one If testimonies were needfull we might produce Zanchi Zwinglius Parker Baines and others who are fully with us in this doctrine of a particular church yea Dr. Downam himself confesseth that the most of the churches in the time of the Apostle Paul did not exceed the proportion of a populous congregation and this confession puts us in minde of a witty passage of his Refuter or his Epistoler who against the Bishops maintains the doctrine of congregationall churches with us with whose expressions for the recreation of our selves and the Reader we will conclude The Papist saith he he tels us just as the Organs goe at Rome that the extent of a Bishops jurisdiction is not limited but by the Popes appointment his power of it self indifferently reaching over all the world Our Prelatists would perswade us to the tune of Canterbury that neither church nor Bishop hath his bounds determined by the Pope nor yet by Christ in the Scriptures but left to the pleasure of Princes to be cast into one mould with the Civill State Now the plain Christian finding nothing but humane uncertainties in either of these devises he contenteth himself with plain song and knowing that Christ hath appointed Christians to gather themselves into such Societies as may assemble themselves together for the worship of God and that unto such he hath given their peculiar Pastors he I say in his simplicity calleth these Assemblies the Churches of Christ and these Pastors his Bishops Thus much concerning the nature of a particular church and that it is instituted in the Gospel Now in the second place wee are to shew how church government and Ordinances are given to it as to the proper subject of the same Where we shall propound these Theses for explication of our selves First Though Pastourship considered as an office in relation to a people to feed them authoritatively be one of these Ordinances given to a particular church Yet Christ hath given it for the gathering in of his elect unto the church and therfore wee grant some acts of the Ministery viz. the preaching of the Word is to be extended beyond the bounds of the church Secondly Seales and other Priviledges although de jure and remotely they belong to the catholique church or the number of beleevers yet de facto and nextly they belong properly to this Subject which wee speake of as wee hope to make good Thirdly They are not so appropriated to such congregations onely as to exclude the members of those congregations which are under the government of a common Presbytery or other formes of government for wee have a brotherly esteeme of such congregations notwithstanding that tertium quoddam separabile of government as Mr. Baines cals it being a thing that commeth to a church now constituted and may be absent the church remaining a Church Fourthly although it be said by some Divines that as faith is the internall form of the church so profession of faith is the outward form and that therefore bare profession of faith makes a member of the visible church yet this must be understood according to the interpretations of some of them who so speak for there is a double profession of faith Personall which is acted severally by particular persons and common which is acted conjointly in and with a Society The first makes a man of the catholick number of visible Saints and so fit matter for politicall church-society the other makes a man of the politicall church formally and compleatly and in this latter sense profession of faith is the externall form of a visible church but not in the other Now that in and to this subject so professing the seals and other ordinances belong may be proved thus Argument 1 First the seals and other Church-ordinances must either belong to the Catholick church as such or to the particular Church but these cannot belong to the Catholick in actuall dispensation whereof we now speak Ergo. For that Church which is uncapable of actuall dispensation of seales censures c. is uncapable of the participation thereof in an orderly and ordinary way But the Catholick number of visible beleevers as Catholick and out of particular Societies are not capable of dispensing the same Ergo. The Proposition is evident for it cannot be shewed that any Church in the New Testament was ever capable of participating in seals that was not capable of dispensing them at least not having a next power to elect Officers to do it The Assumption is evident from what hath been proved that it is no politicall Body the sole subject of Church administrations neither in the whole nor in the parts as existing out of Congregations Argument 2 If the members of the Catholick church be bound to joyn into particular Societies that they may partake of seals c. then the seals are not to be administred immediatly to them for then they should have the end without the means But they are bound to joyn in such Societies for that end for otherwise there is no necessity of erecting any particular Churches in the world and so all the glory of Christ in this respect should be laid in the dust and these particular temples destroyed and thus a door of liberty is opened to many to live loosely without the care and watch and communion of any particular Church in the world Argument 3 If the seals are to be administred immediately to beleevers or professing beleevers as such then they may be administred privately to any one where-ever he be found but that were very irregular and against the common doctrine of Protestant Divines who give large testimony against private Baptism or of the Lords-supper neither doe we see any weight in the arguments of the Papists or Anabaptists alledged for the contrary Argument 4 Lest we seem to stand alone in this controversies