians that have Reason to regard Christ's interest and their own, and have charity to desire his reformation.
2. The next remedy is, to consult with the neighbor Pastors of other Churches, that they may admonish him; not as his Governors, but as neighbor Pastors.
3. The next remedy is to seek redress from those Governors that have power to correct or cast our the intolerable.
4. The last remedy is that of Cyprian, to desert such intolerable Pastors.
But in all this, the people must be sure that they proceed not proudly, ignorantly, erroneously, passionately, factiously, disorderly or rashly.
Quest. 65. May one be a Pastor or a member of a particular Church who liveth so far from it, as to be uncapable of personal Communion with them?
Answ. THe Name is taken from the Relation; and the Relation is founded in Capacity, Right, and Obligation to actual Communion, duties and privileges; 1. He that is so statedly distant is uncapable statedly of Communion, and therefore uncapable of the Relation and Name.
2. He that is but for a Time accidentally so distant, is but for that time uncapable of Communion with them: And therefore retaineth, Capacity, Right and obligation statedly for the future, but not for the present exercise. Therefore he retaineth the Relation and name; in respect to his future intended exercise; but not in so plenary a sense, as he that is capable of present Communion.
3. It is not the length or shortness of the Time of absence that wholly cutteth off or continueth the Relation and Name, but the probability or improbability of a seasonable accession. For if a man be removed but a day, with a purpose to return no more, his relation ceaseth. And if a man be long purposing and probably like to return, and by sickness or otherwise be hindered, it doth not wholly end his relation.
4. If the delay be so long as either maketh the return improbable, or as necessitateth the Church to have another statedly in the Pastors place, where they can have but one, and so the people by taking another, consent (though with grief) to quit their relation and title to the former, there the Relation is at an end.
5. It is a delusory formality of some, that call themselves members of a separated (or other) Church, from which they most ordinarily and statedly live at an utter distance, and yet take themselves to be no members of the Church where they live, and usually join with: And all because they Covenanted with one and not with the other.
Quest. 66. If a man be injuriously suspended or Excommunicated by the Pastor or people, which way shall he have remedy?
Answ. AS is aforesaid in case of male-administration; 1. By admonishing the Pastor or those that wrong him. 2. By consulting Neighbor Pastors, that they may admonish him; 3. By the help of Rulers, where such are, and the Churches good forbids it not. 4. In case of extremity by removing to a Church that will not so injure you. And what needs there anymore, save patience?
Quest. 67. Doth presence always make us guilty of the errors or faults of the Pastor in God's worship, or of the Church? Or in what cases are we guilty?
Answ. 1. IF it always made us guilty no man could join with any Pastor or Church in the world, without being a willful sinner. Because no man worshippeth God without sin, in matter or manner, omission or commission.
2. If it never made us guilty, it would be lawful to join with Mohammedans and Bread-worshippers, &c.
3. Therefore the following decision of the question, in what cases it is a duty or a sin to separate, doth decide this case also. For when separation is no duty, but a sin, there our presence in the Worship is no sin: But when separation is a duty, there our presence is a sin.
4. Especially in these two cases our presence is a sin; 1. When the very Assembly and Worship is so bad as God will not accept, but judgeth the substance of it for a sin. 2. In case we ourselves be put upon any sin in Communion, or as a previous condition of our Communion (As to make some false profession, or to declare our consent to other men's sin, or to commit corporal visible reputative Idolatry, or the like). But the Pastor and Church shall answer for their own faults, and not we, when we have cause to be present, and make them not ours by any sinful action of our own.
Quest. 68. Is it lawful to Communicate in the Sacrament with wicked men?
Answ. THe answer may be gathered from what is said before.
1. If they be so wicked for number, and flagitiousness, and notoriety, as that it is our duty to forsake the Church, then to communicate with them is a sin. Therefore the after resolution of the just causes of separation must be peru • ed. As if a Church were so far defiled with Heresy, or open Impiety, that it were justified by the Major Vote, and bore down Faith and Godliness, and the society were become uncapable of the Ends of Church Association and Communion: In this and other cases it must be deserted.
