Yea more, it is in your own power to agree with the godfathers, that

they shall represent your own persons, and speak and promise what they

do, as your deputies only, in your names. And what have you against

this? Suppose you were sick, lame, imprisoned, or banished, would you

not have your child baptized? And how should that be done, but by your

deputing another to represent you in entering him into covenant with

God?

_Object._ But when the churchmen mean another thing, this is but to

juggle with the world.

_Answ._ How can you prove that the authority that made or imposed the

liturgy, meant any other thing? And other individuals are not the

masters of your sense. Yea, and if the imposers had meant ill, in a

thing that may be done well, you may discharge your conscience by

doing it well, and making a sufficient profession of your better

sense.

2. And then it will be no sinful addition to God's ordinance, to

determine of a lawful circumstance, which he hath left to human

prudence: as to choose a meet deputy, witness, or sponsor, who

promiseth nothing but what is meet.

Quest. XL. _On whose account or right is it that the infant hath title

to baptism and its benefits? Is it on the parents', ancestors',

sponsors', the church's, the minister's, the magistrate's, or his

own?_

_Answ._ The titles are very various that are pretended; let us examine

them all.

I. I cannot think that a magistrate's command to baptize an infant,

giveth him right, 1. Because there is no proof of the validity of such

a title. 2. Because the magistrate can command no such thing if it be

against God's word, as this is, which would level the case of the seed

of heathens and believers. And I know but few of that opinion.

II. I do not think that the minister as such giveth title to the

infant: for, 1. He is no proprietor. 2. He can show no such power or

grant from God. 3. He must baptize none but those that antecedently

have right. 4. Else he also might level all, and take in heathen's

children with believers'. 5. Nor is this pretended to by many, that I

know of.

III. I cannot think that it is a particular church that must give this

right, or perform the condition of it. For, 1. Baptism (as is

aforesaid) as such, doth only make a christian, and a member of the

universal church, and not of any particular church. And, 2. The church

is not the proprietor of the child. 3. No Scripture commission can be

showed for such a power. Where hath God said, All that any particular

church will receive, shall have right to baptism? 4. By what act must

the church give this right? If by baptizing him; the question is of

his antecedent right. If by willing that he be baptized; (1.) If they

will that one be baptized that hath no right to it, their will is

sinful, and therefore unfit to give him right. (2.) And the baptizing

minister hath more power than a thousand or ten thousand private men,

to judge who is to be baptized. 5. Else a church might save all

heathen children that they can but baptize, and so level infidels' and

christians' seed. 6. It is not the church in general, but some one

person, that must educate the child: therefore the church cannot so

much as promise for its education: the church hath nothing to do with

those that are without, but only with her own; and heathen's children

are not her own, nor exposed to her occupation.

IV. I believe not that it is the universal church that giveth the

infant title to baptism: for, 1. He that giveth title to the covenant

and baptism, doth it as a performer of the moral condition of that

title. But God hath no where made the church's faith to be the

condition of baptism or salvation, either to infidels or their seed.

2. Because the universal church is a body that cannot be consulted

with to give their vote and consent: nor have they any deputies to do

it by. For there is no universal, visible governor: and if you will

pretend every priest to be commissioned to act and judge in the name

of the universal church, you will want proof, and that is before

confuted. 3. If all have right that the universal church offereth up

to God, or any minister or bishop be counted its deputy or agent to

that end, it is in the power of that minister (as is said) to level

all, and to baptize and save all; which is contrary to the word of

God.

V. I believe that godfathers as such, being no adopters or

proprietors, are not the performers of the condition of salvation for

the infant, nor give him right to be baptized. 1. Because he is not

their own, and therefore their will or act cannot go for his; because

there is no word of God for it that all shall be baptized or saved

that any christians will be sponsors for. God's church blessings are

not tied to such inventions, that were not in being when God's laws

were made. Where there is no promise or word, there is no faith. 3. No

sponsors are so much as lawful (as is showed before) who are not

owners or their deputies, or mere secondary subservient parties, who

suppose the principal covenanting party. 4. And as to the infant's

salvation, the sponsors may (too oft) be ignorant infidels and

hypocrites themselves, that have no true faith for themselves; and

therefore not enough to save another. 5. And it were strange if God

should make no promise to a wicked parent for his own child, and yet

should promise to save by baptism all that some wicked and hypocrite

godfathers will offer him. And that thus the seed of heathens and

christians should be levelled, and yet an ignorant, bold undertaker to

carry away the privilege of saving persons from them both. All this is

but men's unproved imaginations. He that never commandeth godfathers,

but forbiddeth the usurping sort, and only alloweth human prudence to

use the lawful sort, did never put the souls of all children,

christians and heathens, into their hands (any more than into the

hands of the priest that baptizeth them).

VI. I do not find that remote ancestors that are dead, or that are not

proprietors of the children, are the performers of the condition by

which they have right to baptism or salvation. 1. Because God hath put

that power and work in the hands of others, even the parents, which

they cannot nullify. 2. Because the promise of mercy to thousands is

on supposition that the successors make no intercision. 3. Else the

threatenings to the seed of the wicked would signify nothing, nor

would any in the world be excluded from right, but all be levelled;

because Noah was the common father of mankind: and if you lay it on

dead ancestors, you have no rule where to stop till you come to Noah.

VII. I conclude therefore that it is, clearly, the immediate parents,

(both or one,) and probably any true domestic owner of the child, who

hath the power to choose or refuse for him, and so to enter him into

covenant with God, and so by consent to perform the conditions of his

right. For, 1. Abundance of promises are made to the faithful and

their seed, of which I have spoken at large in my book "Of Infant

Baptism." And besides the punishment of Adam's sin, there is scarce a

parent infamous for sin in Scripture, but his posterity falleth under

the punishment, as for a secondary, original sin or guilt. As the case

of Cain, Ham, the Sodomites, the Amalekites, the Jews, Achan, Gehazi,

&c. show. And 1 Cor. vii. 14, it is expressly said, "Else were your

children unclean, but now are they holy" (of the sense of which I have

spoke as aforecited).

_Object._ But if owners may serve, one may buy multitudes, and a king

or lord of slaves, whose own the people are, may cause them all to be

baptized and saved.

_Answ._ 1. Remember that I say, that the christian parent's right is

clear, but I take the other as more dark; for it is principally

grounded on Abraham and the Israelites circumcising their children

born to them in the house or bought with money: and how far the parity

of reason here will reach is hard to know. All that I say is, that I

will not deny it, because _favores sunt ampliandi_. 2. If such a

prince be a hypocrite, and not a sincere christian himself, his faith

or consent cannot save others, that cannot save himself. 3. It is such

a propriety as is conjunct with a divine concession only that giveth

this power of consenting for an infant: now we find clear proof of

God's concession to natural parents, and probable proof of his

concession of it to domestic owners, but no further that I know

of.[280] For, (1.) It is an act of God's love to the child for the

parent's sake; and therefore to such children as we are supposed to

have a special nearness to, and love for. (2.) And it is a consent and

covenanting which he calls for, which obligeth the promiser to

consequent pious education, which is a domestic act. (3.) They are

comprised in the name of parents, which those that adopt them and

educate them may be called. (4.) And the infants are their children,

not their slaves. But now, if the emperor of Muscovy, Indostan, &c.

had the propriety in all his people as slaves, this would not imitate

paternal interest and love, but tyranny, nor could he be their

domestic educater. Therefore I must limit it to a pro-parent, or

domestic, educating proprietor.

[280] Deut. xxix. 10-13.

Quest. XLI. _Are they really baptized who are baptized according to

the English liturgy and canons, where the parent seemeth excluded, and

those to consent for the infant who have no power to do it?_

_Answ._ I find some puzzled with this doubt, Whether all our infants'

baptism be not a mere nullity: for, say they, the outward washing

without covenanting with God, is no more baptism, than the body or

corpse is a man. The covenant is the chief essential part of baptism.

And he that was never entered into covenant with God was never

baptized. But infants according to the liturgy, are not entered into

covenant with God, which they would prove thus: they that neither ever

covenanted by themselves, or by any authorized person for them, were

never entered into covenant with God (for that is no act of theirs

which is done by a stranger that hath no power to do it); but,

&c.--That they did it not themselves is undeniable: that they did it

not by any person empowered by God to do it for them they prove, 1.

Because godfathers are the persons by whom the infant is said to

promise; but godfathers have no power from God, (1.) Not by nature.

(2.) Not by Scripture. 2. Because the parents are not only not

included as covenanters, but positively excluded, (1.) In that the

whole office of covenanting for the child from first to last is laid

on others. (2.) In that the twenty-ninth canon saith, "No parent shall

be urged to be present; nor admitted to answer as godfather for his

own child:" by which the parent that hath the power is excluded:

therefore our children are all unbaptized.

To all this I answer, 1. That the parent's consent is supposed, though

he be absent. 2. That the parent is not required to be absent, but

only not to be urged to be present; but he may if he will. 3. That the

reason of that canon seems to be their jealousy, lest any would

exclude godfathers. 4. While the church hath no where declared what

person the sponsors bear, nor any further what they are to do, than to

speak the covenanting words, and promise to see to the pious education

of the child, the parents may agree that the godfathers shall do all

this as their deputies, primarily, and in their steads, and

secondarily as friends that promise their assistance. 5. While parents

really consent, it is not their silence that nullifieth the covenant.

6. All parents are supposed and required to be themselves the choosers

of the sponsors or sureties, and also to give notice to the minister

beforehand: by which it appeareth that their consent is presupposed.

And though my own judgment be, that they should be the principal

covenanters for the child expressly, yet the want of that expressness,

will not make us unbaptized persons.

Quest. XLII. _But the great question is, How the Holy Ghost is given

to infants in baptism? And whether all the children of true christians

have inward sanctifying grace? or whether they can be said to be

justified, and to be in a state of salvation, that are not inherently

sanctified? And whether any fall from this infant state of salvation?_

_Answ._ Of all these great difficulties I have said what I know, in my

"Appendix to Infant Baptism," to Mr. Bradford and Dr. Ward, and of

Bishop Davenant's judgment. And I confess that my judgment agreeth

more in this with Davenant's than any others, saving that he doth not

so much appropriate the benefits of baptism to the children of sincere

believers as I do. And though by a letter in pleading Davenant's

cause, I was the occasion of good Mr. Gataker's printing of his answer

to him, yet I am still most inclined to his judgment; not that all the

baptized, but that all the baptized seed of true christians, are

pardoned, justified, adopted, and have a title to the Spirit and

salvation.

But the difficulties in this case are so great, as drive away most who

do not equally perceive the greater inconveniences which we must

choose, if this opinion be forsaken: that is, that all infants must be

taken to be out of the covenant of God, and to have no promise of

salvation. Whereas surely the law of grace as well as the covenant of

works included all the seed in their capacity.

1. To the first of these questions, I answer, 1. As all true

believers, so all their infants do receive initially by the promise,

and by way of obsignation and sacramental investiture in baptism, a

_jus relationis_, a right of peculiar relation to all the three

persons in the blessed Trinity: as to God, as their reconciled,

adopting Father; and to Jesus Christ, as their Redeemer and actual

Head and Justifier; so also to the Holy Ghost, as their Regenerator

and Sanctifier.[281] This right and relation adhereth to them, and is

given them in order to future actual operation and communion: as a

marriage covenant giveth the relation and right to one another, in

order to the subsequent communion and duties of a married life; and as

he that sweareth allegiance to a king, or is listed into an army, or

is entered into a school, receiveth the right and relation, and is so

correlated, as obligeth to the mutual subsequent offices of each, and

giveth right to many particular benefits. By this right and relation,

God is his own God and Father; Christ is his own Head and Saviour; and

the Holy Spirit is his own Sanctifier, without asserting what

operations are already wrought on his soul, but only to what future

ends and uses these relations are. Now as these rights and relations

are given immediately, so those benefits which are relative, and the

infant immediately capable of them, are presently given by way of

communion: he hath presently the pardon of original sin, by virtue of

the sacrifice, merit, and intercession of Christ. He hath a state of

adoption, and right to divine protection, provision, and church

communion according to his natural capacity, and right to everlasting

life.

