these efficiencies in general. 2. From the subordination which hereby
they are placed in to Christ, as their relation is denominated _a
termino_.
1. Formally the office consisteth in, 1. An obligation to do the work
of the office. 2. Authority to do it, and to oblige others to submit
to it.
2. These make up an office which being denominated also from the
_terminus_, is considered, 1. As to the nearest term, which is the
work to be done. 2. The remote, which is the object of that work.
The work is, 1. Teaching: 2. Ruling: 3. Worshipping.[255] And so it is
essentially An obligation and power of ministerial teaching, ruling,
and worshipping God.
2. As to the object it is, 1. The world to be converted. 2. The
converted to be baptized, and congregated or ordered into particular
societies (so far as may be). 3. The baptized and congregate to be,
(1.) Taught; (2.) Ruled; (3.) Guided in worship.[256]
From all which resulteth an office which is ministerially subordinate
to Christ, 1. The Prophet or Teacher; 2. The Ruler; 3. The High Priest
and Lover of his church; and it may be aptly called both a teaching
ministry, a ruling ministry, (not by the sword, but by the word,) and
a priesthood or priestly ministry.[257]
II. As the pastor is related to the church, he is, 1. A constitutive
part of particular political churches. 2. He is Christ's minister for
the church and for Christ; that is, to teach, rule, and worship with
the church. He is above the church, and greater than it, as to order
and power, and not the minister of the church as the efficient of the
ministry: but he is less and worse than the church finally and
materially; and is finally the church's minister, as the physician is
the patient's physician; not made a physician by him, but chosen and
used as his physician for his cure: so that to speak properly, he is
not from them, but for them. He is Christ's minister for their good;
as the shepherd is his master's servant, for his flock, and so finally
only the servant of the sheep.[258]
The whole uncontrovertible work of the office is laid down in my small
book called "Universal Concord," to which I must refer you.
[251] John xx. 21; xiii. 20; Luke x. 3; Rom. x. 15; Acts xx. 28.
[252] Phil. i. 15-17; Matt. vii. 22; Rom. xv. 14.
[253] Eph. iv. 7, 8; 2 Tim. ii. 2; i. 5, 7; Eph. vi. 19; Col. iv. 3; 2
Cor. x. 4, 5.
[254] Tit. i. 2; 2 Cor. viii. 6; 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2; Tit. i. 7.
[255] 2 Tim. 2; iii. 2; iv. 11; vi. 2, 3; 1 Thess. v. 12, 13.
[256] Heb. xiii. 7, 17; Acts vi. 4; ix. 40; xx. 36; Mal. ii. 7; Heb.
x. 11.
[257] Rev. i. 6; v. 10; xx. 6; 1 Pet. ii. 5, 6.
[258] Rom. i. 1; Col. iv. 12; 2 Pet. i. 1; 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2; iii. 5; 2
Cor. iii. 6; xi. 4; xi. 23; Matt. xxix. 45, 46, 48; 1 Cor. ix. 19.
Quest. XVIII. _Whether the people's choice or consent is necessary to
the office of a minister in his first work, as he is to convert
infidels, and baptize them? And whether this be a work of office? And
what call is necessary to it?_
I conjoin these three distinct questions for expedition.
1. That it is part of the minister's office work to teach, convert,
and baptize men, to bring them out of the world into the church, is
undeniable; 1. In Christ's express commission, Matt. xxviii. 19, 20,
"Go, disciple me all nations, baptizing them--" 2. In the execution of
this commission.
2. That this was not peculiar to the apostles or their age is proved,
1. Because not an extraordinary work, like miracles, &c. but the first
great business of the gospel and ministry in the world. 2. Because
others as well as the apostles did it in that age, and ever since. 3.
Because the promise is annexed to the office thus described, "I am
with you always to the end of the world." Or if you translate it
"age," it is the age of the church of the Messiah incarnate, which is
all one. 4. Because it was a small part of the world comparatively
that heard the gospel in the apostles' days.[259] And the far greatest
part of the world is without it at this day, when yet God our Saviour
would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the
truth. 5. Even where the gospel hath long continued, for the most part
there are many still that are in infidelity. And so great a work is
not left without an appointed suitable means for its performance: and
if an office was necessary for it in the first age, it is not credible
that it is left to private men's charity ever since. 6. Especially
considering that private men are to be supposed insufficient; (1.)
Because they are not educated purposely for it, but usually for
something else. (2.) Because that they have other callings to take
them up. (3.) Because they have no special obligation. And that which
is no man's peculiar work, is usually left undone by all.
II. The people's call or consent is not necessary to a minister's
reception of his office in general, nor for this part of his work in
special; but only to his pastoral relation to themselves.
1. It is so in other functions that are exercised by skill. The
patients or people make not a man a physician or lawyer, but only
choose what physician shall be their physician, and what lawyer shall
be their counsellor.
2. If the people's call or consent be necessary, it is either the
infidels' or the church's. Not the infidels to whom he is to preach:
for, 1. He is authorized to preach to them (as the apostles were)
before he goeth to them. 2. Their consent is but a natural consequent
requisite for the reception and success of their teaching, but not to
the authority which is prerequisite. 3. Infidels cannot do so much
towards the making of a minister of Christ. 4. Else Christ would have
few such ministers. 5. If it be infidels, either all or some? If some,
why those rather than others? Or is a man made a minister by every
infidel auditory that heareth him?
2. Nor is it christian people that must do this much to the making of
a general minister: for, 1. They have no such power given for it, in
nature or the word of God. 2. They are generally unqualified and
unable for such a work. 3. They are no where obliged to it, nor can
fitly leave their callings for it; much less to get the abilities
necessary to judge. 4. Which of the people have this power? Is it any
of them, or any church of private men? or some one more than the rest?
Neither one nor all can lay any claim to it. There is some reason why
this congregation rather than another should choose their own pastors;
but there is no reason (nor Scripture) that this congregation choose a
minister to convert the world.
III. I conclude therefore that the call of a minister in general doth
consist, 1. Dispositively in the due qualifications and enablement of
the person. 2. And the necessity of the people, with opportunity, is a
providential part of the call. 3. And the ordainers are the orderly
electors and determiners of the person that shall receive the power
from Christ.
1. For this is part of the power of the keys or church government. 2.
And Paul giveth this direction for exercising of this power to
Timothy, which showeth the ordinary way of calling; 2 Tim. ii. 2, "And
the things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same
commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others
also."[260] Acts xiii. 1-3, "There were in the church at Antioch
certain prophets--As they ministered to the Lord, the Holy Ghost said,
Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called
them; and when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on
them, they sent them away. And they being sent forth by the Holy
Ghost, departed." In this (whether it be called an ordination, or
rather a mission) there is somewhat ordinary, (that it be by men in
office,) and somewhat extraordinary (that it be by a special
inspiration of the Holy Ghost).
And Timothy received his gifts and office by the imposition of the
hands of Paul and of the presbytery. 1 Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6, 1
Tim. v. 22, "Lay hands suddenly on no man."
These instances make the case the clearer, 1. Because it is certain
that all the governing power which is given by Christ to the church
under the name of the keys, is given to the pastors. 2. Because there
are no other competitors to lay a reasonable claim to it.
[259] Rom. x. 15, 16.
[260] 1 Tim. iii. 6, 7; Tit. i. 5, 6.
Quest. XIX. _Wherein consistent the power and nature of ordination?
And to whom doth it belong? And is it an act of jurisdiction? And is
imposition of hands necessary in it?_
I. This is resolved on the by before. 1. Ordination performeth two
things: (1.) The designation, election, or determination of the person
who shall receive the office. (2.) The ministerial investiture of him
in that office; which is a ceremonial delivery of possession; as a
servant doth deliver possession of a house by delivering him the key,
who hath before received the power or right from the owner.
2. The office delivered by this election and investiture, is the
sacred ministerial office in general to be after exercised according
to particular calls and opportunities; as Christ called the apostles,
and the Spirit called the ordinary general teachers of those times;
such as Barnabas, Silas, Silvanus, Timothy, Epaphroditus, Apollos, &c.
And as is before cited, 2 Tim. ii. 2. As a man is made in general a
licensed physician, lawyer, &c.
3. This ordination is _ordinis gratia_, necessary to order; and
therefore so far necessary as order is necessary; which is ordinarily,
when the greater interest of the substantial duty, or of the thing
ordered, is not against it. As Christ determined the case of sabbath
keeping, and not eating the shewbread. As the sabbath was made for
man, and not man for the sabbath, and the end is to be preferred
before the separable means; so ordination was instituted for order,
and order for the thing ordered, and for the work of the gospel, and
the good of souls, and not the gospel and men's souls for that order.
Therefore when, 1. The death; 2. Distance; 3. Or malignity of the
ordainers depriveth a man of ordination, these three substitutes may
notify to him the will of God, that he is by him a person called to
that office: 1. Fitness for the works, in understanding, willingness,
and ability; 2. The necessity of souls; 3. Opportunity.
II. The power of ordaining belongeth not, 1. To magistrates; 2. Or to
private men, either single or as the body of a church; but, 3. To the
senior pastors of the church (whether bishops or presbyters of a
distinct order, the reader must not expect that I here determine).
For, 1. The power is by Christ given to them, as is before proved; and
in Tit. i. 5.
2. None else are ordinarily able to discern aright the abilities of a
man for the sacred ministry. The people may discern a profitable
moving preacher, but whether he understand the Scripture, or the
substance of religion, or be sound in the faith and not heretical,
and delude them not with a form of well-uttered words, they are not
ordinarily able to judge.
3. None else are fit to attend this work, but pastors who are
separated to the sacred office.[261] It requireth more time to get
fitness for it, and then to perform it faithfully, than either
magistrates or people can ordinarily bestow.
4. The power is no where given by Christ to magistrates or people.
5. It hath been exercised by pastors or church officers only, both in
and ever since the apostles' days, in all the churches of the world.
And we have no reason to think that the church hath been gathered from
the beginning till now, by so great an error, as a wrong conveyance of
the ministerial power.
III. The word jurisdiction as applied to the church officers, is no
Scripture word, and in the common sense soundeth too big, as
signifying more power than the servants of all must claim; for there
is "one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy."[262] But in a
more moderate sense it may be tolerated; as jurisdiction signifieth in
particular, 1. Legislation; 2. Or judicial process or sentence; 3. Or
the execution of such a sentence, strictly taken; so ordination is no
part of jurisdiction. But as jurisdiction signifieth the same with the
power of government, _jus regendi_ in general; so ordination is an act
of jurisdiction. As the placing or choosing of inferior officers may
belong to the steward of a family, or as the calling or authorizing of
physicians belongeth to the college of physicians, and the authorizing
of lawyers to the judges' society, or the authorizing of doctors in
philosophy to the society of philosophers or to particular rulers.
Where note, that in the three last instances, the learning or fitness
of the said persons or societies, is but their _dispositio vel
aptitudo ad potestatem exercendam_; but the actual power of conveying
authority to others, or designing the recipient person, is received
from the supreme power of the land, and so is properly an act of
authority, here called jurisdiction.
So that the common distinguishing of ordination from jurisdiction or
government, as if they were _tota specie_ different, is unsound.
