bannerbanner
A Christian Directory, Part 3: Christian Ecclesiastics
A Christian Directory, Part 3: Christian Ecclesiasticsполная версия

Полная версия

A Christian Directory, Part 3: Christian Ecclesiastics

Язык: Английский
Год издания: 2017
Добавлена:
Настройки чтения
Размер шрифта
Высота строк
Поля
На страницу:
22 из 54

3. Such political churches are either of divine constitution and policy, or only of human.

2. By christians, I mean such as profess the essentials of the christian religion. For we speak of the church as visible.

3. By true, may be meant, either reality of essence, opposite to that which is not really a church in this univocal acception; or else sound and orthodox, in the integrals, as opposite to erroneous and defiled with much enormity. And now I thus decide that question.

Prop. I. The true catholic church consisteth of Christ the Head, and all christians as his body, or the members. As the kingdom consisteth of the king and his subjects.206

Prop. II. As all the sincere heart-covenanters make up the church as regenerate, and mystical or invisible; so all that are christened, that is, baptized, and profess consent to all the essentials of the baptismal covenant, not having apostatized, nor being by lawful power excommunicated, are christians, and make up the church as visible.207

Prop. III. Therefore there is but one universal church, because it containeth all christians; and so leaveth out none to be the matter of another.208

Prop. IV. It is not ignorance or error about the mere integrals of christianity, which maketh them no christians who hold the essentials, that is, the baptismal covenant.209

Prop. V. That the baptismal covenant might be rightly understood and professed, the churches have still used the creed as the explication of the covenant, in point of faith; and taken it for the symbol of the christian belief. And no further profession of faith was or is to be required, as necessary to the being of christianity.210

Prop. VI. If proud usurpers or censurers take on them to excommunicate, or unchristian, or unchurch others, without authority and cause, this maketh them not to be no christians, or no churches, that are so used.211

Prop. VII. Therefore to know which is the true catholic or universal church, is but to know who are baptized, professed christians.212

Prop. VIII. The reformed churches, the Lutherans, the Abassines, the Coptics, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Jacobites, the Georgians, the Maronites, the Greeks, the Moscovites, and the Romanists, do all receive baptism in all its visible essentials, and profess all the essentials of the christian religion, though not with the same integrity.213

Prop. IX. He that denieth any one essential part, in itself, is so a heretic as to be no christian, nor true member of the church, if it be justly proved or notorious: that is, none ought to take him for a visible christian, who know the proof of his denying that essential part of christianity, or to whom it is notorious.214

Prop. X. He that holdeth the essentials primarily, and with them holdeth some error which by unseen consequence subverteth some essential point, but holdeth the essentials so much faster, that he would forsake his error if he saw the inconsistence, is a christian notwithstanding; and if the name heretic be applicable to him, it is but in such a sense, as is consistent with christianity.215

Prop. XI. He that is judged a heretic and no christian justly by others, must be lawfully cited, and heard plead his cause, and be judged upon sufficient proof, and not unheard, or upon rash presumption.216

Prop. XII. Christianity and heresy being personal qualities, and no where found but in individuals, nor one man guilty of another's error, it followeth that it is single persons upon personal guilt that must be judged.217

Prop. XIII. Any man may judge another to be a christian or heretic, by a private judgment of discerning, or the reason which guideth all human actions; but only church rulers may judge him by that public judgment, which giveth or denieth him his public privileges and communion.218

Prop. XIV. If by notorious injustice church rulers condemn christians as no christians, though they may thereby deny them communion with those public assemblies which they govern, yet do they not oblige the people to take such injured persons for no christians. Else they might oblige all to believe a lie, to consent to malicious injuries, and might disoblige the people from truth, righteousness, and charity.219

Prop. XV. There is no one natural or collective head and governor of all the churches in the world (the universal church) but Jesus Christ; and therefore there is none that by such governing power, can excommunicate any man out of the universal church; and such usurpation would be treason against Christ, whose prerogative it is.220

