Part 3 — CASES OF CONSCIENCE, ABOUT MATTERS ECCLESIASTICAL. (continued 2)

From all which resulteth an office which is ministerially subordinate to Christ, 1. The Prophet or Teacher; 2. The Ruler; 3. The High Priest and Lover of his church; and it may be aptly called both a teaching ministry, a ruling ministry, (not by the sword, but by the word,) and a priesthood or priestly ministry.[257]

II. As the pastor is related to the church, he is, 1. A constitutive part of particular political churches. 2. He is Christ's minister for the church and for Christ; that is, to teach, rule, and worship with the church. He is above the church, and greater than it, as to order and power, and not the minister of the church as the efficient of the ministry: but he is less and worse than the church finally and materially; and is finally the church's minister, as the physician is the patient's physician; not made a physician by him, but chosen and used as his physician for his cure: so that to speak properly, he is not from them, but for them. He is Christ's minister for their good; as the shepherd is his master's servant, for his flock, and so finally only the servant of the sheep.[258]

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

Quest. XVIII. Whether the people's choice or consent is necessary to the office of a minister in his first work, as he is to convert infidels, and baptize them? And whether this be a work of office? And what call is necessary to it?

I conjoin these three distinct questions for expedition.

1. That it is part of the minister's office work to teach, convert, and baptize men, to bring them out of the world into the church, is undeniable; 1. In Christ's express commission, Matt. xxviii. 19, 20, "Go, disciple me all nations, baptizing them—" 2. In the execution of this commission.

2. That this was not peculiar to the apostles or their age is proved, 1. Because not an extraordinary work, like miracles, &c. but the first great business of the gospel and ministry in the world. 2. Because others as well as the apostles did it in that age, and ever since. 3. Because the promise is annexed to the office thus described, "I am with you always to the end of the world." Or if you translate it "age," it is the age of the church of the Messiah incarnate, which is all one. 4. Because it was a small part of the world comparatively that heard the gospel in the apostles' days.[259] And the far greatest part of the world is without it at this day, when yet God our Saviour would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5. Even where the gospel hath long continued, for the most part there are many still that are in infidelity. And so great a work is not left without an appointed suitable means for its performance: and if an office was necessary for it in the first age, it is not credible that it is left to private men's charity ever since. 6. Especially considering that private men are to be supposed insufficient; (1.) Because they are not educated purposely for it, but usually for something else. (2.) Because that they have other callings to take them up. (3.) Because they have no special obligation. And that which is no man's peculiar work, is usually left undone by all.

II. The people's call or consent is not necessary to a minister's reception of his office in general, nor for this part of his work in special; but only to his pastoral relation to themselves.

1. It is so in other functions that are exercised by skill. The patients or people make not a man a physician or lawyer, but only choose what physician shall be their physician, and what lawyer shall be their counsellor.

2. If the people's call or consent be necessary, it is either the infidels' or the church's. Not the infidels to whom he is to preach: for, 1. He is authorized to preach to them (as the apostles were) before he goeth to them. 2. Their consent is but a natural consequent requisite for the reception and success of their teaching, but not to the authority which is prerequisite. 3. Infidels cannot do so much towards the making of a minister of Christ. 4. Else Christ would have few such ministers. 5. If it be infidels, either all or some? If some, why those rather than others? Or is a man made a minister by every infidel auditory that heareth him?

2. Nor is it christian people that must do this much to the making of a general minister: for, 1. They have no such power given for it, in nature or the word of God. 2. They are generally unqualified and unable for such a work. 3. They are no where obliged to it, nor can fitly leave their callings for it; much less to get the abilities necessary to judge. 4. Which of the people have this power? Is it any of them, or any church of private men? or some one more than the rest? Neither one nor all can lay any claim to it. There is some reason why this congregation rather than another should choose their own pastors; but there is no reason (nor Scripture) that this congregation choose a minister to convert the world.

III. I conclude therefore that the call of a minister in general doth consist, 1. Dispositively in the due qualifications and enablement of the person. 2. And the necessity of the people, with opportunity, is a providential part of the call. 3. And the ordainers are the orderly electors and determiners of the person that shall receive the power from Christ.

1. For this is part of the power of the keys or church government. 2. And Paul giveth this direction for exercising of this power to Timothy, which showeth the ordinary way of calling; 2 Tim. ii. 2, "And the things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."[260] Acts xiii. 1-3, "There were in the church at Antioch certain prophets—As they ministered to the Lord, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them; and when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. And they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed." In this (whether it be called an ordination, or rather a mission) there is somewhat ordinary, (that it be by men in office,) and somewhat extraordinary (that it be by a special inspiration of the Holy Ghost).

And Timothy received his gifts and office by the imposition of the hands of Paul and of the presbytery. 1 Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6, 1 Tim. v. 22, "Lay hands suddenly on no man."

These instances make the case the clearer, 1. Because it is certain that all the governing power which is given by Christ to the church under the name of the keys, is given to the pastors. 2. Because there are no other competitors to lay a reasonable claim to it.

Quest. XIX. Wherein consistent the power and nature of ordination? And to whom doth it belong? And is it an act of jurisdiction? And is imposition of hands necessary in it?

I. This is resolved on the by before. 1. Ordination performeth two things: (1.) The designation, election, or determination of the person who shall receive the office. (2.) The ministerial investiture of him in that office; which is a ceremonial delivery of possession; as a servant doth deliver possession of a house by delivering him the key, who hath before received the power or right from the owner.

2. The office delivered by this election and investiture, is the sacred ministerial office in general to be after exercised according to particular calls and opportunities; as Christ called the apostles, and the Spirit called the ordinary general teachers of those times; such as Barnabas, Silas, Silvanus, Timothy, Epaphroditus, Apollos, &c. And as is before cited, 2 Tim. ii. 2. As a man is made in general a licensed physician, lawyer, &c.

3. This ordination is ordinis gratia, necessary to order; and therefore so far necessary as order is necessary; which is ordinarily, when the greater interest of the substantial duty, or of the thing ordered, is not against it. As Christ determined the case of sabbath keeping, and not eating the shewbread. As the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath, and the end is to be preferred before the separable means; so ordination was instituted for order, and order for the thing ordered, and for the work of the gospel, and the good of souls, and not the gospel and men's souls for that order. Therefore when, 1. The death; 2. Distance; 3. Or malignity of the ordainers depriveth a man of ordination, these three substitutes may notify to him the will of God, that he is by him a person called to that office: 1. Fitness for the works, in understanding, willingness, and ability; 2. The necessity of souls; 3. Opportunity.

II. The power of ordaining belongeth not, 1. To magistrates; 2. Or to private men, either single or as the body of a church; but, 3. To the senior pastors of the church (whether bishops or presbyters of a distinct order, the reader must not expect that I here determine).

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

2. None else are ordinarily able to discern aright the abilities of a man for the sacred ministry. The people may discern a profitable moving preacher, but whether he understand the Scripture, or the substance of religion, or be sound in the faith and not heretical, and delude them not with a form of well-uttered words, they are not ordinarily able to judge.

3. None else are fit to attend this work, but pastors who are separated to the sacred office.[261] It requireth more time to get fitness for it, and then to perform it faithfully, than either magistrates or people can ordinarily bestow.