2. It must be carefully noted, that the relative union between Christ

the Mediator and the baptized persons, is that which in baptism is

first given in order of nature, and that the rest do flow from this.

The covenant and baptism deliver the covenanter, 1. From divine

displicency by reconciliation with the Father: 2. From legal penalties

by justification by the Son: 3. From sin itself by the operations of

the Holy Ghost. But it is Christ as our Mediator-Head, that is first

given us in relative union; and then, 1. The Father loveth us with

complacency as in the Son, and for the sake of his first Beloved. 2.

And the Spirit which is given us in relation is first the Spirit of

Christ our Head, and not first inherent in us; so that by union with

our Head, that Spirit is next united to us, both relatively, and as

radically inherent in the human nature of our Lord, to whom

we are united.[282] As the nerves and animal spirits which are to

operate in all the body, are radically only in the head, from whence

they flow into and operate on the members as there is need (though

there may be obstructions); so the Spirit dwelleth in the human nature

of our Head, and there it can never be lost; and it is not necessary

that it dwell in us by way of radication, but by way of influence and

operation.

These things are distinctly and clearly understood but by very few;

and we are all much in the dark about them. But I think, (however

doctrinally we may speak better,) that most christians are habituated

to this perilous misapprehension, (which is partly against

Christianity itself,) that the Spirit floweth immediately from the

divine nature of the Father and the Son (as to the authoritative or

potestative conveyance) unto our souls. And we forget that it is first

given to Christ in his glorified humanity as our Head, and radicated

in Him; and that it is the office of this glorified Head, to send or

communicate to all his members from himself, that Spirit which must

operate in them as they have need.

This is plain in many texts of Scripture. Rom. viii. 32, "He that

spared not his own Son, but gave him up for us all, how shall he not

also with him freely give us all things?" (when he giveth him

particularly to us).

1 John v. 11, 12, "And this is the record that God hath given us

eternal life, and this life is in his Son; he that hath the Son hath

the life, and he that hath not the Son hath not the life."

Rom. viii. 9, "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, the same is

none of his."

Eph. i. 22, 23, "And gave him to be the Head over all things to the

church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in

all."

John xv. 26, "The Advocate or Comforter whom I will send unto you from

the Father," &c.

John xvi. 7, "If I depart, I will send him unto you."

John xiv. 26, "The Comforter, whom the Father will send in my name."

Gal. iv. 6, "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit

of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father."

Gal. ii. 20, "I live: yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." (I know

that is true of his living in us objectively and finally, but that

seemeth not to be all.)

Col. iii. 3, 4, "For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in

God; when Christ who is our life shall appear, then shall ye also

appear with him in glory." I know that in verse 3, by life is meant

felicity or glory; but not only; as appeareth by verse 4, where Christ

is called our life.

Matt. xxviii. 18, "All power is given unto me in heaven and earth."

ver. 20, "I am with you always." John xiii. 3, "The Father hath given

all things into his hands."

John xvii. 2, 3, "Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he

should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him; and this

is life eternal, to know thee," &c.

John v. 21, "The Son quickeneth whom he will:" ver. 26, "For as the

Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life

in himself."

John vi. 27, "Labour for that meat which endureth to everlasting life,

which the Son of man shall give unto you, for him hath God the Father

sealed." Ver. 33, "He giveth life unto the world." Ver. 54-57, "Whoso

eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life----dwelleth

in me and I in him----my flesh is meat indeed----As the living Father

hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he

shall live by me." Ver. 63, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth: the

flesh profiteth nothing."

John vii. 39, "This spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe in

him should receive." John iii. 34, "God giveth not the Spirit to him

by measure."

1 Cor. vi. 17, "He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit."

2 Cor. iii. 17, "The Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the

Lord is, there is liberty."

Phil. i. 19, "Through the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ."

John xv. 4, 5, "Abide in me and I in you: as the branch cannot bear

fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no more can ye except ye

abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me

and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me (or,

out of me, or, severed from me) ye can do nothing."

I will add no more: all this is proof enough that the Spirit is not

given radically or immediately from God to any believer, but to

Christ, and so derivatively from him to us. Not that the divine nature

in the third person is subject to the human nature in Christ; but that

God hath made it the office of our Mediator's glorified humanity, to

be the cistern that shall first receive the waters of life, and convey

them by the pipes of his appointed means to all the offices of his

house: or to be the head of the animal spirits, and by nerves to

convey them to all the members.

3. We are much in the dark concerning the degree of infants' glory;

and therefore we can as little know, what degree of grace is necessary

to prepare them for their glory.

4. It is certain that infants before they are glorified, shall have

all that grace that is prerequisite to their preparation and fruition.

5. No sanctified person on earth is in an immediate capacity for

glory; because their sin and imperfection must be done away, which is

done at the dissolution of soul and body. The very accession of the

soul to God doth perfect it.

6. Infants have no actual faith, or hope, or love to God to exercise;

and therefore need not the influence of the Spirit of Christ to

exercise them.

7. We are all so very much in the dark, as to the clear and distinct

apprehension of the true nature of original inherent pravity or sin,

that we must needs be as much ignorant of the true nature of that

inherent sanctity or righteousness, which is its contrary or cure.

Learned Illiricus thought it was a substance, which he hath in his

"Clavis" pleaded for at large. Others call it a habit; others a nature

or natural inclination, and a privation of a natural inclination to

God. Others call it an indisposition of the mind and will to holy

truth and goodness, and an ill disposition of them to error and evil.

Others call it only the inordinate lust of the sensitive faculties,

with a debility of reason and will to resist it. And whilst the nature

of the soul itself and its faculties, are so much unknown to itself,

the nature of original pravity and righteousness must needs be very

much unknown.

8. Though an infant be a distinct natural person from his parents, yet

is he not actually a distinct person morally, as being not a moral

agent, and so not capable of moral actions good or evil. Therefore his

parents' will goeth for his.

9. His first acceptance into the complacential love of God, (as

distinct from his love of benevolence,) is not for any inherent

holiness in himself; but, (1.) As the child of a believing parent who

hath dedicated him to Christ; and, (2.) As a member of Christ, in whom

he is well pleased.

10. Therefore God can complacentially as well as benevolently love an

infant in Christ, who only believeth and repenteth by the parents, and

not by himself, and is not yet supposed to have the Spirit of

sanctification.

11. For the Spirit of sanctification is not the presupposed condition

of his acceptance into covenant with God, but a gift of the covenant

of God itself, following both the condition on our part, and our right

to be covenanters, or to God's promise upon that condition.

12. So the adult themselves have the operation of the Spirit by which

they believe and repent, by which they come to have their right to

God's part in the covenant of baptism (for this is antecedent to their

baptism); but they have not the gift of the Spirit, which is called in

Scripture the "Spirit of sanctification, and of power, love, and a

sound mind," and is the benefit given by the covenant of baptism, till

afterward; because they must be in that covenant before it can be made

good to them.[283] And their faith or consent is their infant's right

also, antecedent to the covenant gift.

13. There is therefore some notable difference between that work of

the Spirit by which we first repent and believe, and so have our title

to the promise of the Spirit, and that gift of the Spirit which is

promised to believers; which is not only the Spirit of miracles, given

in the first times, but some notable degree of love to our reconciled

Father, suitable to the grace and gospel of redemption and

reconciliation, and is called the "Spirit of Christ," and the "Spirit

of adoption,"[284] which the apostles themselves seem not to have

received till Christ's ascension. And this seemeth to be not only

different from the gifts of the Spirit common to hypocrites and the

unbelievers, but also from the special gift of the Spirit which maketh

men believers. So that Mr. Tho. Hooker saith trulier than once I

understood, that vocation is a special grace of the Spirit, distinct

from common grace on the one side, and from sanctification on the

other side. Whether it be the same degree of the Spirit which the

faithful had before Christ's incarnation, which causeth men first to

believe distinct from the higher following degree, I leave to inquiry;

but the certainest distinction is from the different effects.

14. Though an infant cannot be either disposed to a holy life, or fit

for glory immediately, without an inward holiness of his own, yet by

what is said it seemeth plain, that merely on the account of the

condition performed by the parent, and of his union relatively with

Christ thereupon, and his title to God's promise on these grounds, he

may be said to be in a state of salvation; that is, to have the pardon

of his original sin, deliverance from hell, (in right,) adoption, and

a right to the needful operations of the Holy Ghost, as given to him

in Christ, who is the first receiver of the Spirit.

15. But when and in what sort and degree Christ giveth the actual

operations of the Spirit to all covenanted infants, it is wonderfully

hard for us to know. But this much seemeth clear, 1. That Christ may

when he please work on the soul of an infant to change its

disposition, before it come to the use of reason. 2. That Christ and

his Spirit as in covenant with infants, are ready to give all

necessary assistance to infants for their inherent sanctification, in

the use of those means, and on those further conditions, on which we

must wait for it and expect it.[285] For the Holy Ghost is not so

engaged to us in our covenant or baptism, as to be obliged presently

to give us all the grace that we want; but only to give it us on

certain further conditions, and in the use of certain means. But

because this leads me up to another question, I will suspend the rest

of the answer to this till that be handled. Only I must answer this

objection.

_Object._ It is contrary to the holy nature of God, complacentially to

love an unsanctified infant, that is yet in his original corruption

unchanged, and he justifieth none relatively from the guilt of sin,

whom he doth not at once inherently sanctify.

_Answ._ 1. God's complacential love respecteth every one as he is; for

it is goodness only that he so loveth. Therefore he so loveth not

those that either actually or habitually love not him, under any false

supposition that they do love him when they do not. His love therefore

to the adult and infants differeth as the objects differ. But there is

this lovely in such infants; 1. That they are the children of

believing, sanctified parents; 2. That they are by his covenant

relatively united to Christ, and so are lovely as his members; 3. That

they are pardoned all their original sin; 4. That they are set in the

way to actual love and holiness; being thus dedicated to God.

2. All imperfect saints are sinners; and all sinners are as such

abhorred of God, whose pure eyes cannot behold iniquity. As then it

will stand with his purity to accept and love the adult upon their

first believing, before their further sanctification, and

notwithstanding the remnant of their sins, so may it do also to accept

their infants through Christ upon their dedication.

3. As the actual sin imputed to infants was Adam's, and their parents'

only by act, and not their own, it is no wonder if upon their parents'

faith and repentance, Christ wash and justify them from that guilt

which arose only from another's act.

4. And then the inherent pravity was the effect of that act of their

ancestors, which is forgiven them. And this pravity or inherent,

original sin may two ways be said to be mortified radically, or

virtually, or inceptively before any inherent change in them: 1. In

that it is mortified in their parents from whom they derived it, who

have the power of choosing for them; and, 2. In that they are by

covenant ingrafted into Christ, and so related to the cause of their

future sanctification; yea, 3. In that also they are by covenant and

their parents' promise, engaged to use those means which Christ hath

appointed for sanctification.[286]

5. And it must be remembered that as this is but an inceptive,

preparatory change, so the very pardon of the inherent vitiosity is

not perfect, (as I have elsewhere largely proved,) however some

papists and protestants deny it. While sin remaineth, sin and

corruption is still indwelling, besides all the unremoved penalties of

it, the very being of it proveth it to be so far unpardoned, in that

it is not yet abolished, and the continuance of it being not its

smallest punishment, as permitted, and the Spirit not given so far as

to cure it. Imperfect pardon may consist with a present right both to

further sanctification by the Spirit, and so to heaven.