IV. Imposition of hands was a sign, (like the kiss of peace, and the
anointing of persons, and like our kneeling in prayer, &c.) which
having first somewhat in their nature to invite men to the use, was
become a common significant sign, of a superior's benediction of an
inferior, in those times and countries. And so was here applied
ordinarily for its antecedent significancy and aptitude to this use;
and was not purposely instituted, nor had its significancy newly given
it by institution; and so was not like a sacrament necessarily and
perpetually affixed to ordination.
Therefore we must conclude, 1. That imposition of hands in ordination
is a decent, apt, significant sign, not to be scrupled by any, nor to
be omitted without necessity, as being of Scripture, ancient, and
common use.
2. But yet that it is not essential to ordination; which may be valid
by any fit designation and separation of the person. And therefore if
it be omitted, it nullifieth not the action. And if the ordainers did
it by letters to a man a thousand miles off, it would be valid: and
some persons of old were ordained when they were absent.
V. I add as to the need of ordination, 1. That without this key, the
office and church doors would be cast open, and every heretic or
self-conceited person intrude.
2. It is a sign of a proud, unworthy person, that will judge himself
fit for so great a work, and intrude upon such a conceit, when he may
have the judgment of the pastors, and avoideth it.[263]
3. Those that so do, should no more be taken for ministers by the
people, than any should go for christians that are not baptized, or
for married persons whose marriage is not solemnized.
[261] Acts xiii. 2; Rom. i. 1; 1 Tim. iv. 15.
[262] Isa. xxxiii. 22; Jam. iv. 12.
[263] Acts xiii. 2; Heb. v. 4, 10.
Quest. XX. _Is ordination necessary to make a man a pastor of a
particular church as such? And is he to be made a general minister and
a particular church elder or pastor at once, and by one ordination?_
I have proved that a man may be made a minister in general, yea, and
sent to exercise it in converting infidels, and baptizing them, before
ever he is the pastor of any particular church. To which I add, that
in this general ministry, he is a pastor in the universal church, as a
licensed physician that hath no hospital or charge, is a physician in
the kingdom.
And, 1. As baptism is as such our entrance into the universal church,
and not into a particular; so is ordination to a minister an entrance
only on the ministry as such.
2. Yet a man may at once be made a minister in general, and the pastor
of this or that church in particular: and in kingdoms wholly
inchurched and christian, it is usually fittest so to do; lest many
being ordained _sine titulo_, idleness and poverty of supernumeraries,
should corrupt and dishonour the ministry: which was the cause of the
old canons in this case.
3. But when a man is thus called to both at once, it is not all done
by ordination as such; but his complicate relation proceedeth from a
complication of causes. As he is a minister, it is by ordination. And
as he is the pastor of this people, it is by the conjunct causes of
appropriation: which are, 1. Necessarily the people's consent. 2.
Regularly, the pastor's approbation and recommendation, and reception
of the person into their communion. 3. And sometimes the magistrate
may do much to oblige the people to consent.
4. But when a man is made a minister in general before, he needeth no
proper ordination to fix him in a particular charge; but only an
approbation, recommendation, particular investiture, and reception.
For else a man must be oft ordained, even as oft as he removeth. But
yet imposition of hands may fitly be used in this particular
investiture, though it be no proper ordination, that is, no collation
of the office of a minister in general, but the fixing of one that was
a minister before.
Quest. XXI. _May a man be oft or twice ordained?_
It is supposed, that we play not with an ambiguous word, that we
remember what ordination is. And then you will see cause to
distinguish, 1. Between entire, true ordination, and the external act,
or words, or ceremony only. 2. Between one that was truly ordained
before, and one that was not. And so I answer,
1. He that seemed ordained, and indeed was not, is not re-ordained
when he is after-ordained.
2. It is needful therefore to know the essentials of ordination, from
the integrals and accidentals.
3. He that was truly ordained before, may in some cases receive again
the repetition of the bare words and outward ceremonies of ordination
(as imposition of hands). Where I will, I. Tell you in what cases. II.
Why.
I. 1. In case there wanted sufficient witnesses of his ordination; and
so the church hath not sufficient means of notice or satisfaction,
that ever he was ordained indeed: or if the witnesses die before the
notification. Whether the church should take his word or not, in such
a case, is none of my question, but, Whether he should submit to the
repetition if they will not.
2. Especially in a time and place (which I have known) when written
and sealed orders are often counterfeited, and so the church called to
extraordinary care.
3. Or if the church or magistrate be guilty of some causeless,
culpable incredulity, and will not believe it was done till they see
it done again.
4. Or in case that some real or supposed integral (though not
essential) part was omitted, or is by the church or magistrate
supposed to be omitted; and they will not permit or receive the
minister to exercise his office, unless he repeat the whole action
again, and make up that defect.
5. Or if the person himself do think that his ordination was
insufficient, and cannot exercise his ministry to the satisfaction of
his own conscience, till the defect be repaired.
In these cases (and perhaps such others) the outward action may be
repeated.
II. The reasons are, 1. Because this is not a being twice ordained.
For the word ordination, signifieth a moral action, and not a physical
only; as the word marriage doth, &c. And it essentially includeth the
new dedication and designation to the sacred office, by a kind of
covenant between the dedicated person and Christ to whom he is
consecrated and devoted. And the external words are but a part, and a
part only as significant of the action of the mind. Now the oft
expressing of the same mental dedication doth not make it to be as
many distinct dedications. For, 1. If the liturgy or the person's
words were tautological, or at the ordination should say the same
thing often over and over, or for confirmation should say often that
which else might be said but once, this doth not make it an often or
multiplied ordination: it was but one love which Peter expressed, when
Christ made him say thrice, that he loved him; nor was it a threefold
ordination which Christ used, when he said thrice to him, "Feed my
lambs and sheep."
2. And if thrice saying it that hour make it not three ordinations,
neither will thrice saying it at more hours, days, or months, or years
distance, in some cases; for the time maketh not the ordinations to be
many; it is but one moral action. But the common error ariseth from
the custom of calling the outward action alone by the name of the
whole moral action (which is ordinarily done to the like deceit in the
case of the baptismal covenant, and the Lord's supper).
3. The common judgment and custom of the world confirmeth what I say.
If persons that are married should for want of witness or due
solemnity be forced to say and do the outward action all over again,
it is by no wise man taken in the proper, moral, full sense, for a
second marriage, but for one marriage twice uttered.
And if you should in witness-bearing be put to your oath, and the
magistrate that was absent should say, Reach him the book again, I did
not hear him swear, the doing it twice is not morally two witnessings
or oaths, but one only twice physically uttered.
If you bind your son apprentice, or if you make any indentures or
contract, and the writings being lost or faulty, you write, and sign,
and seal them all again, this is not morally another contract, but
the same done better, or again recorded. And so it is plainly in this
case.
4. But re-ordination morally and properly so called, is unlawful: for,
(1.) It is (or implieth) a lie, viz. that we were not truly dedicated
and separated to this office before.
(2.) It is a sacrilegious renunciation of our former dedication to
God: whereas the ministerial dedication and covenant is for life, and
not for a trial; which is the meaning of the indelible character,
which is a perpetual relation and obligation.
(3.) It is a taking the name of God in vain; thus to do and undo, and
do again; and to promise and renounce, and promise again, and to
pretend to receive a power which we had before.
(4.) It tendeth to great confusions in the church; as to make the
people doubt of their baptism, or all the ministerial administrations
of such as are re-ordained, while they acted by the first ordination.
(5.) It hath ever been condemned in the churches of Christ, as the
canons called the apostles', and the church's constant practice,
testify.
5. Though the bare repetition of the outward action and words be not
re-ordination, yet he that on any of the forementioned occasions is
put to repeat the said words and actions, is obliged so to do it, as
that it may not seem to be a re-ordination, and so be a scandal to the
church. Or if it outwardly seem so by the action, he is bound to
declare that it is no such thing, for the counterpoising that
appearance of evil.
6. When the ordainers, or the common estimation of the church, do take
the repetition of the words and action for a re-ordination, though the
receiver so intend it not, yet it may become unlawful to him by this
accident, because he scandalizeth and hardeneth the erroneous, by
doing or receiving that which is interpretative re-ordination.
7. Especially when the ordainers shall require this repetition on
notoriously wicked grounds, and so put that sense on the action by
their own doctrines and demands: as for instance,
(1.) If heretics should (as the Arians) say that we are no ministers,
because we are not of their heresy, or ordained by such as they.
(2.) If the pope or any proud papal usurpers shall say, You are no
ministers of Christ, except we ordain you; and so do it to establish a
traitorous, usurped regiment in the church; it is not lawful to serve
such a usurpation. As if cardinals or archbishops should say, None are
true ministers but those that we ordain; or councils or synods of
bishops or presbyters should say, None are true ministers but those
that we ordain; or if one presbyter or one bishop without authority
would thus make himself master of the rest, or of other churches, and
say, You are no ministers unless I ordain you; we may not promote such
tyranny and usurpation.
(3.) If magistrates would usurp the power of the keys, in
ecclesiastical ordination, and say that none but they have power to
ordain, we may not encourage such pretences by repetition of the words
and action.
(4.) If they would make something necessary to ordination which is
not, as if it were a false oath, or false subscription or profession,
or some unlawful ceremony, (as if it were anointing, wearing horns, or
any the like,) and say, You are no ministers without these, and
therefore you must be re-ordained to receive them.
(5.) Yea, if they declare our former ministry causelessly to be null,
and say, You are no ministers till you are ordained again, and so
publicly put this sense upon our action, that we take it as
re-ordination; all these accidents make the repetition of the words
and actions to be unlawful, unless when greater accidents notoriously
preponderate.
_Quest._ But if such church tyrants should have so great power, as
that without their repetition of ordination on those terms, the
ministry might not be exercised, is it lawful so to take it in a case
of such necessity?
_Answ._ 1. Every seeming necessity to you, is not a necessity to the
church. 2. Either you may publicly declare a contrary sense in your
receiving their new orders or not.
1. If you may not as publicly declare that you renounce not your
former ministry and dedication to God in that office, as the ordainers
declare their sense of the nullity of it, so that your open
declaration may free you from the guilt of seeming consent, I conceive
it is a sinful compliance with their sin. 2. Yea, if you may so
declare it, yet if there be no necessity of your ministerial liberty
in that place, I think you may not take it on such terms. As, (1.) If
there be worthy men enough to supply the church's wants there without
you. (2.) And if you may serve God successfully in a persecuted state,
though to the suffering of your flesh. (3.) Or if your imprisonment
for preaching be like to be as serviceable to the church and gospel as
your continued preaching on those scandalous terms. (4.) Or if you may
remove and preach in another country.
8. When any such case doth fall out, in which the repetition of the
outward action and words is lawful, it is not lawful to mix any false
and scandalous expressions: as if we were required to say falsely, I
accept this ordination as confessing myself no minister of Christ till
now: or any such like.
9. In a word, a peaceable christian may do much as to the mere outward
action and submission, for obedience, peace, order, or satisfaction to
his own or other men's consciences. But, (1.) He may do nothing for
good ends which is false and injurious to the church.[264] (2.) And he
may not do that which otherwise were lawful, when it is for evil ends,
or tendeth to more hurt than good; as to promote heresy, or church
tyranny and usurpation, whether in pope, prelates, presbyters, or
people.
[264] 1 Thess. v. 22; Gal. ii. 4, 5, 14.