4. The power is no where given by Christ to magistrates or people.

5. It hath been exercised by pastors or church officers only, both in and ever since the apostles' days, in all the churches of the world. And we have no reason to think that the church hath been gathered from the beginning till now, by so great an error, as a wrong conveyance of the ministerial power.

III. The word jurisdiction as applied to the church officers, is no Scripture word, and in the common sense soundeth too big, as signifying more power than the servants of all must claim; for there is "one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy."[262] But in a more moderate sense it may be tolerated; as jurisdiction signifieth in particular, 1. Legislation; 2. Or judicial process or sentence; 3. Or the execution of such a sentence, strictly taken; so ordination is no part of jurisdiction. But as jurisdiction signifieth the same with the power of government, jus regendi in general; so ordination is an act of jurisdiction. As the placing or choosing of inferior officers may belong to the steward of a family, or as the calling or authorizing of physicians belongeth to the college of physicians, and the authorizing of lawyers to the judges' society, or the authorizing of doctors in philosophy to the society of philosophers or to particular rulers. Where note, that in the three last instances, the learning or fitness of the said persons or societies, is but their dispositio vel aptitudo ad potestatem exercendam; but the actual power of conveying authority to others, or designing the recipient person, is received from the supreme power of the land, and so is properly an act of authority, here called jurisdiction.

So that the common distinguishing of ordination from jurisdiction or government, as if they were tota specie different, is unsound.

IV. Imposition of hands was a sign, (like the kiss of peace, and the anointing of persons, and like our kneeling in prayer, &c.) which having first somewhat in their nature to invite men to the use, was become a common significant sign, of a superior's benediction of an inferior, in those times and countries. And so was here applied ordinarily for its antecedent significancy and aptitude to this use; and was not purposely instituted, nor had its significancy newly given it by institution; and so was not like a sacrament necessarily and perpetually affixed to ordination.

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

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

V. I add as to the need of ordination, 1. That without this key, the office and church doors would be cast open, and every heretic or self-conceited person intrude.

2. It is a sign of a proud, unworthy person, that will judge himself fit for so great a work, and intrude upon such a conceit, when he may have the judgment of the pastors, and avoideth it.[263]

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

Quest. XX. Is ordination necessary to make a man a pastor of a particular church as such? And is he to be made a general minister and a particular church elder or pastor at once, and by one ordination?

I have proved that a man may be made a minister in general, yea, and sent to exercise it in converting infidels, and baptizing them, before ever he is the pastor of any particular church. To which I add, that in this general ministry, he is a pastor in the universal church, as a licensed physician that hath no hospital or charge, is a physician in the kingdom.

And, 1. As baptism is as such our entrance into the universal church, and not into a particular; so is ordination to a minister an entrance only on the ministry as such.

2. Yet a man may at once be made a minister in general, and the pastor of this or that church in particular: and in kingdoms wholly inchurched and christian, it is usually fittest so to do; lest many being ordained sine titulo, idleness and poverty of supernumeraries, should corrupt and dishonour the ministry: which was the cause of the old canons in this case.

3. But when a man is thus called to both at once, it is not all done by ordination as such; but his complicate relation proceedeth from a complication of causes. As he is a minister, it is by ordination. And as he is the pastor of this people, it is by the conjunct causes of appropriation: which are, 1. Necessarily the people's consent. 2. Regularly, the pastor's approbation and recommendation, and reception of the person into their communion. 3. And sometimes the magistrate may do much to oblige the people to consent.

4. But when a man is made a minister in general before, he needeth no proper ordination to fix him in a particular charge; but only an approbation, recommendation, particular investiture, and reception. For else a man must be oft ordained, even as oft as he removeth. But yet imposition of hands may fitly be used in this particular investiture, though it be no proper ordination, that is, no collation of the office of a minister in general, but the fixing of one that was a minister before.

Quest. XXI. May a man be oft or twice ordained?

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

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

2. It is needful therefore to know the essentials of ordination, from the integrals and accidentals.

3. He that was truly ordained before, may in some cases receive again the repetition of the bare words and outward ceremonies of ordination (as imposition of hands). Where I will, I. Tell you in what cases. II. Why.

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

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

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

4. Or in case that some real or supposed integral (though not essential) part was omitted, or is by the church or magistrate supposed to be omitted; and they will not permit or receive the minister to exercise his office, unless he repeat the whole action again, and make up that defect.

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

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

II. The reasons are, 1. Because this is not a being twice ordained. For the word ordination, signifieth a moral action, and not a physical only; as the word marriage doth, &c. And it essentially includeth the new dedication and designation to the sacred office, by a kind of covenant between the dedicated person and Christ to whom he is consecrated and devoted. And the external words are but a part, and a part only as significant of the action of the mind. Now the oft expressing of the same mental dedication doth not make it to be as many distinct dedications. For, 1. If the liturgy or the person's words were tautological, or at the ordination should say the same thing often over and over, or for confirmation should say often that which else might be said but once, this doth not make it an often or multiplied ordination: it was but one love which Peter expressed, when Christ made him say thrice, that he loved him; nor was it a threefold ordination which Christ used, when he said thrice to him, "Feed my lambs and sheep."

2. And if thrice saying it that hour make it not three ordinations, neither will thrice saying it at more hours, days, or months, or years distance, in some cases; for the time maketh not the ordinations to be many; it is but one moral action. But the common error ariseth from the custom of calling the outward action alone by the name of the whole moral action (which is ordinarily done to the like deceit in the case of the baptismal covenant, and the Lord's supper).

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

And if you should in witness-bearing be put to your oath, and the magistrate that was absent should say, Reach him the book again, I did not hear him swear, the doing it twice is not morally two witnessings or oaths, but one only twice physically uttered.

If you bind your son apprentice, or if you make any indentures or contract, and the writings being lost or faulty, you write, and sign, and seal them all again, this is not morally another contract, but the same done better, or again recorded. And so it is plainly in this case.

4. But re-ordination morally and properly so called, is unlawful: for, (1.) It is (or implieth) a lie, viz. that we were not truly dedicated and separated to this office before.

(2.) It is a sacrilegious renunciation of our former dedication to God: whereas the ministerial dedication and covenant is for life, and not for a trial; which is the meaning of the indelible character, which is a perpetual relation and obligation.

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

(4.) It tendeth to great confusions in the church; as to make the people doubt of their baptism, or all the ministerial administrations of such as are re-ordained, while they acted by the first ordination.

(5.) It hath ever been condemned in the churches of Christ, as the canons called the apostles', and the church's constant practice, testify.

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

6. When the ordainers, or the common estimation of the church, do take the repetition of the words and action for a re-ordination, though the receiver so intend it not, yet it may become unlawful to him by this accident, because he scandalizeth and hardeneth the erroneous, by doing or receiving that which is interpretative re-ordination.

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

(1.) If heretics should (as the Arians) say that we are no ministers, because we are not of their heresy, or ordained by such as they.

(2.) If the pope or any proud papal usurpers shall say, You are no ministers of Christ, except we ordain you; and so do it to establish a traitorous, usurped regiment in the church; it is not lawful to serve such a usurpation. As if cardinals or archbishops should say, None are true ministers but those that we ordain; or councils or synods of bishops or presbyters should say, None are true ministers but those that we ordain; or if one presbyter or one bishop without authority would thus make himself master of the rest, or of other churches, and say, You are no ministers unless I ordain you; we may not promote such tyranny and usurpation.

