The True Way of Concord of All the Christian Churches, Part 1 · Chapter 11
CHAP. XI.
The danger of the two extreams: And firſt of deſpairing of any Concord, and of unjuſt Tolerations.
§. 1. SOme men having ſeen the Chriſtian world ſo long in Sects and contending parties, do think that there is no hope of Vnity and Concord, and therefore that all ſhould be left at liberty: And others think that there is no hope but on terms ſo wide as ſhall take ſuch as Chriſt receiveth not, nor would have us receive. And on ſuch accounts there were very early great contentions about the qualifications of the baptizers and baptized, and the validity of baptiſm, and about re-baptizing.
As to the Baptizers, ſome thought that only Prieſts ſhould baptize (none appropriated it to Biſhops): ſome thought Lay-men might baptize in caſe of neceſſity, and ſome thought that women alſo might do it: And ſome thought that though women or Lay-men might not do it lawfully, yet factum valet, being done, ſuch ſhould not be re-baptized. And ſome thought that thoſe that were baptized even by Prieſts that were Schiſmaticks, (or as they called them Hereticks when they ſeparated from common Concord and Communion) muſt be rebaptized. And they thought that if they were baptized in ſuch a Schiſmatical (or Heretical) ſociety, by whomſoever, it was not into the true Church. In this caſe Cyprian and the African Biſhops with Firmilian and his Collegues, were in the wrong, when the Biſhop of Rome was in the right. And the Donatiſts thought they were but of Cyprians mind: For it ſeems they had there the greater number of Biſhops; And the greater number went for the Church, and the leſs for hereticks: and ſo they called themſelves the Church (though out of Africa the number againſt them, or that meddled not in the quarrel was far greater.) And all this aroſe but by the conteſts of two men for the Biſhoprick of Carthage, ſome following one and ſome the other.
§. 2. This errour of Cyprian and the Donatiſts, aroſe 1. from their not ſufficiently diſtinguiſhing the Church univerſal, from the Aſſociated Churches of their Countrey; nor well conſidering that Baptiſm as ſuch is but our entrance into the univerſal Church, and not into this or that particular Church. 2. By an abuſive or equivocal uſe of the name [Heretick] their doctrine being true of Hereticks ſtrictly ſo called, who deny in baptizing any eſſential part of Chriſtianity, but falſe of Hereticks laxly ſo called, that are only Schiſmaticks, or deny only or corrupt ſome lower doctrines, precepts or practices of Religion.
§. 3. Therefore the Council of Nice truly decided the caſe by diſtinction, decreeing the re-baptizing of ſome (as ſuch as the Pauliniſts baptized) and not of others. That is, All that had not true Chriſtian baptiſm conſiſting of all the true eſſentials, were to be re-baptized, and not others, whatever particular Church they were of.
§. 4. Hereupon alſo among the Roman Doctors, it hath been a great debate, whether the Prieſts Intention was neceſſary to the validity of baptiſm: The true anſwer to which is this.
It is one queſtion what is neceſſary to the juſtifying of the Prieſt, before the Church? and another before God? and another queſtion what is neceſſary to the validity of baptiſm to the receiver before the Church? and another before God? And ſo I anſwer.
Suppoſing that no man ſhall ſuffer for anothers fault, but for his own: 1. If the Prieſt profeſs and Intention to baptize in general, and expreſs it in the true words of baptiſm, his act ex parte ſui is valid coram eccleſiâ though he diſſemble.
2. If the Prieſt diſſemble, his act is a crime and ſhall be puniſhed by God.
3. If he profeſs not to intend to baptize the perſon, or to intend it in general, but to corrupt it in the Eſſentials, it is as a Miniſtration invalid coram Eccleſiâ and ſhould be done again.
4. If the adult perſon baptized profeſs baptiſmal Conſent diſſemblingly, it is valid baptiſm coram eccleſiâ as to what the Church muſt do upon it, but invalid as to what God is to do as the performer of the Covenant.
5. If the perſon baptized do not ſo much as profeſs conſent, or profeſs not to conſent, nor to intend to be then baptized, it is no baptiſm before God or the Church.
6. If he profeſs to be baptized in general, but deny any Eſſential in particular, it is not the true Chriſtian baptiſm, but muſt be better done.
§. 5. When any came in ſo great errour as that the Church ſcarce knew whether it was an Eſſential part of faith and baptiſm that was denyed, it made the Controverſie hard about their re-baptizing. Many thought that the Photinians and Arians denying Chriſts Godhead as of the ſame ſubſtance with the father, denyed an eſſential article, and were to be re-baptized if they ſo entred at firſt: Our Socinians are much worſe, that deny Chriſts Godhead in a fuller ſence. And how doth he believe in Chriſt that believeth him not to be God, which is moſt eminently eſſential to him?
§. 6. They that are over-bold in altering Chriſts terms of Church Union and Communion, making them leſs or more or other, if they knew what they do, would find themſelves more concerned in theſe controverſies of baptizing and re-baptizing, and conſequently greater corrupters, than they have thought.
§. 7. To think that Church Vnion is impoſſible is to deny that there is any Church, and conſequently any Chriſt. To think that neceſſary Concord in Communion is impoſſible, is ſo great a diſparagement to the Church, as tempteth men by vilifying it to doubt of Chriſtianity: For if Chriſtians cannot live in Unity of faith and love and converſe, what is their Chriſtianity? And ſuch deſpair of Concord will make men ſuſpend all endeavours to attain it: For Deſpair uſeth no means.
§. 8. And to take into the Church of Chriſt ſuch as want the Eſſentials, and Chriſt would not have received, is to corrupt his Church, and bring in Confuſion, and ſuch as will diſhonour him, and will be more hurtful in the Church than they would be without: like rebels in a Kingdom, or mutineers in an Army, or enemies in a Family: The nearer the worſe.
§. 9. It is for this uſe eſpecially that Chriſt hath committed the Church Keyes to the Paſtors: And the Key of entrance is the Chief. Therefore he that judgeth who is to be Baptized, exerciſeth the chief act of the Church Keyes: And he that Baptized was held to have the Power of judging whom to baptize: which was never denyed to the Presbyters, till after for order ſome reſtrained them.
§. 10. It is a ſtrange contrariety of ſome Paſtors to themſelves, who judge that all Infants of Heathens, Jews, Turks or wicked men are without exception to be taken into the Church, if any ignorant Chriſtian will but offer them, and ſay over a few words; and the Adult alſo if they can but ſay over the Creed by rote, and a few words more; and thus fill the Church with Enemies of Chriſt; and yet when they are in, deny them Communion unleſs they will ſtrictly come up to many humane unneceſſary impoſitions; as if far ſtricter obedience to men (perhaps in uſurpations) were neceſſary, than to Jeſus Chriſt.
§. 11. How far Infidels, Catechumens, or Heretical or Schiſmatical Aſſemblies may be tolerated in the world about us by Magiſtrates, is not here to be enquired, but hereafter: But that the Churches themſelves ſhould not corrupt their own Communion by taking and keeping in uncapable perſons, the nature of the Church and diſcipline, and its ends, and the reproof of the Churches, Rev. 2. & 3. and the judgement of the Univerſal Church do tell us.