Quest. XXII. _How many ordainers are necessary to the validity of
ordination by God's institution? whether one or more?_
My question is not of the ancient canons, or any human laws or
customs, for those are easily known; but of divine right. Now either
God hath determined the case as to the number of ordainers necessary,
or not. If not, either he hath given the church some general rule to
determine it by, or not. If not, then the number is not any part of
the divine order or law; and then, if we suppose that he hath
determined the case as to the ordaining office and not to the number,
then it will follow that one may serve. The truth I think may be thus
explained.
1. There is _Ordo officialis primarius_, and _Ordo ordinis, vel
exercitii, vel secundarius_; an order of office primary, and an
order of exercise secondary, in the church. As to the first, the order
of office, God hath determined that the ordaining officers, and no
others, shall ordain officers, or give orders. And having not
determined whether one or more, it followeth that the ordination of
one sole lawful ordainer is no nullity on that account because it is
but one, unless somewhat else nullify it.
2. God hath given general rules to the ordainers for the due exercise
of their office, though he have not determined of any set number. Such
as are these: that all things be done in judgment, truth, love,
concord, to the church's edification, unity, and peace, &c.
3. According to these general laws, sometimes the ordination of one
sole ordainer, may not only be valid but regular; as when there are no
other to concur, or none whose concurrence is needful to any of the
aforesaid ends. And sometimes the concurrence of many is needful, (1.)
To the receiver's satisfaction. (2.) To the church's or people's
satisfaction. (3.) To the concord of pastors, and of neighbour
churches, &c. And in such cases such consent or concourse is the
regular way.
4. Where there are many neighbour pastors and churches so near, as
that he that is ordained in one of them, is like oft to pass and
preach, and officiate _obiter_ in others, and so other churches must
have some communion with him, it is meetest that there be a
concurrence in the ordination.
5. The ordainer is certainly a superior to the person that cometh to
be ordained while he is a private man; and therefore so far his
ordination is (as is said) an act of jurisdiction in the large sense,
that is, of government; but whether he be necessarily his superior
after he is ordained, hath too long been a controversy. It is certain
that the papists confess, that the pope is ordained such by no
superior; and it is not necessary that a bishop be ordained by one or
more of any superior order (or jurisdiction either). And though the
Italian papists hold that a superior papal jurisdiction must needs be
the secondary fountain of the ordaining power, though the ordainer
himself be but of the same order; yet protestants hold no such thing.
And all acknowledge that as imposition of hands on a layman to make
him a minister of Christ or an officer, is a kind of official
generation,[265] so the ordained as a junior in office, is as it were
a son to the ordainer, as the convert is said to be peculiarly to his
converter; and that a proportionable honour is still to be given him.
But whether he that ordaineth a presbyter, and not he that ordaineth
or consecrateth a bishop, must needs be of a superior order or office,
is a question which the reader must not expect me here to meddle with.
[265] Ejusdem speciei vel inferioris: How then is the pope ordained or
made?
Quest. XXIII. _What if one bishop ordain a minister, and three, or
many, or all the rest protest against it, and declare him no minister,
or degrade him; is he to be received as a true minister or not?_
Supposing that the person want no necessary personal qualification for
the office, there are two things more in question; 1. His office,
whether he be a minister. 2. His regularity, whether he came regularly
to it; and also his comparative relation, whether this man or another
is to be preferred. I answer therefore,
1. If the person be utterly incapable, the one bishop, or the many
whosoever taketh him for incapable, is for the truth sake to be
believed and obeyed.
2. If the man be excellently qualified, and his ministry greatly
necessary to the church, whoever would deprive the church of him, be
it the one or the many, is to be disobeyed, and the ordainers
preferred.
_Object._ But who shall judge? _Answ._ The _esse_ is before the
_scire_; the thing is first true or false before I judge it to be so;
and therefore whoever judgeth falsely in a case so notorious and
weighty, as that the welfare of the church and souls is
(_consideratis considerandis_) injured and hazarded by his error, is
not to be believed nor obeyed on pretence of order; because all
christians have _judicium discretionis_, a discerning judgment.
3. But if the case be not thus to be determined by the person's
notorious qualifications, then either it is, 1. The man ordained. 2.
Or the people that the case is debated by, whether they should take
him for a minister. 3. Or the neighbour ministers.
1. The person himself is, _cæteris paribus_, more to regard the
judgment of many concordant bishops, than of one singular bishop; and
therefore is not to take orders from a singular bishop, when the
generality of the wise and faithful are against it; unless he be sure
that it is some notorious faction or error that perverteth them, and
that there be notorious necessity of his labour.
2. The auditors are either infidels to be converted, (and these will
take no man upon any of their authorities,) or else christians
converted. These are either of the particular charge of the singular
bishop who ordaineth, or not; if they be, then _pro tempore_ for
order's sake, they owe him a peculiar obedience, till some further
process or discovery disoblige them, (though the most be on the other
side). But yet they may be still bound in reason most to suspect the
judgment of their singular bishop, while for order's sake they submit
to it. But if they are not of his flock, then, I suppose the judgment
and act of many is to prevail so much against the act of a single and
singular person, as that both neighbour ministers and people are to
disown such an ordained person as unfit for their communion under the
notion of a minister (because communion of churches is maintained by
the concord of pastors). But whether the ordained man's ministry be,
by their contradictory declaration or degradation, made an absolute
nullity, to himself and those that submit to him, neither I will
determine, nor should any other strangers to the particular case; for
if he be rejected or degraded without such cause and proof as may
satisfy other sober persons, he hath wrong; but if he be so degraded,
on proved sufficient cause, to them that it is known to, he giveth the
degraders the advantage.[266]
And as, 1. All particular members are to be obedient to their proper
pastor.
2. And all particular churches are to hold correspondency and
communion according to their capacity. So must men act in this and
such like cases respectively according to the laws of obedience to
their pastor, and of concord of the churches.
[266] Eph. iv. 3; 1 Cor. xii; Rom. xiv. 17, 19; 1 Cor. xiv. 33; 1
Thess. v. 12, 13; Phil. ii. 1-3; Eph. iv. 15, 16; 1 Cor. i. 10.
Quest. XXIV. _Hath one bishop power by divine right to ordain,
degrade, or govern, or excommunicate, or absolve, in another's diocess
or church, either by his consent, or against it? And doth a minister
that officiateth in another's church, act as a pastor, and their
pastor, or as a private man? And doth the ministerial office cease
when a man removeth from his flock?_
I thrust these questions all together for their affinity, and for
brevity.
1. Every true minister of Christ, bishop or pastor, is related to the
universal church by stronger obligations than to his particular
charge; as the whole is better than the parts, and its welfare to be
preferred.
2. He that is no pastor of a particular church, may be a pastor in the
universal, obliged as a consecrated person to endeavour its good, by
the works of his office, as he hath a particular opportunity and call.
3. Yet he that hath a particular charge is especially and nearlier
related and obliged to that charge or church, than to any other part
of the universal (though not than to the whole); and consequently hath
a peculiar authority, where he hath a peculiar obligation and work.
4. He that is (without degrading) removed from a particular church,
doth not cease to be a general minister and pastor related to the
universal church; as a physician put out of an hospital charge, is a
physician still. And therefore he needeth no new ordination, but only
a special designation to his next particular charge.
5. No man is the bishop of a diocess as to the measure of ground, or
the place, by divine right, that is, by any particular law or
determination of God; but only a bishop of the church or people: for
your office essentially containeth a relation to the people, but
accidentally only to the place.
6. Yet natural convenience, and God's general laws of order and
edification, do make it usually (but not always) best, and therefore a
duty, to distinguish churches by the people's habitation: not taking a
man for a member _eo nomine_, because he liveth on that ground; but
for order's sake taking none for members that live not on that ground,
and not intruding causelessly into each other's bounds.
7. He that by the call or consent of a neighbour pastor and people
doth officiate (by preaching, sacraments, excommunication, or
absolution) in another's special charge for a day, or week, or month,
or more, without a fixed relation to that flock, doth neither
officiate as a layman, nor yet unlawfully or irregularly; but, 1. As a
minister of Christ in the church universal. 2. And as the pastor of
that church for the present time only, though not statedly; even as a
physician called to help another in his hospital, or to supply his
place for the time, doth perform his work, 1. As a licensed physician.
2. And as the physician of that patient or hospital for that time,
though not statedly.
8. No man is to intrude into another's charge without a call; much
less to claim a particular stated oversight and authority. For though
he be not a usurper as to the office in general, he is a usurper as to
that particular flock. It is no error in ordination to say, Take thou
authority to preach the word of God, and administer the holy
sacraments, when thou shalt be thereto lawfully called; that is, when
thou hast a particular call to the exercise, and to a fixed charge, as
thou hast now a call to the office in general.
9. Yet every bishop or pastor by his relation to the church universal,
and to mankind, and the interest of Christ, is bound not only as a
christian, but as a pastor, to do his best for the common good; and
not to cast wholly out of his care a particular church, because
another hath the oversight of it. Therefore if a heretic get in, or
the church fall to heresy, or any pernicious error or sin, the
neighbour pastors are bound both by the law of nature and their
office, to interpose their counsel as ministers of Christ, and to
prefer the substance before pretended order, and to seek to recover
the people's souls, though it be against their proper pastor's will.
And in such a case of necessity, they may ordain, degrade,
excommunicate, and absolve in another's charge, as if it were a
vacuity.
10. Moreover it is one thing to excommunicate a man out of a
particular church, and another thing for many associated churches or
neighbours to renounce communion with him. The special pastors of
particular churches, having the government of those churches, are the
special governing judges, who shall or shall not have communion as a
member in their churches; but the neighbour pastors of other churches
have the power of judging with whom they and their own flocks will or
will not hold communion. As e. g. Athanasius may as governor of his
flock declare any Arian member excommunicate, and require his flock to
have no communion with him. And all the neighbour pastors (though they
excommunicate not the same man as his special governors, yet) may
declare to all their flocks, that if that man come among them, they
will have no communion with him, and that at distance they renounce
that distant communion which is proper to christians one with another,
and take him for none of the church of Christ.[267]
[267] 1 Cor. v.; Tit. iii. 10; 2 Thess. iii. 6, 14; 2 John 10; Rev.
ii. 14, 15, 20.
Quest. XXV. _Whether canons be laws? and pastors have a legislative
power?_
All men are not agreed what a law is, that is, what is to be taken for
the proper sense of that word. Some will have the name confined to
such common laws as are stated, durable rules for the subject's
actions: and some will extend it also to personal, temporary, verbal
precepts and mandates, such as parents and masters use daily to the
children and servants of their families. And of the first sort, some
will confine the name laws to those acts of sovereignty which are
about the common matters of the kingdom, or which no inferior officer
may make: and others will extend it to those orders which by the
sovereign's charter, a corporation, or college, or school may make for
the subregulation of their particular societies and affairs.
I have declared my own opinion _de nomine_ fully elsewhere, 1. That
the definition of a law in the proper, general sense, is to be a sign
or signification of the reason and will of the rector as such, to his
subjects as such, instituting or antecedently determining what shall
be due from them, and to them; _Jus efficiendo_, regularly making
right.
2. That these laws are many more ways diversified and distinguished,
(from the efficient, sign, subjects, matter, end, &c.) than is meet
for us here to enumerate. It is sufficient now to say, 1. That stated
regular laws, as distinct from temporary mandates and proclamations.
