A Christian Directory, Part 3: Christian Ecclesiastics

Therefore if one that was a gross heretic in the very essentials, or an infidel, or one that had not knowledge and parts essentially necessary to the ministry, baptize one, (in right words,) I would not blame him that for certainty would have an authorized person to do it; especially if he was notoriously such a one when he did it. Let those that are angry with this resolution be as fair to me as they will be to Venerable Bede, and that great miracle-working bishop John, whom in his ecclesiastical history he reporteth to baptize a man again in England, merely because the priest that did it was so dull, ignorant, and insufficient as in John's judgment to be uncapable of the office, and therefore had been by him forbidden to use it, though the person baptized (at age) knew not this:296 viz. Herebaldus, ut Bed. l. v. c. 6.

Quest. XLVIII. May anabaptists, that have no other error, be permitted in church communion?

Answ. Yes: and tolerated in their own practice also: for, 1. They agree with us in all points absolutely necessary to communion.

2. The ancient christians had liberty either to baptize, or to let them stay till age, as they thought best; and therefore Tertullian and Nazianzen speak against haste; and Augustine and many children of christian parents were baptized at age.

3. The controversy is of so great difficulty, that if in all such cases none that differ be tolerated, we may not live together in the world or church, but endlessly excommunicate or persecute one another.

4. Such sober antipædobaptists will consent, to profess openly, that they do devote their children to God according to all the power or duty which they can find communicated or laid upon them in the word of God; and that if they believed that God would accept them into his covenant upon their dedication, they would willingly do it. And that actually they do offer them to God according to their power, and promise to bring them up in his way. And who can force men's wills to choose aright for themselves or others?

Quest. XLIX. May one offer his child to be baptized, with the sign of the cross, or the use of chrism, the white garment, milk and honey, or exorcism, as among the Lutherans, who taketh these to be unlawful things?

Answ. I am not now to meddle with the question, whether they be lawful? but to this question I answer,

1. He that judgeth them unlawful, must first do his best to be certain whether they be so or not.

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

3. He must not offer his child to be so baptized, when, cæteris paribus, he may have it done in a better manner on lawful terms.

4. But when he cannot lawfully have better, he may and must offer his child to them that will so baptize him, rather than to worse, or none at all: because baptism is God's ordinance and his privilege, and the sin is the minister's, and not his. Another man's sinful mode will not justify the neglect of our duty; else we might not join in any prayer or sacrament in which the minister modally sinneth; that is, with none.

5. The milk and honey, white garment and chrism, are so ancient (called by Epiphanius and others the traditions and customs of the universal church) that the original of them is not known. And he that then would not be so baptized, must not have been baptized at all.

6. But in this case he that bringeth his child to baptism, should make known, that it is baptism only that he desireth; and that he disowneth and disalloweth the manner which he accounteth sinful: and then he is no consenter to it.

7. But where law, scandal, or great inconveniences forbid him, he is not to make this profession openly in the congregation, but in that prudent manner which beseemeth a sober, peaceable person; whether to the minister in private, or to his neighbours in converse; it being easy among neighbours to make known a man's dissent, without a disorderly troubling of the church, or violating the laws of obedience, civility, and peace.

8. But he must not, 1. Either offer his child to baptism, where the ordinance is essentially corrupted, or worse than none. 2. Or where he cannot be admitted without an actual sin of his own; as by false professions, subscriptions, &c. For we must not do evil for good ends.

Quest. L. Whence came the ancient universal custom of anointing at baptism, and putting on a white garment, and tasting milk and honey? And whether they are lawful to us?

Answ. 1. We must remember that the signification of these was not by a new institution of theirs, but by former custom of the countries where they lived.297 As, (1.) Anointing in Judea was like bathing at Rome: it was taken in those scorching countries for a wholesome, and easing, and comforting thing; and therefore used to refresh the weary limbs of travellers, and to comfort the sick.

(2.) And it was the long accustomed ceremony also used on officers accounted sacred, kings and priests, who were anointed at their entrance and investiture.

(3.) White clothing and purple were then and there taken for the noblest attire;298 not appropriated to sacred things and persons; but as scarlet lately in England, the garb only of great men. On which account, not as a sacred vestment, but as an honourable clothing, when the bishops began to be advanced, they were allowed to wear white clothing, not only when they officiated, but at other times.

(4.) The milk and honey were there highly esteemed for food, and accounted the character of the land of promise.299

2. Hereupon by application the churches used these signs in the sacred ordinance of baptism: not by new institution of the signification, I say, but by application of the old well-known signification.