2. If we d • not perform our own duty to remote unlawful Communions, (whether it be by admonition of the offender or Pastor, or what ever is proved really our duty, ) the omission of that duty is our sin.
3. But if we sin not by omitting our own duty, it will be no sin of ours to communicate with the Church, where scandalous sinners or Heretics are permitted. The Pastors and delinquents sins are not ours.
4. Yea, if we do omit our own duty in order to the remedy, that will not justify us in denying Communion with the Church while wicked men are there; But it will rather aggravate our sin, to omit one duty first, and thence fetch occasion to omit another.
Quest. 69. Have all the members of the Church right to the Lord's Table? And is Suspension lawful?
OF this see the Defense of the Synods Propositions in New England. I answer,
1. You must distinguish between a fundamental Right of State, and an immediate right of present possession; or if you will, Between a Right duly to receive the Sacrament, and a Right to immediate reception simply considered.
2. You must distinguish between a Questioned Controverted right, and an unquestioned right; And so you must conclude as followeth.
1. Every Church-member (at least adult) as such, hath the fundamental right of stated Relation, or a Right duly to receive the Sacrament; that is, To receive it understandingly and seriously at those seasons when by the Pastors it is administered.
2. But if upon faults or accusations, this Right be duly questioned in the Church, it is become a controverted right; and the possession or admission may by the Bishops or Pastors of the Church, be suspended, if they see cause, while it is under trial, till a just decision.
3. Though Infants are true members, yet the want of natural capacity, duly to receive, maketh it unlawful to give them the Sacrament, because it is to be Given only to Receivers, and Receiving is more than eating and drinking; It is Consenting to the Covenant, which is the real Receiving in a moral sense, or at least Consent professed. So that they want not a state of right, as to their Relation, but a natural capacity to Receive.
4. Persons at age who want not the Right of a stated Relation, may have such actual Natural and Moral indispositions, as may also make them for that time unmeet to Receive. As Sickness, Infection, a Journey, persecution, scattering the Church, a Prison: And (morally) 1. Want of necessary knowledge of the nature of the Sacrament (which by the negligence of Pastors or Parents may be the case of some that are but newly past their childhood); 2. Some heinous sin, of which the sinner hath not so far repented, as to be yet ready to receive a sealed pardon, or which is so scandalous in the Church, as that in public respects the person is yet unfit for its privileges. 3. Such sins or accusations of sin, as make the persons Church-title justly Controverted, and his Communion suspended, till the case be decided. 4. Such fears of unworthy Receiving, as were like to hurt and distract the person, if he should receive till he were better satisfied. These make a man uncapable of present Reception, and so are a bar to his plenary right: They have still right to Receive in a due manner: But being yet uncapable of that due Receiving, they have not a plenary right to the thing.
5. The same may be said of other parts of our duty and privileges. A man may have a Relative, habitual or stated right, to praise God, and give him thanks for his justification, and sanctification, and adoption, and to godly conference, to exercises of humiliation, &c. who yet for want of present actual preparation, may be uncapable, and so want a plenary right.
6. The understanding of the double preparation necessary, doth most clearly help us to understand this case. A man that is in an unregenerate state, must be visibly cured of that state (of utter ignorance, unbelief, ungodliness,) before he can be a member of the Church, and lay a claim to its privileges. But when that is done, besides this general preparation, a particular preparation also to each duty is necessary to the right doing it. A man must understand what he goeth about, and must consider of it, and come with some suitable affections. A man may have right to go a journey that wants a Horse; or may have a Horse, that is not saddled: He that hath clothes must put them on, before he is fit to come into company: He that hath right to write, may want a pen, or have a bad one: Having of Gracious habits, may need the addition, of bringing them into such acts, as are suitable to the work in hand.