(3.) If magistrates would usurp the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical ordination, and say that none but they have power to ordain, we may not encourage such pretences by repetition of the words and action.

(4.) If they would make something necessary to ordination which is not, as if it were a false oath, or false subscription or profession, or some unlawful ceremony, (as if it were anointing, wearing horns, or any the like,) and say, You are no ministers without these, and therefore you must be re-ordained to receive them.

(5.) Yea, if they declare our former ministry causelessly to be null, and say, You are no ministers till you are ordained again, and so publicly put this sense upon our action, that we take it as re-ordination; all these accidents make the repetition of the words and actions to be unlawful, unless when greater accidents notoriously preponderate.

Quest. But if such church tyrants should have so great power, as that without their repetition of ordination on those terms, the ministry might not be exercised, is it lawful so to take it in a case of such necessity?

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

1. If you may not as publicly declare that you renounce not your former ministry and dedication to God in that office, as the ordainers declare their sense of the nullity of it, so that your open declaration may free you from the guilt of seeming consent, I conceive it is a sinful compliance with their sin. 2. Yea, if you may so declare it, yet if there be no necessity of your ministerial liberty in that place, I think you may not take it on such terms. As, (1.) If there be worthy men enough to supply the church's wants there without you. (2.) And if you may serve God successfully in a persecuted state, though to the suffering of your flesh. (3.) Or if your imprisonment for preaching be like to be as serviceable to the church and gospel as your continued preaching on those scandalous terms. (4.) Or if you may remove and preach in another country.

8. When any such case doth fall out, in which the repetition of the outward action and words is lawful, it is not lawful to mix any false and scandalous expressions: as if we were required to say falsely, I accept this ordination as confessing myself no minister of Christ till now: or any such like.

9. In a word, a peaceable christian may do much as to the mere outward action and submission, for obedience, peace, order, or satisfaction to his own or other men's consciences. But, (1.) He may do nothing for good ends which is false and injurious to the church.[264] (2.) And he may not do that which otherwise were lawful, when it is for evil ends, or tendeth to more hurt than good; as to promote heresy, or church tyranny and usurpation, whether in pope, prelates, presbyters, or people.

Quest. XXII. How many ordainers are necessary to the validity of ordination by God's institution? whether one or more?

My question is not of the ancient canons, or any human laws or customs, for those are easily known; but of divine right. Now either God hath determined the case as to the number of ordainers necessary, or not. If not, either he hath given the church some general rule to determine it by, or not. If not, then the number is not any part of the divine order or law; and then, if we suppose that he hath determined the case as to the ordaining office and not to the number, then it will follow that one may serve. The truth I think may be thus explained.

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

2. God hath given general rules to the ordainers for the due exercise of their office, though he have not determined of any set number. Such as are these: that all things be done in judgment, truth, love, concord, to the church's edification, unity, and peace, &c.

3. According to these general laws, sometimes the ordination of one sole ordainer, may not only be valid but regular; as when there are no other to concur, or none whose concurrence is needful to any of the aforesaid ends. And sometimes the concurrence of many is needful, (1.) To the receiver's satisfaction. (2.) To the church's or people's satisfaction. (3.) To the concord of pastors, and of neighbour churches, &c. And in such cases such consent or concourse is the regular way.

4. Where there are many neighbour pastors and churches so near, as that he that is ordained in one of them, is like oft to pass and preach, and officiate obiter in others, and so other churches must have some communion with him, it is meetest that there be a concurrence in the ordination.

5. The ordainer is certainly a superior to the person that cometh to be ordained while he is a private man; and therefore so far his ordination is (as is said) an act of jurisdiction in the large sense, that is, of government; but whether he be necessarily his superior after he is ordained, hath too long been a controversy. It is certain that the papists confess, that the pope is ordained such by no superior; and it is not necessary that a bishop be ordained by one or more of any superior order (or jurisdiction either). And though the Italian papists hold that a superior papal jurisdiction must needs be the secondary fountain of the ordaining power, though the ordainer himself be but of the same order; yet protestants hold no such thing. And all acknowledge that as imposition of hands on a layman to make him a minister of Christ or an officer, is a kind of official generation,[265] so the ordained as a junior in office, is as it were a son to the ordainer, as the convert is said to be peculiarly to his converter; and that a proportionable honour is still to be given him. But whether he that ordaineth a presbyter, and not he that ordaineth or consecrateth a bishop, must needs be of a superior order or office, is a question which the reader must not expect me here to meddle with.

Quest. XXIII. What if one bishop ordain a minister, and three, or many, or all the rest protest against it, and declare him no minister, or degrade him; is he to be received as a true minister or not?

Supposing that the person want no necessary personal qualification for the office, there are two things more in question; 1. His office, whether he be a minister. 2. His regularity, whether he came regularly to it; and also his comparative relation, whether this man or another is to be preferred. I answer therefore,

1. If the person be utterly incapable, the one bishop, or the many whosoever taketh him for incapable, is for the truth sake to be believed and obeyed.

2. If the man be excellently qualified, and his ministry greatly necessary to the church, whoever would deprive the church of him, be it the one or the many, is to be disobeyed, and the ordainers preferred.

Object. But who shall judge? Answ. The esse is before the scire; the thing is first true or false before I judge it to be so; and therefore whoever judgeth falsely in a case so notorious and weighty, as that the welfare of the church and souls is (consideratis considerandis) injured and hazarded by his error, is not to be believed nor obeyed on pretence of order; because all christians have judicium discretionis, a discerning judgment.

3. But if the case be not thus to be determined by the person's notorious qualifications, then either it is, 1. The man ordained. 2. Or the people that the case is debated by, whether they should take him for a minister. 3. Or the neighbour ministers.

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

2. The auditors are either infidels to be converted, (and these will take no man upon any of their authorities,) or else christians converted. These are either of the particular charge of the singular bishop who ordaineth, or not; if they be, then pro tempore for order's sake, they owe him a peculiar obedience, till some further process or discovery disoblige them, (though the most be on the other side). But yet they may be still bound in reason most to suspect the judgment of their singular bishop, while for order's sake they submit to it. But if they are not of his flock, then, I suppose the judgment and act of many is to prevail so much against the act of a single and singular person, as that both neighbour ministers and people are to disown such an ordained person as unfit for their communion under the notion of a minister (because communion of churches is maintained by the concord of pastors). But whether the ordained man's ministry be, by their contradictory declaration or degradation, made an absolute nullity, to himself and those that submit to him, neither I will determine, nor should any other strangers to the particular case; for if he be rejected or degraded without such cause and proof as may satisfy other sober persons, he hath wrong; but if he be so degraded, on proved sufficient cause, to them that it is known to, he giveth the degraders the advantage.[266]

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

2. And all particular churches are to hold correspondency and communion according to their capacity. So must men act in this and such like cases respectively according to the laws of obedience to their pastor, and of concord of the churches.

Quest. XXIV. Hath one bishop power by divine right to ordain, degrade, or govern, or excommunicate, or absolve, in another's diocess or church, either by his consent, or against it? And doth a minister that officiateth in another's church, act as a pastor, and their pastor, or as a private man? And doth the ministerial office cease when a man removeth from his flock?

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

1. Every true minister of Christ, bishop or pastor, is related to the universal church by stronger obligations than to his particular charge; as the whole is better than the parts, and its welfare to be preferred.

