Irenicum A weapon-salve for the churches wounds, or The divine right of particular forms of church-government : discuss'd and examin'd according to the principles of the law of nature .../ by Edward Stillingfleete ...

CHAP. VII.

The fifth thing dictated by the Law of Nature, That all that are admitted into this Society, must consent to be governed by the Lawes and Rules of it. Civil Societies founded upon mutu∣al consent; express in the first entrance, implicite in others born under societies actually formed. Consent as to a Church necessary, the manner of Consent determined by Christ by Bap∣tism and Profession. Implicite Consent supposed in all bap∣tized; explicite, declared by challenging the priviledges, and observing the duties of the Covenant. Explicite by express owning the Gospel when adult, very usefull for recovering the credit of Christianity. The Discipline of the Primitive Church cleared from Origen, Iustin Martyr, Pliny, Tertul∣lian. The necessary requisites of Church Membership, whe∣ther positive signs of Grace: Explicite Covenant, how far necessary; not the formal Constitution of a Church, * proved by several Arguments.

THe Law of Nature dictates, That all who are admitted into* 1.1 this Society, must consent to be governed by the Laws and Rules of that Society, according to its Constitution. For none can be looked upon as a Member of a Society, but such a one as submits to the Rules and Laws of the Society, as constituted at the time of his entrance into it. That all civil Societies are founded upon voluntary consent and agreement of parties, and do depend upon Contracts and Covenants made between them, is evident to any that consider that men are not bound by the Law of Nature to associate themselves with any but whom they shall judge fit; that Dominion and Propriety was

introduced by free consent of men: and so there must be Laws and Bonds fit, agreement made, and submission acknow∣ledged to those Lawes, else Men might plead their Naturall Right and Freedom still, which would be destructive to the ve∣ry Nature of these Societies. When men then did first part with their natural Liberties, two things were necessary in the most express terms to be declared: First, a free and volun∣tary consent to part with so much of their Natural Rights as was not consistent with the well being of the Society: Se∣condly, a free submission to all Laws, which should be agreed upon at their entrance into Society, or afterwards as they see cause. But when Societies were already entred, and Children born under them, no such express consent was required in them, being bound by vertue of the Protection they find from Authority to submit to it, and an implicite consent is supposed in all such as are born under that Authority. But for their more full understanding of this Obligation of theirs, and to lay the greater tye of Obedience upon them, when they come to understanding, it hath been conceived very requisite by most States to have an explicite Declaration of their consent, either by some formal Oath of Allegiance, or some other way suffici∣ently expressing their fidelity, in standing to the Covenants long since supposed to be made. To apply this now to the Church.

We have all along hitherto considered the Church in gene∣ral, as a Society or Corporation which was necessary in order to our discovering what is in it from the light of nature with∣out Positive Laws.

But here we must take notice of what was observed by Fa∣ther* 1.2 Laynez the Jesuit at the Council of Trent, That it is not with the Church as with other Societies, which are first them∣selves,* 1.3 and then constitute the Governours. But the Go∣vernour of this Society was first himself, and he appointed what Orders, Rules, and Lawes should govern this Society; and wherein he hath determined any thing, we are bound to look upon that, as necessary to the maintaining of that Society which is built upon his Constitution of it. And in many of those Orders which Christ hath settled in his Church, the Founda∣tion of them is in the Law of nature; but the particular de∣termination

of the manner of them is from himself. Thus it is in the case we now are upon; Nature requires that every one entring into a Society, should consent to the Rules of it. Our Saviour hath determined how this Consent should be expres∣sed, viz. by receiving Baptism from those who have the power to dispense it: which is the federal Rite whereby our consent is expressed to own all the Laws and submit to them, whereby this Society is governed: Which at the first entring of men in∣to this Society of the Church was requisite to be done by the express and explicite consent of the parties themselves, being of sufficient capacity to declare it, but the Covenant being once entred into by themselves, not onely in their own name, but in the name of their Posterity (a thing implyed in all Co∣venants* 1.4 wherein benefits do redound to Posterity, that the Obligation should reach them to; but more particular in this, it having been alwayes the T••nour of Gods Covenants with men, to enter the seed as well as the persons themselves, as to outward Priviledges) an implicite consent as to the children in Covenant, is sufficient to enter them upon the priviledges of it by Baptism, although withal it be highly rational for their better understanding the Engagement they entred into, that when they come to age, they should explicitely declare their own voluntary consent to submit to the Lawes of Christ, and to conform their lives to the Profession of Christianity, which might be a more then probable way, and certainly most agreeable both to Reason and Scripture to advance the credit of Christianity once more in the World, which at this day so much suffers by so many professing it without understanding the terms of it; who swallow down a profession of Christiani∣ty, as boyes do pills, without knowing what it is compounded of, which is the great Reason it works so little alteration upon their spirits.