_Object._ Christ's body hath no unholy members.

_Answ._ 1. 1 Cor. vii. 14, "Now are your children holy." They are not

wholly unholy who have all the fore-described holiness. 2. As infants

in nature want memory and actual reason, and yet initially are men;

so, as Christ's members, they may want actual and habitual faith and

love, and yet initially be sanctified, by their union with him and his

Spirit, and their parents' dedication, and be in the way for more, as

they grow fit; and be christians and saints _in fieri_, or initially

only, as they are men.

[281] Matt. xxviii. 19, 20; 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13; Eph. iv. 4, 5.

[282] The Spirit is not given radically or immediately to any

christian, but to Christ our Head alone, and from him to us.

[283] Acts xxvi. 8; 2 Tim. iv. 7; Rom. viii. 30; Gal. iv. 6.

[284] Rom. viii. 9, 16, 26.

[285] Mr. Whiston, p. 60, showeth, That even the promises of a new

heart, &c. Ezek. xxxvi. xxxvii. &c. though they may run in the

external tenor of them absolutely, yet are not absolutely absolute,

but have a subordinate condition, and that is, that the parties

concerned in them do faithfully use the means appointed of God in a

subserviency to his working in or bestowing on them the good promised.

[286] God's being a God to any individual person doth require and

presuppose that they do for the present, supposing them capable, or

for the future as soon as capable, take God in Christ as their God.

Ibid. p. 61.

Quest. XLIII. _Is the right of the baptized (infants or adult) to the

sanctifying operations of the Holy Ghost, now absolute, or suspended

on further conditions? And are the parents' further duties for their

children such conditions of their children's reception of the actual

assistances of the Spirit? Or are children's own actions such

conditions? And may apostate parents forfeit the covenant benefits to

their baptized infants or not?_

_Answ._ The question is great and difficult, and few dare meddle with

it. And almost all infant cases are to us obscure.

I. 1. It is certain that it is the parents' great duty to bring up

their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

2. It is certain that God hath appointed this to be the means of their

actual knowledge, faith, and holiness.[287]

3. And God doth not appoint such means unnecessarily or in vain: nor

may we ordinarily expect his grace but in the use of the means of

grace, which he hath appointed us to use.

4. It is certain that God's receiving the children of the faithful, is

an act of God's love to the parents as well as the children, and

promised as a part of his blessing on themselves.

5. It is certain that these parents hold their own mercies upon the

condition of their own continued fidelity: and (let their apostasy be

on other reasons never so impossible, or not future, yet) the promise

of continuance and consummation of the personal felicity of the

greatest saint on earth, is still conditional, upon the condition of

his persevering fidelity.

6. Even before children are capable of instruction, there are certain

duties imposed by God on the parents for their sanctification; viz. 1.

That the parents pray earnestly and believingly for them. 2. That they

themselves so live towards God as may invite him still to bless their

children for their sakes, as he did Abraham's, and usually did to the

faithful's seed.[288]

7. It is certain that the church ever required parents, not only to

enter their children into the covenant, and so to leave them, but to

do their after duty for their good, and to pray for them, and educate

them according to their covenant.

8. It is plain that if there were none to promise so to educate them,

the church would not baptize them. And God himself, who allowed the

Israelites, and still alloweth us to bring our children into his

covenant, doth it on this supposition, that we promise also to go on

to do our duty for them, and that we actually do it.

9. All this set together maketh it plain, 1. That God never promiseth

the adult in baptism, though true believers, that he will work in them

all graces further by his sanctifying Spirit, let them never so much

neglect or resist him; or that he will absolutely see that they never

shall resist him: nor that the Spirit shall still help them, though

they neglect all his means; or that he will keep them from neglecting

the means (election may secure this to the elect as such; but the

baptismal covenant as such, secureth it not to the baptized, nor to

believers as such). 2. And consequently that infants are in covenant

with the Holy Ghost still conditionally as their parents are; and that

the meaning of it is that the Holy Ghost as your Sanctifier will

afford you all necessary help, in the use of those means which he hath

appointed you to receive his help in.[289]

_Object._ Infants have no means to use.

_Answ._ While infants stand on their parents' account, or wills, the

parents have means to use for the continuance of their grace, as well

as for the beginning of it.

10. Therefore I cannot see but that if a believer should apostatize,

(whether any do so is not the question) and his infant not to be made

another's child, he forfeiteth the benefits of the covenant to his

infant. But if the propriety in the infant be transferred to another,

it may alter the case.

11. And how dangerously parents may make partial forfeitures of the

Spirit's assistance to their children, and operations on them, by

their own sinful lives, and neglect of prayer, and of prudent and holy

education, even in particular acts, I fear many believing parents

never well considered.

12. Yet is not this forfeiture such as obligeth God to deny his

Spirit; for he may do with his own, as a free benefactor, as he list;

and may have mercy freely, beyond his promise, (though not against his

word,) on whom he will have mercy. But I say that he that considereth

the woeful unfaithfulness and neglect of most parents, even the

religious, in the great work of holy educating their children, may

take the blame of their ungodliness on themselves, and not lay it on

Christ or the Spirit who was in covenant with them as their

Sanctifier, seeing he promised but conditionally to give them the

sanctifying heavenly influences of his life, light, and love, in their

just use of his appointed means, according to their abilities.[290]

13. Also as soon as children come to a little use of reason, they

stand conjunctly on their parents' wills and on their own. As their

parents are bound to teach and rule them, so they are bound to learn

of them and be ruled by them for their good. And though every sin of a

parent or a child be not a total forfeiture of grace, yet both their

notable actual sins may justly be punished, with a denial of some

further help of the Spirit which they grieve and quench.

II. And now I may seasonably answer the former question, whether

infants' baptismal saving grace may be lost, of which I must for the

most that is to be said refer the reader to Davenant (in Mr. Bedford's

book) on this subject, and to Dr. Samuel Ward joined with it, (though

Mr. Gataker's answers are very learned and considerable,) and to my

small book called "My Judgment of Perseverance."

Augustine, who first rose up for the doctrine of perseverance, against

its adversaries, carried it no higher than to all the elect as such,

and not at all to all the sanctified; but oft affirmeth that some that

were justified, sanctified, and love God, and are in a state of

salvation, are not elect, and fall away; but since the reformation,

great reasons have been brought to carry it further to all the truly

sanctified; of which cause Zanchius was one of the first learned and

zealous patrons, that with great diligence in long disputations

maintained it. All that I have now to say is, that I had rather with

Davenant believe that the fore-described infant state of salvation,

which came by the parents, may be lost by the parents and the

children, (though such a sanctified, renewed nature in holy habits of

love as the adult have be never lost,) than believe that no infants

are in the covenant of grace and to be baptized.

_Object._ But the child once in possession shall not be punished for

the parents' sin.

_Answ._ 1. This point is not commonly well understood. I have by me a

large disputation proving from the current of Scripture, a secondary

original sin, besides that from Adam, and a secondary punishment

ordinarily inflicted on children for their parents' sins, besides the

common punishment of the world for the first sin. 2. But the thing in

question is but a loss of that benefit which they received and hold

only by another. It is not so properly called a punishment for

another's sin, as a non-deliverance, or a non-continuance of their

deliverance, which they were to receive on the condition of another's

duty.

_Object._ But the church retaineth them as her members, and so their

right is not lost by the fault or apostasy of the parents.

_Answ._ 1. Lost it is one way or other, with multitudes of true

christians' children, who never show any signs of grace, and prove

sometimes the worst of men. And God breaketh not his covenant.

2. How doth the church keep the Greeks' children that are made

janizaries?

3. No man stayeth in the church without title. If the church or any

christians take them as their own, that is another matter. I will not

now stay to discuss the question, whether apostates' baptized infants

be still church members? But what I have said of their right before

God, seemeth plain.

4. And mark, that on whomsoever you build an infant's right, you may

as well say, that he may suffer for other men's default; for if you

build it on the magistrate, the minister, the church, the godfathers,

any of them may fail; they may deny him baptism itself; they may fail

in his education; shall he suffer then for want of baptism or good

education when it is their faults? Whoever a child or a man is to

receive a benefit by, the failing of that person may deprive him of

that benefit. More objections I must pretermit, to avoid prolixity.

[287] Eph. vi. 4, 5; Col. iii. 21; Gen. xviii. 19; Deut. vi. 6-8; xi.

18-20.

[288] Second commandment. Prov. xx. 7.

[289] The Holy Ghost is promised in baptism to give the child grace in

his parents' and his own faithful use of the appointed means.

[290] Mr. Whiston, p. 53. As Abraham as a single person in the

covenant was to accept of and perform the conditions of the

covenant--so as a parent he had something of duty incumbent on him

with reference to his (immediate) seed; and as his faithful

performance of that duty incumbent on him in his single capacity, so

his performing that duty incumbent on him as a parent in reference to

his seed, was absolutely necessary in order to his enjoying the good

promised, with reference to himself and his seed: proved Gen. xvii. 1;

xviii. 19. He proveth that the promise is conditional, and that as to

the continuance of the covenant state the conditions are, 1. The

parent's upright life. 2. His duty to his children well done. 3. The

children's own duty as they are capable.

Quest. XLIV. _Doth baptism always oblige us at the present, and give

grace at the present? And is the grace which is not given till long

after, given by baptism: or an effect of baptism?_

_Answ._ I add this case for two reasons: 1. To open their pernicious

error who think that a covenant or promise made by us to God, only for

a future, distant duty, (as to repent and believe before we die,) is

all that is essential to our baptismal covenanting. 2. To open the

ordinary saying of many divines, who say, that baptism worketh not

always at the present, but sometimes only long afterward. The truth I

think may be thus expressed.

1. It is not baptism, if there be not the profession of a present

belief, a present consent, and a present dedition, or resignation, or

dedication of the person to God, by the adult for themselves, and by

parents for their infants. He that only saith, I promise to believe,

repent, and obey only at twenty or thirty years of age, is not morally

baptized; for it is another covenant of his own which he would make,

which God accepteth not.

2. It is not only a future, but a present relation to God, as his own,

his subjects, his children by redemption, to which the baptized person

doth consent.

3. It is a present correlation, and not a future only, to which God

consenteth on his part, to be their Father, Saviour, and Sanctifier,

their Owner peculiarly, their Ruler graciously, and their chief

Benefactor, and Felicity, and End.

4. It is not only a future but a present remission of sin, and

adoption and right to temporal and eternal mercies, which God giveth

to true consenters by his covenant and baptism.

5. But those mercies which we are not at that present capable of, are

not to be given at the present, but afterward when we are capable; as

the particular assistances of the Spirit, necessary upon all future

particular occasions, &c.; the pardon of future sins; actual

glorification, &c.[291]

6. And the duties which are to be performed only for the future, we

must promise at present to perform only for the future, in their

season, to our lives' end. Therefore we cannot promise that infants

shall believe, obey, or love God, till they are naturally capable of

doing it.

7. If any hypocrite do not indeed repent, believe, or consent when he

is baptized, or baptizeth his child, he so far faileth in the covenant

professed; and so much of baptism is undone; and God doth not enter

into the present covenant relations to him, as being incapable

thereof.[292]

8. If this person afterwards repent and believe, it is a doing of the

same thing which was omitted in baptism, and a making of the same

covenant; but not as a part of his baptism itself, which is long past.

9. Nor is he hereupon to be re-baptized; because the external part was

done before, and is not to be twice done; but the internal part which

was omitted, is now to be done, not as a part of baptism, (old or

new,) but as a part of penitence, for his omission.

_Object._ If covenanting be a part of baptism, then this person, whose

covenant is never a part of his baptism, doth live and die unbaptized.