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

3. Yet he that hath a particular charge is especially and nearlier related and obliged to that charge or church, than to any other part of the universal (though not than to the whole); and consequently hath a peculiar authority, where he hath a peculiar obligation and work.

4. He that is (without degrading) removed from a particular church, doth not cease to be a general minister and pastor related to the universal church; as a physician put out of an hospital charge, is a physician still. And therefore he needeth no new ordination, but only a special designation to his next particular charge.

5. No man is the bishop of a diocess as to the measure of ground, or the place, by divine right, that is, by any particular law or determination of God; but only a bishop of the church or people: for your office essentially containeth a relation to the people, but accidentally only to the place.

6. Yet natural convenience, and God's general laws of order and edification, do make it usually (but not always) best, and therefore a duty, to distinguish churches by the people's habitation: not taking a man for a member eo nomine, because he liveth on that ground; but for order's sake taking none for members that live not on that ground, and not intruding causelessly into each other's bounds.

7. He that by the call or consent of a neighbour pastor and people doth officiate (by preaching, sacraments, excommunication, or absolution) in another's special charge for a day, or week, or month, or more, without a fixed relation to that flock, doth neither officiate as a layman, nor yet unlawfully or irregularly; but, 1. As a minister of Christ in the church universal. 2. And as the pastor of that church for the present time only, though not statedly; even as a physician called to help another in his hospital, or to supply his place for the time, doth perform his work, 1. As a licensed physician. 2. And as the physician of that patient or hospital for that time, though not statedly.

8. No man is to intrude into another's charge without a call; much less to claim a particular stated oversight and authority. For though he be not a usurper as to the office in general, he is a usurper as to that particular flock. It is no error in ordination to say, Take thou authority to preach the word of God, and administer the holy sacraments, when thou shalt be thereto lawfully called; that is, when thou hast a particular call to the exercise, and to a fixed charge, as thou hast now a call to the office in general.

9. Yet every bishop or pastor by his relation to the church universal, and to mankind, and the interest of Christ, is bound not only as a christian, but as a pastor, to do his best for the common good; and not to cast wholly out of his care a particular church, because another hath the oversight of it. Therefore if a heretic get in, or the church fall to heresy, or any pernicious error or sin, the neighbour pastors are bound both by the law of nature and their office, to interpose their counsel as ministers of Christ, and to prefer the substance before pretended order, and to seek to recover the people's souls, though it be against their proper pastor's will. And in such a case of necessity, they may ordain, degrade, excommunicate, and absolve in another's charge, as if it were a vacuity.

10. Moreover it is one thing to excommunicate a man out of a particular church, and another thing for many associated churches or neighbours to renounce communion with him. The special pastors of particular churches, having the government of those churches, are the special governing judges, who shall or shall not have communion as a member in their churches; but the neighbour pastors of other churches have the power of judging with whom they and their own flocks will or will not hold communion. As e. g. Athanasius may as governor of his flock declare any Arian member excommunicate, and require his flock to have no communion with him. And all the neighbour pastors (though they excommunicate not the same man as his special governors, yet) may declare to all their flocks, that if that man come among them, they will have no communion with him, and that at distance they renounce that distant communion which is proper to christians one with another, and take him for none of the church of Christ.[267]

Quest. XXV. Whether canons be laws? and pastors have a legislative power?

All men are not agreed what a law is, that is, what is to be taken for the proper sense of that word. Some will have the name confined to such common laws as are stated, durable rules for the subject's actions: and some will extend it also to personal, temporary, verbal precepts and mandates, such as parents and masters use daily to the children and servants of their families. And of the first sort, some will confine the name laws to those acts of sovereignty which are about the common matters of the kingdom, or which no inferior officer may make: and others will extend it to those orders which by the sovereign's charter, a corporation, or college, or school may make for the subregulation of their particular societies and affairs.

I have declared my own opinion de nomine fully elsewhere, 1. That the definition of a law in the proper, general sense, is to be a sign or signification of the reason and will of the rector as such, to his subjects as such, instituting or antecedently determining what shall be due from them, and to them; Jus efficiendo, regularly making right.

2. That these laws are many more ways diversified and distinguished, (from the efficient, sign, subjects, matter, end, &c.) than is meet for us here to enumerate. It is sufficient now to say, 1. That stated regular laws, as distinct from temporary mandates and proclamations. 2. And laws for kingdoms and other commonwealths, in regard of laws for persons, schools, families, &c. 3. And laws made by the supreme power, as distinct from those made by the derived authority of colleges, corporations, &c. called by-laws or orders (for I will here say nothing of parents and pastors, whose authority is directly or immediately from the efficiency of nature in one, and divine institution in the other, and not derived efficiently from the magistrate or any man). 4. That laws about great, substantial matters, distinct from those about little and mutable circumstances, &c. I say the first sort, as distinct from the second, are laws so called by excellency above other laws. But that the rest are univocally to be called laws, according to the best definition of the law in genere. But if any man will speak otherwise, let him remember that it is yet but lis de nomine, and that he may use his liberty, and I will use mine. Now to the question.

1. Canons made by virtue of the pastoral office and God's general laws (in nature or Scripture) for regulating it, are a sort of laws to the subjects or flocks of those pastors.

2. Canons made by the votes of the laity of the church, or private part of that society as private, are no laws at all, but agreements; because they are not acts of any governing power.

3. Canons made by civil rulers about the circumstantials of the church, belonging to their office, as orderers of such things, are laws, and may be urged by moderate and meet civil or corporal penalties, and no otherwise.

4. Canons made by princes or inferior magistrates, are no laws purely and formally ecclesiastical, which are essentially acts of pastoral power; but only materially ecclesiastical, and formally magistratical.

5. No church officers as such, (much less the people,) can make laws with a co-active or coercive sanction; that is, to be enforced by their authority with the sword or any corporal penalty, mulct, or force; this being the sole privilege of secular powers, civil, or economical, or scholastic.

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

7. They are no laws which pastors make to people out of their power: as the popes, &c.

8. There is no power on earth under Christ, that hath authority to make universal laws; to bind the whole church on all the earth; or all mankind. Because there is no universal sovereign, civil or spiritual, personal or collective.

9. Therefore it is no schism, but loyalty to Christ, to renounce or separate from such a society of usurpation; nor any disobedience or rebellion, to deny them obedience.

10. Pastors may and must be obeyed in things lawful as magistrates, if the king make them magistrates: though I think it unmeet for them to accept a magistracy with the sword, except in case of some rare necessity.

11. If pope, patriarchs, or pastors shall usurp any of the king's authority, loyalty to Christ and him, and the love of the church and state, oblige us to take part with Christ and the king against such usurpation, but only by lawful means, in the compass of our proper place and calling.

12. The canons made by the councils of many churches, have a double nature: as they are made for the people and the subjects of the pastors, they are a sort of laws; that is, they oblige by the derived authority of the pastors; because the pastors of several churches do not lose any of their power by their assembling, but exercise it with the greater advantage of concord. But as they are made only to oblige the present or absent pastors who separatedly are of equal office power, so they are no laws, except in an equivocal sense, but only agreements or contracts.[268] So Bishop Usher professed his judgment to be; and before him the council of Carthage in Cyprian's time; but it needs no proof, any more than that a convention of kings may make no laws to bind the kings of England, but contracts only.