let the arguments produced by Didoclavius and him that writes concerning Perth Assembly against private Baptisms be considered and it will be found that most of them doe strongly conclude against administration thereof to any but Church-members Argument 5 The learned Author Mr. Ball in this his dispute against our Conclusion yet in his Discourse let fall sundry things that confirm it as when he describes the Catholick Church to be the Society of men professing the faith of Christ divided into many particular Churches Whence we argue if the Catholick church existeth onely in these particular Churches the seales must onely be given to them and the members thereof also That Baptism is a solemn admission into the Church of Christ and must of necessity be administred in a particular Society Whence three things will follow First that Baptism sometimes administred privately by the Apostles is not an ordinary pattern Secondly that Baptism is not to be administred to beleevers as such immediatly if of necessity it must be administred in a particular Society Thirdly joyning to some particular Society being an Ordinance of God of so great
their baptizing he records withall their adding to them the latter being an exegesis of the former and that the same day as being performed at the same time and indeed when a convert publickly professeth his faith in Christ is it not as easily done to reâ—…eive him to a particular visible Church as into the Catholick before Baptism but first to baptize them and then the same day to add or joyn them to the Church is altogether unprobable And that this adding was to a particular Church is sufficiently proved before The next place you may note is Acts 5.14 where the Holy Ghost omitting the baptizing of those beleevers yet speaks of their adding to the Lord as if the one implyed the other and that their adding to the Lord was by their joyning to the Church is evident by the opposition between verse 13 14. Of the rest durst no man joyn himself to them but beleevers were the more added to the Lord. 3 In the conversion of Samaria although so great a work is declared in so few words in one verse Act. 8.12 yet the text puts a manifest distinction of Philips doctrine between the things of the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ which plainly enough sheweth that they taught the observing of the order of the Kingdom of Christ as well as the Doctrine of the name of Christ the object of saving faith And this they received by faith and professed before they were baptized Now the first and most famous examples of the Apostles perswading that so they practised why should we doubt of their like practice in other examples when nothing is said that contradicteth the same as Acts 10. in the baptizing of Cornelius his house where so many were met and the Holy Ghost fell on all why should we think the Apostle Peter baptized them and left them out of the order of Christ wherein they should worship him and be edified in the faith If we doubt of it because the Scripture is silent therein we may as well question whether those beleevers Acts 4.4 9.35 vers 42. whether any of these confessed their faith or were baptized for nothing is said thereof So likewise Acts 11. where we read of many beleeving turning to the Lord vers 21. of the adding others to the Lord vers 24. but nothing of their confession of faith or baptism and yet they are called a Church whereby it appears that the holy Ghost sometime expresseth their baptism without joyning to the Church and sometimes joyning without baptism and sometime he expresseth both Acts. 2.41 And therefore hence we may conclude the like of the case of Lydia and the Jaylor considering the former practice of the Apostles and that the Apostle speaks so expresly of a Church at Philippi in the beginning of the Gospel Phil. 4. at which time we have no more conversions expressed but of those two families at least they were the most eminent fruits of Pauls Ministery at that time and it is very probable the Church was gathered in Lydia's house seeing Paul going out of prison to her house he is said to see the Brethren and comfort them so departing verse 40. Besides why might not the Apostle baptize them into that particular visible Church in such a case as well as into the Catholick or all Churches as some say they professing subjection to Christ in every ordinance of his with reference to that Church he had there constituted The fulnesse of power in the Apostles might doe greater matters without breach of order though no rule for us so to do neither is it strange from the practice of those times to begin a Church in a family seeing the Apostle speaks of Churches in three severall families Rom. 16.5 Col. 4.15 Phil. 2. which though many understand to be called Churches in regard of the godlinesse of those families yet if we consider First how many eminent Saints the Apostle salutes who no doubt had godly families not so much as naming their housholds much lesse giving them such a title but onely to these three named Secondly how distinct his salutations are first the Governors and then the Church in their house Thirdly that the Apostle doth not onely send his salutations to the Church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla Rom. 16.5 but also keeping the name of a Church he sends salutations from that Church to the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 16.19 All which doe strongly argue there is more in it then that they were godly families and therefore may perswade us that there were indeed constituted Churches in those Families though other Christians also might joyn with them Reply Thus having cleared our meaning and the consideration it self