3. As natural signs are commonly allowed to be applied to holy things, so signs whose signification is of old and commonly stated and well known by agreement or custom, do seem in this not to be different from natural signs. Such are all words, as signs of our minds; no word signifying any thing naturally, but by agreement or custom only. And such is kneeling in prayer, and being uncovered, and many the like: about some of which Paul appealeth to the custom of the churches of God.300

4. It is most probable that these two things together brought in anointing: (1.) The common use of anointing then, in both the foresaid cases (common refreshment and sacred investiture). (2.) And the mistake of all those Scripture texts, which command or mention anointing metaphorical: as 1 John ii. 27, "The anointing which you have received – teacheth you all things." Ezek. xvi. 9, "I washed thee, I anointed thee with oil," &c. Psal. cv. 15; 1 Chron. xvi. 22, "Touch not mine anointed." Rev. iii. 18.301

And withal reading that we are made kings and priests to God, and a royal priesthood, they thought this might be signified by the usual honorary signs of such, as well as by words to be called such. So that they took it as if, in our age, the baptized should be set in a chair of state, and sumptuously apparelled, and a feast made to solemnize it, as they do at weddings, and the baptized person set at the upper end, &c. which are significant actions and ceremonies; but they intended them not as new sacraments, or any part of the sacrament, but as a pompous celebration of the sacrament by such additional ceremonial accidents.

5. And you must remember that they lived among infidels, where their profession was made the common scorn, which tempted them by such ostentation and pomp to seek to make it honourable, and to show that they so accounted it, and to encourage those who were discourageable by the scorn. On which account also they used the cross, and the memorials of the martyrs.

6. Yet some, yea, many afterwards did seem to take the anointing for a sacramental action. When they read that the laying on of hands was the sign of giving the Holy Ghost, as distinct from baptism, and that the Spirit is called in Scripture the anointing, they joined both together, and made that which they now called the sacrament of confirmation.

7. Whether the anointing, milk and honey, and the white garment, were then sinful in themselves to the users, I determine not. But certainly they proved very ill by accident, whilst at this door those numerous and unlawful ceremonies have entered, which have so troubled the churches, and corrupted religion; and among the papists, Greeks, Armenians, Abassines, and many others, have made the sauce to become the meat, and the lace to go for clothing, and turned too much of God's worship into imagery, shadows, and pompous shows.

Quest. LI. Whether it be necessary that they that are baptized in infancy, do solemnly at age renew and own their baptismal covenant, before they have right to the state and privileges of adult members? And if they do not, whether they are to be numbered with christians or apostates?

Answ. 1. Church membership is the same thing in infants and in the adult.

2. Infants are naturally uncapable of doing all that in baptism which the adult must do; as to understand, profess, &c. themselves.

3. The baptism of the adult, being the most complete, because of the maturity of the receivers, is made the standing pattern in Scripture; for God formeth his ordinances to the most perfect ordinary receivers.

4. Though an infant be devoted acceptably to God by his parent's will, yet when he is at age it must be done by his own will.

5. Therefore a bare infant title ceaseth when we come to age, and the person's title ceaseth, unless it be renewed by himself, or his own consent. The reason is, because the conditions of his infant title then cease: for his parent's will shall go for his no longer.

6. Regularly and ad bene esse the transition out of the state of infant membership into the state of adult membership should be very solemn; and by an understanding, personal owning of the baptismal covenant.302

7. There needeth no other proof of this, than, 1. That God in Scripture never gave adult persons title to this covenant, but by their own personal consent; and at the first institution of baptism, both went together, (personal profession and baptism,) because the receivers were adult. 2. And that infants are capable of baptism, but not of personal profession. 3. Therefore though they are not to repeat baptism, which was done before, yet they are bound to make that profession at age which they never made before.

8. Where this solemn owning of their covenant cannot be had, (by reason of church corruptions, and magistrates' prohibition,) there the person's ordinary joining with the church, in the public profession and worship, is to be taken for an owning it.

9. He that being baptized in infancy, doth no way at full age own his baptismal covenant, is to be taken for an apostate: 1. Because his infant title ceaseth. 2. And he notoriously violateth his covenant. 3. Because he can be no adult christian that no way owneth Christ.

10. But this is to be understood of those that have opportunity; for one in a wilderness among heathens only, cannot join in public worship, nor give testimony of his christianity to the church.

11. Though the sacrament of the Lord's supper be appointed for the renewing of our covenant at age, yet is it not the first owning of the covenant, by the aged: for that sacrament belongeth neither to infants nor infidels; and he that claimeth it, must be an adult church member or christian; which those are not, who at full age no way ever owned their baptismal covenant, nor made any personal profession of christianity.

But of this I have written purposely in a "Treatise of Confirmation" long ago.

Quest. LII. Whether the universal church consist only of particular churches and their members?