13. But yet we are aliunde obliged even by God, to keep these agreements in things lawful, for the church's peace and concord, when greater contrary reasons, a fine, do not disoblige us. For when God saith, You shall keep peace and concord, and keep lawful covenants, the canons afford us the minor, But these are lawful contracts or agreements, and means of the church's peace and concord; therefore (saith God's law) you shall observe them. So though the contracts (as of husband and wife, buyer and seller, &c.) be not laws, yet that is a law of God which bindeth us to keep them.

14. Seeing that even the obliging commands of pastors may not by them be enforced by the sword, but work by the power of divine authority or commission manifested, and by holy reason and love, therefore it is most modest and fit for pastors (who must not lord it over God's heritage, but be examples to all[269]) to take the lower name of authoritative directions and persuasions, rather than of laws; especially in a time when papal usurpation maketh such ruinating use of that name, and civil magistrates use to take it in the nobler and narrower sense.

The questions, 1. If one pastor make orders for his church, and the multitudes or synods be against them; which must be obeyed, you may gather from what is said before of ordination. And, 2. What are the particulars proper, materially, to the magistrate's decision, and what to the pastor's? I here pass by.

Quest. XXVI. Whether church canons, or pastors' directive determinations of matters pertinent to their office, do bind the conscience? and what accidents will disoblige the people? you may gather before in the same case about magistrates' laws, in the political directions: as also by an impartial transferring the case to the precepts of parents and schoolmasters to children; without respect to their power of the rod (or supposing that they had none such).

Quest. XXVII. What are Christ's appointed means of the unity and concord of the universal church, and consequently of its preservation, if there be no human universal head and governor of it upon earth? And if Christ have instituted none such, whether prudence and the law of nature oblige not the church to set up and maintain a universal ecclesiastical monarchy or aristocracy; seeing that which is every man's work, is as no man's, and omitted by all?

I. To the first question I must refer you in part to two small, popular, yet satisfactory Tractates,[270] written long ago, that I do not one thing too oft. Briefly now,

1. The unity of the universal church, is founded in and maintained by their common relation to Christ the head (as the kingdom in its relation to the king).

2. A concord in degrees of goodness, and in integrals and accidentals of christianity, will never be obtained on earth, where the church is still imperfect; and perfect holiness and wisdom are necessary to perfect harmony and concord, Phil. iii. 12-14.

3. Experience hath long taught the church, if it will learn, that the claim of a papal headship and government over the church universal, hath been the famous incendiary and hinderer of concord in the christian world.

4. The means to attain such a measure of concord and harmony which is to be hoped for, or endeavoured upon earth, I have so distinctly, fully, and yet briefly described (with the contrary impediments) in my treatise of the "Reasons of Christian Religion," part vii. chap. 14. p. 470, 471, in about two leaves, that I will not recite them. If you say, you are not bound to read the books which I refer you to; I answer, Nor this.

II. To the latter question I answer, To set up such an universal head on the supposition of natural reasons and human policy is, 1. To cross Christ's institution, and the laws of the Holy Ghost, as hath been long proved by protestants from the Scripture.

2. It is treason against Christ's sovereign office to usurp such a vicegerency without his commission.

3. It is against the notorious light of nature, which telleth us of the natural incapacity of mortal man, to be such a universal governor through the world.

4. It is to sin against long and dreadful common experience, and to keep in that fire that hath destroyed emperors, kings, and kingdoms, and set the churches, pastors, and christian world in those divisions, which are the great and serviceable work of Satan, and the impediment of the church's increase, purity, and peace, and the notorious shame of the christian profession in the eyes of the infidel world.

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

Quest. XXVIII. Who is the judge of controversies in the church? 1. About the exposition of the Scripture, and doctrinal points in themselves: 2. About either heresies or wicked practices, as they are charged on the persons who are accused of them; that is, 1. Antecedently to our practice, by way of regulation; 2. Or consequently, by judicial sentence (and execution) on offenders.

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

The papists used to cheat poor, unlearned persons that cannot justly discern things that differ, by puzzling them with this confused, ambiguous question. Some things they cunningly and falsely take for granted, as that there is such a thing on earth as a political, universal church, headed by any mortal governor. Some things they shuffle together in equivocal words. They confound, 1. Public judgment of decision, and private judgment of discerning. 2. The magistrate's judgment of church-controversies, and the pastor's, and the several cases, and ends, and effects of their several judgments. 3. Church-judgment as directive to a particular church, and as a means of the concord of several churches. Which being but distinguished, a few words will serve to clear the difficulty.

1. As there is no universal human church, (constituted or governed by a mortal head,) so there is no power set up by Christ to be a universal judge of either sort of controversies, by decisive judicial sentence, nor any universal civil monarch of the world.

2. The public, governing, decisive judgment, obliging others, belongeth to public persons, or officers of God, and not to any private man.[271]

3. The public decision of doubts or controversies about faith itself, or the true sense of God's word and laws, as obliging the whole church on earth to believe that decision, or not gainsay it, because of the infallibility or governing authority of the deciders, belongeth to none but Jesus Christ; because, as is said, he hath made no universal governor, nor infallible expositor.[272] It belongeth to the lawgiver only to make such a universally obliging exposition of his own laws.

4. True bishops or pastors in their own particular churches are authorized teachers and guides, in expounding the laws and word of Christ; and the people are bound as learners to reverence their teaching, and not contradict it without true cause; yea, and to believe them fide humana, in things pertinent to their office: for oportet discentem credere.

5. No such pastors are to be absolutely believed, nor in any case of notorious error or heresy, where the word of God is discerned to be against them.

6. For all the people as reasonable creatures, have a judgment of private discerning to judge what they must receive as truth, and to discern their own duty, by the help of the word of God, and of their teachers.

7. The same power of governing judgment lawful synods have over their several flocks, as a pastor over his own, but with greater advantage.

8. The power of judging in many consociate churches, who is to be taken into communion as orthodox, and who to be refused by those churches as heretics, in specie, that is, what doctrine they will judge sound or unsound, as it is judicium discernendi, belongeth to every one of the council singly: as it is a judgment obliging themselves by contract, (and not of governing each other,) it is in the contracters and consenters; and for peace and order usually in the major vote; but with the limitations before expressed.

9. Every true christian believeth all the essentials of christianity, with a divine faith, and not by a mere human belief of his teachers, though by their help and teaching his faith is generated, and confirmed, and preserved. Therefore no essential article of christianity is left to any obliging decision of any church, but only to a subservient obliging teaching: as whether there be a God, a Christ, a heaven, a hell, an immortality of souls? Whether God be to be believed, loved, feared, obeyed before man? Whether the Scripture be God's word, and true? Whether those that contradict it are to be believed therein? Whether pastors, assemblies, public worship, baptism, sacrament of the Lord's supper, be divine institutions? And the same I may say of any known word of God: no mortals may judge in partem utramlibet, but the pastors are only authorized teachers and helpers of the people's faith. (And so they be partly to one another.)

10. If the pope, or his council, were the infallible or the governing expositors of all God's laws and Scriptures, 1. God would have enabled them to do it by a universal commentary which all men should be obliged to believe, or at least not to contradict. For there is no authority and obligation given to men (yea, to so many successively) to do that (for the needful decision of controversies) which they never have ability given them to do. For that were to oblige them to things impossible. 2. And the pope and his council would be the most treacherous miscreants on earth, that in so many hundred years, would never write such an infallible nor governing commentary, to end the differences of the christian world. Indeed they have judged (with others) against Arius, that Christ is true God, and one with the Father in substance, &c. But if they had said the contrary, must we have taken it for God's truth, or have believed them?