The one great cause of the great flourishing of Religion in* 1.5 the Primitive times, was certainly the strictness used by them in their admission of members into Church-Societies, which is fully described by Origen against Celsus, who tells us they did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, enquire into their* 1.6 lives and carriages, to discern their seriousness in the profession of Christianity during their being Catechumeni: Who after

tells us they did require 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, true Repentance and Reformation of Life, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, then we ad∣mit them to the participation of our Mysteries. I confess the Discipline of the Primitive Church hath been very much mis∣represented to us, by mens looking upon it through the glass of the modern practices and customs obtaining among us: as though all this onely concerned the Admission to the Lords Supper: though that was alwayes in chiefest veneration in the Church of God, as being the chief of Gospel-Mysteries (as* 1.7 they loved to speak) yet I cannot find that any were admit∣ted to all other Ordinances freely with them who were debar∣red from this: but their admission to one, did include an ad∣mission to all▪ so on the contrary, I finde none admitted to Baptism, who were not to the Lords Supper; and if Catechu∣meni, presently after, onely confirmation intervening (which will hardly be ever found separate from Baptism, till the distin∣ction of the double Chrism in vertice & pectore came up, which was about Ieroms time.)

The thing then which the Primitive Church required in ad∣mitting* 1.8 persons adult to Baptism, and so to the Lords Supper, was a serious visible profession of Christianity; which was looked upon by them as the greatest Evidence of their real consent to the Rules of the Gospel. For that purpose it will be worth our taking notice what is set down by Iustin Mar∣tyr, Apolog. 2. speaking of the celebration of the Lords Supper;* 1.9 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Where we see what was required before Admission to the Lords Supper, A Profession of Faith in the truths of the Gospel, and answerable Life to the Gospel, without which it was not lawful to participate of the Lords Supper. And further we see by Pliny, that the Christians of those times did make use of some solemn Engagements among themselves which he calls Sacramenta; they did se Sacramento obstringere nè fun∣ta, nè latrocinia, nè adulteria committerent, nè fidem fallerent, &c. and Tertullian reports it out of Pliny, that he found no∣thing* 1.10 de Sacramentis eorum (as Iunius first reads it out of

M. S. for de Sacris, after him Heraldus, and as it is now read in Rigaltius Edition) besides cautelam & ad confoederandam disci∣plinam, &c. scelera prohibentes, which Eusebius calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, pacta, Covenants between them; and so Master Selden inter∣prets the place of Origen in the beginning of his Book against* 1.11 Celsus, where Celsus begins his charge against the Christi∣ans, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: where he takes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not, as Gelenius ren∣ders it, conventus, but in its proper sense for contracts or covenants that were made by the Christians as by other Soci∣eties, onely permitted, and tolerated by the Common-wealth. And we find by Pliny, that when the hetaeriae were forbidden, he brought the Christians in under that Law; the ground of those Societies was onely a mutual compact and agreement among the persons of it: Such as among the Essens of the Jewes, and the Schools of Philosophers among the Greeks. Iosephus mentions the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of those who were admit∣ted into the Society of the Essens, And so in all other Socie∣ties* 1.12 which subsist onely from mutuall confederation in a Com∣mon-wealth. Thus I acknowledge it to be in Christianity, that there must be such a supposed contract or voluntary consent in the persons engaged in such Societies. But with this ob∣servable difference, that although there must be a consent in both, yet the one is wholly free, as to any pre-engagement or obligation to it, as well as to the act its self; but in religious soci∣eties, though the Act of consent be free, yet there is an ante∣cedent Obligation upon men, binding them to this volunta∣ry consent. The want of the understanding this Difference, is the very Foundation of that Opinion men call Erastianism; For the followers of Erastus, when they finde that Chri∣stians did act ex confoederatâ disciplinâ, they presently con∣clude all Church-power lay onely in mutuall consent. It is granted, Church-power doth suppose consent; but then all Christians are under an Obligation from the Nature of Chri∣stianity to express this consent, and to submit to all censures Legally inflicted. About the hetaeriae and Societies among the Romans, we may take notice of the Law of Twelve Tables. So in the collection of Lud. Charondus, Sodalibus qui ejus∣dem Collegii sunt, & jus cotundi habent, potestas esto pactionis