2. And laws for kingdoms and other commonwealths, in regard of laws
for persons, schools, families, &c. 3. And laws made by the supreme
power, as distinct from those made by the derived authority of
colleges, corporations, &c. called by-laws or orders (for I will here
say nothing of parents and pastors, whose authority is directly or
immediately from the efficiency of nature in one, and divine
institution in the other, and not derived efficiently from the
magistrate or any man). 4. That laws about great, substantial matters,
distinct from those about little and mutable circumstances, &c. I say
the first sort, as distinct from the second, are laws so called by
excellency above other laws. But that the rest are univocally to be
called laws, according to the best definition of the law _in genere_.
But if any man will speak otherwise, let him remember that it is yet
but _lis de nomine_, and that he may use his liberty, and I will use
mine. Now to the question.
1. Canons made by virtue of the pastoral office and God's general laws
(in nature or Scripture) for regulating it, are a sort of laws to the
subjects or flocks of those pastors.
2. Canons made by the votes of the laity of the church, or private
part of that society as private, are no laws at all, but agreements;
because they are not acts of any governing power.
3. Canons made by civil rulers about the circumstantials of the
church, belonging to their office, as orderers of such things, are
laws, and may be urged by moderate and meet civil or corporal
penalties, and no otherwise.
4. Canons made by princes or inferior magistrates, are no laws purely
and formally ecclesiastical, which are essentially acts of pastoral
power; but only materially ecclesiastical, and formally magistratical.
5. No church officers as such, (much less the people,) can make laws
with a co-active or coercive sanction; that is, to be enforced by
their authority with the sword or any corporal penalty, mulct, or
force; this being the sole privilege of secular powers, civil, or
economical, or scholastic.
6. There is no obligation ariseth to the subject for particular
obedience of any law, which is evidently against the laws of God (in
nature or holy Scripture).
7. They are no laws which pastors make to people out of their power:
as the popes, &c.
8. There is no power on earth under Christ, that hath authority to
make universal laws; to bind the whole church on all the earth; or all
mankind. Because there is no universal sovereign, civil or spiritual,
personal or collective.
9. Therefore it is no schism, but loyalty to Christ, to renounce or
separate from such a society of usurpation; nor any disobedience or
rebellion, to deny them obedience.
10. Pastors may and must be obeyed in things lawful as magistrates, if
the king make them magistrates: though I think it unmeet for them to
accept a magistracy with the sword, except in case of some rare
necessity.
11. If pope, patriarchs, or pastors shall usurp any of the king's
authority, loyalty to Christ and him, and the love of the church and
state, oblige us to take part with Christ and the king against such
usurpation, but only by lawful means, in the compass of our proper
place and calling.
12. The canons made by the councils of many churches, have a double
nature: as they are made for the people and the subjects of the
pastors, they are a sort of laws; that is, they oblige by the derived
authority of the pastors; because the pastors of several churches do
not lose any of their power by their assembling, but exercise it with
the greater advantage of concord. But as they are made only to oblige
the present or absent pastors who separatedly are of equal office
power, so they are no laws, except in an equivocal sense, but only
agreements or contracts.[268] So Bishop Usher professed his judgment
to be; and before him the council of Carthage in Cyprian's time; but
it needs no proof, any more than that a convention of kings may make
no laws to bind the kings of England, but contracts only.
13. But yet we are _aliunde_ obliged even by God, to keep these
agreements in things lawful, for the church's peace and concord, when
greater contrary reasons, _a fine_, do not disoblige us. For when God
saith, You shall keep peace and concord, and keep lawful covenants,
the canons afford us the minor, But these are lawful contracts or
agreements, and means of the church's peace and concord; therefore
(saith God's law) you shall observe them. So though the contracts (as
of husband and wife, buyer and seller, &c.) be not laws, yet that is a
law of God which bindeth us to keep them.
14. Seeing that even the obliging commands of pastors may not by them
be enforced by the sword, but work by the power of divine authority or
commission manifested, and by holy reason and love, therefore it is
most modest and fit for pastors (who must not lord it over God's
heritage, but be examples to all[269]) to take the lower name of
authoritative directions and persuasions, rather than of laws;
especially in a time when papal usurpation maketh such ruinating use
of that name, and civil magistrates use to take it in the nobler and
narrower sense.
The questions, 1. If one pastor make orders for his church, and the
multitudes or synods be against them; which must be obeyed, you may
gather from what is said before of ordination. And, 2. What are the
particulars proper, materially, to the magistrate's decision, and what
to the pastor's? I here pass by.
[268] Grotius de imperio sum. pot. circ. sacr. most solidly resolveth
this question.
[269] 1 Pet. v. 2, 3; 2 Cor. i. 24.
Quest. XXVI. _Whether church canons, or pastors' directive
determinations of matters pertinent to their office, do bind the
conscience? and what accidents will disoblige the people? you may
gather before in the same case about magistrates' laws, in the
political directions: as also by an impartial transferring the case to
the precepts of parents and schoolmasters to children; without respect
to their power of the rod (or supposing that they had none such)._
Quest. XXVII. _What are Christ's appointed means of the unity and
concord of the universal church, and consequently of its preservation,
if there be no human universal head and governor of it upon earth? And
if Christ have instituted none such, whether prudence and the law of
nature oblige not the church to set up and maintain a universal
ecclesiastical monarchy or aristocracy; seeing that which is every
man's work, is as no man's, and omitted by all?_
I. To the first question I must refer you in part to two small,
popular, yet satisfactory Tractates,[270] written long ago, that I do
not one thing too oft. Briefly now,
1. The unity of the universal church, is founded in and maintained by
their common relation to Christ the head (as the kingdom in its
relation to the king).
2. A concord in degrees of goodness, and in integrals and accidentals
of christianity, will never be obtained on earth, where the church is
still imperfect; and perfect holiness and wisdom are necessary to
perfect harmony and concord, Phil. iii. 12-14.
3. Experience hath long taught the church, if it will learn, that the
claim of a papal headship and government over the church universal,
hath been the famous incendiary and hinderer of concord in the
christian world.
4. The means to attain such a measure of concord and harmony which is
to be hoped for, or endeavoured upon earth, I have so distinctly,
fully, and yet briefly described (with the contrary impediments) in my
treatise of the "Reasons of Christian Religion," part vii. chap. 14.
p. 470, 471, in about two leaves, that I will not recite them. If you
say, you are not bound to read the books which I refer you to; I
answer, Nor this.
II. To the latter question I answer, To set up such an universal head
on the supposition of natural reasons and human policy is, 1. To cross
Christ's institution, and the laws of the Holy Ghost, as hath been
long proved by protestants from the Scripture.
2. It is treason against Christ's sovereign office to usurp such a
vicegerency without his commission.
3. It is against the notorious light of nature, which telleth us of
the natural incapacity of mortal man, to be such a universal governor
through the world.
4. It is to sin against long and dreadful common experience, and to
keep in that fire that hath destroyed emperors, kings, and kingdoms,
and set the churches, pastors, and christian world in those divisions,
which are the great and serviceable work of Satan, and the impediment
of the church's increase, purity, and peace, and the notorious shame
of the christian profession in the eyes of the infidel world.
And if so many hundred years' sad experience will not answer them that
say, If the pope were a good man, he might unite us all, I conclude
that such deserve to be deceived, 2 Thess. ii. 10-12.
[270] "Catholic unity," and "the True Catholic and Church described."
Quest. XXVIII. _Who is the judge of controversies in the church? 1.
About the exposition of the Scripture, and doctrinal points in
themselves: 2. About either heresies or wicked practices, as they are
charged on the persons who are accused of them; that is, 1.
Antecedently to our practice, by way of regulation; 2. Or
consequently, by judicial sentence (and execution) on offenders._
I have answered this question so oft, that I can persuade myself to no
more than this short, yet clear solution.
The papists used to cheat poor, unlearned persons that cannot justly
discern things that differ, by puzzling them with this confused,
ambiguous question. Some things they cunningly and falsely take for
granted, as that there is such a thing on earth as a political,
universal church, headed by any mortal governor. Some things they
shuffle together in equivocal words. They confound, 1. Public judgment
of decision, and private judgment of discerning. 2. The magistrate's
judgment of church-controversies, and the pastor's, and the several
cases, and ends, and effects of their several judgments. 3.
Church-judgment as directive to a particular church, and as a means of
the concord of several churches. Which being but distinguished, a few
words will serve to clear the difficulty.
1. As there is no universal human church, (constituted or governed by
a mortal head,) so there is no power set up by Christ to be a
universal judge of either sort of controversies, by decisive judicial
sentence, nor any universal civil monarch of the world.
2. The public, governing, decisive judgment, obliging others,
belongeth to public persons, or officers of God, and not to any
private man.[271]
3. The public decision of doubts or controversies about faith itself,
or the true sense of God's word and laws, as obliging the whole church
on earth to believe that decision, or not gainsay it, because of the
infallibility or governing authority of the deciders, belongeth to
none but Jesus Christ; because, as is said, he hath made no universal
governor, nor infallible expositor.[272] It belongeth to the lawgiver
only to make such a universally obliging exposition of his own laws.
4. True bishops or pastors in their own particular churches are
authorized teachers and guides, in expounding the laws and word of
Christ; and the people are bound as learners to reverence their
teaching, and not contradict it without true cause; yea, and to
believe them _fide humana_, in things pertinent to their office: for
_oportet discentem credere_.
5. No such pastors are to be absolutely believed, nor in any case of
notorious error or heresy, where the word of God is discerned to be
against them.
6. For all the people as reasonable creatures, have a judgment of
private discerning to judge what they must receive as truth, and to
discern their own duty, by the help of the word of God, and of their
teachers.
7. The same power of governing judgment lawful synods have over their
several flocks, as a pastor over his own, but with greater advantage.
8. The power of judging in many consociate churches, who is to be
taken into communion as orthodox, and who to be refused by those
churches as heretics, _in specie_, that is, what doctrine they will
judge sound or unsound, as it is _judicium discernendi_, belongeth to
every one of the council singly: as it is a judgment obliging
themselves by contract, (and not of governing each other,) it is in
the contracters and consenters; and for peace and order usually in the
major vote; but with the limitations before expressed.
9. Every true christian believeth all the essentials of christianity,
with a divine faith, and not by a mere human belief of his teachers,
though by their help and teaching his faith is generated, and
confirmed, and preserved. Therefore no essential article of
christianity is left to any obliging decision of any church, but only
to a subservient obliging teaching: as whether there be a God, a
Christ, a heaven, a hell, an immortality of souls? Whether God be to
be believed, loved, feared, obeyed before man? Whether the Scripture
be God's word, and true? Whether those that contradict it are to be
believed therein? Whether pastors, assemblies, public worship,
baptism, sacrament of the Lord's supper, be divine institutions? And
the same I may say of any known word of God: no mortals may judge in
_partem utramlibet_, but the pastors are only authorized teachers and
helpers of the people's faith. (And so they be partly to one another.)