11. To judge who, for heresy or scandal, shall be punished by the sword, belongeth to none but the magistrate in his own dominions: as to judge who shall have communion or be excommunicated from the church, belongeth, as aforesaid, to the pastors. And the said magistrate hath first as a man his own judgment of discerning what is heresy, and who of his subjects are guilty of it, in order to his public governing judgment.

12. The civil, supreme ruler may antecedently exercise this judgment of discerning (by the teaching of their proper teachers) in order to his consequent sentences on offenders; and so in his laws may tell the subjects, what doctrines and practices he will either tolerate or punish. And thus may the church pastors do in their canons to their several flocks, in relation to communion or non-communion.

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

14. As the prime and sole universal legislation belongeth to Jesus Christ, so the final judgment, universal and particular, belongeth to him, which only will end all controversies, and from which there is no appeal.

Quest. XXIX. Whether a parent's power over his children, or a pastor or many pastors or bishops over the same children, as parts of their flock, be greater, or more obliging in matters of religion and public worship?

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

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

3. If my parents command me to hear a teacher who is against ceremonies or certain forms, and to hear none that are for them, natural necessity here also (ordinarily) would make it my duty first to hear and obey my parents; and in many other cases, till I came to understand the greater power of the pastors, in their own place and work.

4. But when I come to church, or know that the judgment of all concordant godly pastors condemneth such a thing as damnable heresy or sin, which my father commandeth me to receive and profess, I would more believe and follow the judgment of the pastors and churches.

Quest. XXX. May an office teacher or pastor be at once in a stated relation of a pastor and a disciple to some other pastor?

1. That Timothy was still Paul's son in point of learning, and his disciple, and so that under apostles the same persons might be stated in both relations at once, seemeth evident in Scripture.

2. But the same that is a pastor is not at once a mere layman.

3. That men in the same office may so differ in age, experience, and degrees of knowledge, as that young pastors may, and often ought, many years to continue, not only in occasional reception of their help, but also in an ordinary stated way of receiving it, and so be related to them as their ordinary teachers, by such gradual advantages, is past all doubt. And that all juniors and novices owe a certain reverence and audience, and some obedience, to the elder and wiser.

4. But this is not to be a disciple to him as in lower order or office, but as of lower gifts and grace.

5. It is lawful and very good for the church, that some ordained persons continue long as pupils to their tutors in schools or academies (e. g. to learn the holy languages, if they have them not, &c.) But this is a relation left to voluntary contractors.

6. In the ancient churches the particular churches had one bishop, and some presbyters and deacons, usually of much lower parts, who lived all together (single or chaste) in the bishop's or church house, which was as a college, where he daily edified them by doctrine and example.

7. The controversy about different orders by divine institution, belongeth not to me here to meddle with: but as to the natural and acquired imparity of age and gifts, and the unspeakable benefit to the juniors and the churches, that it is desirable that there were such a way of their education and edification, I take to be discernible to any that are impartial and judicious.

Ambrose was at once a teacher and a learner, Beda, Eccl. Hist. mentioneth one in England, that was at once a pastor and disciple. And in Scotland some that became bishops were still to be under the government of the abbot of their monasteries according to their first devotion, though the abbot was but a presbyter.

8. Whether a settled, private church member may not at once continue his very formal relation to the pastor of that church, and yet be of the same order with him in another church, as their pastor, at the same time, (as he may in case of necessity continue his apprenticeship or civil service,) is a case that I will not determine. But he that denieth it, must prove his opinion (or affirmation of its unlawfulness) by sufficient evidence from Scripture or nature; which is hard.

Quest. XXXI. Who hath the power of making church canons?

This is sufficiently resolved before. 1. The magistrate only hath the power of making such canons or laws for church matters as shall be enforced by the sword.

2. Every pastor hath power to make canons for his own congregation; that is, to determine what hour or at what place they shall meet; what translation of Scripture, or version of Psalms, shall be used in his church; what chapter shall be read; what psalm shall be sung, &c.: except the magistrate contradict him, and determine it otherwise, in such points as are not proper to the ministerial office.

3. Councils or assemblies of pastors have the power of making such canons for many churches, as shall be laws to the people, and agreements to themselves.

4. None have power to make church laws or canons about any thing, save, (1.) To put God's own laws in execution. (2.) To determine to that end, of such circumstances as God hath left undetermined in his word.

5. Canon-making under pretence of order and concord, hath done a great deal of mischief to the churches; whilst clergymen have grown up from agreements, to tyrannical usurpations and impositions, and from concord about needful accidents of worship, to frame new worship ordinances, and to force them on all others: but especially, (1.) By encroaching on the power of kings, and telling them that they are bound in conscience to put all their canons into execution by force. (2.) And by laying the union of the churches and the communion of christians upon things needless and doubtful, yea, and at last on many sinful things; whereby the churches have been most effectually divided, and the christian world set together by the ears; and schisms, yea, and wars have been raised: and these maladies cannot possibly be healed, till the tormenting, tearing engines be broken and cast away, and the voluminous canons of numerous councils (which themselves also are matter of undeterminable controversy) be turned into the primitive simplicity; and a few necessary things made the terms of concord. Doubtless if every pastor were left wholly to himself for the ordering of worship circumstances and accidents in his own church, without any common canons, save the Scriptures, and the laws of the land, there would have been much less division, than that is, which these numerous canons of all the councils, obtruded on the church, have made.

Quest. XXXII. Doth baptism as such enter the baptized into the universal church, or into a particular church, or both? And is baptism the particular church covenant as such?

Answ. 1. Baptism as such doth enter us into the universal church, and into it alone; and is no particular church covenant, but the solemnizing of the great christian covenant of grace, between God, and a believer and his seed.

For, (1.) There is not essentially any mention of a particular church in it.

(2.) A man may be baptized by a general unfixed minister, who is not the pastor of any particular church:[273] and he may be baptized in solitude, where there is no particular church. The eunuch, Acts viii. was not baptized into any particular church.

(3.) Baptism doth but make us christians, but a man may be a christian who is no member of any particular church.

(4.) Otherwise baptism should oblige us necessarily to a man, and be a covenant between the baptized and the pastor and church into which he is baptized: but it is only our covenant with Christ.

(5.) We may frequently change our particular church relation, without being baptized again. But we never change our relation to the church which we are baptized into, unless by apostasy.

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

3. And the covenant which we make in baptism with Christ, doth oblige us to obey him, and consequently to use his instituted means, and so to hear his ministers, and hold due communion with his churches.

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

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

Quest. XXXIII. Whether infants should be baptized, I have answered long ago in a treatise on that subject. Also what infants should be baptized? and who have right to sacraments? and whether hypocrites are univocally or equivocally christians and church members? I have resolved in my "Disput. of Right to Sacraments."

Quest. XXXIV. Whether an unbaptized person who yet maketh a public profession of christianity, be a member of the visible church? And so of the infants of believers unbaptized.

Answ. 1. Such persons have a certain imperfect, irregular kind of profession, and so of membership; their visibility or visible christianity is not such as Christ hath appointed. As those that are married, but not by legal celebration, and as those that in cases of necessity are ministers without ordination; so are such christians as Constantine and many of old without baptism.

