A Christian Directory, Part 3: Christian Ecclesiastics

by Richard Baxter

Whether any form of church government be of divine appointment; and whether man may appoint any other?

Quest. May not men place new officers in the church; and new forms of government which God never instituted? Or is there any form and officers of divine institution?

Answ. Though I answered this before, I shall here briefly answer it again. 1. There are some sorts of officers that are essential to the polity, or church form, and some that are only needful to the well-being of it, and some that are only accidental. 2. There is a church form of God's own institution, and there is a superadded human polity, or form. There are two sorts of churches, or church forms, of God's own institution. The first is the universal church considered politically as headed by Jesus Christ: this is so of divine appointment, as that it is an article of our creed. Here if any man devise and superinduce another head of the universal church, which God never appointed, though he pretend to hold his sovereignty from Christ and under him, it is treason against the sovereignty of Christ, as setting up a universal government or sovereign in his church without his authority and consent. Thus the pope is the usurping head of a rebellion against Christ, and in that sense by protestants called antichrist; and he is guilty of the rebellion that subscribeth to or owneth his usurpation, or sweareth to him as his governor, though he promise to obey him but in licitis et honestis; because it is not lawful or honest to consent to a usurper's government. If a usurper should traitorously, without the king's consent, proclaim himself vice-king of Ireland or Scotland, and falsely say that he hath the king's authority, when the king disclaimeth him, he that should voluntarily swear obedience to him in things lawful and honest, doth voluntarily own his usurpation and treason. And it is not the lawfulness and honesty of the matter which will warrant us to own the usurpation of the commander.[145] And secondly, there is another subordinate church form of Christ's institution; that is, particular churches consisting of pastors and people conjoined for personal communion in God's worship. These are to the universal church, as particular corporations are to a kingdom, even such parts of it as have a distinct subordinate polity of their own: it is no city or corporation, if they have not their mayors, bailiffs, or other chief officers, subject to the king, as governors of the people under him: and it is no particular church, in a political sense, but only a community, if they have not their pastors to be under Christ, their spiritual conductors in the matters of salvation; as there is no school which is not constituted of teacher and scholars. That particular organized political churches are of Christ's institution, (by his Spirit in the apostles,) is undeniable. Acts xiv. 23, "They ordained them elders in every church." Tit. i. 5, "Ordain elders in every city, as I commanded thee." Acts xx. 17, "He sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church." Ver. 28, "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God." So 1 Thess. v. 12, 13; Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 24, &c. 1 Cor. vii. 23, "If the whole church be come together into one place," &c. Thus far it is no question but church forms and government is of divine appointment; and man can no more alter this, or set up such other, without God's consent, than a subject can alter or make corporations without the king's consent. 3. But besides these two sorts of divine institution, there are other allowable associations which some call churches. God hath required these particular churches to hold such communion as they are capable of, for promoting the common ends of christianity; and prudence is left to determine of the times, and places, and manner of their pastors' assemblies, councils, and correspondencies according to God's general rules. If any will call these councils, or the associations engaged for special correspondencies, by the name of churches, I will not trouble any with a strife about the name. In this case, so far as men have power to make that association or combination which they call a church, so also if they make officers suited to its ends, not encroaching upon the churches or officers of Christ's own institution, I am none of those that will contend against them; nor will this allow us to deny communion with them. And in those churches which Christ himself hath instituted, there are officers that make but for the integrity, and not for the political essence of the church: as deacons, and all pastors or presbyters more than one. For it is not essential to it to have any deacons, or many pastors. As to this sort of officers, Christ hath appointed them, and it is not in man's power to alter his institution, nor to set up any such like in co-ordination with these: but yet if they should do so, as long as the true essentials of the church remain, I am not to deny communion with that church, so I own not this corruption. 4. But there are also as circumstantial employments about God's worship, so officers to do those employments, which men may lawfully institute: as clerks, churchwardens, door-keepers, ringers, &c. It is not the adding of these that is any sin. By this time you may see plainly both how far churches, officers, and church government is jure divino, and how far man may or may not add or alter, and what I meant in my proposition, viz. That if men introduce a new universal head to the church catholic, or a new head to particular churches, instead of that of Christ's institution, this is, in sensu politico, to make new species of churches, and destroy those that Christ hath instituted (for the pars gubernans and pars gubernata are the essential constituents of a church). And with such a church, as such, in specie, I must have no communion (which is our case with the papal church); though with the material parts of that church, as members of Christ, I may hold communion still.

5. If particular members are guilty of obstinate impenitency in true heresy, or ungodliness, or any scandalous crime, the church may and must remove such from her communion; for it is the communion of saints. And the offender is the cause of this separation.

6. If a whole church be guilty of some notorious, scandalous sin, and refuse with obstinacy to repent and reform, when admonished by neighbour churches, or if that church do thus defend such a sin in any of her members, so as openly to own it; other churches may refuse communion with her, till she repent and be reformed. Or if they see cause to hold communion with her in other respects, yet in this they must have none.[146]

7. If any church will admit none to her personal communion, but those that will take some false oath, or subscribe any untruth, or tell a lie, though that church do think it to be true, (as the Trent oath which their priests all swear,) it is not lawful to do any such unlawful thing to obtain communion with that church: and he that refuseth in this case to commit this sin, is no way guilty of the separation, but is commendable for being true to God.[147] And though the case may be sad to be deprived of the liberty of public worship, and the benefits of public communion with that church, yet sin is worse, and obedience is better than sacrifice.[148] God will not be served with sin, nor accept the sacrifice of a disobedient fool, Eccles. v. 1, 2. Nor must we lie to glorify him, nor do evil that good may come by it: just is the damnation of such servers of God, Rom. i. 7, 8. All public worship is rather to be omitted, than any one sin committed to enjoy it (though neither should be done where it is possible to do better). It is not so unwise to think to feed a man with poisons, as to think to serve God acceptably by sin.

8. If any one church would ambitiously usurp a governing power over others, (as Rome doth over the world,) it is no unwarrantable separation to refuse the government of that usurping church. We may hold communion with them as christians, and yet refuse to be their subjects. And therefore it is a proud and ignorant complaint of the church of Rome, that the protestants separate from them as to communion, because they will not take them for their governors.

9. If any by violence will banish or cast out the true bishops or pastors of the church, and set up usurpers in their stead, (as in the Arians' persecution it was commonly done,) it is no culpable separation, but laudable, and a duty, for the people to own their relation to their true pastors, and deny communion with the usurpers: as the people of the eastern churches did commonly refuse communion with the intruding bishops, even to the death, telling the civil rulers, that they had bishops of their own, to whom they would adhere.

10. If a true church will obstinately deny her members the use of any one ordinance of God, as preaching or reading Scripture, or prayer, or praise, or discipline, while it retaineth all the rest, though we may not separate from this church as no church, (which yet in the case of total rejection of prayer or praise, is very questionable at least,) yet if we have opportunity, we must remove our local communion to a more edifying church, that useth all the public ordinances of God: unless the public good forbid, or some great impediment or contrary duty be our excuse.

11. If a true church will not cast out any impenitent, notorious, scandalous sinner, though I am not to separate from the church, yet I am bound to avoid private familiarity with such a person, that he may be ashamed, and that I partake not of his sin.[149]