10. If the pope, or his council, were the infallible or the governing
expositors of all God's laws and Scriptures, 1. God would have enabled
them to do it by a universal commentary which all men should be
obliged to believe, or at least not to contradict. For there is no
authority and obligation given to men (yea, to so many successively)
to do that (for the needful decision of controversies) which they
never have ability given them to do. For that were to oblige them to
things impossible. 2. And the pope and his council would be the most
treacherous miscreants on earth, that in so many hundred years, would
never write such an infallible nor governing commentary, to end the
differences of the christian world. Indeed they have judged (with
others) against Arius, that Christ is true God, and one with the
Father in substance, &c. But if they had said the contrary, must we
have taken it for God's truth, or have believed them?
11. To judge who, for heresy or scandal, shall be punished by the
sword, belongeth to none but the magistrate in his own dominions: as
to judge who shall have communion or be excommunicated from the
church, belongeth, as aforesaid, to the pastors. And the said
magistrate hath first as a man his own judgment of discerning what is
heresy, and who of his subjects are guilty of it, in order to his
public governing judgment.
12. The civil, supreme ruler may antecedently exercise this judgment
of discerning (by the teaching of their proper teachers) in order to
his consequent sentences on offenders; and so in his laws may tell the
subjects, what doctrines and practices he will either tolerate or
punish. And thus may the church pastors do in their canons to their
several flocks, in relation to communion or non-communion.
13. He that will condemn particular persons as heretics or offenders,
must allow them to speak for themselves, and hear the proofs, and give
them that which justice requireth, &c. And if the pope can do so at
the antipodes, and in all the world, either _per se_, or _per alium_,
without giving that other his essential claimed power, let him prove
it by better experience than we have had.
14. As the prime and sole universal legislation belongeth to Jesus
Christ, so the final judgment, universal and particular, belongeth to
him, which only will end all controversies, and from which there is no
appeal.
[271] Eph. iv. 7, 13-16; 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29; Acts xv. 17.
[272] See my "Key for Catholics."
Quest. XXIX. _Whether a parent's power over his children, or a pastor
or many pastors or bishops over the same children, as parts of their
flock, be greater, or more obliging in matters of religion and public
worship?_
This being touched on somewhere else, I only now say, That if the case
were my own, I would, 1. Labour to know their different powers, as to
the matter commanded, and obey each in that which is proper to its
place.
2. If I were young and ignorant, natural necessity, and natural
obligation together, would give my parents with whom I lived such an
advantage above the minister (whom I seldom see or understand) as
would determine the case _de eventu_, and much _de jure_.
3. If my parents command me to hear a teacher who is against
ceremonies or certain forms, and to hear none that are for them,
natural necessity here also (ordinarily) would make it my duty first
to hear and obey my parents; and in many other cases, till I came to
understand the greater power of the pastors, in their own place and
work.
4. But when I come to church, or know that the judgment of all
concordant godly pastors condemneth such a thing as damnable heresy or
sin, which my father commandeth me to receive and profess, I would
more believe and follow the judgment of the pastors and churches.
Quest. XXX. _May an office teacher or pastor be at once in a stated
relation of a pastor and a disciple to some other pastor?_
1. That Timothy was still Paul's son in point of learning, and his
disciple, and so that under apostles the same persons might be stated
in both relations at once, seemeth evident in Scripture.
2. But the same that is a pastor is not at once a mere layman.
3. That men in the same office may so differ in age, experience, and
degrees of knowledge, as that young pastors may, and often ought, many
years to continue, not only in occasional reception of their help, but
also in an ordinary stated way of receiving it, and so be related to
them as their ordinary teachers, by such gradual advantages, is past
all doubt. And that all juniors and novices owe a certain reverence
and audience, and some obedience, to the elder and wiser.
4. But this is not to be a disciple to him as in lower order or
office, but as of lower gifts and grace.
5. It is lawful and very good for the church, that some ordained
persons continue long as pupils to their tutors in schools or
academies (e. g. to learn the holy languages, if they have them not,
&c.) But this is a relation left to voluntary contractors.
6. In the ancient churches the particular churches had one bishop,
and some presbyters and deacons, usually of much lower parts, who
lived all together (single or chaste) in the bishop's or church house,
which was as a college, where he daily edified them by doctrine and
example.
7. The controversy about different orders by divine institution,
belongeth not to me here to meddle with: but as to the natural and
acquired imparity of age and gifts, and the unspeakable benefit to the
juniors and the churches, that it is desirable that there were such a
way of their education and edification, I take to be discernible to
any that are impartial and judicious.
Ambrose was at once a teacher and a learner, Beda, Eccl. Hist.
mentioneth one in England, that was at once a pastor and disciple. And
in Scotland some that became bishops were still to be under the
government of the abbot of their monasteries according to their first
devotion, though the abbot was but a presbyter.
8. Whether a settled, private church member may not at once continue
his very formal relation to the pastor of that church, and yet be of
the same order with him in another church, as their pastor, at the
same time, (as he may in case of necessity continue his apprenticeship
or civil service,) is a case that I will not determine. But he that
denieth it, must prove his opinion (or affirmation of its
unlawfulness) by sufficient evidence from Scripture or nature; which
is hard.
Quest. XXXI. _Who hath the power of making church canons?_
This is sufficiently resolved before. 1. The magistrate only hath the
power of making such canons or laws for church matters as shall be
enforced by the sword.
2. Every pastor hath power to make canons for his own congregation;
that is, to determine what hour or at what place they shall meet; what
translation of Scripture, or version of Psalms, shall be used in his
church; what chapter shall be read; what psalm shall be sung, &c.:
except the magistrate contradict him, and determine it otherwise, in
such points as are not proper to the ministerial office.
3. Councils or assemblies of pastors have the power of making such
canons for many churches, as shall be laws to the people, and
agreements to themselves.
4. None have power to make church laws or canons about any thing,
save, (1.) To put God's own laws in execution. (2.) To determine to
that end, of such circumstances as God hath left undetermined in his
word.
5. Canon-making under pretence of order and concord, hath done a great
deal of mischief to the churches; whilst clergymen have grown up from
agreements, to tyrannical usurpations and impositions, and from
concord about needful accidents of worship, to frame new worship
ordinances, and to force them on all others: but especially, (1.) By
encroaching on the power of kings, and telling them that they are
bound in conscience to put all their canons into execution by force.
(2.) And by laying the union of the churches and the communion of
christians upon things needless and doubtful, yea, and at last on many
sinful things; whereby the churches have been most effectually
divided, and the christian world set together by the ears; and
schisms, yea, and wars have been raised: and these maladies cannot
possibly be healed, till the tormenting, tearing engines be broken and
cast away, and the voluminous canons of numerous councils (which
themselves also are matter of undeterminable controversy) be turned
into the primitive simplicity; and a few necessary things made the
terms of concord. Doubtless if every pastor were left wholly to
himself for the ordering of worship circumstances and accidents in his
own church, without any common canons, save the Scriptures, and the
laws of the land, there would have been much less division, than that
is, which these numerous canons of all the councils, obtruded on the
church, have made.
Quest. XXXII. _Doth baptism as such enter the baptized into the
universal church, or into a particular church, or both? And is baptism
the particular church covenant as such?_
_Answ._ 1. Baptism as such doth enter us into the universal church,
and into it alone; and is no particular church covenant, but the
solemnizing of the great christian covenant of grace, between God, and
a believer and his seed.
For, (1.) There is not essentially any mention of a particular church
in it.
(2.) A man may be baptized by a general unfixed minister, who is not
the pastor of any particular church:[273] and he may be baptized in
solitude, where there is no particular church. The eunuch, Acts viii.
was not baptized into any particular church.
(3.) Baptism doth but make us christians, but a man may be a christian
who is no member of any particular church.
(4.) Otherwise baptism should oblige us necessarily to a man, and be a
covenant between the baptized and the pastor and church into which he
is baptized: but it is only our covenant with Christ.
(5.) We may frequently change our particular church relation, without
being baptized again. But we never change our relation to the church
which we are baptized into, unless by apostasy.
2. Yet the same person at the same time that he is baptized may be
entered into the universal church, and into a particular; and
ordinarily it ought to be so where it can be had.
3. And the covenant which we make in baptism with Christ, doth oblige
us to obey him, and consequently to use his instituted means, and so
to hear his ministers, and hold due communion with his churches.
4. But this doth no more enter us into a particular church, than into
a particular family. For we as well oblige ourselves to obey him in
family relations as in church relations.
5. When the baptized therefore is at once entered into the universal
and particular church, it is done by a double consent to the double
relation. By baptism he professeth his consent to be a member of
Christ and his universal church; and additionally he consenteth to be
guided by that particular pastor in that particular church; which is
another covenant or consent.
[273] Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.
Quest. XXXIII. _Whether infants should be baptized, I have answered
long ago in a treatise on that subject. Also what infants should be
baptized? and who have right to sacraments? and whether hypocrites are
univocally or equivocally christians and church members? I have
resolved in my "Disput. of Right to Sacraments."_
Quest. XXXIV. _Whether an unbaptized person who yet maketh a public
profession of christianity, be a member of the visible church? And so
of the infants of believers unbaptized._
_Answ._ 1. Such persons have a certain imperfect, irregular kind of
profession, and so of membership; their visibility or visible
christianity is not such as Christ hath appointed. As those that are
married, but not by legal celebration, and as those that in cases of
necessity are ministers without ordination; so are such christians as
Constantine and many of old without baptism.
2. Such persons ordinarily are not to be admitted to the rights and
communion of the visible church, because we must know Christ's sheep
by his own mark; but yet they are so far visible christians, as that
we may be persuaded nevertheless of their salvation. As to visible
communion, they have but a remote and incomplete _jus ad rem_, and no
_jus ad re_, or legal investiture and possession.
3. The same is the case of unbaptized infants of believers, because
they are not of the church merely as they are their natural seed; but
because it is supposed that a person himself devoted to God, doth also
devote his children to God: therefore not nature only, but this
supposition arising from the true nature of his own dedication to God,
is the reason why believers' children have their right to baptism:
therefore till he hath actually devoted them to God in baptism, they
are not legally members of the visible church, but only in _fieri_ and
imperfectly, as is said. Of which more anon.
Quest. XXXV. _Is it certain by the word of God that all infants
baptized, and dying before actual sin, are undoubtedly saved; or what
infants may we say so of?_
_Answ._ I. 1. We must distinguish between certainty objective and
subjective; or plainlier, the reality or truth of the thing, and the
certain apprehension of it.[274]
2. And this certainty of apprehension, sometimes signifieth only the
truth of that apprehension, when a man indeed is not deceived, or more
usually that clearness of apprehension joined with truth, which fully
quieteth the mind and excludeth doubting.
3. We must distinguish of infants as baptized lawfully upon just
title, or unlawfully without title.
4. And also of title before God, which maketh a lawful claim and
reception at his bar; and title before the church, which maketh only
the administration lawful before God, and the reception lawful only
_in foro ecclesia_, or _externo_.
5. The word baptism signifieth either the external part only,
consisting in the words and outward action, or the internal
covenanting of the heart also.
6. And that internal covenant is either sincere, which giveth right to
the benefits of God's covenant, or only partial, reserved, and
unsound, such as is common to hypocrites.
_Conclus._ 1. God hath been pleased to speak so little in Scripture of
the case of infants, that modest men will use the words certainly and
undoubtedly, about their case, with very great caution. And many great
divines have maintained that their very baptism itself, cannot be
certainly and undoubtedly proved by the word of God, but by tradition;
though I have endeavoured to prove the contrary in a special Treatise
on that point.