there will remain very few extraordinary cases if any of whom it can be proved they were not joyned to some particular Church when baptized as that of the Eunuch which as it was done by an extraordinary immediate call of Philip so to doe so also there was a speciall reason thereof the Lord intending thereby rather by him to send the Gospel into Ethiopia then to retain him in any other place to joyn with his Church And the Baptism of Paul who as without the Ministery of the Word he was converted by the immediate voice of Christ so he was baptized by the immediate call of Ananias so to do Now let us proceed to consider what further is replyed Answ The seals Baptism and the Lords-supper are given to the Church not onely in ordinary but also extraordinary dispensation True Baptism is not without the Church but in it an ordinance given to it The Sacraments are the seales of the Covenant to the faithfull which is the form of the Church tokens and pledges of our spirituall admittance into the Lords family Hence it is inferred that if the seales in extraordinary dispensation were given to the Church and yet to members of no particular Church then also in ordinary dispensation it may be so 1 It will not follow for first if the Apostle in extraordinary cases baptized privately will it follow that in ordinary dispensation it may be so Secondly if because the Ministery be given to the Church and extraordinary Officers were not limited to particular Churches will it therefore follow that in ordinary dispensations Ministers ought not to be given onely to particular churches Thirdly as we have oft said that seals belong de jure to all beleevers as such as members of the Catholick church they being given unto it firstly as to its object and end and all that are truly baptized are baptized into it and thus never out of it as being tokens of our spirituall admittance into the Lords family both in ordinary and extraordinary dispensation but doth it hence follow that actuall fruition of the seales of which the question is stated may ordinarily be had or given to such as set loose from all societies the Apostles had extraordinary power being generall Pastors over all persons
of God and where there is a Covenant there is the people of God c. Answ This assertion seems to us very strange to fall from that reverend and learned Author being a foundation of many inconveniences and absuâ—…dities and tending to overthrow the order of Christ in his visible Churches For First if this be so that every Society in Covenant with God be the Church of God then men may set up as many Forms of visible Churches as they please if the people be in Covenant with God visibly at least the Archdeacon with his Commissary Priests Churchwardens c. being in Covenant with God are a true Church So the Diocesan Bishop in his Cathedrall with his Clergy or any such Assembly are the Church of God or what other form-soever men will devise may goe for the Church of God and to them belong the seals and you may as wel say discipline and all Ordinances of God if they bee the true Church Secondly upon this ground every company of godly Christistians in Covenant with God meeting in fasting prayer c. are the true Church of God and to them as such the sealâ—… belong and sending for a true Minister of the Catholick church they may have Baptism and the Lords-supper administred and by the same reason discipline also yea if but two or three as you say being in Covenant with God meet together in their travail at an Inne c. are the Church of God especially every Christian family iâ—… the Church for they professe the entire faith joyn daily in prayer and thanksgiving receive the truth of God to dwell amongst them are in some measure obedient unto the commandâ—… of God and in Covenant with God And therefore being the Church of God why not call for a Minister and have seals ordinarily dispensed to them Thirdly upon this ground a company of Christian Women in Covenant with God are a Church to whom the seal â—… belong and who sees not how all orderly dispensation of Gods Ordinances and the whole order of visible Churches in the Gospel would be overturned by this assertion We verily beleeve this Author was far from admitting these things but the Position it self will unavoidably enforce the same Neither can we impute this assertion to any inconsideratenesse through heat of disputation For if any shall maintain the personall Covenant of people with God to be sufficient to constitute visible Churches and not admit a necessity of a more publick or generall Covenant explicite or implicite whereby a company of Christianâ—… are made one people joyning in one Congregation to worship God in his holy Ordinances and walk together in his wayâ—… they must of necessity acknowledge every Society in Covenant with God to be a Church as here is said and therefore admit all forms of Churches and all Families c. to be Churches and so bring in the confution objected which we desire may well bee considered All your Arguments stand upon that ground of personall covenant with God which is too weak to bear up that conclusion to make all such visible Churches to whom the seals belong as the absurd consequences thereof shew These Reasons and the Scriptures in the margent some of them will prove them fit matter for visible Churches and that they have a remote right unto the seals of that Covenant which we grant but they will not prove every Society of such to bee true Churches having immediate right to have the seals dispensed unto them Reply Fifthly If it be graâ—…ted that the seals are the prerogative of particular visible Churches known and approved Christians amongst us are members of such Churches and so to be esteemed