_Answ._ As baptism signifieth only the external ordinance, heart

covenanting is no part of it, but the profession of it is; and if

there was no profession of faith made, by word or sign, the person is

unbaptized. But as baptism signifieth the internal part with the

external, so he will be no baptized person while he liveth; that is,

one that in baptism did truly consent, and receive the spiritual

relations to God; but he will have the same thing in another way of

God's appointment.

10. When this person is after sanctified, it is by God's performance

of the same covenant in specie, which baptism is made to seal, that

God doth pardon, justify, and adopt him; but this is not by his past

baptism as a cause, but by after grace and absolution. The same

covenant doth it, but not baptism; because indeed the covenant or

promise saith, Whenever thou believest and repentest, I will forgive

thee; but baptism saith, Because thou now believest, I do forgive

thee, and wash away thy sin; and maketh present application.

11. So if an infant or adult person live without grace, and at age be

ungodly, his baptismal covenant is violated; and his after conversion

(or faith and repentance) is neither the fulfilling of God's covenant,

nor of his baptism neither. The reason is, because though pardon and

adoption be given by that conditional covenant of grace which baptism

sealeth, yet so is not that first grace of faith and repentance which

is the condition of pardon and adoption, and the title to baptism

itself. Else infidels should have right to baptism, and thereby to

faith and repentance. But these are only the free gifts of God to the

elect, and the fulfilling of some absolute predictions concerning the

calling of the elect, and the fulfilling of God's will or covenant to

Christ the Mediator, that "He shall see the travail of his soul and be

satisfied," and possess those that are given him by the Father.

12. But when the condition of the covenant is at first performed by

the parent for the infant, and this covenant never broken on this

child's behalf, (notwithstanding sins of infirmity,) in this case the

first actual faith and repentance of children as they grow up, is from

God's fulfilling of his baptismal covenant with them. The reason is,

because that God in that covenant did give them a right of relation to

the Holy Spirit in Christ their Head, as their Sanctifier, to operate

on them as they are capable. But if they first prove apostates and be

after converted, God is disobliged (yea, to hypocrites never was

obliged) as to the engagement made by him in baptism; and doth now, 1.

Freely give them faith and repentance as a benefactor to his elect,

and then, 2. As a covenanter give them pardon and adoption, &c.

13. So to the adult, that truly made the baptismal covenant and never

apostatized from it, all the grace that God giveth them through their

lives, is his fulfilling of his promises made to them, and sealed by

baptism, and a fruit of their baptism. But to hypocrites and apostates

it is otherwise, as is before explained.

[291] Rom. vi. 1, 4, 6, 7, &c.

[292] Acts viii. 37, 38; xiii. 20-23.

Quest. XLV. _What is a proper violation of our baptismal covenant?_

_Answ._ Note well, that there is a wide difference between these

questions, 1. When doth a man miss of, or lose, his present part in

the covenant or promise of God in the gospel?[293] (This is as long as

he is impenitent, an unbeliever and refuser.) 2. When doth a man

totally lose his part and hope in that promise or covenant of God, so

as to be liable to all the penalty of it? (That is only by final

impenitence, unbelief and refusal, when life is ended.) 3. And when

doth a man violate his own covenant or promise made to God in baptism?

Which is our present question. To which I answer,

1. This promise hath parts essential and parts integral: we promise

not both these parts alike, nor on the same terms; though both be

promised. The essential parts, are our essential duties of

christianity, (faith, love, repentance in the essential parts,) &c.

The integrals are the integral duties of Christianity.[294]

2. He that performeth not the essential duties is an apostate, or

hypocrite.

3. He that performeth not the integral duties is a sinner, not only

against the law of nature, and Christ's precepts, but his own promise;

(and in this sense we all confess our breach of covenant with Christ;)

but he is no apostate, hypocrite, or out of covenant.

[293] John iii. 16-18, 36; i. 11-13.

[294] 2 Pet. ii. 20-23; Heb. vi. 2, 4-8; x. 26-28; 1 John i. 9, 10;

James iii. 2, 3.

Quest. XLVI. _May not baptism in some cases be repeated? And when?_

_Answ._ 1. You must distinguish between baptism, taken morally, or

only physically. 2. Between baptism morally, as it is a church or

visible covenant, and as a heart covenant. 3. Between real baptism,

and seeming baptism, which is a nullity. 4. Between certain reception

of baptism, and that which is uncertain or justly doubted of. And so I

answer,

1. Real and certain baptism as a visible church ordinance may not be

repeated; though the heart covenant was wanting; and though it wanted

not only decent modes, but integral parts.

2. But in these cases baptism may be used where it seemed to have been

received before.

1. When the person made no profession of the christian faith (nor his

parents for him, if an infant). 2. If that profession notoriously

wanted an essential part; as if he only professed to believe in God

the Father, and not in the Son, or the Holy Ghost. 3. If the minister

only baptized him into the name of the Father, or Son, or left out any

essential part. 4. If the person or ministry only contracted for a

distant futurity, (as, I will be a christian when I am old, &c.) and

not for the present; which is not to be christened, but only to

promise to be christened hereafter. 5. If all application of water (or

any watery element) was omitted, which is the external sign. 6. Of the

baptizer's power I shall speak anon. 7. If the church or the person

himself have just cause of doubting, whether he was truly baptized or

not, to do it again, with hypothetical expressions, If thou art not

baptized, I baptize thee; yea, or simply while that is understood, is

lawful, and fit. And it is not to be twice baptized morally, but only

physically, as I have fully opened in the question of re-ordination,

to which I must refer the reader.

3. And I confess I make little doubt but that those in Acts xix. were

re-baptized, notwithstanding the witty evasion invented by Phil.

Marnixius Aldegondus, and Beza's improvement of it, and the now common

reception of that interpretation.[295]

For, 1. A new and forced exposition which no reader dreameth of till

it be put into his head, is usually to be suspected, lest art deceive

us.

[Sidenote: Whether it were re-baptizing.]

2. The omission of the Holy Ghost is an essential defect, and maketh

baptism specifically another thing; and he were now to be re-baptized

who should be so baptized.

3. Whatever some say in heat against the papists, John's baptism and

our christian baptism are so specifically distinct also, that he that

had now but John's were to be yet baptized: the person of the Messiah

himself being not determinately put into John's baptism as such. Nor

can it be supposed that all the Jews that John baptized, were baptized

into the profession of faith in this numerical person Jesus, but only

to an unknown Saviour undetermined: however he pointed to Christ in

the hearing of some of his disciples. We must not run from plain

truth in peevishness or opposition to papists or any other men.

4. The fifth verse would not be true of John's baptism, as the history

showeth, that "when John's hearers heard this, they were baptized into

the name of the Lord Jesus." This is contrary to the text that

recordeth it.

5. In the fourth verse, the words "that is, on Christ Jesus" are

plainly Paul's expository words of John's, and not John's words. John

baptized them "into the name of the Messiah that should come after

him," which indeed, saith Paul, was Christ Jesus, though not then

personally determined by John.

6. The connexion of the fourth, fifth, and sixth verses puts all out

of doubt. 1. In the fourth verse the last words are Paul's, "that is,

on Christ Jesus." 2. In the next words, verse 4, "When they heard

this, they were baptized," &c. must refer to the last words, or to his

that was speaking to them. 3. Verse 6, the pronoun "them," "when Paul

had laid his hands on them," plainly referreth to them last spoken of,

verse 5, which therefore were not John's hearers as such. 4. And the

words, "they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus," are

plainly distinctive from John's baptism. Saith Grotius, _Sic accepere

Latinus, Syrus, Arabs, et Veteres omnes ante Marnixium (ut verba

Lucæ)_. Yet I say not so hardly of John's baptism, as Tertullian on

this text, (de Baptis.) _Adeo postea in Actis apostolorum invenimus,

quoniam qui Johannis baptismum habebant, non accepissent Spiritum

Sanctum, quem ne auditu quidam noverant: ergo non erat cœleste,

quod cœlestia non exhibebat._ See Dr. Hammond in loc.

[295] Of Acts xix. 1-5.

Quest. XLVII. _Is baptism by laymen or women lawful in cases of

necessity? Or are they nullities, and the person to be re-baptized._

_Answ._ I. I know some of the ancients allowed it in necessity. But I

know no such necessity that can be: for, 1. God hath expressly made it

a part of the ministerial office by commission, Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.

2. He hath no where given to any other either command to oblige them

to do it or commission to authorize them, or promise to bless and

accept them in it, or threatening if they omit it. 3. He oft severely

punisheth such as invade the sacred function, or usurp any part of it.

4. Therefore it is a sin in the doer, and then there can be no

necessity of it in such a case in the receiver. 5. He that is in

covenant by open, professed consent, wants nothing necessary to his

salvation, either _necessitate medii vel præcepti_, when it cannot be

had in a lawful way.

II. As to the nullity, I will not determine so controverted a point

any further than to say, 1. That if the layman had the counterfeit

orders of a minister, and had possession of the place, and were taken

for one, his deceit deprived not the receiver of his right, nor made

it his sin, and I should not re-baptize him, if after discovered.

2. But if he were in no possession, or pretence of the office, I would

be baptized again, if it were my case; because I should fear that what

is done in Christ's name by one that notoriously had no authority from

him to do it, is not owned by Christ as his deed, and so is a nullity.

As if a deceiver go in my name to make bargains for me.

3. And if any that had after discovered a minister to be indeed no

minister that baptized him, should doubt of the validity, and for

certainty have it done again by an authorized minister, I would not

discommend him: nor would I account it morally twice baptizing, but a

physical repeating of that act which morally is but one (as I

explained before of re-ordination).

Therefore if one that was a gross heretic in the very essentials, or

an infidel, or one that had not knowledge and parts essentially

necessary to the ministry, baptize one, (in right words,) I would not

blame him that for certainty would have an authorized person to do it;

especially if he was notoriously such a one when he did it. Let those

that are angry with this resolution be as fair to me as they will be

to Venerable Bede, and that great miracle-working bishop John, whom in

his ecclesiastical history he reporteth to baptize a man again in

England, merely because the priest that did it was so dull, ignorant,

and insufficient as in John's judgment to be uncapable of the office,

and therefore had been by him forbidden to use it, though the person

baptized (at age) knew not this:[296] viz. Herebaldus, ut Bed. l. v.

c. 6.

[296] Of which before.

Quest. XLVIII. _May anabaptists, that have no other error, be

permitted in church communion?_

_Answ._ Yes: and tolerated in their own practice also: for, 1. They

agree with us in all points absolutely necessary to communion.

2. The ancient christians had liberty either to baptize, or to let

them stay till age, as they thought best; and therefore Tertullian and

Nazianzen speak against haste; and Augustine and many children of

christian parents were baptized at age.

3. The controversy is of so great difficulty, that if in all such

cases none that differ be tolerated, we may not live together in the

world or church, but endlessly excommunicate or persecute one another.

4. Such sober antipædobaptists will consent, to profess openly, that

they do devote their children to God according to all the power or

duty which they can find communicated or laid upon them in the word of

God; and that if they believed that God would accept them into his

covenant upon their dedication, they would willingly do it. And that

actually they do offer them to God according to their power, and

promise to bring them up in his way. And who can force men's wills to

choose aright for themselves or others?

Quest. XLIX. _May one offer his child to be baptized, with the sign of

the cross, or the use of chrism, the white garment, milk and honey, or

exorcism, as among the Lutherans, who taketh these to be unlawful

things?_

_Answ._ I am not now to meddle with the question, whether they be

lawful? but to this question I answer,

1. He that judgeth them unlawful, must first do his best to be certain

whether they be so or not.

2. If so, he must never approve of them, or consent to them.

3. He must not offer his child to be so baptized, when, _cætesris

paribus_, he may have it done in a better manner on lawful terms.