2. No man can tell what is objectively certain or revealed in God's
word, who hath not subjective certainty or knowledge of it.
3. A man's apprehension may be true, when it is but a wavering
opinion, with the greatest doubtfulness. Therefore we do not usually
by a certain apprehension, mean only a true apprehension, but a clear
and quieting one.
4. It is possible to baptize infants unlawfully, or without any right,
so that their reception and baptizing shall be a great sin, as is the
misapplying of other ordinances. For instance: one in America, where
there is neither church to receive them, nor christian parents, nor
sponsors, may take up the Indians' children and baptize them against
the parents' wills: or if the parents consent to have their children
outwardly baptized, and not themselves, as not knowing what baptizing
meaneth, or desire it only for outward advantages to their children;
or if they offer them to be baptized only in open derision and scorn
of Christ; such children have no right to be received. And many other
instances nearer may be given.
5. It is possible the person may have no authority at all from Christ
who doth baptize them. And Christ's part in reception of the person,
and collation and investiture in his benefits, must be done by his
commission, or else how can we say that Christ doth it? But open
infidels, women, children, mad-men, scorners, may do it that have none
of his commission.
6. That all infants baptized without title or right by misapplication,
and so dying, are not undoubtedly saved, nor any word of God doth
certainly say so, we have reason to believe on these following
grounds.
1. Because we can find no such text, nor could ever prevail with them
that say so, to show us such an ascertaining word of God.
2. Because else gross sin would certainly be the way to salvation. For
such misapplication of baptism, by the demanders at least, would
certainly be gross sin, as well as misapplying the Lord's supper.
3. Because it is clean contrary to the tenor of the new covenant,
which promiseth salvation to none but penitent believers and their
seed: what God may do for others unknown to us, we have nothing to do
with; but his covenant hath made no other promise that I can find; and
we are certain of no man's salvation by baptism, to whom God never
made a promise of it. If by the children of the faithful, be meant not
only their natural seed, but the adopted or bought also, of which they
are true proprietors, yet that is nothing to all others.
4. To add to God's words, especially to his very promise or covenant,
is so terrible a presumption, as we dare not be guilty of.
5. Because this tieth grace or salvation so to the outward washing of
the body, or _opus operatum_, as is contrary to the nature of God's
ordinances, and to the tenor of Scripture, and the judgment of the
protestant divines.
6. Because this would make a strange disparity between the two
sacraments of the same covenant of grace: when a man receiveth the
Lord's supper unworthily, (in scorn, in drunkenness, or impenitency,)
much more without any right, (as infidels,) he doth eat and drink
damnation or judgment to himself, and maketh his sin greater;
therefore he that gets a child baptized unworthily and without right,
doth not therefore infallibly procure his salvation.
7. Because the apostle saith, 1 Cor. vii. 14, "Else were your children
unclean, but now are they holy;" and the Scripture giveth this
privilege to the children of the faithful above others: whereas the
contrary opinion levelleth them with the seed of infidels and
heathens, as if these had right to salvation by mere baptism, as well
as the others.
8. Because else it would be the greatest act of charity in the world,
to send soldiers to catch up all heathens' and infidels' children, and
baptize them; which no christians ever yet thought their duty. Yea,
it would be too strong a temptation to them to kill them when they had
done, that they might be all undoubtedly saved.
_Object._ But that were to do evil that good might come by it. _Answ._
But God is not to be dishonoured as to be supposed to make such laws,
as shall forbid men the greatest good in the world, and then to tempt
them by the greatness of the benefit to take it to be no evil: as if
he said, If soldiers would go take up a million of heathens' children
and baptize them, it will put them into an undoubted state of
salvation; but yet I forbid them doing it: and if they presently kill
them, lest they sin after, they shall undoubtedly be saved; but yet I
forbid them doing it. I need not aggravate this temptation to them
that know the power of the law of nature, which is the law of love and
good works, and how God that is most good is pleased in our doing
good. Though he tried Abraham's obedience once, as if he should have
killed his son, yet he stopped him before the execution. And doth he
ordinarily exercise men's obedience, by forbidding them to save the
souls of others, when it is easily in their power? especially when
with the adult the greatest labour and powerfullest preaching, is
frequently so frustrate, that not one of many is converted by it?
9. Because else God should deal with unaccountable disparity with
infants and the adult in the same ordinance of baptism. It is certain
that all adult persons baptized, if they died immediately, should not
be saved; even none that had no right to the covenant and to baptism;
such as infidels, heathens, impenitent persons, hypocrites, that have
not true repentance and faith. And why should baptism save an infant
without title, any more than the adult without title? I still suppose
that some infants have no title, and that now I speak of them alone.
_Object._ But the church giveth them all right by receiving them.
_Answ._ This is to be further examined anon. If you mean a particular
church, perhaps they are baptized into none such. Baptism as such is a
reception only into the universal church, as in the eunuch's case,
Acts viii. appeareth. If you mean the universal church, it may be but
one single ignorant man in an infidel country that baptizeth, and he
is not the universal church! yea, perhaps is not a lawfully called
minister of that church! However, this is but to say, that baptism
giveth right to baptism; for this receiving is nothing but baptizing.
But there must be a right to this reception, if baptism be a
distinguishing ordinance, and all the world have not right to it.
Christ saith, Matt. xxviii. 19, "Disciple me all nations, baptizing
them--:" they must be initially made disciples first, by consent, and
then be invested in the visible state of christianity by baptism.
10. If the children of heathens have right to baptism, and salvation
thereby, it is either, 1. As they are men, and all have right; or, 2.
Because the parents give them right; 3. Or because remote ancestors
give them right; 4. Or because the universal church gives them right;
5. Or because a particular church gives them right; 6. Or because the
sponsors give them right; 7. Or the magistrate; 8. Or the baptizer.
But it is none of all these, as shall anon be proved.
11. But as to the second question, I answer, 1. It will help us to
understand the case the better, if we prepare the way by opening the
case of the adult, because in Scripture times, they were the most
famous subjects of baptism. And it is certain of such, 1. That every
one outwardly baptized is not in a state of salvation. That no
hypocrite that is not a true penitent believer is in such a state. 2.
That every true penitent believer is before God in a state of
salvation, as soon as he is such; and before the church as soon as he
is baptized. 3. That we are not to use the word baptism as a physical
term only, but as a moral, theological term. Because words (as in law,
physic, &c.) are to be understood according to the art or science in
which they are treated of. And baptism taken theologically doth as
essentially include the will's consent or heart covenanting with God,
as matrimony includeth marriage consent, and as a man containeth the
soul as well as the body. And thus it is certain that all truly
baptized persons are in a state of salvation; that is, all that
sincerely consent to the baptismal covenant when they profess consent
by baptism (but not hypocrites). 4. And in this sense all the ancient
pastors of the churches did concur that baptism did wash away all sin,
and put the baptized into a present right to life eternal: as he that
examineth their writings will perceive: not the outward washing and
words alone, but when the inward and outward parts concur, or when by
true faith and repentance the receiver hath right to the covenant of
God. 5. In this sense it is no unfit language to imitate the fathers,
and to say that the truly baptized are in a state of justification,
adoption, and salvation, unless when men's misunderstanding maketh it
unsafe. 6. The sober papists themselves say the same thing, and when
they have said that even _ex opere operato_ baptism saveth, they add,
that it is only the meet receiver; that is, the penitent believer, and
no other of the adult. So that hitherto there is no difference.
2. Now let us by this try the case of infants; concerning which there
are all these several opinions among divines.
(1.) Some think that all infants (baptized or not) are saved from
hell, and positive punishment, but are not brought to heaven, as being
not capable of such joys.
(2.) Some think that all infants (dying such) are saved as others are,
by actual felicity in heaven, though in a lower degree. Both these
sorts suppose that Christ's death saveth all that reject it not, and
that infants reject it not.
(3.) Some think that all unbaptized infants do suffer the _pœnam
damni_, and are shut out of heaven and happiness, but not sensibly
punished or cast into hell. For this Jansenius hath wrote a treatise;
and many other papists think so.
(4.) Some think that all the children of sincere believers dying in
infancy are saved, (that is, glorified,) whether baptized or not; and
no others.
(5.) Some think that God hath not at all revealed what he will do with
any infants.
(6.) Some think that he hath promised salvation as aforesaid to
believers and their seed, but hath not at all revealed to us what he
will do with all the rest.
(7.) Some think that only the baptized children of true believers are
certainly (by promise) saved.
(8.) Some think that all the adopted and bought children of true
christians, as well as the natural, are saved (if baptized, say some;
or if not, say others).
(9.) Some think that elect infants are saved, and no other, but no man
can know who those are. And of these, 1. Some deny infant baptism. 2.
Most say that they are to be baptized, and that thereby the non-elect
are only received into the visible church and its privileges, but not
to any promise or certainty of justification, or a state of salvation.
(10.) Some think that all that are baptized by the dedication of
christian sponsors are saved.
(11.) Some think that all that the pastor dedicateth to God are saved
(because so dedicated by him, say some; or because baptized _ex opere
operato_, say others). And so all baptized infants are in a state of
salvation.
(12.) Some think that this is to be limited to all that have right to
baptism _coram Deo_; which some think the church's reception giveth
them, of which anon.
(13.) And some think it is to be limited to those that have right
_coram ecclesia_, or are rightfully baptized _ex parte ministrantis_,
where some make the magistrate's command sufficient, and some the
bishop's, and some the baptizer's will.
Of the title to baptism I shall speak anon. Of the salvation of
infants, it is too tedious to confute all that I dissent from: not
presuming in such darkness and diversity of opinions to be peremptory,
nor to say, I am certain by the word of God who are undoubtedly saved,
nor yet to deny the undoubted certainty of wiser men, who may know
that which such as I do doubt of, but submitting what I say to the
judgment of the church of God and my superiors, I humbly lay down my
own thoughts as followeth.
1. I think that there can no promise or proof be produced that all
unbaptized infants are saved, either from the _pœna damni_ or
_sensus_, or both.
2. I think that no man can prove that all unbaptized infants are
damned, or denied heaven. Nay, I think I can prove a promise of the
contrary.
3. All that are rightfully baptized _in foro externo_ are visible
church members, and have ecclesiastical right to the privileges of the
visible church.
4. I think Christ never instituted baptism for collation of these
outward privileges alone, unless as on supposition that persons
culpably fail of the better ends.
5. I think baptism is a solemn mutual contract or covenant between
Christ and the baptized person. And that it is but one covenant, even
the covenant of grace which is the sum of the gospel, which is sealed
and received in baptism; and that this covenant essentially containeth
our saving relation to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and our
pardon, justification, and adoption or right to life everlasting; and
that God never made any distinct covenant of outward privileges alone,
to be sealed by baptism. But that outward mercies are the second and
lesser gift of the same covenant which giveth first the great and
saving blessings.
6. And therefore that whoever hath right before God, to claim and
receive baptism, hath right also to the benefits of the covenant of
God, and that is, to salvation; though I say not so of every one that
hath such right before the church, as that God doth require the
minister to baptize him. For by right before God, or _in foro
cœli_, I mean such a right as will justify the claim before God
immediately, the person being one whom he commandeth in that present
state to claim and receive baptism. For many a one hath no such right
before God to claim or receive it, when yet the minister hath right to
give it them if they do claim it.