Prop. XVI. Yet he that deserveth to be excommunicated from one church, deserveth to be excommunicated by and from all, if it be upon a cause common to all; or that nullifieth his christianity.221

Prop. XVII. And where neighbour churches are consociate and live in order and concord, he that is orderly excommunicate from one church, and it be notified to the rest, should not be taken into the communion of any of the rest, till he be cleared, or become fit for their communion.222 But this obligation ariseth but from the concord of consociate churches, and not from the power of one over the rest; and it cannot reach all the world, where the person cometh not, nor was ever known; but only to those who through neighbourhood are capable of just notice, and of giving or denying communion to that person.

Prop. XVIII. From all this it is clear, that it is not either papists alone, or Greeks alone, or protestants alone, or any party of christians, who are the universal church, seeing that church containeth all christians.223 And that reviling others (yea, whole nations) as heretics, schismatics, and no christians or churches, will no more prove the revilers to be the only church or christians, than want of love will prove a man to be one of Christ's disciples, who by love are known to all men to be his.

Prop. XIX. It is therefore the shameful language of distracted men, to cry out against other christian nations, It is not you, but we that are the catholic or universal church. And our shameful controversy, which of them is the catholic, is no wiser than to question, Whether it be this house or that which is the street? Or this street or that which is the city? Or whether it be the kitchen, or the hall, or the parlour which is the house? Or the hand, or foot, or eye which is the man? O when will God bring distracting teachers to repentance, and distracted people to their wits?224

Prop. XX. There is great difference in the purity or soundness of the several parts of the universal church; some being more orthodox and holy, and some defiled with so many errors and sins, as to make it difficult to discern whether they do not deny the very essentials.225

Prop. XXI. The reformed churches are the soundest and purest that we know in the world, and therefore their privilege exceeding great, though they are not all the universal church.

Prop. XXII. Particular churches consisting of lawful pastors and christian people associated for personal communion in worship and holy living, are societies or true churches of Christ's institution, and the chief parts of the universal church; as cities and corporations are of the kingdom.226

Prop. XXIII. There are thousands of these in the world, and a man may be saved in one, as well as in another; only the purest give him the best advantages for his salvation; and therefore should be preferred by all that are wise and love their souls, so far as they are free to choose their communion.

Prop. XXIV. The case then being easily resolved, (which is the true church?) viz. All christians as christians are the catholic or universal church;227 and all congregations afore described, of true pastors and christians, being particular true churches, differing only in degrees of purity, he is to be suspected as a designing deceiver and troubler of the world, that pretending to be a learned man and a teacher, doth still perplex the consciences of the ignorant with this frivolous question, and would muddy and obscure this clear state of the case, lest the people should rest in the discerned truth.

Prop. XXV. The papal church as such, being no true church of Christ's institution, (of which by itself anon,) it followeth that a papist as a papist is no member of the church of Christ, that is, no christian.228 But yet, whether the same person may not be a papist and a christian, and so a member of the catholic church, we shall anon inquire.

Prop. XXVI. There are many things which make up the fitness and desirableness of that particular church, which we should prefer or choose for our ordinary personal communion:229 as, 1. That it be the church of that place where we dwell; if the place be so happy as to have no divided churches, that it be the sole church there; however, that it be so near as to be fit for our communion. 2. That it be a church which holdeth communion with other neighbour churches, and is not singular or divided from them; or at least not from the generality of the churches of Christ; nor differeth in any great matters from those that are most pure. 3. That it be under the reputation of soundness with the other churches aforesaid, and not under the scandal of heresy, schism, or gross corruption among those that live about.230 4. That it be under the countenance and encouraging favour of the christian magistrate. 5. That it be the same church of which the rest of the family which we are of be members; that husband and wife, parents and children, masters and servants, be not of several churches. 6. That the pastors be able teachers, prudent guides, and of holy lives, and diligent in their office. 7. That the pastors be regularly called to their office. 8. That the members be intelligent, peaceable, and of holy, temperate, and righteous lives. But when all these cannot be had together, we must choose that church which hath those qualifications which are most needful, and bear with tolerable imperfections. The most needful are the first, second, and sixth of these qualifications.