2. Such persons ordinarily are not to be admitted to the rights and communion of the visible church, because we must know Christ's sheep by his own mark; but yet they are so far visible christians, as that we may be persuaded nevertheless of their salvation. As to visible communion, they have but a remote and incomplete jus ad rem, and no jus ad re, or legal investiture and possession.

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

Quest. XXXV. Is it certain by the word of God that all infants baptized, and dying before actual sin, are undoubtedly saved; or what infants may we say so of?

Answ. I. 1. We must distinguish between certainty objective and subjective; or plainlier, the reality or truth of the thing, and the certain apprehension of it.[274]

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

3. We must distinguish of infants as baptized lawfully upon just title, or unlawfully without title.

4. And also of title before God, which maketh a lawful claim and reception at his bar; and title before the church, which maketh only the administration lawful before God, and the reception lawful only in foro ecclesia, or externo.

5. The word baptism signifieth either the external part only, consisting in the words and outward action, or the internal covenanting of the heart also.

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

Conclus. 1. God hath been pleased to speak so little in Scripture of the case of infants, that modest men will use the words certainly and undoubtedly, about their case, with very great caution. And many great divines have maintained that their very baptism itself, cannot be certainly and undoubtedly proved by the word of God, but by tradition; though I have endeavoured to prove the contrary in a special Treatise on that point.

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

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

4. It is possible to baptize infants unlawfully, or without any right, so that their reception and baptizing shall be a great sin, as is the misapplying of other ordinances. For instance: one in America, where there is neither church to receive them, nor christian parents, nor sponsors, may take up the Indians' children and baptize them against the parents' wills: or if the parents consent to have their children outwardly baptized, and not themselves, as not knowing what baptizing meaneth, or desire it only for outward advantages to their children; or if they offer them to be baptized only in open derision and scorn of Christ; such children have no right to be received. And many other instances nearer may be given.

5. It is possible the person may have no authority at all from Christ who doth baptize them. And Christ's part in reception of the person, and collation and investiture in his benefits, must be done by his commission, or else how can we say that Christ doth it? But open infidels, women, children, mad-men, scorners, may do it that have none of his commission.

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

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

2. Because else gross sin would certainly be the way to salvation. For such misapplication of baptism, by the demanders at least, would certainly be gross sin, as well as misapplying the Lord's supper.

3. Because it is clean contrary to the tenor of the new covenant, which promiseth salvation to none but penitent believers and their seed: what God may do for others unknown to us, we have nothing to do with; but his covenant hath made no other promise that I can find; and we are certain of no man's salvation by baptism, to whom God never made a promise of it. If by the children of the faithful, be meant not only their natural seed, but the adopted or bought also, of which they are true proprietors, yet that is nothing to all others.

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

5. Because this tieth grace or salvation so to the outward washing of the body, or opus operatum, as is contrary to the nature of God's ordinances, and to the tenor of Scripture, and the judgment of the protestant divines.

6. Because this would make a strange disparity between the two sacraments of the same covenant of grace: when a man receiveth the Lord's supper unworthily, (in scorn, in drunkenness, or impenitency,) much more without any right, (as infidels,) he doth eat and drink damnation or judgment to himself, and maketh his sin greater; therefore he that gets a child baptized unworthily and without right, doth not therefore infallibly procure his salvation.

7. Because the apostle saith, 1 Cor. vii. 14, "Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy;" and the Scripture giveth this privilege to the children of the faithful above others: whereas the contrary opinion levelleth them with the seed of infidels and heathens, as if these had right to salvation by mere baptism, as well as the others.

8. Because else it would be the greatest act of charity in the world, to send soldiers to catch up all heathens' and infidels' children, and baptize them; which no christians ever yet thought their duty. Yea, it would be too strong a temptation to them to kill them when they had done, that they might be all undoubtedly saved.

Object. But that were to do evil that good might come by it. Answ. But God is not to be dishonoured as to be supposed to make such laws, as shall forbid men the greatest good in the world, and then to tempt them by the greatness of the benefit to take it to be no evil: as if he said, If soldiers would go take up a million of heathens' children and baptize them, it will put them into an undoubted state of salvation; but yet I forbid them doing it: and if they presently kill them, lest they sin after, they shall undoubtedly be saved; but yet I forbid them doing it. I need not aggravate this temptation to them that know the power of the law of nature, which is the law of love and good works, and how God that is most good is pleased in our doing good. Though he tried Abraham's obedience once, as if he should have killed his son, yet he stopped him before the execution. And doth he ordinarily exercise men's obedience, by forbidding them to save the souls of others, when it is easily in their power? especially when with the adult the greatest labour and powerfullest preaching, is frequently so frustrate, that not one of many is converted by it?

9. Because else God should deal with unaccountable disparity with infants and the adult in the same ordinance of baptism. It is certain that all adult persons baptized, if they died immediately, should not be saved; even none that had no right to the covenant and to baptism; such as infidels, heathens, impenitent persons, hypocrites, that have not true repentance and faith. And why should baptism save an infant without title, any more than the adult without title? I still suppose that some infants have no title, and that now I speak of them alone.

Object. But the church giveth them all right by receiving them.

Answ. This is to be further examined anon. If you mean a particular church, perhaps they are baptized into none such. Baptism as such is a reception only into the universal church, as in the eunuch's case, Acts viii. appeareth. If you mean the universal church, it may be but one single ignorant man in an infidel country that baptizeth, and he is not the universal church! yea, perhaps is not a lawfully called minister of that church! However, this is but to say, that baptism giveth right to baptism; for this receiving is nothing but baptizing. But there must be a right to this reception, if baptism be a distinguishing ordinance, and all the world have not right to it. Christ saith, Matt. xxviii. 19, "Disciple me all nations, baptizing them—:" they must be initially made disciples first, by consent, and then be invested in the visible state of christianity by baptism.

10. If the children of heathens have right to baptism, and salvation thereby, it is either, 1. As they are men, and all have right; or, 2. Because the parents give them right; 3. Or because remote ancestors give them right; 4. Or because the universal church gives them right; 5. Or because a particular church gives them right; 6. Or because the sponsors give them right; 7. Or the magistrate; 8. Or the baptizer. But it is none of all these, as shall anon be proved.

11. But as to the second question, I answer, 1. It will help us to understand the case the better, if we prepare the way by opening the case of the adult, because in Scripture times, they were the most famous subjects of baptism. And it is certain of such, 1. That every one outwardly baptized is not in a state of salvation. That no hypocrite that is not a true penitent believer is in such a state. 2. That every true penitent believer is before God in a state of salvation, as soon as he is such; and before the church as soon as he is baptized. 3. That we are not to use the word baptism as a physical term only, but as a moral, theological term. Because words (as in law, physic, &c.) are to be understood according to the art or science in which they are treated of. And baptism taken theologically doth as essentially include the will's consent or heart covenanting with God, as matrimony includeth marriage consent, and as a man containeth the soul as well as the body. And thus it is certain that all truly baptized persons are in a state of salvation; that is, all that sincerely consent to the baptismal covenant when they profess consent by baptism (but not hypocrites). 4. And in this sense all the ancient pastors of the churches did concur that baptism did wash away all sin, and put the baptized into a present right to life eternal: as he that examineth their writings will perceive: not the outward washing and words alone, but when the inward and outward parts concur, or when by true faith and repentance the receiver hath right to the covenant of God. 5. In this sense it is no unfit language to imitate the fathers, and to say that the truly baptized are in a state of justification, adoption, and salvation, unless when men's misunderstanding maketh it unsafe. 6. The sober papists themselves say the same thing, and when they have said that even ex opere operato baptism saveth, they add, that it is only the meet receiver; that is, the penitent believer, and no other of the adult. So that hitherto there is no difference.