The case stands thus. God saith in his covenant, He that believeth
shall be saved, and ought to be baptized, to profess that belief, and
be invested in the benefits of the covenant; and he that professeth to
believe, (whether he do or not,) is by the church to be taken for a
visible believer, and by baptism to be received into the visible
church. Here God calleth none but true believers (and their seed) to
be baptized, nor maketh an actual promise or covenant with any other;
and so I say that none other have right _in foro cœli_. But yet the
church knoweth not men's hearts, and must take a serious profession
for a credible sign of the faith professed, and for that outward title
upon which it is a duty of the pastor to baptize the claimer.[275] So
that the most malignant, scornful hypocrite, that maketh a seemingly
serious profession, hath right _coram ecclesia_, but not _coram Deo_,
save in this sense, that God would have the minister baptize him. But
this I have largelier opened in my "Disputations of Right to
Sacraments."
7. I think therefore that all the children of true christians, do by
baptism receive a public investiture by God's appointment into a state
of remission, adoption, and right to salvation at the present; though
I dare not say that I am undoubtedly certain of it, as knowing how
much is said against it. But I say as the synod of Dort, art. 1. That
believing parents have no cause to doubt of the salvation of their
children that die in infancy, before they commit actual sin; that is,
not to trouble themselves with fears about it.
The reasons that move me to be of this judgment (though not without
doubting and hesitancy) are these; 1. Because whoever hath right to
the present investiture, delivery, and possession of the first and
great benefits of God's covenant made with man in baptism, hath right
to pardon, and adoption, and everlasting life: but the infants of true
christians have right to the present investiture, delivery and
possession of the first and great benefits of God's covenant made with
man in baptism; therefore they have right to pardon and everlasting
life.
Either infants are in the same covenant (that is, are subjects of the
same promise of God) with their believing parents, or in some other
covenant, or in no covenant. If they be under no covenant, (or
promise,) or under some other promise or covenant only, and not the
same, they are not to be baptized. For baptism is a mutual
covenanting; where the minister by Christ's commission in his name
acteth his part, and the believer his own and his infant's part: and
God hath but one covenant, which is to be made, sealed, and delivered
in baptism. Baptism is not an equivocal word, so as to signify divers
covenants of God.
_Object._ But the same covenant of God hath divers sorts of benefits;
the special God giveth to the sincere, and the common to the common
and hypocritical receiver.
_Answ._ 1. God indeed requireth the minister to take profession for
the visible church title; and so it being the minister's duty so far
to believe a liar, and to receive dissemblers who had no right to lay
that claim, you may say that God indirectly and improperly giveth them
church privileges: but properly, that is, by his promise or covenant
deed or gift, he giveth them nothing at all; for his covenant is one
and undivided in its action, though it give several benefits, and
though providence may give one and not another, yet the covenant
giveth all or none. God saith that godliness hath the promise of this
life and of that to come; but he never said (that I know of) to the
hypocrite or unsound believer, I promise or give right to common
mercies.[276]
2. But suppose it were otherwise, yet either the children of true
believers have the true condition of right to the special blessings of
the covenant, or they have not the condition of any at all. For there
can no more be required of an infant, as to any special blessings of
the covenant, than that he be the child of believing parents, and by
them dedicated to God. Either this condition entitleth them to all the
covenant promises which the adult believer is entitled to, (as far as
their natures are capable,) or it entitleth them to none at all; nor
are they to be baptized; for God hath in Scripture instituted but one
baptism, (to profess one faith,) and that one is ever for the
remission of sins:[277] "He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved," Mark xvi. 16.
3. Or if all the rest were granted you, yet it would follow that all
infants in the world, even of true believers, are left out of God's
covenant of grace, that is, the covenant or promise of pardon and
life; and are only taken into the covenant of church privileges. And
so, 1. You will make two covenants, (which you denied,) and not only
two sorts of benefits of one covenant. 2. And two species of baptism;
while all infants in the world are only under a covenant of outward
privileges, and have no baptism, but the seal of that covenant, while
believers have the covenant, promise, and seal of pardon and life.
2. And this is my second reason; because then we have no promise or
certainty, or ground of faith, for the pardon and salvation of any
individual infants in the world. And so parents are left to little
comfort for their children. And if there be no promise there is no
faith of it, nor any baptism to seal it; and so we still make
antipædobaptism unavoidable. For who dare set God's seal to such as
have no promise? or pretend to invest any in a near and saving
relation to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, (which is the very
nature of baptism,) when God hath given no such commission?
_Object._ Yes: baptism and the covenant of special promises are for
all the elect, though we know not who they are.
_Answ._ 1. I deny not God's eternal, antecedent election; but I deny
that the Scripture ever mentioneth his pardoning or glorifying any,
upon the account of election only, without certain spiritual
conditions, which may be given as the reason of the difference in
judgment. God may freely give the gospel to whom he will, and also
faith or the first grace by the gospel, without any previous condition
in man, but according to his free election only: but he giveth pardon
and heaven as a rector by his equal laws and judgment; and always
rendereth a reason of the difference, from the qualifications of man.
2. And if this were as you say, it would still overthrow infant
baptism. For either we must baptize all indifferently, or none, or
else know how to make a difference. All must not be baptized
indifferently: and election is a secret thing to us, and by it no
minister in the world can tell whom to baptize: therefore he must
baptize none, if there be no other differencing note to know them by.
_Object._ God hath more elect ones among the infants of true believers
than among others: and therefore they are all to be baptized.
_Answ._ 1. It will be hard to prove that much (that he hath more) if
there be no promise to them all as such. 2. If he have more, yet no
man knoweth how many, and whether the elect be one of ten, twenty,
forty, or a hundred, in comparison of the non-elect; for Scripture
tells it not. So that no minister of a church is sure that any one
infant that he ever baptized is elect. 3. And God hath given no such
rule for sealing and delivering his covenant with the benefits as to
cast it hap hazard among all, because it is possible or probable it
may belong to some.
_Object._ You have no certainty what adult professor is sincere, nor
to which of them the special benefits belong; no, not of any one in a
church. And yet because there is a probability that among many there
are some sincere, you baptize them all. Take then the birth privilege
but as equal to the profession of the adult.
_Answ._ This partly satisfied me sometimes: but I cannot forget that a
visible, false, or hypocritical profession is not the condition of
God's own covenant of grace, nor that which he requireth in us, to
make us partakers of his covenant benefits; nay, he never at all
commandeth it; but only commandeth that profession of consent, which
followeth the real consent of the heart:[278] he that condemneth
lying, maketh it neither the condition of our church membership, as
his gift by promise, nor yet our duty.
And mark well, that it is a professed consent to the whole covenant
that God requireth, as the condition of our true right to any part or
benefit of it. He that shall only say, I consent to be a visible
church member, doth thereby acquire no right to that membership; no,
not _in foro ecclesiæ_, but he must also profess that he consenteth to
have God for his God, and Christ for his Lord and Saviour, and the
Holy Spirit for his Sanctifier. So that he must be a liar, or a sound
believer, that maketh this profession.
But for an infant to be born of true believers, and sincerely by them
dedicated in covenant to God, is all the condition that ever God
required to an infant-title to his covenant; and it is not the failure
of the true condition as a false profession is.
Indeed if the proposition were thus laid, it would hold good: As we
know not who sincerely covenanteth for himself, and yet we must
baptize all that soberly profess it; so we know not who doth sincerely
covenant for his infant, and yet must baptize all whom the parents
bring with such a profession, for themselves and them.
But if the sincere dedication of a sound believer, shall be accounted
but equal to the lying profession of the adult, which is neither
commanded, nor hath any promise, then infants are not in the covenant
of grace, nor is the sincerest dedication to God either commanded or
hath any promise.
If I were but sure that the profession of the adult for himself were
sincere, I were sure that he were in a state of grace. And if I am not
sure of the same concerning the parent's dedication of his infant, I
must conclude that this is not a condition of the same covenant, and
therefore that he is not in the same covenant (or conditional promise
of God) unless there be some other condition required in him or for
him; but there is no other that can be devised.
_Object._ Election is the condition.
_Answ._ Election is God's act and not man's; and therefore may be an
antecedent, but no condition required of us. And man is not called to
make profession that he is elected, as he is to make profession of his
faith and consent to the covenant. And God only knoweth who are his by
election, and therefore God only can baptize on this account.
And what is the probability which the objecters mean, that many of the
infants of the faithful are elected? Either it is a promise, or but a
prediction; if no promise, it is not to be sealed by baptism; if a
promise, it is absolute or conditional. If any absolute promise, as, I
will save many children of believers, 1. This terminateth not on any
singular person, as baptism doth, and, 2. It is not the absolute
promise that baptism is appointed by Christ to seal. This is apparent
in Mark xvi. 16, and in the case of the adult. And it is not one
covenant which is sealed to the adult by baptism, and another to
infants. Else baptism also should not be the same. But if it be any
conditional covenant, what is it, and what is the condition?
And what is it that baptism giveth to the seed of believers, if they
be not justified by it from original sin? You will not say, that it
conveyeth inherent sanctifying grace, no not into all the elect
themselves, which many are many years after without. And you cannot
say, that it sealeth to them any promise, so much as of visible church
privileges; for God may suffer them presently to be made janizaries,
and violently taken from their parents, and become strangers and
despisers of church privileges, as is ordinary with the Greek's
children among the Turks. Now God either promised such church
privileges absolutely, or conditionally, or not at all. Not
absolutely, for then they would possess them. If conditionally, what
is the condition? If not at all, what promise then doth baptism seal
to such, and what benefit doth it secure? God hath instituted no
baptism, which is a mere present delivery of possession of a church
state, without sealing any promise at all. True baptism first sealeth
the promise, and then delivereth possession of some benefits.
Yea, indeed outward church privileges are such uncertain blessings of
the promise, that as they are but secondary, so they are but
secondarily given and sealed, so that no man should ever be baptized,
if these were all that were in the promise.[279] The holiest person
may be cast into a wilderness, and deprived of all visible church
communion; and doth God then break his promise with him? Certainly no.
It is therefore our saving relations to God the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, which the promise giveth, and baptism sealeth; and other things
but subordinately and uncertainly as they are means to these. So then
it is plain, that believers' infants have a promise of salvation, or
no promise at all, which baptism was instituted to seal.
I have said so much more of this in my Appendix to the "Treatise of
Infant Baptism," to Mr. Bedford, in defence of Dr. Davenant's
judgment, as that I must refer the reader thither.
8. I think it very probable that this ascertaining promise belongeth
not only to the natural seed of believers, but to all whom they have a
true power and right to dedicate in covenant to God; which seemeth to
be all that are properly their own, whether adopted or bought; but
there is more darkness and doubt about this than the former, because
the Scripture hath said less of it.
9. I am not able to prove, nor see any probable reason for it, that
any but sound believers have such a promise for their children, nor
that any hypocrite shall certainly save his child, if he do but
dedicate him to God in baptism. For, 1. I find no promise in Scripture
made to such. 2. He that doth not sincerely believe himself, nor
consent to God's covenant, cannot sincerely believe for his child, nor
consent for him. 3. And that faith which will not save the owner, as
being not the condition of the promise, cannot save another. Much more
might be said of this. I confess that the church is to receive the
children of hypocrites as well as themselves; and their baptism is
valid _in foro externo ecclesiæ_, and is not to be reiterated. But it
goeth no further for his child, than for himself.