Prop. XXVII. He that is free, should choose that church which is the fittest for his own edification; that is, the best pastors, people, and administrations.

Prop. XXVIII. A man's freedom is many ways restrained herein. As, 1. When it will tend to a greater public hurt, by disorder, ill example, division, discouragement, &c. 2. When superiors forbid it; as husbands, parents, masters, magistrates. 3. By some scandal. 4. By the distance or inconvenience of our dwelling. 5. By differences of judgment, and other causes of contention in the said churches; and many other ways.231

Prop. XXIX. A free man who removeth from one church to another for his edification, is not therefore a separatist or schismatic; but it must not be done by one that is not free, but upon such necessity as freeth him.

Prop. XXX. It is schism or sinful separation to separate from, 1. A true church as no true church. 2. From lawful worship and communion, as lawful; but of this more in its proper place.

Quest. II. Whether we must esteem the church of Rome a true church? And in what sense some divines affirm it, and some deny it

Want of some easy distinguishing hath made that seem a controversy here, which is so plain, that it can hardly be any at all to protestants, if the question had been but truly stated.232

Remember therefore that by a church is meant, not a mere company of christians, any how related to each other; but a society consisting of an ecclesiastical head and body, such as we call a political society. 2. And that we speak not of an accidental head (such as the king is, because he governeth them suo modo by the sword); for that is not an essential constitutive part; but of a constitutive ecclesiastical head and body. 3. That the question is not, Whether the church of Rome be a part of the church, but whether it be a true church? And now I answer,

1. To affirm the church of Rome to be the catholic or universal church, is more than to affirm it to be a true catholic church, that is, a true part of the catholic church: and is as much as to say that it is the whole and only church, and that there is no other; which is odious falsehood and usurpation, and slander against all other churches.

2. The church of Rome is so called in the question, as it is a policy or church in a general sense; and the meaning of the question is, Whether it be a divine, or a human or diabolical policy; a lawful church.

3. The church of Rome is considered, 1. Formally, as a church or policy. 2. Materially, as the singular persons are qualified. It is the form that denominateth. Therefore the question must be taken of the Roman policy, or of the church of Rome as such; that is, as it is one ruler pretending to be the vicarious, constitutive, governing head of all Christ's visible church on earth, and the body which owneth him in this relation.

4. Therefore I conclude (and so do all protestants) that this policy or church of Rome is no true church of Christ's instituting or approbation, but a human, sinful policy, formed by the temptation of Satan, the prince of pride, deceit, and darkness. The proof of which is the matter of whole loads of protestant writings. And indeed the proof of their policy being incumbent on themselves, they fail in it, and are still fain to fly to pretended, false tradition for proof, in which the sophisters know that either they must be judges themselves, and it must go for truth because they say it; or else that if they can carry the controversy into a thicket or wood of fathers and church history, at least they can confound the ignorant, and evade themselves. Of this see my "Disput. with Johnson," and my "Key for Catholics," &c.

5. The bishop of the English papists, Smith called bishop of Chalcedon, in his Survey, c. v. saith, "To us it sufficeth that the bishop of Rome is St. Peter's successor; and this all the fathers testify, and all the catholic church believeth; but whether it be jure divino or humano, is no point of faith." The like hath Davenport,233 called Fransc. a Sancta Clara more largely. By this let the reader judge whether we need more words to prove their church to be such as Christ never instituted, when the belief of their divine right is no part of their own faith.

6. If the church of Rome in its formal policy be but of human institution, it is, 1. Unnecessary to salvation. 2. Unlawful; because they that first instituted it had no authority so to do, and were usurpers. For either the makers of it were themselves a church or no church. If no church, they could not lawfully make a church. Infidels or heathens are not to be our church makers. If a church, then there was a church before the church of Rome, and that of another form. And if that former form were of Christ's institution, man might not change it; if not, who made that form? and so on.