quam volent inter se ineunda dum nè quid ex publicâ lege cor∣rumpant. Ex Caio c. 4. D. de Collec. & corp.

I confesse, when persons are entred into a visible Church-So* 1.13 ciety by Baptism, if they will own that profession they were baptized into, and are not guilty either of plain ignorance of it, or manifest scandall, and demand as their right the other Or∣dinances of the Gospel; I see not by what power they may be ex∣cluded. If we fix not in a serious visible prosession as the ground of giving right, but require positive evidences of grace in every one to be admitted to Ordinances as the only thing giving right, for my part, setting aside the many inconveniences be∣sides which attend that in reference to the persons to be ad∣mitted, I see not how with a safe and good conscience Ordinan∣ces can be administred by any. My reason is this: Every one, especially a Minister, in that case ought to proceed upon certain grounds that the person admitted hath right to the Ordinance to be administred; but if positive signs of grace be required, a mans conscience cannot proceed upon any certainty, without infallible knowledge of anothers spiritual state, which I suppose none will pretend to. My meaning is, that which gives right, must be something evident to the person admitting into it, if it be his duty to enquire after it; but if only positive signs of grace be looked on, as giving right, the ground of right can never be so evident to another person, as to proceed with a good conscience, i. e. with a full perswasion of another right to the administration of any Ordinance to him. If it be said, that these are required only as tokens of a true visible professi∣on, and it is that which gives the right; I reply, Our knowledge of, and assent to the conclusion▪ can be no stronger, nor more certain then to the premisses from when•••• it is inferred; if there∣fore true profession gives right, and our knowledge of that proceeds upon our knowledge of the work of grace, we are left at the same uncertainty we were at before. But if we say, that an outward profession of the Gospel (where there is no∣thing rendring men uncapable of owning it, which is ignorance, nor declaring they do not own it, which is s••andall) is that which gives a visible right to the Ordinances of the Church as visible, we have something to fix our selves upon, and to bot∣tom a perswasion of the right of persons to Ordinances.

Christ when he instituted Churches, did institute them as visible Societies, that is, to have marks whereby to be known and distinguished, as other Societies in the world are; now that which puts a difference between this and other Societies, is an open profession of Christianity, which profession is looked upon as the outward expression of the internal consent of the soul to the Doctrine and Laws of the Gospel. Which outward evidence of consent, where there is nothing evident∣ly and directly oppugning it, is that which the Church of God in admission of visible members is to proceed upon. I no∣where find that ever Christ or his Apostles in making disciples, or admitting to Church-membership, did exact any more then a professed willingnesse to adhere to the Doctrine which they preached; nor that they refused any who did declare their desire to joyn with them. An owning Christianity is all we read of antecedent to admission of Church-members. And if any thing else be further required as necessary, we must either say, the Word of God is defective in institutions of necessity to the Church, which I suppose the assertors of it will not be so inconsistent to their own principles, as to do; or else must produce, where any thing further is required by the Word of God.

By this we may see what to answer those who require an* 1.14 explicite Covenant from all members of the Church, as that which gives the form and being to a Church. If they mean only in the first constitution of a visible Church, an ex∣presse owning of the Gospel-covenant; there is none will deny that to be necessary to make one a member of the visible Church of Christ. If they further mean, that there must be a real confederation between those who joyn together in Go∣spel-Ordinances in order to their being a Church, I know none will question it that know what it is that makes a Society to be so; which is such a real confederation with one another: If they mean further, that though Christians be bound by vertue of their Gospel-covenant to joyn with some Church▪Society, yet not being determined by Scripture to what particular Church they should joyn; therefore for Christians better understanding what their mutuall duty is to one another; and who that Pastor is to whom they owe the relation of mem∣ber,

that there should be some significant declaration either by words or actions of their willingnesse to joyn with such a particular Society in Gospel-Ordinances; I shall grant this to be necessary too. But if beyond this their meaning be, that a formal explicite covenant be absolutely necessary to make any one a member of a Church, I see no reason for it. For,