amongst you c. and every visible beleever professing the pure entire faith admitted to the right and lawfull participation of the sacraments is a visible member of the true Church if he hath neither renounced the Society nor deserved justly to be cast out by excommunication or Church censure c. And if known and approved Christians members of our Churches comming to New-England shall desire to have their children baptized or themselves admitted to the Lords-supper before they be set members amongst you we desire to know upon what grounds from God you can deny them if you acknowledge our Churches Ministery and Sacraments to be true as you professe and the members of the Church be known and approved orderly recommended unto you Answ We grant all this here expressed for the substance however some reasons spoken unto before intermixed we passe over and to your question we frame a ready answer from your own words For first you grant that if such members have renounced that Society wherein they did partake of the seals they are not to be reputed members of it and this is generally the case of all approved Christians among us who though they doe not so renounce the Churches that bare them and gave them suck as no true Churches yet seeing they were grown so corrupt many ways as they could neither enjoy some needfull Ordinances nor partake in those they had without sin they have therefore renounced and forsaken all further communion with them and membership in them and so by your own grant neither themselves nor the Churches here can take them as members of your Churches to receive them under that respect Secondly if any yet have not so far renounced those Churches they belonged unto yet they are not orderly recommended unto us which also you grant ought to be and indeed otherwise we may oft receive persons justly excommunicate or such as are no members of Churches any where or otherwise under great offence as frequent examples amongst our selves doe sheâ—…e though the Church may think well of such as offer themselves What else follows in this Paragraph is the same in substance and much of it in words also that we have answered before and therefore we passe it over and that of the Jewish Church we shall speak to after As for that you desire leave to set down and us to examine what may be objected against that we affirmed That the distinct Churches named in the New Testament were Congregationall Societies we shall consider as followeth Reply The number of beleevers were so great in some Cities that they could not conveniently meet in one place as one Assembly to worship God according to his will and for their edifying as in Samaria Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Answ Although we expected not Objections in this case against the currant Tenent of our godly Reformers Baine Parker c. with whom we joyn and we might refer you to them for answer to this beaten Objection of the Prelates yet we are not unwilling to examine what is said in this digression The Argument stands thus If the number of beleevers were so great in some City as could not meet in one Assembly to edification then there was some other form of a Church besides Congregationall But so it was in Samaria c. Answ
society where God should choose to put his name there Exod. 4.47 Deut. 16.1 1. Answ This seemeth to touch the question it selfe rather then the proposition of this fourth consideration but wee shall answer to it as it stands 1. Here you grant that a person baptized is baptized unto a particular Congregation which wee accept as a yeelding of the question unawares 2. If you meane that such hath a liberty of Communion in a way of brotherly love in all Churches where he comes wee grant so farre as nothing in him justly hinder but if you meane that hee is baptized into all Churches so as to challenge a right of Membership in them all wee deny it as a position that would take away all distinction of Churches as wee have formerly shewed 3. We deny that the Lords Supper is the priviledge of a baptized person able to examine himself walking in the truth as a baptized person for then a Papist converted to the truth able to examine himselfe hath a right to the Lords Supper in every Church before he make any profession of his conversion and faith in any particular Church for hee may bee such a baptized person And we may say the like of an excommunicate penitent 4. We grant that a baptized person is not onely baptized in to that particular Church whereof hee was first a member For if it bee a seale of his initiation into that particular Church onely then he must bee rebaptized as oft as hee enters into another but hee is baptized in the sense formerly shewed into the whole mysticall Body of Christ and hence hath jus ad rem or a remote right unto the priviledges of the Church every where but that therefore he hath immediate right to the fruition of all when he is severed from that particular church wherein he was baptized that follows not for as he had this latter right in the first Church wherein hee was baptized so he must have it in any of the Churches of Christ afterward now if in the first Church the fruition of ordinances came by orderly joyning to it so it must be afterward for as wee said before such as the communion is such ought to be the union he that would have politicall communion with the politicall Churches of Christ must be some where in politicall union with them otherwise one may have communion in all Churches yet never unite himself to any one which loose walking we are perswaded Christ Jesus will not allow 5 The similitude from a circumcised person will not hold First because there is no parity between severall families in the same Church and