7. Our divines therefore that say that the church of Rome is a true church, though corrupt, do not speak of it formally as to the papal policy or headship, but materially. 1. That all papists that are visible christians are visible parts of the universal church. 2. That their particular congregations considered abstractedly from the Roman headship may be true particular churches, though corrupt; which yet being the only difficulty shall be the matter of our next inquiry.

Quest. III. Whether we must take the Romish clergy for true ministers of Christ? And whether their baptism and ordination be nullities?

I join these two distinct questions together for brevity.

I. As true signifieth regularly called, so they are commonly irregular and not true ministers. But as true signifieth real opposed to a nullity, so it is now to be further considered.

The doubt lieth either of the sufficiency of his call, or of somewhat that is supposed to destroy it by contradiction or redundancy. 1. Whether he want any thing of absolute necessity to the office, who is called in the church of Rome? or, 2. Whether there be any thing in his office or entrance, which nullifieth or invalidateth that which else would be sufficient?

For the first doubt, it is not agreed on among papists or protestants what is of necessity to the being of the office. Some think real godliness in the person is necessary; but most think not. Some think that visible, that is, seeming professed godliness, not disproved by mortal sin, is necessary; and some think not. Some think the people's election is necessary, and that ordination is but ad bene esse; and some think ordination necessary ad esse, and election ad bene esse, or not at all; and some think both necessary ad esse, and some neither. Some think the election of the people is necessary, and some think only their consent is necessary, though after election by others; some think it must be the consent of all the flock, or near all; and some only of the major part; and some of the better part, though the minor. Some think the ordination of a diocesan bishop necessary ad esse, and some not. Some think the truth of the ordainers' calling, or power, to be necessary to the validity of his ordination, and some not. Some think the number of two, or three, or more ordainers to be necessary, and some not. Some think it necessary to the validity of the ministry that it come down from the apostles by an uninterrupted succession of truly ordained bishops, and some think not. Some few think that the magistrates' command or licence is necessary, and only it, and most deny both. Johnson, alias Terret, the papist, in his Disputation against me, maintaineth that consecration is not necessary ad esse, nor any one way of election, by these or those, but only the church's reception upon such an election as may give them notice, and which may be different, according to different times, places, and other circumstances.

In the midst of these confusions, what is to be held? I have opened the case as fully and plainly as I can, in my second "Disput. of Church Government," about ordination, to which I must refer the reader: only here briefly touching upon the sum.

1. There are some personal qualifications necessary to the being of the office, (of which anon,) and some only to the well-being.234

2. The efficient conveying cause of power or office, is God's will signified in his own established law; in which he determineth that such persons so called shall receive from him such power, and be obliged to such office administrations.235

3. Any providence of God which infallibly or satisfactorily notifieth to the church, who these persons are, that receive such power from God, doth oblige them to submit to them as so empowered.

4. God's ordinary established way of regular designation of the person, is by the church's consent, and the senior pastor's ordination.

5. By these actions they are not the proper donors or efficients of the power, or office given, but the consent of the people and the ordination do determine of the recipient, and so are regularly causa sine qua non of his reception. And the ordination is moreover a solemn investiture in the office, as when a servant is sent by delivering a key to deliver possession of a house, by his master's consent, to him that had before the owner's grant; and so it ceremoniously entereth him into visible possession; like the solemnizing of marriage, or the listing of a soldier, &c.

6. The people's consent (before or after) is not only by institution, but naturally necessary, that a man become a pastor to those persons (for no man can learn, obey, &c. without consent): but it is not of necessity to the being of the ministry in general, or in the first instant: a man without it may be authorized as a minister to go preach the gospel for conversion, and baptize and gather churches, though not to be their stated pastor.