1. If there may be a real confederation without this; then this is not necessary; but there may be a real confe∣deration without this explicite covenant: as appears in those Churches of Christ, both in the primitive times, and since the Reformation, who have never used it, which none I suppose who maintain this opinion will deny to have been true visible Churches of Christ.

2. If the Gospel-covenant entred into by any gives a right to Gospel-Ordinances by its self, then an explicite co∣venant is not that which makes one a member of a Church; but the Gospel-covenant gives that right to all Gospel-Ordi∣nances. If by Baptism, the person baptized have a legal title to all Gospel-Ordinances, then, &c. The Minor appears, in that they are admitted Church-members by Baptism; and how can any be a Member of a Church, and not have right to all Ordinances in it, supposing capacity to receive them? A right once received, continues till it be forfeited, especially when it is such a right as is not limited to any particular priviledges, but to all the priviledges of that Society into which they are entred.

3. The reality of consent may be sufficiently manifested without an explicite covenant; as in the joyning with those who are under the same profession in the common acts of the Society and acceptance of, and submission to the Rulers of that Society, which implicitely is that Covenant which they would have expressed; and actions in this case, are as declarative and significative as words.

4. If a Church may cease to be a true Church, without explicite disowning such a Covenant, then it is not explicite covenanting which makes a Church; but a Church may cease to be a true Church without explicite disowning it; as in case of universall corruption, as to Word and Sacraments; as in the Church of Rome, that still owns her self for a Church.

The ground of the consequence, is from the parity of reason as to contraries.

But though I see no reason at all, why an explicite Covenant* 1.15 should be so necessary to a Church, that we cannot suppose a true Church without it; yet I no wayes deny the lawfulnesse or expediency, in many cases, of having a personal profession from all baptized in Infancy, when they come to age (which we may, if we please, call Confirmation) and the necessity of of desiring admission, in order to participation of all Ordinan∣ces: which desire of admission, doth necessarily imply mens consenting to the Laws of that Society, and walking according to the duties of it; and so they are consequentially and virtually, though not expresly and formally, bound to all the duties requi∣red from them in that relation. When Churches are over-run with loosnesse, ignorance, and prophanesse, or when Christians are under persecution, an externall profession of the Gospel∣covenant, and declaring their owning the Society they are entred into, and submitting to the Laws of it, may be, if not wholly necessary, yet very usefull and expedient: And indeed, at all times we see people understand so little of their duty or engagements, and are so hardly brought under the exercise of Gospel-discipline, that an open profession of their submission to the Rules of the Gospel, seems the most likely way to ad∣vance the practise, Power, and purity of Religion: But of this much is spoken by others lately, and therefore I supersede. From all this we see, that every Society implying a joyning together in some common duties, Nature tells us there must be a reall consenting together, explicite, or implicite in all per∣sons, who enter into such a Society.

Notes

• * 1.1

  §. 1.
• * 1.2

  §. 2.
• * 1.3

  Hist. Coun∣cil of Trent, l. 7. p. 61••.
• * 1.4

  Deut. 29. 15. Acts 2. 38.
• * 1.5

  §. 3.
• * 1.6

  Dib. 3. p. 142, 143, & 147.
• * 1.7

  Tertul. Apol. c. 39, describes exclusion to be à commu∣nicatione Orationis & conven∣tus, & om∣nis sancti commercii:
• * 1.8

  §. 4.
• * 1.9

  P. 97▪ ed. Paris. 1636:
• * 1.10

  Lib. 10▪ e••▪ 97▪
• * 1.11

  Hist. Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 33. Selden. de Sy••ed. l. 1. cap. 9. V. Heral∣dum in Tertul. A∣pologet. cap. 39.
• * 1.12

  Ioseph. Hales. p. 2. cap. 12.
• * 1.13

  §. 4.
• * 1.14

  §. 7.
• * 1.15

  §. 8.