Answ. No: particular churches are the most regular parts of the universal church, but not the whole; no more than cities and corporations be all the kingdom. 1. Some may be, as the eunuch, baptized before they can come to any particular church; or as Paul, before they can be received.303

2. Some may live where church tyranny hindereth them, by sinful impositions; as all that live among the papists.

3. Some may live in times of doubting, distraction, and confusion, and not know what church ordinarily to join with, and may providently go promiscuously to many, and keep in an unfixed state for a time.

4. Some may be wives, children, or servants, who may be violently hindered.

5. Some may live where no particular churches are; as merchants and ambassadors among Mahometans and heathens.

Quest. LIII. Must the pastor first call the church, and aggregate them to himself, or the church first congregate themselves, and then choose the pastor?

Answ. 1. The pastors are in order of nature, if not in time, first ministers of Christ in general, before they are related to a particular charge.

2. As such ministers, they first make men fit to be congregate, and tell them their duty therein.

3. But it is a matter variable and indifferent, whether the minister first say, All that will join with me, and submit to me as their pastor, shall be my particular charge; or the people before congregated do call a man to be their pastor.

Quest. LIV. Wherein doth a particular church of Christ's institution differ from a consociation of many churches?

Answ. 1. In that such particular church is a company of christians associated for personal immediate communion in God's worship and in holy living; whereas consociations of churches are combined for mediate distinct communion, or by delegates, or representatives (as in synods).304

2. Such a particular church is constituted of one or more pastors with the people, officiating in the sacred ministry among them, in doctrine, worship, and discipline, in order to the said personal communion. But a consociation of churches hath no particular head as such, of divine institution, to constitute and govern them as one. In Ignatius's time every particular church was characterized or known by two marks of unity: 1. One altar (that is, one place of assembling for holy communion). 2. One bishop with the presbyters and deacons: and two altars and two bishops proved two churches.

3. A particular church under one bishop or the same pastors, is a political, holy society; but a combination of many churches consociate, is not so, but only, 1. Either a community agreeing to live in concord, as neighbour kingdoms may. 2. Or else a human policy or society, and not of divine immediate institution. So that if this consociation of churches be called a church, it must be either equivocally or in a human sense.

Quest. LV. Whether a particular church may consist of more assemblies than one? or must needs meet all in one place?

Answ. 1. The true distinguishing note of a particular church is, that they be associated for holy communion in worship and holy living, not by delegates, nor distantly only, by owning the same faith, and loving one another, as we may do with those at the antipodes; but personally in presence.

2. Therefore they must necessarily be so near, as to be capable of personal, present communion.305

3. And it is most convenient that they be no more than can ordinarily meet in the same assembly, at least for sacramental communion.

4. But yet they may meet in many places or assemblies, as chapels, or oratories, or other subordinate meetings, which are appointed to supply the necessity of the weak and aged, and them that cannot travel far. And in times of persecution, when the church dare not at all meet in one place, they may make up several smaller meetings, under several pastors of the same church. But they should come all together as oft as they can.

5. And it is to be considered that all the persons of a family can seldom go to the assembly at one time, especially when they live far off. Therefore if a church place would receive but ten thousand, yet twenty thousand might be members, while half meet one day and half another (or another part of the day).

6. Two congregations distinctly associated for personal worship, under distinct pastors, or having statedly (as Ignatius speaketh) two bishops and two altars, are two particular churches, and can no otherwise be one church, than as that may be called one which is a consociation of divers.

Quest. LVI. Is any form of church government of divine institution?

Answ. Yea: there are two essentially different policies or forms of church government of Christ's own institution, never to be altered by man. 1. The form of the universal church, as headed by Christ himself; which all christians own as they are christians in their baptism.

2. Particular churches, which are headed by their particular bishops or pastors, and are parts of the universal, as a troop is of an army, or a city of a kingdom.

Here it is of divine institution, 1. That there be holy assemblies for the public worship of God.

2. That these assemblies be societies, constituted of the people with their pastors, who are to them as captains to their troops under the general, or as mayors to cities under the king.306

3. That these pastors have the power of the keys, or the special guidance and governance (by the word, not by the sword) of their own particular charge, in the matters of faith, worship, and holy living; and that the flocks obey them. And when all this is jure divino, why should any say, that no form of government is jure divino?

3. Moreover it is of divine appointment, that these churches hold the nearest concord, and help each other as much as they can; whether by synods, or other meet ways of correspondency. And though this be not a distinct government, it is a distinct mode of governing.

Object. But that there be pastors with fixed churches or assemblies is not of the law of nature.

Answ. 1. Hath Christ no law but the law of nature? Wherein then differ the christian religion and the heathenish? 2. Suppose but Christ to be Christ, and man to be what he is, and nature itself will tell us that this is the fittest way for ordering the worship of God. For nature saith, God must be solemnly and ordinarily worshipped, and that qualified persons should be the official guides in the performance, and that people who need such conduct and private oversight besides, should where they live have their own stated overseers.