severall Churches in the New Testament but rather severall seats of communicants in the same Church answers severall â—…amilies eating the passeover in the Church of the Jewes Secondly an Edomite circumcised though he were converted and acknowledged the true God in his owne country never so fully yet might not eate the passeover till he joyned to the church of Israel as all other Proselytes did so is it here Reply Thirdly there is not the same reason of every Church priviledge one may have right to some who may not meddle with others as members of one Church may joyne in hearing and prayer with another Church but not medale in election and ordination of their Teachers and therefore the prâ—…position is not so evidâ—…nt to bee taken without proofe that they have no power to admit a beleever into communion in any Church priviledge who have no power to excommunicate Answ What is here objected from the liberty or restriction of Church members in another Congregation is answered before in the first objection and therefore the proposition may stand good for all that is here said 2 That which is set down as the proposition is neither the same with that in our reason nor any way allowed by us for wee speake not here of power to admit but of the right to bee partakers neither doe wee deny a power in officers to admit members of other Churches to the seales though they have no power to excommunicate them 3 If our proposition seeme to need proofe the reason of it is at hand because those that are the peculiar priviledges or proper priviledges or proprieties of the Church as seales and censures being of the same nature viz. outward ordinances of Christ ordained by him for the edification of his Church and joyntly given to his Church and therefore looke to what Church hee hath given the one hee hath given the other also if the one viz. censures bee given to the Church of a visible Congregation then the other they are all both seales and censures contained in the keys which are given to the visible instituted Churches of the New Testament not to the Catholick as such for a godly man justly cast out of the particular Church yet cannot bee cast out of the Catholick Reply That visible beleevers baptized into a true Church professing the true faith and walking in holy obedience and their seed should be judged such as are without in the Apostles sense because they are not externally joyned as set members to some peculiar Congregation in Church Covenant is affirmed not proved Answ Comming to the assumption of our argument it is expressed according to the frequent manner in this Reply in such termes as it is not affirmed by us and theâ—â—â—ore if it want proof blame not us our assumption is Such as are not in Church Covenant are not capable of Church censures where by being in Church covenant wee meane either implicitly or explicitly membership in any true Church as in our answer wee expresse to prevent mistakes and this is proved from 1 Cor. 5.12 and in applying hereof wee doe not affirme that such are simply without in the Apostles sense but in some respect onely viz. in regard of visible church Communion Reply First It doth oft fall out that the true members of the Catholick Church and best members of the orthodox Church by a prevailing faction in the Church may bee no members of any distinct society and shall their posterity be counted aliens from the Covenant and debarred from the Sacraments because their parents are unjustly separated from the inheritance of the Lord Answ This objection is before answered in the first consideration where was given the instance of Athanasius and it is answered by the Reply it selfe in the next words Surely as parents unjustly excommunicated doe continue still visible members of the flock of Christ understand that particular Church out of which they are cast so the right of Baptism belongs to their Infants which being so they are not without that Church though debarred unjustly of the present communion with it unlesse he renounce that Church or other Reply Secondly If such Churches renounce it as are no members of a politick spirituall fellowship be without then the mâ—…mbers of one Church are without unto another c. Answ This objection wee have
therefore impossible both in regard of distance of place and variety of language almost ever to meet in one so much as by representation and that not onely by accident as may befall a particular Church by sickness persecution c. but by the necessity of nature and invincible hinderances foreseen by Christ and intended by him And therfore as the Lord limiting his Church to one Nation united it into that form of a Nationall Church ordaining one place stated times and duties of Worship and one Government for the same so now the â—…ord neglecting all such things hath ordained a compleat administration of all his ordinances in particular Congregations and therefore if there be no other instituted visible Church but of a Congregation and Seals in their administration be given to the Church our first consideration will still hold firm But seeing in so vast a subject to say little is to say nothing and there is scarce any Truth in this wilie age but is almost disputed out of countenance and much darkned with humane evasions and seeing much depends upon this controversie it may be so most usefull before we come to the defence of our argument to take into consideration the nature and order of the visible Church of Christ Catholick and particular We are not ignorant of the knots and difficulties of this question which of late have so much exercised the minds of many Godly-learned And we think the notions of a Catholick Church as it is now held being but newly taken up amongst-godly