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

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

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

(3.) Some think that all unbaptized infants do suffer the pœnam damni, and are shut out of heaven and happiness, but not sensibly punished or cast into hell. For this Jansenius hath wrote a treatise; and many other papists think so.

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

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

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

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

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

(9.) Some think that elect infants are saved, and no other, but no man can know who those are. And of these, 1. Some deny infant baptism. 2. Most say that they are to be baptized, and that thereby the non-elect are only received into the visible church and its privileges, but not to any promise or certainty of justification, or a state of salvation.

(10.) Some think that all that are baptized by the dedication of christian sponsors are saved.

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

(12.) Some think that this is to be limited to all that have right to baptism coram Deo; which some think the church's reception giveth them, of which anon.

(13.) And some think it is to be limited to those that have right coram ecclesia, or are rightfully baptized ex parte ministrantis, where some make the magistrate's command sufficient, and some the bishop's, and some the baptizer's will.

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

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

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

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

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

5. I think baptism is a solemn mutual contract or covenant between Christ and the baptized person. And that it is but one covenant, even the covenant of grace which is the sum of the gospel, which is sealed and received in baptism; and that this covenant essentially containeth our saving relation to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and our pardon, justification, and adoption or right to life everlasting; and that God never made any distinct covenant of outward privileges alone, to be sealed by baptism. But that outward mercies are the second and lesser gift of the same covenant which giveth first the great and saving blessings.

6. And therefore that whoever hath right before God, to claim and receive baptism, hath right also to the benefits of the covenant of God, and that is, to salvation; though I say not so of every one that hath such right before the church, as that God doth require the minister to baptize him. For by right before God, or in foro cœli, I mean such a right as will justify the claim before God immediately, the person being one whom he commandeth in that present state to claim and receive baptism. For many a one hath no such right before God to claim or receive it, when yet the minister hath right to give it them if they do claim it.

The case stands thus. God saith in his covenant, He that believeth shall be saved, and ought to be baptized, to profess that belief, and be invested in the benefits of the covenant; and he that professeth to believe, (whether he do or not,) is by the church to be taken for a visible believer, and by baptism to be received into the visible church. Here God calleth none but true believers (and their seed) to be baptized, nor maketh an actual promise or covenant with any other; and so I say that none other have right in foro cœli. But yet the church knoweth not men's hearts, and must take a serious profession for a credible sign of the faith professed, and for that outward title upon which it is a duty of the pastor to baptize the claimer.[275] So that the most malignant, scornful hypocrite, that maketh a seemingly serious profession, hath right coram ecclesia, but not coram Deo, save in this sense, that God would have the minister baptize him. But this I have largelier opened in my "Disputations of Right to Sacraments."

7. I think therefore that all the children of true christians, do by baptism receive a public investiture by God's appointment into a state of remission, adoption, and right to salvation at the present; though I dare not say that I am undoubtedly certain of it, as knowing how much is said against it. But I say as the synod of Dort, art. 1. That believing parents have no cause to doubt of the salvation of their children that die in infancy, before they commit actual sin; that is, not to trouble themselves with fears about it.

The reasons that move me to be of this judgment (though not without doubting and hesitancy) are these; 1. Because whoever hath right to the present investiture, delivery, and possession of the first and great benefits of God's covenant made with man in baptism, hath right to pardon, and adoption, and everlasting life: but the infants of true christians have right to the present investiture, delivery and possession of the first and great benefits of God's covenant made with man in baptism; therefore they have right to pardon and everlasting life.

Either infants are in the same covenant (that is, are subjects of the same promise of God) with their believing parents, or in some other covenant, or in no covenant. If they be under no covenant, (or promise,) or under some other promise or covenant only, and not the same, they are not to be baptized. For baptism is a mutual covenanting; where the minister by Christ's commission in his name acteth his part, and the believer his own and his infant's part: and God hath but one covenant, which is to be made, sealed, and delivered in baptism. Baptism is not an equivocal word, so as to signify divers covenants of God.

Object. But the same covenant of God hath divers sorts of benefits; the special God giveth to the sincere, and the common to the common and hypocritical receiver.

Answ. 1. God indeed requireth the minister to take profession for the visible church title; and so it being the minister's duty so far to believe a liar, and to receive dissemblers who had no right to lay that claim, you may say that God indirectly and improperly giveth them church privileges: but properly, that is, by his promise or covenant deed or gift, he giveth them nothing at all; for his covenant is one and undivided in its action, though it give several benefits, and though providence may give one and not another, yet the covenant giveth all or none. God saith that godliness hath the promise of this life and of that to come; but he never said (that I know of) to the hypocrite or unsound believer, I promise or give right to common mercies.[276]

2. But suppose it were otherwise, yet either the children of true believers have the true condition of right to the special blessings of the covenant, or they have not the condition of any at all. For there can no more be required of an infant, as to any special blessings of the covenant, than that he be the child of believing parents, and by them dedicated to God. Either this condition entitleth them to all the covenant promises which the adult believer is entitled to, (as far as their natures are capable,) or it entitleth them to none at all; nor are they to be baptized; for God hath in Scripture instituted but one baptism, (to profess one faith,) and that one is ever for the remission of sins:[277] "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," Mark xvi. 16.

3. Or if all the rest were granted you, yet it would follow that all infants in the world, even of true believers, are left out of God's covenant of grace, that is, the covenant or promise of pardon and life; and are only taken into the covenant of church privileges. And so, 1. You will make two covenants, (which you denied,) and not only two sorts of benefits of one covenant. 2. And two species of baptism; while all infants in the world are only under a covenant of outward privileges, and have no baptism, but the seal of that covenant, while believers have the covenant, promise, and seal of pardon and life.

2. And this is my second reason; because then we have no promise or certainty, or ground of faith, for the pardon and salvation of any individual infants in the world. And so parents are left to little comfort for their children. And if there be no promise there is no faith of it, nor any baptism to seal it; and so we still make antipædobaptism unavoidable. For who dare set God's seal to such as have no promise? or pretend to invest any in a near and saving relation to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, (which is the very nature of baptism,) when God hath given no such commission?

Object. Yes: baptism and the covenant of special promises are for all the elect, though we know not who they are.

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

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

Object. God hath more elect ones among the infants of true believers than among others: and therefore they are all to be baptized.

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

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

Answ. This partly satisfied me sometimes: but I cannot forget that a visible, false, or hypocritical profession is not the condition of God's own covenant of grace, nor that which he requireth in us, to make us partakers of his covenant benefits; nay, he never at all commandeth it; but only commandeth that profession of consent, which followeth the real consent of the heart:[278] he that condemneth lying, maketh it neither the condition of our church membership, as his gift by promise, nor yet our duty.

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

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

Indeed if the proposition were thus laid, it would hold good: As we know not who sincerely covenanteth for himself, and yet we must baptize all that soberly profess it; so we know not who doth sincerely covenant for his infant, and yet must baptize all whom the parents bring with such a profession, for themselves and them.