4. But when he cannot lawfully have better, he may and must offer his

child to them that will so baptize him, rather than to worse, or none

at all: because baptism is God's ordinance and his privilege, and the

sin is the minister's, and not his. Another man's sinful mode will not

justify the neglect of our duty; else we might not join in any prayer

or sacrament in which the minister modally sinneth; that is, with

none.

5. The milk and honey, white garment and chrism, are so ancient

(called by Epiphanius and others the traditions and customs of the

universal church) that the original of them is not known. And he that

then would not be so baptized, must not have been baptized at all.

6. But in this case he that bringeth his child to baptism, should make

known, that it is baptism only that he desireth; and that he disowneth

and disalloweth the manner which he accounteth sinful: and then he is

no consenter to it.

7. But where law, scandal, or great inconveniences forbid him, he is

not to make this profession openly in the congregation, but in that

prudent manner which beseemeth a sober, peaceable person; whether to

the minister in private, or to his neighbours in converse; it being

easy among neighbours to make known a man's dissent, without a

disorderly troubling of the church, or violating the laws of

obedience, civility, and peace.

8. But he must not, 1. Either offer his child to baptism, where the

ordinance is essentially corrupted, or worse than none. 2. Or where he

cannot be admitted without an actual sin of his own; as by false

professions, subscriptions, &c. For we must not do evil for good ends.

Quest. L. _Whence came the ancient universal custom of anointing at

baptism, and putting on a white garment, and tasting milk and honey?

And whether they are lawful to us?_

_Answ._ 1. We must remember that the signification of these was not by

a new institution of theirs, but by former custom of the countries

where they lived.[297] As, (1.) Anointing in Judea was like bathing at

Rome: it was taken in those scorching countries for a wholesome, and

easing, and comforting thing; and therefore used to refresh the weary

limbs of travellers, and to comfort the sick.

(2.) And it was the long accustomed ceremony also used on officers

accounted sacred, kings and priests, who were anointed at their

entrance and investiture.

(3.) White clothing and purple were then and there taken for the

noblest attire;[298] not appropriated to sacred things and persons;

but as scarlet lately in England, the garb only of great men. On which

account, not as a sacred vestment, but as an honourable clothing, when

the bishops began to be advanced, they were allowed to wear white

clothing, not only when they officiated, but at other times.

(4.) The milk and honey were there highly esteemed for food, and

accounted the character of the land of promise.[299]

2. Hereupon by application the churches used these signs in the sacred

ordinance of baptism: not by new institution of the signification, I

say, but by application of the old well-known signification.

3. As natural signs are commonly allowed to be applied to holy things,

so signs whose signification is of old and commonly stated and well

known by agreement or custom, do seem in this not to be different from

natural signs. Such are all words, as signs of our minds; no word

signifying any thing naturally, but by agreement or custom only. And

such is kneeling in prayer, and being uncovered, and many the like:

about some of which Paul appealeth to the custom of the churches of

God.[300]

4. It is most probable that these two things together brought in

anointing: (1.) The common use of anointing then, in both the foresaid

cases (common refreshment and sacred investiture). (2.) And the

mistake of all those Scripture texts, which command or mention

anointing metaphorical: as 1 John ii. 27, "The anointing which you

have received--teacheth you all things." Ezek. xvi. 9, "I washed thee,

I anointed thee with oil," &c. Psal. cv. 15; 1 Chron. xvi. 22, "Touch

not mine anointed." Rev. iii. 18.[301]

And withal reading that we are made kings and priests to God, and a

royal priesthood, they thought this might be signified by the usual

honorary signs of such, as well as by words to be called such. So that

they took it as if, in our age, the baptized should be set in a chair

of state, and sumptuously apparelled, and a feast made to solemnize

it, as they do at weddings, and the baptized person set at the upper

end, &c. which are significant actions and ceremonies; but they

intended them not as new sacraments, or any part of the sacrament, but

as a pompous celebration of the sacrament by such additional

ceremonial accidents.

5. And you must remember that they lived among infidels, where their

profession was made the common scorn, which tempted them by such

ostentation and pomp to seek to make it honourable, and to show that

they so accounted it, and to encourage those who were discourageable

by the scorn. On which account also they used the cross, and the

memorials of the martyrs.

6. Yet some, yea, many afterwards did seem to take the anointing for a

sacramental action. When they read that the laying on of hands was the

sign of giving the Holy Ghost, as distinct from baptism, and that the

Spirit is called in Scripture the anointing, they joined both

together, and made that which they now called the sacrament of

confirmation.

7. Whether the anointing, milk and honey, and the white garment, were

then sinful in themselves to the users, I determine not. But certainly

they proved very ill by accident, whilst at this door those numerous

and unlawful ceremonies have entered, which have so troubled the

churches, and corrupted religion; and among the papists, Greeks,

Armenians, Abassines, and many others, have made the sauce to become

the meat, and the lace to go for clothing, and turned too much of

God's worship into imagery, shadows, and pompous shows.

[297] Psal. xxiii. 5; xcii. 10; Luke vii. 46; Matt. vi. 17; Amos vi.

6; Psal. lxxxix. 20; Lev. xvi. 32; Luke xvi.

[298] Rev. iii. 4, 5, "They shall walk with me in white."

[299] Jam. v. 14; Mark vi. 13.

[300] 1 Cor. xi. 16.

[301] Rev. i. 6; v. 10; xx. 6; 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9.

Quest. LI. _Whether it be necessary that they that are baptized in

infancy, do solemnly at age renew and own their baptismal covenant,

before they have right to the state and privileges of adult members?

And if they do not, whether they are to be numbered with christians or

apostates?_

_Answ._ 1. Church membership is the same thing in infants and in the

adult.

2. Infants are naturally uncapable of doing all that in baptism which

the adult must do; as to understand, profess, &c. themselves.

3. The baptism of the adult, being the most complete, because of the

maturity of the receivers, is made the standing pattern in Scripture;

for God formeth his ordinances to the most perfect ordinary receivers.

4. Though an infant be devoted acceptably to God by his parent's will,

yet when he is at age it must be done by his own will.

5. Therefore a bare infant title ceaseth when we come to age, and the

person's title ceaseth, unless it be renewed by himself, or his own

consent. The reason is, because the conditions of his infant title

then cease: for his parent's will shall go for his no longer.

6. Regularly and _ad bene esse_ the transition out of the state of

infant membership into the state of adult membership should be very

solemn; and by an understanding, personal owning of the baptismal

covenant.[302]

7. There needeth no other proof of this, than, 1. That God in

Scripture never gave adult persons title to this covenant, but by

their own personal consent; and at the first institution of baptism,

both went together, (personal profession and baptism,) because the

receivers were adult. 2. And that infants are capable of baptism, but

not of personal profession. 3. Therefore though they are not to repeat

baptism, which was done before, yet they are bound to make that

profession at age which they never made before.

8. Where this solemn owning of their covenant cannot be had, (by

reason of church corruptions, and magistrates' prohibition,) there the

person's ordinary joining with the church, in the public profession

and worship, is to be taken for an owning it.

9. He that being baptized in infancy, doth no way at full age own his

baptismal covenant, is to be taken for an apostate: 1. Because his

infant title ceaseth. 2. And he notoriously violateth his covenant. 3.

Because he can be no adult christian that no way owneth Christ.

10. But this is to be understood of those that have opportunity; for

one in a wilderness among heathens only, cannot join in public

worship, nor give testimony of his christianity to the church.

11. Though the sacrament of the Lord's supper be appointed for the

renewing of our covenant at age, yet is it not the first owning of the

covenant, by the aged: for that sacrament belongeth neither to infants

nor infidels; and he that claimeth it, must be an adult church member

or christian; which those are not, who at full age no way ever owned

their baptismal covenant, nor made any personal profession of

christianity.

But of this I have written purposely in a "Treatise of Confirmation"

long ago.

[302] See the proofs of all in my "Treatise of Confirmation."

Quest. LII. _Whether the universal church consist only of particular

churches and their members?_

_Answ._ No: particular churches are the most regular parts of the

universal church, but not the whole; no more than cities and

corporations be all the kingdom. 1. Some may be, as the eunuch,

baptized before they can come to any particular church; or as Paul,

before they can be received.[303]

2. Some may live where church tyranny hindereth them, by sinful

impositions; as all that live among the papists.

3. Some may live in times of doubting, distraction, and confusion, and

not know what church ordinarily to join with, and may providently go

promiscuously to many, and keep in an unfixed state for a time.

4. Some may be wives, children, or servants, who may be violently

hindered.

5. Some may live where no particular churches are; as merchants and

ambassadors among Mahometans and heathens.

[303] Acts viii. 37, &c.; ix. 17-20, 26-28.

Quest. LIII. _Must the pastor first call the church, and aggregate

them to himself, or the church first congregate themselves, and then

choose the pastor?_

_Answ._ 1. The pastors are in order of nature, if not in time, first

ministers of Christ in general, before they are related to a

particular charge.

2. As such ministers, they first make men fit to be congregate, and

tell them their duty therein.

3. But it is a matter variable and indifferent, whether the minister

first say, All that will join with me, and submit to me as their

pastor, shall be my particular charge; or the people before

congregated do call a man to be their pastor.

Quest. LIV. _Wherein doth a particular church of Christ's institution

differ from a consociation of many churches?_

_Answ._ 1. In that such particular church is a company of christians

associated for personal immediate communion in God's worship and in

holy living; whereas consociations of churches are combined for

mediate distinct communion, or by delegates, or representatives (as in

synods).[304]

2. Such a particular church is constituted of one or more pastors with

the people, officiating in the sacred ministry among them, in

doctrine, worship, and discipline, in order to the said personal

communion. But a consociation of churches hath no particular head as

such, of divine institution, to constitute and govern them as one. In

Ignatius's time every particular church was characterized or known by

two marks of unity: 1. One altar (that is, one place of assembling for

holy communion). 2. One bishop with the presbyters and deacons: and

two altars and two bishops proved two churches.

3. A particular church under one bishop or the same pastors, is a

political, holy society; but a combination of many churches

consociate, is not so, but only, 1. Either a community agreeing to

live in concord, as neighbour kingdoms may. 2. Or else a human policy

or society, and not of divine immediate institution. So that if this

consociation of churches be called a church, it must be either

equivocally or in a human sense.

[304] Acts ii. 1, 24, 44, 46; iv. 32; v. 12; 1 Thess. v. 12, 13; 1

Cor. xiv. 19, 23, 24, 28, 35; Acts xiv. 23; Titus i. 5; Acts xi. 26;

James ii. 2.

Quest. LV. _Whether a particular church may consist of more assemblies

than one? or must needs meet all in one place?_

_Answ._ 1. The true distinguishing note of a particular church is,

that they be associated for holy communion in worship and holy living,

not by delegates, nor distantly only, by owning the same faith, and

loving one another, as we may do with those at the antipodes; but

personally in presence.

2. Therefore they must necessarily be so near, as to be capable of

personal, present communion.[305]

3. And it is most convenient that they be no more than can ordinarily

meet in the same assembly, at least for sacramental communion.

4. But yet they may meet in many places or assemblies, as chapels, or

oratories, or other subordinate meetings, which are appointed to

supply the necessity of the weak and aged, and them that cannot travel

far. And in times of persecution, when the church dare not at all meet

in one place, they may make up several smaller meetings, under several

pastors of the same church. But they should come all together as oft

as they can.

5. And it is to be considered that all the persons of a family can

seldom go to the assembly at one time, especially when they live far

off. Therefore if a church place would receive but ten thousand, yet

twenty thousand might be members, while half meet one day and half

another (or another part of the day).

6. Two congregations distinctly associated for personal worship, under

distinct pastors, or having statedly (as Ignatius speaketh) two

bishops and two altars, are two particular churches, and can no

otherwise be one church, than as that may be called one which is a

consociation of divers.