Reformers who formerly ran in another channell as is ingenuously confessed by some according to the truth this new-birth seems not yet so formed to its distinct proportions as time may bring it unto and it might make us afraid being the weakest of many to venture upon so diffuse and knotty a question when we look upon our own insufficiency to such a task and the Learned labors of such in this Point whom we reverence in the Lord yet when we consider of what great weight and moment the clearing up of this Truth would be unto the orderly proceedings of the great Work of Reformation in hand 2 How unavoydably it lyes in our way in this Work the Lord hath called us unto and that he sometimes doth vouchsafe to speak by weak ones that the praise may be his own in hope of his blessed guidance which we depend upon herein taking the light of his Word in our hands we shall rather as learners then otherwise venture to propound what is suggested to us herein Concerning which having digressed a while we shall return we hope with some advantage of clearer evidence to justifie the first argument of the Answer against what is said in the Reply CHAP. V. A digression tending to clear the state of that controversie concerning a Catholick visible Church in respect of the nature unity visibility and priority of the same THe world hath been long troubled with the equivocation of the word Church and therefore as it is needfull we shall labor to set down our thoughts as distinctly and plainly as we can in certain Propositions that may be some ground of our discourse Proposition 1 The true Church of God is the whole number of Elect and called ones out of the world to fellowship with Jesus Christ their Head with whom they make up one mysticall body Ephes 1.23 This whole Church is of the same nature and one in essence from the beginning of the world to the end for this Church Christ laid down his life Ephes 5.26 Joh. 10.15 and therefore he adds vers 16. such as are not yet of his fold actually shall be brought into the same viz. by effectuall calling that there may be one Shepheard and one sheepfold wherby it appears that the whole fold of Christ to which he stands as one Shepheard contains all his members and sheep to the end of the world and it is one fold in relation to Christ that one Shepheard Proposition 2 This one entire body of Christ doth naturally fall under various notions and considerations as omitting others when it is considered according to the adjuncts of visibility and invisibility which are onely adjuncts of the same Church as is generally observed by Divines In respect of the inward union which every such member hath with Christ the Head by the Spirit of Christ and by Faith whereby we are united to him it is called invisible because this union is not visible to men In respects of some visible fruits and manifestations of faith to the judgment of men it is called visible and hence though true beleevers be onely univoce and properly members of this body of Christ yet to men that judge onely by outward effects many hypocrites equivoce and improperly are accounted of the Church and hence the Scripture frequently speaks of visible Churches as if they were all really Saints Proposition 3 As this Church comes to be visible so it becomes a fit and capable subject of visible policy and visible communion with Christ their Head and one with another in all the visible ordinances of Christ a capable subject we say or matter fit for such a state for by its visibility it self it is not so having yet no more then a spirituall relation to Christ and one another no visible combination one with another for visible beleevers may be so scattered in severall Countreys that they cannot make up one Society Proposition 4 And therefore we add That there is no way for this Church to enjoy actuall visible communion under the visible government of Christ and in the visible instituted ordinances of Christ but in a Society A thousand uncombined persons meeting occasionally in one place though their naturall relations were as near as brethren yet have no power of government or actuall communion in any Civill priviledges if they stand not in relation to one another as a combined Society as after shall be shown so here And therefore Acts 2.41 42. first they were added to the Church and then followed their fellowship in all the ordinances of the Church as after will more fully appear And hence it is said Acts 5.14 Beleevers were added first they were beleevers standing in that spirituall relation to Christ and his whole body and then added to the Church by visible combination Proposition 5 There is no visible society of a Church who hath actuall and immediate right unto and communion in the visible government of Christ and the dispensation of his instituted Worship and ordinances but such a Society as the Lord Jesus hath in the Gopel instituted and ordained for that end We say actuall and immediate right unto the same for though a beleever quâ beleever have an immediate right and actuall enjoyment of such benefits of Christ as necessarily and immediately flow from his internall union with Christ as justification adoption c. and such right to Christian communion with all the Saints in their prayers gifts