10. Therefore I think that all that are rightfully baptized by the
minister, that is, baptized so as that it is well done of him, are not
certainly saved by baptism, unless they be also rightfully baptized,
in regard of their right to claim and receive it. Let them that are
able to prove more do it, for I am not able.
11. Whereas some misinterpret the words of the old rubric of
confirmation in the English liturgy, as if it spake of all that are
baptized, whether they had right or not, the words themselves may
serve to rectify that mistake, "And that no man shall think any
detriment shall come to children by deferring of their confirmation,
he shall know for truth, that it is certain by God's word, that
children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation,
and be undoubtedly saved." Where it is plain that they mean, they have
all things necessary _ex parte ecclesiæ_, or all God's applying
ordinances necessary, though they should die unconfirmed, supposing
that they have all things necessary to just baptism on their own part.
Which is but what the ancients were wont to say of the baptized adult;
but they never meant that the infidel, and hypocrite, and impenitent
person was in a state of life, because he was baptized; but that all
that truly consent to the covenant, and signify this by being
baptized, are saved. So the church of England saith, that they receive
no detriment by delaying confirmation; but it never said, that they
receive no detriment by their parents' or sponsors' infidelity and
hypocrisy, or by their want of true right _coram Deo_ to be baptized.
12. But yet before these questions (either of them) be taken as
resolved by me, I must first take in some other questions which are
concerned in the same cause; as,
[274] Since the writing of this, there is come forth an excellent book
for Infant Baptism by Mr. Joseph Whiston, in which the grounds of my
present solutions are notably cleared.
[275] Mark xvi. 16; Acts ii. 37, 38; xxii. 16; 1 Cor. vi. 11; Tit.
iii. 3, 5, 6; Heb. x. 22; Eph. v. 26; Rom. vi. 1, 4; Col. ii. 12; 1
Pet. iii. 21, 22; Eph. iv. 5; Acts viii. 12, 13, 16, 36, 38; ix. 18;
xvi. 15, 33; xix. 5; Gal. iii. 27.
[276] Acts ii. 39; Gal. iii. 22, 29; 1 Tim. iv. 8; Eph. ii. 12; 2 Tim.
i. 1; Heb. iv. 1; vi. 17; ix. 15; x. 36; viii. 6; 2 Pet i. 4, 5.
[277] Acts ii. 38; xxvi. 18; Luke xxiv. 47.
[278] Rom. x. 9; Acts viii. 37.
[279] Matt. vi. 33; Rom. viii. 28, 32, &c.
Quest. XXXVI. _What is meant by this speech, that believers and their
seed are in the covenant of God; which giveth them right to baptism?_
_Answ._ Though this was opened on thee by before I add, 1. The meaning
is not that they are in that absolute promise of the first and all
following grace, supposed ordinarily to be made of the elect, (as such
unknown,) viz. I will give them faith, repentance, conversion,
justification, and salvation, and all the conditions of the
conditional promise, without any condition on their part, which many
take to be the meaning of, I will take the hard heart out of them, &c.
For, 1. This promise is not now to be first performed to the adult who
repent and believe already; and no other are to be baptized at age. If
that absolute promise be sealed by baptism, either it must be so
sealed as a promise before it be performed, or after; if before,
either to all, because some are elect, or only to some that are elect.
Not to all; for it is not common to infidels. Not to some as elect;
for, 1. They are unknown. 2. If they were known, they are yet supposed
to be infidels. Not after performance, for then it is too late.
2. The meaning is not only that the conditional covenant of grace is
made and offered to them; for so it may be said of heathens and
infidels, and all the world that hear the gospel.
But, 1. The covenant meant is indeed this conditional covenant only,
Mark xvi. 16, "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved."
2. To be in this covenant is, to be a consenting believer, and so to
be one that hath by inward heart consent the true conditions of right
to the benefits of the covenant, and is thereby prepared solemnly by
baptism to profess this consent, and to receive an investiture and
seal of God's part, by his minister given in his name.
3. Infants are thus in covenant with their parents, because
reputatively their parents' wills are theirs, to dispose of them for
their good. And therefore they consent by their parents, who consent
for them.
Quest. XXXVII. _Are believers' children certainly in covenant before
their baptism, and thereby in a state of salvation? or not till they
are baptized?_
_Answ._ Distinguish between, 1. Heart-covenanting and mouth
covenanting. 2. Between being in covenant before God, and visibly
before the church.
1. No person is to be baptized at age, whose inward heart consent
before professed, giveth him not right to baptism. Therefore all the
adult must be in covenant, that is, consent on their part to the
covenant, before they are baptized.
2. Therefore it is so with the seed of the faithful, who must consent
by their parents, before they have right; otherwise all should have
right, and their baptism be essentially another baptism, as sealing
some other covenant, or none.
3. If there be no promise made to the seed of the faithful more than
to others, they have no right more than others to baptism or
salvation. But if there be a promise made to them as the seed of
believers, then are they as such within that promise, that is,
performers of its conditions by their parents, and have right to the
benefit.
4. If the heart consent or faith of the adult, do put themselves into
a state of salvation, before their baptism, then it doth so by their
children; but, &c.--
5. But this right to salvation in parents and children upon heart
consent before baptism, is only before God. For the church taketh no
cognizance of secret heart transactions; but a man then only
consenteth in the judgment of the church, when he openly professeth
it, and desireth to signify it by being baptized.
6. And even before God, there is a _necessitas præcepti_ obliging us
to open baptism after heart consent; and he that heartily consenteth,
cannot refuse God's way of uttering it, unless either through
ignorance he know it not to be his duty, (for himself and his child,)
or through want of ability or opportunity cannot have it. So that
while a man is unbaptized, somewhat is wanting to the completeness of
his right to the benefits of the covenant, viz. A reception of
investiture and possession in God's appointed way; though it be not
such a want, as shall frustrate the salvation of those that did truly
consent in heart.
7. I take it therefore for certain, that the children of true
believers consent to the covenant by their parents, and are as
certainly saved if they die before baptism, as after; though those
that despise baptism, when they know it to be a duty, cannot be
thought indeed to believe or consent for their children or themselves.
Quest. XXXVIII. _Is infants' title to baptism and the covenant
benefits given them by God in his promise, upon any proper moral
condition, or only upon the condition of their natural relation, that
they be the seed of the faithful?_
_Answ._ That which is called a mere natural condition is properly in
law sense no condition at all; nor doth make a contract or promise to
be called conditional in a moral sense. But it is matters of morality,
and not of physics only, that we are treating of; and therefore we
must take the terms in a moral sense. For a physical condition is
either past, or present, or future, or not future; if it be past or
present, the proposition may indeed be hypothetical, but it is no such
conditional promise as we are speaking of; for instance, if you say,
If thou wast born in such a city, or if thy name be John, I will give
thee so much. These are the words of an uncertain promiser; but the
promise is already either equivalent to an absolute gift, or null. So
if the physical condition be _de futuro_, e. g. If thou be alive
to-morrow, I will give thee this or that; or if the sun shine
to-morrow, &c. This indeed suspendeth the gift or event; but not upon
any moral being which is in the power of the receiver, but upon a
natural contingency or uncertainty. And God hath no such conditional
covenants or promises to be sealed by baptism. He saith not, If thou
be the child of such or such a man, thou shalt be saved, as his
natural offspring only. If the papists that accuse us for holding that
the mere natural progeny of believers are saved as such, did well
understand our doctrine, they would perceive that in this we differ
not from the understanding sort among them, or at least, that their
accusations run upon a mistake.
I told you before that there are three things distinctly to be
considered in the title of infants to baptism and salvation. 1. By
what right the parent covenanteth for his child. 2. What right the
child hath to baptism. 3. What right he hath to the benefits of the
covenant sealed and delivered in baptism?
To the first, two things concur to the title of the parent to covenant
in the name of his child. One is his natural interest in him; the
child being his own is at his disposal. The other is God's gracious
will and consent that it shall be so; that the parent's will shall be
as the child's for his good, till he come at age to have a will of his
own.
To the second, the child's right to baptism is not merely his natural
or his birth relation from such parents, but it is in two degrees, as
followeth: 1. He hath a virtual right, on condition of his parent's
faith: the reason is, because that a believer's consent and
self-dedication to God doth virtually contain in it a dedication with
himself of all that is his: and it is a contradiction to say that a
man truly dedicateth himself to God, and not all that he hath, and
that he truly consenteth to the covenant for himself and not for his
child, if he understand that God will accept it. 2. His actual title
condition is his parent's (or owner's) actual consent to enter him
into God's covenant, and his actual mental dedication of his child to
God, which is his title before God, and the profession of it is his
title before the church. So that it is not a mere physical but a moral
title condition, which an infant hath to baptism, that is, his
parent's consent to dedicate him to God.
3. And to the third, his title condition to the benefits of baptism
hath two degrees: 1. That he be really dedicated to God by the heart
consent of his parent as aforesaid. And, 2. That his parent express
this by the solemn engaging him to God in baptism; the first being
necessary as a means _sine qua non_, and the second being necessary as
a duty without which he sinneth, (when it is possible,) and as a means
_coram ecclesia_ to the privileges of the visible church.
The sum of all is, that our mere natural interest in our children is
not their title condition to baptism or to salvation, but only that
presupposed state which enableth us by God's consent to covenant for
them; but their title condition to baptism and salvation, is our
covenanting for them, or voluntary dedicating them to God; which we
do, 1. Virtually, when we dedicate ourselves, and all that we have or
shall have. 2. Actually, when our hearts consent particularly for
them, and actually devote them to God, before baptism. 3.
Sacramentally, when we express this in our solemn baptismal
covenanting and dedication.
Consider exactly of this again; and if you loathe distinguishing,
confess ingenuously that you loathe the truth, or the necessary means
of knowing it.
Quest. XXXIX. _What is the true meaning of sponsors,_ patrimi, _or
godfathers as we call them? And is it lawful to make use of them?_
_Answ._ I. To the first question; all men have not the same thoughts
either of their original, or of their present use.
1. Some think that they were sponsors or sureties for the parents
rather than the child at first; and that when many in times of
persecution, heresy, and apostasy, did baptize their children this
month or year, and the next month or year apostatize and deny Christ
themselves, that the sponsors were only credible christians witnessing
that they believed that the parents were credible, firm believers, and
not like to apostatize. 2. Others think that they were undertakers,
that if the parents did apostatize or die, they would see to the
christian education of the child themselves. 3. Others think that they
did both these together; (which is my opinion;) viz. that they
witnessed the probability of the parents' fidelity; but promised that
if they should either apostatize or die, they would see that the
children were piously educated. 4. Others think that they were
absolute undertakers that the children should be piously educated,
whether the parents died or apostatized or not; so that they went
joint undertakers with the parents in their lifetime. 5. And I have
lately met with some that maintain that the godfathers and godmothers
become proprietors, and adopt the child, and take him for their own,
and that this is the sense of the church of England. But I believe
them not for these reasons.
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 joint propriety, 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 godfathers and
godmothers, 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 godfather or godmother 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 godfather and godmother is expressly said
to be for this use, to be witnesses that the party is confirmed.
9. And in the priest's 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
godfathers and godmothers are only called "these your witnesses." And
if they be but witnesses to the adult, it is 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; or 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 godfather's
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.