[305] 1 Cor. xiv. 19, 23; Acts xi. 26, &c. as before cited.

Quest. LVI. _Is any form of church government of divine institution?_

_Answ._ Yea: there are two essentially different policies or forms of

church government of Christ's own institution, never to be altered by

man. 1. The form of the universal church, as headed by Christ himself;

which all christians own as they are christians in their baptism.

2. Particular churches, which are headed by their particular bishops

or pastors, and are parts of the universal, as a troop is of an army,

or a city of a kingdom.

Here it is of divine institution, 1. That there be holy assemblies for

the public worship of God.

2. That these assemblies be societies, constituted of the people with

their pastors, who are to them as captains to their troops under the

general, or as mayors to cities under the king.[306]

3. That these pastors have the power of the keys, or the special

guidance and governance (by the word, not by the sword) of their own

particular charge, in the matters of faith, worship, and holy living;

and that the flocks obey them. And when all this is _jure divino_, why

should any say, that no form of government is _jure divino_?

3. Moreover it is of divine appointment, that these churches hold the

nearest concord, and help each other as much as they can; whether by

synods, or other meet ways of correspondency. And though this be not a

distinct government, it is a distinct mode of governing.

_Object._ But that there be pastors with fixed churches or assemblies

is not of the law of nature.

_Answ._ 1. Hath Christ no law but the law of nature? Wherein then

differ the christian religion and the heathenish? 2. Suppose but

Christ to be Christ, and man to be what he is, and nature itself will

tell us that this is the fittest way for ordering the worship of God.

For nature saith, God must be solemnly and ordinarily worshipped, and

that qualified persons should be the official guides in the

performance, and that people who need such conduct and private

oversight besides, should where they live have their own stated

overseers.

_Object._ But particular congregations are not _de primaria intentione

divina_: for if the whole world could join together in the public

worship of God, no doubt that would be properly a church. But

particular congregations are only accidental, in reference to God's

intention of having a church, because of the impossibility of all

men's joining together for ordinances, &c.

_Answ._ 1. The question with me is not whether they be of primary

intention, but whether stated churches headed with their proper

bishops or pastors be not of God's institution in the Scripture?

2. This objection confirmeth it, and not denieth it. For, 1. It

confesseth that there is a necessity of joining for God's worship: 2.

And an impossibility that all the world should so join: 3. But if the

whole world could so join, it would be properly a church. So that it

confesseth that to be a society joined for God's public worship, is to

be properly a church. And we confess all this: if all the world could

be one family, they might have one master; or one kingdom, they might

have one king. But when it is confessed, that, 1. A natural

impossibility of a universal assembly necessitateth more particular

assemblies; 2. And that Christ hath instituted such actually in his

word, what more can a considerate man require?

3. I do not understand this distinction, _de primaria intentione

divina_, and accidental, &c. The primary intention is properly of the

ultimate end only: and no man thinketh that a law _de mediis_, of the

means, is no law, or that God hath made no laws _de mediis_: for

Christ as a mediator is a means. But suppose it be limited to the

matter of church laws; if this be the meaning of it, that it is not

the principal means, but a subordinate means, or that it is not

instituted only _propter finem ultimum_, no more than _propter se_,

but also in order to a higher thing as its immediate end, we make no

question of that. Assemblies are not only that there may be

assemblies; but for the worship and offices there performed: and those

for man; and all for God. But what of all this? Hath God made no laws

for subordinate means? No christian denieth it.

Therefore the learned and judicious disputer of this point declareth

himself for what I say, when he saith, I engage not in the

controversy, Whether a particular congregation be the first political

church or no? it sufficeth for my purpose, that there are other

churches besides.--The thing in question is, Whether there be no other

church but such particular congregations? Where it seemeth granted

that such particular churches are of divine institution; and for other

churches I shall say more anon. In the mean time note, that the

question is but _de nomine_ here, whether the name church be fit for

other societies, and not _de re_.[307]

But lest any should grow to the boldness to deny that Christ hath

instituted christian stated societies, consisting of pastors and

flocks, associate for personal communion in public worship and holy

living; (which is my definition of a particular church, as not so

confined to one assembly, but that it may be in divers, and yet not

consisting of divers such distinct stated assemblies with their

distinct pastors, nor of such as can have no personal communion, but

only by delegates;) I prove it thus from the word of God.

(1.) The apostles were commissioned by Christ to deliver his commands

to all the churches, and settle them according to his will, John xx.

21; Matt. xxviii. 19, 20, &c.

(2.) These commissioned persons had the promise of an infallible

Spirit for the due performance of their work, John xvi. 13-15; xv. 26;

xiv. 26; Matt, xxviii. 20.

(3.) These apostles, wherever the success of the gospel prepared them

materials, did settle christian stated societies, consisting of

pastors or elders with their flocks, associated for personal communion

in public worship and holy living. These settled churches they gave

orders to for their direction, and preservation, and reformation:

these they took the chief care of themselves, and exhorted their

elders to fidelity in their work. They gave command that none should

forsake such assemblies; and they so fully describe them, as that they

cannot easily be misunderstood. All this is proved, Acts xiv. 23;

Titus i. 5; Rom. xvi. 1; 1 Cor. xi. 18, 20, 22, 26; xiv. 4, 5, 12, 19,

23, 28, 33, 34; Col. iv. 16; Acts xi. 26; xiii. 1; 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2;

Acts xiv. 27; xv. 3, to omit many more. Here are proofs enow that such

particular churches were _de facto_ settled by the apostles. Heb. x.

25, "Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together." So James ii.

2, they are called synagogues.

2. It is confessed that there is a natural necessity of such stated

churches or assemblies, supposing but the institution of the worship

itself which is there performed; and if so, then we may that the law

of nature itself doth partly require them.

(1.) It is of the law of nature, that God be publicly worshipped, as

most expositors of the fourth commandment do confess.

(2.) It is of the law of nature that the people be taught to know God

and their duty, by such as are able and fit to teach them.

(3.) The law of nature requireth, that man being a sociable creature,

and conjunction working strongest affections, we should use our

sociableness in the greatest matters, and by conjunction help the zeal

of our prayers and praises of God.

(4.) God's institution of public preaching, prayer and praise, are

scarce denied by any christians.

(5) None of these can be publicly done but by assembling.

(6.) No assembly can suffice for these without a minister of Christ;

because it is only his office to be the ordinary teacher, and to go

before the people in prayer and praise, and to administer the Lord's

supper, which without a minister may not be celebrated, because

Christ's part cannot be otherwise performed, than by some one in his

name, and by his warrant to deliver his sealed covenant to the

receivers, and to invest them visibly in the benefits of it, and

receive them that offer themselves in covenant to him.

(7.) It is also a ministerial duty to instruct the people personally,

and to watch over them at other times, Acts xx. 20, 28. And to be

examples of the flock, 1 Pet. v. 1-3. To have the rule over the

people, and labour among them, and admonish them, 1 Thess. v. 12; Heb.

xiii. 7, 17; 1 Tim. v. 17. To exercise holy discipline among them,

Titus iii. 10; Matt. xviii. 17, 18; 1 Cor. v. To visit the sick and

pray over them, James v. 14. Yea, to take care of the poor. See Dr.

Hammond on 1 Cor. xii. 28. And all this cannot possibly be well done

by uncertain, transient ministers, but only by a resident, stated

pastor, no more than transient strangers can rule all our families, or

all the christian kingdoms of the world.

(8.) And as this cannot be done but by stated pastors, so neither on

transient persons ordinarily; for who can teach them that are here

to-day and gone to-morrow? When the pastor should proceed from day to

day in adding one instruction to another, the hearers will be gone,

and new ones in their place. And how can vigilancy and discipline be

exercised on such transient persons, whose faults and cases will be

unknown? Or how can they mutually help each other? And seeing most in

the world have fixed habitations, if they have not also fixed church

relations, they must leave their habitations and wander, or else have

no church communion at all.

(9.) And as this necessity of fixed pastors and flocks is confessed,

so that such _de facto_ were ordinarily settled by the apostles, is

before proved, if any Scriptures may pass for proof.

The institution and settlement then of particular worshipping churches

is out of doubt. And so that two forms of church government are _jure

divino_, the universal church form, and the particular.

[Sidenote: Reasons for a larger episcopacy.]

4. Besides this, in the apostles' days there were under Christ in the

church universal, many general officers that had the care of gathering

and overseeing churches up and down, and were fixed by stated relation

unto none. Such were the apostles, evangelists, and many of their

helpers in their days. And most christian churches think that though

the apostolical extraordinary gifts, privileges, and offices cease,

yet government being an ordinary part of their work, the same form of

government which Christ and the Holy Ghost did settle in the first

age, were settled for all following ages, though not with the same

extraordinary gifts and adjuncts. Because, 1. We read of the settling

of that form, (viz. general officers as well as particular,) but we

never read of any abolition, discharge, or cessation of the

institution. 2. Because if we affirm a cessation without proof, we

seem to accuse God of mutability, as settling one form of government

for one age only, and no longer. 3. And we leave room for audacious

wits accordingly to question other gospel institutions, as pastors,

sacraments, &c. and to say that they were but for one age. 4. It was

general officers that Christ promised to be with to the end of the

world, Matt. xxviii. 20.

Now either this will hold true or not. If not, then this general

ministry is to be numbered with the human additions to be next treated

of. If it do, then here is another part of the form of government

proved to be of divine institution. I say not, another church, (for I

find nothing called a church in the New Testament, but the universal

church and the particular,) but another part of the government of both

churches, universal and particular; because such general officers are

so in the universal, as to have a general oversight of the particular;

as an army is headed only by the general himself, and a regiment by

the colonel, and a troop by the captain: but the general officers of

the army (the lieutenants-general, the majors-general, &c.) are under

the lord-general in and over the army, and have a general oversight of

the particular bodies (regiments and troops). Now if this be the

instituted form of Christ's church government, that he himself rule

absolutely as general, and that he hath some general officers under

him, (not any one having a charge of the whole, but in the whole

unfixedly, or as they voluntarily part their provinces,) and that each

particular church have its own proper pastor, (one or more,) then who

can say, that no form of church government is of divine appointment or

command?

_Object._ But the question is only whether any sole form be of God's

commanding? And whether another may not have as much said for it as

this?

_Answ._ Either you mean another instead of this, as a competitor, or,

another part conjunct with these parts.

1. If the first be your sense, then you have two works to do. 1. To

prove that these before mentioned were mutable institutions, or that

they were settled but disjunctively with some other, and that the

choice was left indifferent to men. 2. To prove the institution of

your other form (which you suppose left with this to men's free

choice).

But I have already proved, that both the general and particular church

form are settled for continuance as unchangeable ordinances of God. I

suppose you doubt not of the continuance of Christ's supremacy, and

so of the universal form: and if you will prove that church assemblies

with their pastors may cease, and some other way supply the room, you

must be strange and singular undertakers. The other two parts of the

government (by general officers, and by consociation of churches) are

more disputed; but it is the circumstances of the last only that is

controverted, and not the thing; and for the other I shall now add

nothing to what I have said elsewhere.[308]

2. But if you only mean that another part of the form may be _jure

divino_ as well as this, that will but prove still that some form is

_jure divino_.

But, 3. If you mean that God having instituted the forms now proved,

hath left man at liberty to add more of his own, I shall now come to

examine that case also.

[306] Eph. i. 22, 23; v. 25, 26, &c.; iv. 4-6, 16; Heb. x. 25; 1 Cor.

xiv.; Acts xiv. 23; Titus i. 5; 1 Tim. v. 17; 1 Thess. v. 12, 13; 1

Tim. iii. 3-6; 1 Pet. v. 1-3; Acts xx. 28; Phil. i. 1, 2.