Object. But particular congregations are not de primaria intentione divina: for if the whole world could join together in the public worship of God, no doubt that would be properly a church. But particular congregations are only accidental, in reference to God's intention of having a church, because of the impossibility of all men's joining together for ordinances, &c.

Answ. 1. The question with me is not whether they be of primary intention, but whether stated churches headed with their proper bishops or pastors be not of God's institution in the Scripture?

2. This objection confirmeth it, and not denieth it. For, 1. It confesseth that there is a necessity of joining for God's worship: 2. And an impossibility that all the world should so join: 3. But if the whole world could so join, it would be properly a church. So that it confesseth that to be a society joined for God's public worship, is to be properly a church. And we confess all this: if all the world could be one family, they might have one master; or one kingdom, they might have one king. But when it is confessed, that, 1. A natural impossibility of a universal assembly necessitateth more particular assemblies; 2. And that Christ hath instituted such actually in his word, what more can a considerate man require?

3. I do not understand this distinction, de primaria intentione divina, and accidental, &c. The primary intention is properly of the ultimate end only: and no man thinketh that a law de mediis, of the means, is no law, or that God hath made no laws de mediis: for Christ as a mediator is a means. But suppose it be limited to the matter of church laws; if this be the meaning of it, that it is not the principal means, but a subordinate means, or that it is not instituted only propter finem ultimum, no more than propter se, but also in order to a higher thing as its immediate end, we make no question of that. Assemblies are not only that there may be assemblies; but for the worship and offices there performed: and those for man; and all for God. But what of all this? Hath God made no laws for subordinate means? No christian denieth it.

Therefore the learned and judicious disputer of this point declareth himself for what I say, when he saith, I engage not in the controversy, Whether a particular congregation be the first political church or no? it sufficeth for my purpose, that there are other churches besides. – The thing in question is, Whether there be no other church but such particular congregations? Where it seemeth granted that such particular churches are of divine institution; and for other churches I shall say more anon. In the mean time note, that the question is but de nomine here, whether the name church be fit for other societies, and not de re.307

But lest any should grow to the boldness to deny that Christ hath instituted christian stated societies, consisting of pastors and flocks, associate for personal communion in public worship and holy living; (which is my definition of a particular church, as not so confined to one assembly, but that it may be in divers, and yet not consisting of divers such distinct stated assemblies with their distinct pastors, nor of such as can have no personal communion, but only by delegates;) I prove it thus from the word of God.

(1.) The apostles were commissioned by Christ to deliver his commands to all the churches, and settle them according to his will, John xx. 21; Matt. xxviii. 19, 20, &c.

(2.) These commissioned persons had the promise of an infallible Spirit for the due performance of their work, John xvi. 13-15; xv. 26; xiv. 26; Matt, xxviii. 20.

(3.) These apostles, wherever the success of the gospel prepared them materials, did settle christian stated societies, consisting of pastors or elders with their flocks, associated for personal communion in public worship and holy living. These settled churches they gave orders to for their direction, and preservation, and reformation: these they took the chief care of themselves, and exhorted their elders to fidelity in their work. They gave command that none should forsake such assemblies; and they so fully describe them, as that they cannot easily be misunderstood. All this is proved, Acts xiv. 23; Titus i. 5; Rom. xvi. 1; 1 Cor. xi. 18, 20, 22, 26; xiv. 4, 5, 12, 19, 23, 28, 33, 34; Col. iv. 16; Acts xi. 26; xiii. 1; 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2; Acts xiv. 27; xv. 3, to omit many more. Here are proofs enow that such particular churches were de facto settled by the apostles. Heb. x. 25, "Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together." So James ii. 2, they are called synagogues.

2. It is confessed that there is a natural necessity of such stated churches or assemblies, supposing but the institution of the worship itself which is there performed; and if so, then we may that the law of nature itself doth partly require them.

(1.) It is of the law of nature, that God be publicly worshipped, as most expositors of the fourth commandment do confess.

(2.) It is of the law of nature that the people be taught to know God and their duty, by such as are able and fit to teach them.

(3.) The law of nature requireth, that man being a sociable creature, and conjunction working strongest affections, we should use our sociableness in the greatest matters, and by conjunction help the zeal of our prayers and praises of God.

(4.) God's institution of public preaching, prayer and praise, are scarce denied by any christians.

(5) None of these can be publicly done but by assembling.

(6.) No assembly can suffice for these without a minister of Christ; because it is only his office to be the ordinary teacher, and to go before the people in prayer and praise, and to administer the Lord's supper, which without a minister may not be celebrated, because Christ's part cannot be otherwise performed, than by some one in his name, and by his warrant to deliver his sealed covenant to the receivers, and to invest them visibly in the benefits of it, and receive them that offer themselves in covenant to him.