7. When death, distance, corruption, heresy, or malignity of pastors within reach, maketh it impossible to have ordination, God's choice of the person may be notified without it: as by, 1. Eminent qualifications. 2. The people's real necessities. 3. And the removal of impediments, and a concurrence of inviting opportunities and advantages. 4. And sometimes the people's desire. 5. And sometimes the magistrate's commission or consent; which though not absolutely necessary in themselves, yet may serve to design the person and invest him, when the ordinary way faileth; which is all that is left to man to do, to the conveyance of the power.

The case being thus stated, as to what is necessary to give the power or office, we may next inquire whether any papist priest have such power, by such means.

And, 1. We have sufficient reason to judge that many of them have all the personal qualifications which are essentially necessary. 2. Many among them have the consent of a sober christian people (of which more anon). And Mr. Jacob, who was against bishops and their ordination, proveth at large, that by election or consent of the people alone, a man may be a true pastor, either without such ordination, or notwithstanding both the vanity and error of it. 3. Many of them have ordination by able and sober bishops; if that also be necessary. 4. In that ordination, they are invested in all that is essential to the pastoral office.

So that I see not that their calling is a nullity through defect of any thing of absolute necessity to its being and validity; though it be many ways irregular and sinful.

II. We are next therefore to inquire whether any contradicting additions make null that which else would be no nullity. And this is the great difficulty. For as we accuse not their religion for having too little, but too much, so this is our chief doubt about their ministry.

And, 1. It is doubted, as to the office itself, whether a mass priest be a true minister, as having another work to do, even to make his Maker, and to give Christ's real flesh with his hands to the people; and to preach the unsound doctrines of their church; and these seem to be essential parts of his function.

The case is very bad and sad; but that which I said about the heresies or errors which may consist with christianity, when they overthrow it but by an undiscerned consequence, must be here also considered. The prime part of their office is that (as to the essentials) which Christ ordained: this they receive, and to this they sew a filthy rag of man's devising; but if they knew this to be inconsistent with christianity or the essentials of the ministry, we may well presume (of many of them) they would not receive it. Therefore as an error which consequentially contradicteth some essential article of faith, nullifieth not his christianity who first and fastest holdeth the faith, and would cast away the error if he saw the contradiction, (as Davenant, Morton, and Hall have showed, Epist. Conciliat.) so is it to be said as to practical error in the present case. They are their grievous errors and sins, but, for aught I see, do not nullify their office to the church. As a mass priest, he is no minister of Christ (as an anabaptist is not as a re-baptizer, nor a separatist as a separater, nor an antinomian, or any erroneous person, as a preacher of that error); but as a christian pastor ordained to preach the gospel, baptize, administer the Lord's supper, pray, praise God, guide the church, he may be.

The same answer serveth to the objection as it extendeth to the erroneous doctrines which they preach, which are but by consequence against the essentials of religion.

2. But it is a greater doubt, Whether any power of the ministry can be conveyed by antichrist, or from him? and whether God will own any of antichrist's administrations? Therefore seeing they profess themselves to have no office but what they receive from the pope, and Christ disowning his usurpation, the same man cannot be the minister of Christ and antichrist; as the same man cannot be an officer in the king's army and his enemies'.

But this will have the same solution as the former. If this antichrist were the open, professed enemy to Christ, then all this were true: because their corrupt additions would not by dark consequences, but so directly contain the denial of christianity or the true ministry, that it were not possible to hold both. But (as our divines commonly note) antichrist is to sit in the temple of God, and the pope's treason is under pretence of the greatest service and friendship to Christ, making himself his vicar-general without his commission. So they that receive power from him, do think him to be Christ's vicar indeed, and so renounce not Christ, but profess their first and chief relation to be to him, and dependence on him, and that they would have nothing to do with the pope, if they knew him to be against Christ. And some of them write, that the power or office is immediately from Christ, and that the pope, ordainers, and electors do but design the person that shall receive it (because else they know not what to say of the election and consecration of the pope himself, who hath no superior). And the Spanish bishops in the council of Trent held so close to this, that the rest were fain to leave it undetermined; so that it is no part of their religion, but a doubtful opinion, Whether the power of bishops be derived from the pope, though they be governed by him?

На страницу:
22 из 54