[307] Dr. Stillingfleet's Iren. p. 154. so p. 173. By church here I

mean not a particular congregation, &c. So he granteth that, 1. The

universal church, 2. Particular congregations, are of divine

institution; one _ex intentione primaria_, and the other, as he calls

it, accidentally, but yet of natural necessity.

[308] Disput. of Church Gov. disp. 3.

Quest. LVII. _Whether any forms of churches, and church government, or

any new church officers, may lawfully be invented and made by man?_

_Answ._ To remove ambiguities, 1. By the word forms may be meant

either that relative form of such aggregate bodies which is their

essence, and denominateth them essentially; or only some accidental

mode which denominateth them but accidentally.

2. By churches is meant either holy societies related by the

foundation of a divine institution; or else societies related by

accident, or by human contract only.

3. By church government is meant, either that government formally

ecclesiastical, which constituteth a church, of Christ's making; or

else some government about the matters of the church, which is

formally either magistratical or human, (by contract,) &c.

4. So by church officers are meant, either such as are accounted

essential to a church in the pure christian sense; or integral at

least (as deacons); or else such as are accounted but accidental to

it, and essential only to the human form. And so I answer,

1. As there are some things _circa sacra_, or accidents of God's

special church worship, which are left to human prudence to determine

of, so the same human prudence may determine who shall do them. As, e.

g. Who shall repair the buildings of the church; the windows, the

bells, the pulpits, the tables, &c.; who shall keep the clock; who

shall keep the cups, cloths, and other utensils; who shall be the

porter, the keeper of the books, &c.; who shall call the people to

church, or ring the bells, or give them notice of church assemblies;

who shall make the bread for the sacrament, or provide wine, or bring

water for baptism; who shall make the graves, and bury the dead, or

attend marriages, or baptizings, &c.; who shall set the tune of the

psalm, or use the church music (if there be any); who shall summon any

of the people on any just occasion to come to their pastors; or who

shall summon the pastors to any synod, or lawful assembly, and give

them notice of the time and place; when they are to meet, who shall be

called first, and who second; who shall sit highest, and who lowest;

who shall take the votes, or moderate or guide the disputations of the

assembly; who shall be the scribe, and record what is done; who shall

send abroad their agreements, and who shall be the church messenger to

carry them. The agents of such circumstantials maybe chosen by the

magistrate, or by the churches, or pastors, as is most convenient.

Though I doubt not but in the beginning the deacons were mere servants

to the pastors, to do as much of such circumstantial work as they

were able; of which serving at tables, and looking to the poor, and

carrying bread and wine to the absent, &c. were but parts; and all

went under the name of ministering to the pastors or churches. And

therefore they seem to be such an accidental office, appointed by the

apostles, on such common reasons, as magistrates or churches might

have appointed them, if they had not.

2. If one will call all or many of these, church officers, and another

will not, it is but a strife about names, which one will use more

largely and the other more narrowly or strictly.

3. If magistrates by authority, or the churches by agreement, shall

distribute the country for conveniency into parishes, (not making all

to be church members that dwell in those precincts, but determining

that all persons that are fit in those proximities, and they only,

shall be members of that particular church,) and then shall denominate

the church from this accident of place, it is but what is left to

their discretion.

4. And if the said magistrates or churches shall divide a kingdom into

provinces, and say, that whereas God commandeth us the use of

correspondencies, mutual advice, and synods, for the due help,

concord, and communion of churches, and all things must be done in

order and to edification; therefore we determine that so many churches

shall make up such a synod, and the churches of such a district shall

make up another synod, and so shall be specially related to each other

for concord as advisers, all this is but the prudent determining of

church circumstances or accidents left to man.

5. And if they shall appoint that either a magistrate or one pastor

shall be for order's sake the appointer of the times and places of

meeting, or the president of the synod, to regulate and order

proceedings, and keep peace, as is aforesaid, it is but an accident of

the sacred work which man may determine of. Therefore a layman may be

such a president or regulator.

6. And if they will call this man by the name of a church governor,

who doth but a common part therein, and from thence will call this

association or province by the name of a church, which is but a

company of churches associated for concord and counsel, the name

maketh it not another thing than it is without that name; and the name

may be lawful or unlawful as times and probable consequents make it

fit or unfit as to use.

7. So much of church matters as is left to the magistrate's

government, may be under monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy, and

under such subordinate officers as the supreme ruler shall appoint.

8. And if the magistrate will make assemblies or councils of pastors,

to be his councils, and require them frequently to meet to advise him

in the performance of his own trust and work about religion and the

church, he may accordingly distribute them into provinces for that

use, or order such circumstances as he please.

9. And if a province of churches be called one church, because it is

under one magistrate, or a nation of churches called a national

church, because it is under one king, or many kingdoms or an empire

called one catholic church, because they are all under one emperor; it

must be confessed that this question is but _de nomine_, and not _de

re_.

And further, 1. That in sacred things that which is of divine and

primary institution is the _famosius analogatum_, and not that which

is but formed by man. 2. That when such an ambiguous word is used

without explication or explicating circumstances, it is to be taken

for the _famosius analogatum_. 3. That in this case the word church or

church form is certainly ambiguous and not univocal. 4. That a

national, imperial, or provincial church as headed by a king, emperor,

magistrate, or any head of man's appointment, is another thing from a

church of Christ's institution; and is but an accident or adjunct of

it: and the head of the human form, if called the head of the church

of Christ, is but an accidental head, and not constitutive. And if

Christ's churches be denominated from such a head, they are

denominated but from an accident, as a man may be denominated clothed

or unclothed, clothed gorgeously or sordidly, a neighbour to this man

or that, &c. It is no formal denomination of a church in the first

acception, as it signifieth the _famosius analogatum_; though

otherwise many kind of societies may be called _ecclesiæ_ or

_cœtus_: but divines should not love confusion.

10. It seemeth to me that the first distribution of churches in the

Roman empire, into patriarchal, primates, metropolitical, provincial,

diocesan, were only the determination of such adjuncts or extrinsic

things, partly by the emperors, and partly by the church's consent

upon the emperor's permission; and so that these new church

governments were partly magistratical, or by power derived from the

emperors, and partly mere agreements or contracts by degrees

degenerating into governments; and so the new forms and names are all

but accidental, of adjuncts of the true christian churches. And though

I cannot prove it unlawful to make such adjunctive or extrinsic

constitutions, forms, and names, considering the matter simply itself,

yet by accident these accidents have proved such to the true churches,

as the accident of sickness is to the body, and have been the causes

of the divisions, wars, rebellions, ruins, and confusions of the

christian world. 1. As they have served the covetousness and ambition

of carnal men. 2. And have enabled them to oppress simplicity and

sincerity. 3. And because princes have not exercised their own power

themselves, nor committed it to lay officers, but to churchmen. 4.

Whereby the extrinsic government hath so degenerated, and obscured the

intrinsic, and been confounded with it, that both going under the

equivocal name of ecclesiastical government, few churches have had the

happiness to see them practically distinct.[309] Nay, few divines do

clearly in their controversy distinguish them. (Though Marsilius

Patavinus and some few more have formerly given them very fair light,

yet hath it been but slenderly improved.)

11. There seemeth to me no readier and directer way, to reduce the

churches to holy concord, and true reformation, than for the princes

and magistrates who are the extrinsic rulers, to re-assume their own,

and to distinguish openly and practically between the properly

priestly or pastoral intrinsic office, and their extrinsic part, and

to strip the pastors of all that is not intrinsically their own (it

being enough for them, and things so heterogeneous not well consisting

in one person): and then when the people know what is claimed as from

the magistrate only, it will take off most of their scruples as to

subjection and consent.

12. No mortal man may abrogate or take down the pastoral office, and

the intrinsic, real power thereof, and the church form which is

constituted thereby; seeing God hath instituted them for perpetuity on

earth.

13. But whether one church shall have one pastor or many is not at all

of the form of a particular church; but it is of the integrity or

gradual perfection of such churches as need many, to have many, and to

others not so: not that it is left merely to the will of man, but it

is to be varied as natural necessity and cause requireth.

14. The nature of the intrinsic office or power (anon to be described)

is most necessary to be understood as distinct from the power of

magistrates, by them that would truly understand this. The number of

governors in a civil state make that which is called a variety of

forms of commonwealths, monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy: because

commanding power is the thing which is there most notably exercised,

and primarily magnified. And a wiser and better man, yea, a thousand,

must stand by as subjects, for want of authority or true power; which

can be but in one supreme, either natural or political person; because

it cannot consist in the exercise with self-contradiction. If one be

for war, and another for peace, &c. there is no rule. Therefore the

many must be one collective or political person, and must consent or

go by the major vote, or they cannot govern. But that which is called

government in priests or ministers, is of another nature; it is but a

secondary subservient branch of their office: the first parts are

teaching and guiding the people, as their priests, to God in public

worship: and they govern them by teaching, and in order to further

teaching and worshipping God; and that not by might, but by reason and

love. Of which more anon. Therefore if a sacred congregation be taught

and conducted in public worship, and so governed as conduceth

hereunto, whether by one, two, or many, it no more altereth the form

of the church, than it doth the form of a school, when a small one

hath one schoolmaster, and a great one four: or of an hospital, when a

small one hath one physician, and a great one many; seeing that

teaching in the one, and healing in the other, is the main

denominating work, to which government is but subservient in the most

notable acts of it.

15. No mortal man may take on him to make another church, or another

office for the church, as a divine thing, on the same grounds, and of

the same nature pretendedly as Christ hath made those already made.

The case of adding new church officers or forms of churches, is the

same with that of making new worship ordinances for God, and

accordingly to be determined (which I have largely opened in its

place). Accidents may be added. Substantials of like pretended nature

may not be added; because it is a usurping of Christ's power, without

derivation by any proved commission; and an accusing of him, as having

done his own work imperfectly.

16. Indeed no man can here make a new church officer of this intrinsic

sort, without making him new work, which is to make new doctrine, or

new worship (which are forbidden): for to do God's work already made

belongs to the office already instituted. If every king will make his

own officers, or authorize the greater to make the less, none must

presume to make Christ officers and churches without his commission.

17. No man must make any office, church, or ordinance, which is

corruptive or destructive, or contrary or injurious to the offices,

churches, and ordinances which Christ himself hath made. This

Bellarmin confesseth, and therefore I suppose protestants will not

deny it. Those human officers which usurp the work of Christ's own

officers, and take it out of their hands, do malignantly fight against

Christ's institutions: and while they pretend that it is but

preserving and not corrupting or opposing additions which they make,

and yet with these words in their mouths, do either give Christ's

officers' work to others, or hinder and oppress his officers

themselves, and by their new church forms undermine or openly destroy

the old, by this expression of their enmity they confute themselves.

18. This hath been the unhappy case of the Roman frame of church

innovations, as you may observe in the particulars of its degeneracy.

(1.) Councils were called general or œcumenical in respect to one

empire only; and they thence grew to extend the name to the whole

world; when they may as well say, that Constantine, Martian, &c. were

emperors of the whole world, seeing by their authority they were

called.

(2.) These councils at first were the emperor's councils called to

direct him what to settle in church orders by his own power; but they

were turned to claim an imposing authority of their own to command the

churches as by commission from God.

(3.) These councils at first were only for counsel, or for agreement

by way of contract or mutual consent to the particular bishops; but

they degenerated into a form of government, and claimed a ruling and

commanding power.

(4.) The patriarchs, primates and metropolitans, at first claimed but

a power about circumstantials extrinsical to the pastoral office, such

as is the timing and placing of councils, the sitting above others,

&c. And the exercise of some part of the magistrate's power committed

to them, that is, the deposing of other bishops or pastors from their

station of such liberty and countenance as the magistrate may grant or

deny as there is cause. But in time they degenerated to claim the

spiritual power of the keys, over the other bishops, in point of

ordination, excommunication, absolution.