Quest. 70. Is there any such thing in the Church, as a rank or Classis, or Species of Church members at age, who are not to be admitted to the Lord's Table, but only to hearing the Word and Prayer, between Infant members, and adult confirmed ones?
Answ. SOme have excogitated such a classis or species or order, for convenience, as a prudent necessary thing: Because to admit all to the Lord's Table they think dangerous on one side; And to cast all that are unfit for it out of the Church, they think dangerous on the other side, and that which the people would not bear. Therefore to preserve the reverence of the Sacrament, and to preserve their own and the Churches peace, they have contrived this middle way or rank. And indeed the controversy seemeth to be more about the title (whether it may be called a middle order of mere Learners and Worshippers,) than about the Matter. I have occasionally written more of it than I can here stay to recite: And the accurate handling of it requireth more words, than I will here use. This breviate therefore shall be all.
1. It is certain that such Catechumens as are in mere preparation to faith, repentance and baptism, are no Church-members or Christians at all; and so in none of these ranks.
2. Baptism is the only ordinary regular door of entrance into the visible Church; and no man (unless in extraordinary cases) is to be taken for a Church-member or visible Christian till Baptized.
Two Objections are brought against this. 1. The Infants of Christians are Church-members as such, before baptism, and so are believers: They are baptized because members, and not members by baptism.
Answ. This case hath no difficulty: 1. A Believer as such, is a member of Christ and the Church invisible, but not of the visible Church, till he be an orderly Professor of that belief. And this Profession is not left to every man's will how it shall be made, but Christ hath prescribed and instituted a certain way and manner of profession, which shall be the only ordinary symbol or badge, by which the Church shall know visible members; and that is baptism. Indeed when baptism cannot be had, an open profession without it may serve: For Sacraments are made for Man, and not Man for Sacraments. But when it may be had, it is Christ's appointed Symbol, Tessera and Church-door. And till a person be baptized, he is but Irregularly and initially a Professor; As an Embryo in the Womb is a man; or as a Covenant before the writing, sealing and delivering is initially a Covenant; or as persons privately contracted without solemn Matrimony are married; or as a man is a Minister upon Election and Trial before Ordination: He hath only in all these cases, the beginning of a title, which is not complete; nor at all sufficient in foro Ecclesi • , to make a man Visibly and Legally, A married man, a Minister, and so here a Christian. For Christ hath chosen his own visible badge, by which his Church-members must be known.
2. And the same is to be said of the Infant-title of the children of believers: They have but an initial right before baptism, and not the badge of visible Christians. For there are three distinct gradations to make up their visible Christianity. 1. Because they are their own, (and as it were parts of themselves) therefore Believers have power and obligation to dedicate their children in Covenant with God. 2. Because every believer is himself dedicated to God, with all that is his own, (according to its capacity) therefore a Believers child is supposed to be Virtually (not actually) dedicated to God in his own dedication or Covenant, as soon as his child hath a being. 3. Being thus Virtually and Implicitly first dedicated, he is after Actually and regularly dedicated in Baptism and Sacramentally receiveth the badge of the Church; And this maketh him a visible member or Christian, to which the two first were but introductory, as Conception is to human Nativity.
Object. 2. But the seed of Believers as such are in the Covenant; and therefore Church-members.
Answ. The word Covenant here is ambiguous: Either it signifieth God's Law of Grace, or prescribed terms for salvation, with his immediate offer of the benefits to accepters, called the single Covenant of God; or it signifieth this with man's Consent, called the Mutual Covenant where both parties Covenant. In the former sense, the Covenant only offereth Church-membership, but maketh no man a Church-member, till Consent. It is but God's conditional promise, If thou believe thou shalt be saved, &c. If thou give up thyself and children to me, I will be your God, and you shall be my people. But it is only the Mutual Covenant that maketh a Christian or Church-member.
Object. The promise is to us and our children as ours.
Answ. That is, that you and your children dedicated to God, shall be received into Covenant; •• t not otherwise. Believing is not only bare Assenting,