(5.) These patriarchs, primates, and metropolitans, at first claimed

their extrinsic power but from man, that is, either the consent and

agreement of the churches, or the grant of the emperors: but in time

they grew to claim it as of divine or apostolical appointment, and as

unalterable.

(6.) At first they were taken only for adjuncts, ornaments, supports,

or conveniences to the churches: but afterwards they pretended to be

integral parts of the church universal, and at last the pope would

needs be an essential part; and his cardinals must claim the power of

the church universal in being the choosers of a universal head, or a

king priest and teacher for all the christians of the world.

(7.) At first laymen (now called chancellors, &c.) were only the

bishops' counsellors, or officers to the magistrate or them, in

performing the extrinsical work about church adjuncts, which a layman

might do: but at last they came to exercise the intrinsic power of the

keys in excommunications and absolutions, &c.

(8.) At first a number of particular churches consociated with their

several bishops, were taken to be a community or company of true

churches prudentially cantonized or distributed and consociated for

concord; but after they grew to be esteemed proper political

societies, or churches of divine appointment, if not the _ecclesia

minimæ_, having turned the particular churches into oratories or

chapels, destroying Ignatius's character of one church, To every

church there is one altar, and one bishop with his presbyters and

deacons. Abundance more such instances may be given.

_Object._ Wherever we find the notion of a church particular, there

must be government in that church; and why a national society

incorporated into one civil government, joining into the profession

of christianity, and having a right thereby to participate of gospel

ordinances, in the convenient distributions of them in the particular

congregations, should not be called a church, I confess I can see no

reason.

_Answ._ 1. Here observe, that the question is only of the name,

(whether it may be called a church,) and not of the thing (whether all

the churches in a kingdom may be under one king, which no sober man

denieth).

2. Names are at men's disposal much; but I confess I had rather the

name had been used no otherwise, or for no other societies, than

Scripture useth it. My reasons are, (1.) Because when Christ hath

appropriated or specially applied one name to the sacred societies of

his institution, it seemeth somewhat bold to make that name common to

other societies. (2.) Because it tendeth to confusion, misunderstanding,

and to cherish errors and controversies in the churches, when all

names shall be made common or ambiguous, and holy things shall not be

allowed any name proper to themselves, nor any thing can be known by a

bare name without a description. If the name of Christ himself should

be used of every anointed king, it would seem not a little thus

injurious to him. If the name, Bible, Scripture, preachers, &c. be

made common to all that the notation of the names may extend to, it

will introduce the aforesaid inconveniences; so how shall we in common

talk distinguish between sacred societies of divine institution and of

human if you will allow us no peculiar name, but make that common

which Christ hath chosen?

3. And that the name is here used equivocally is manifest. For the

body political is informed and denominated from the _pars imperans_,

the governing part or head: therefore as a head of divine institution,

authorized for the spiritual or pastoral work, denominateth the

society accordingly; so a civil head can make but a civil society, and

a head of man's making, but a human society. It is certain that Christ

hath appointed the episcopal or pastoral office, and their work, and

consequently episcopal or pastoral churches; and it is certain that a

king is no constitutive part of one of these churches, but accidental;

and therefore that he is an accidental head to a pastoral church as

such, to which the pastor is essential.

Therefore if you will needs call both these societies churches, you

must distinguish them into pastoral churches, and regal churches, or

magistratical churches; for the word national, notifieth not the

government which is the constitutive part; and may be used of

consociated churches, though under many civil governors (as in the

Saxon Heptarchy).

So that our question is much like this, Whether all the grammar

schools in England as under one king may be called one national

school? _Answ._ Not without unfitness, and inconveniences; but rather

than breed any quarrel, they may call them so that please: but, 1.

They must confess that a particular school is the _famosius

significatum_. 2. That the king is king of schools, but not a

schoolmaster, nor a constitutive part of a school. 3. That if you will

needs denominate them from the regent part, as one, you must call them

all one royal school, if you will leave the well-known sense of words

for such uncouth phrases. But give us leave to call the body which is

essentiated by a king, by the name of a kingdom only, though it have

in it many schools, academies, colleges, cities, churches, which they

that please may call all one royal school, academy, college, city, and

church, if they love confusion.

4. Christianity giveth men right to communion in particular churches,

when they also make known their christianity to the bishops of those

churches, and are received (as stated or transient) members by mutual

consent; but not otherwise; nor doth mere regal government give any

subject right to church communion, except by a church you mean a

kingdom.

_Object._ A particular church then I would describe thus, It is a

society of men joined together in the visible profession of the true

faith, having a right to, and enjoying among them, the ordinances of

the gospel.

_Answ._ 1. When you tell us by your description what you will mean by

a particular church, we may understand your denomination; but yet

while it is unusual, you must not expect that other men so use the

word. Had you called your description a definition, I would have asked

you, 1. Whether by a society, you mean not strictly a political

society constituted by a _pars gubernans, et gubernata_? If not, it is

no church save equivocally. If so, should not the _pars regens_ which

is constitutive have been put in? If private men join together, &c. it

makes but a community. 2. A right to gospel ordinances is supposed,

but need not be in the definition. 3. The enjoying of them, is not

essential to a church. The relation may continue, when the enjoyment

is a long time hindered. 4. Among them is a very ambiguous word; is it

among them in the same place; or in the same country or kingdom; or in

the same world? If you difference and define them not, by relation to

the same bishops or pastors, and by intended personal holy communion,

your description confoundeth the universal church, as well as the

national, with a particular church; for the whole christian world, is

a society of men joining together in the visible profession of the

true faith, having a right to, and enjoying among them, the ordinances

of the gospel.

_Object._ A nation joining in the profession of christianity is a true

church of God; whence it evidently followeth, that there must be a

form of ecclesiastical government over a nation as a church, as well

as of civil government over it, as a society governed by the same

laws.--For every society must have its government belonging to it as

such a society; and the same reason that makes government necessary in

any particular congregation, will make it necessary for all the

particular congregations, joining together in one visible society, as

a particular national church, for the unity and peace of that church

ought much more to be looked after than any one particular

congregation, &c.

_Answ._ 1. From one absurdity many follow: our controversy before was

but of the name: if an accidental royal or civil head may equivocally

denominate an ecclesiastical society, and we grant you the use of an

equivocal name, (or rather the abuse,) you will grow too hard upon us,

if thence you will gather a necessity of a real ecclesiastical policy,

besides the civil. Names abused infer not the things signified by an

univocal term.

2. You must first prove the form of government, and thence infer the

denomination, and not, contrarily, first beg the name, and then infer

the government.

3. If yet by a form of ecclesiastical government, you meant nothing

but the king's extrinsic government, which you may as well call also a

form of school government, of college government, &c. we would grant

you all. But if I can understand you, you now speak of ecclesiastical

government as distinct from that. And then,

4. You are now grown up from a may be, to a must be, and necessity;

and a greater necessity of one national ecclesiastical government,

than of a particular church government; which being undeniably of

Christ's institution, (by the Holy Ghost in the apostles,) you do not

make all forms to be indifferent, or deny this to be _jure divino_.

What! necessary and more necessary than that which is _jure divino_,

and yet indifferent and not _jure divino_? If you say, It is necessary

only on supposition that there be a national church: I answer, But

your reasons evidently infer that it is also necessary that there be

such a national church where it may be had; though you deny the

necessity of monarchical government by one high priest in it. But I

know you call not this a form of government, unless as determinately

managed by one, many or most. But why a national spiritual policy as

distinct from congregational, may not be called a form of government,

as well as one man is distinct from two, over the same people, I see

not: but this is at your liberty. But your necessity of such a

national regimen is a matter of greater moment.

In these three senses I confess a national church. 1. As all the

christians in a nation are under one civil church governor. 2. As they

are consociated for concord, and meet in synods or hold

correspondences. 3. As they are all a part of the universal church,

cohabiting in one nation. But all these are equivocal uses of the word

church; the denomination being taken in the first from an accident; in

the second the name of a policy being given to a community agreeing

for concord; in the third the name of the whole is given to a small

integral part.

But the necessity of any other church, headed by your ecclesiastical,

national governor, personal or collective, monarchical,

aristocratical, or democratical, I utterly deny, and find not a word

of proof which I think I have any need to furnish the reader with an

answer to.

5. And your judgment in this is downright against the constitution,

canons, and judgment of the national church of England; for that they

use the word in the senses allowed by me, and not in yours, is proved,

(1.) From the visible constitution, in which there is (besides the

king) no distinct ecclesiastical head. For the archbishop of

Canterbury is not the proper governor of the archbishop of York and

his province.

(2.) From the canons. Can. cxxxix. "A national synod is the church

representative; whosoever shall affirm that the sacred synod of this

nation, in the name of Christ and by the king's authority assembled,

is not the true church of England by representation, let him be

excommunicated," &c. So that the synod is but the representative

church; and therefore not the political head of the church: whether it

be the laity, or the whole clergy, or both, which they represent,

representation of those that are no national head, maketh them not a

national head.

(3.) From the ordinary judgment of episcopal divines, (maintained by

Bishop Bilson and many others at large, against the papists,) that all

bishops _jure divino_ are equal and independent, further than human

laws, or agreements, or difference of gifts may difference them, or as

they are bound to consociation for concord.

6. How shall I deny not only the lawfulness, but the necessity of such

a papacy as really was in the Roman empire, on your grounds? I have

proved against W. Johnson that the pope was then actually but the head

of the imperial churches, and not of all the world. And if there must

be one national ecclesiastical head under one king, why not one also

in one empire? Or whether it be one monarch, or a collective person,

it is still one political person which is now in question. (Either a

ruling pope, or a ruling aristocracy or democracy, which is not the

great matter in controversy.)

7. And why will not the same argument carry it also, for one universal

visible head of all the churches in the world? at least as lawful? at

least as far as human capacity and converse will allow? And who shall

choose this universal head? And who can lay so fair a claim to it as

the pope? And if the form be indifferent, why may not the churches, by

consent at least, set up one man as well as many? Whether you carry it

to an imperial church, or a papal, to a patriarchal, or provincial, or

national, till you have proved it to be of divine institution, (and

particular churches to be unnecessary, alterable, and of human

institution,) I shall never grant you that it is to be preferred

before that which is unquestionably of God. For though I easily grant

that all the churches of a nation, empire, or the world, are to be

more esteemed and carefully preserved, than one bishop's or pastor's

particular church; yet I will not grant you that your human policy is

more necessary to the safety of all these churches than the divine.

For the safety of these churches may be better preserved by God's

three great means, (1. The polity of particular churches with the

conduct of their present faithful bishops or pastors. 2. The loving

consociation of neighbour churches for concord. 3. The protection and

countenance of magistrates,) without any new church form, (or

national, or imperial, or universal pastor,) than with it.

Nay, when that sort of usurpation hath been the very engine of

dividing, corrupting, and undoing the christian churches above a

thousand years, we are not easily persuaded now, that it is yet either

necessary or desirable.

8. But the best and easiest way to discern how far the making new

churches or church offices is lawful or unlawful, is by trying it by

the quality of their office work. For it is the work which giveth us

the description of the office; and the office of the ruling part,

which giveth us the definition of the church, which that office

constituteth.

The work which the new human officer is to do, is either, 1. The same

which God hath already appointed bishops or pastors to do, or at least

the unfixed ministers in the universal church. 2. Or it is such as he

hath appointed magistrates to do. 3. Or it is such as belongeth to

private and laymen. 4. Or it is somewhat different from all these.

1. If it be of the first sort, it is a contradiction. For men that are

by office appointed to do the same work which ministers are already

appointed to do, are not a new office, but ministers indeed, such as

Christ hath instituted: for the office is nothing but an obligation

and authority to do the work.