all mankinde is the first subject of all power of Civill government and the priviledges thereof and if so whether such consequences will follow as our Brethren deduce from the unity visibility and priority of the Catholich Church Now we reduce what we intend into an Argument thus If all that can be said from Scripture and Reason concerning the unity visibility and priority of the Catholick Church may as truly be affirmed upon like grounds of the Catholick body of mankinde then á pari it will follow that there is no more one Catholick visible instituted totum that is the first subject of Church power and priviledges in the actuall exercise and enjoyment of the same then that there is such a Catholick body of mankinde that is the first subject of Civill power c. and that actually doth or ought to govern and be governed as one Catholick body in communion but it will appear from Scripture and Reason that the same things may be said of mankind that can be said of the other Ergo. And it is proved per partes thus 1 For the unity are not all mankinde oft in Scripture called the world Joh. 3.16 So God loved the world that is mankinde in the world which is one So frequently all mankinde is called man Gen. 6.5 6 7. I will not strive with man c. yea it is one kingdom Psal 145.11 12 13. which if we view the whole Psalm must be understood of the generall government of Gods providence over all the world and especially mankinde therein 1 Chron. 29.11 12. c. so that all is one kingdom Acts 17.26 God hath made of one blood all Nations all are one blood all have their bounds set by God c. that they might seek him and feel after him and as it is said for one Catholick Church because it hath one Lord one Faith one Baptism one Spirit and are bound to love and pray one for the other c. so there is a like unity here for the whole number of mankinde hath one Lord and King over all God who is King over all the earth called an head over all 1 Chron. 29.11 yea Jesus Christ is Lord of Lords and King of Kings and head over all to the Church Ephes 1.22 All have one Law the Morall Law the common rule of equity and righteousness whereby they are bound to walk towards God and one another and this writ in the hearts of all they have all one spirit of reason disposing them to society and mutuall offices of love one faculty of speaking to fit them for communion one end to feel after God Act. 17. and seek ye good of the whole kinde all ought to love one another desire and seek the welfare of the whole and of one another Esay 58.7 yea the Lord as a common head by the working of his common Providence and out of his love of mankinde hath a common and constant influence into all giving not onely life and breath and all good things Acts 17. but also all gifts of wisdom art skill for Government c. to Kings Judges Fathers Masters and all Officers of Civill government for the good of the whole and what ever else may be said to prove the Catholick Church One may here be applyed And as for principles of reason it is easie to conceive that all mankinde will fall either under the notion of one genus homo whereof the individua are species specialissimae or in another respect all persons all Families Cities Kingdomes may in a sense make one totum integrale or aggregatum Secondly it is as evident that all this number of mankinde are one visibile totum by the arguments used for the visible Catholick Church for that which hath visible parts is a visible totum it holds here as well as in the other case Yea if the Catholick Church be one visible Body because it hath organs and visible Officers in it it will hold here for all mankinde is but one Army of the Lord of Hosts who hath Armies of heaven and Armies on earth and in this Body God by his Providence hath set and by his ordinance hath ordained Fathers Masters Husbands Judges Kings c. to govern in this Body of mankinde for the good of the whole Ruling and subjection by the fifth Commandement of the Morall Law which is in all mens hearts is ordained of God for the order peace and welfare of all mankind and therefore why is not this by the same reason a totum visibile Thirdly for Priority it is clear that as God hath firstly in nature and intention given Christ to the whole Church then to this and that particular beleever and the power of feeding and being fed and governed by shepheards First to the whole race of sheep Secondly to this or that flock So in nature and Gods intention he hath firstly given to the race of mankind power of being governed with Government and Governors before they are given to this or that Family City Kingdom c. So likewise what is said of Promises given to the Church Catholick firstly is it not as true here Those promises and blessings increase and multiply Subdue the earth and inhabite it The feare and dread of you shall be on all beasts and all like promises and priviledges of marriage of liberty to eat flesh c. mentioned Gen. 2. 9. and all over the Scripture are they not in nature first given to mankinde and then to this or that person family City So if Church power and all Officers and Offices be firstly given to the Catholick Church not to this or that particular Church So it 's here when the Scripture saith Submit to the higher Powers for all Powers are of God Rom. 13. By me saith God Kings reign and Princes decree judgment and such like Scriptures doth this firstly belong to this or that Kingdome City c. and not rather that God hath firstly set up and ordained Civil Powers for mankind to be obeyed of all mankinde firstly and then in this or that state Is foederall holinesse first the priviledge of the Catholick Church which in a sense we will not now contradict so is legitimation first the priviledge of married society in generall in all mankinde and then of this or that family Are the members of particular Churches firstly of the Catholick Church and is it not so here the members of every family city c. first and last of the number of mankinde and so when the Societies are dissolved they are still of mankinde and doe not all Societies spring of mankinde and are an additament and increase to it the one is true as well as the other It would be over tedious to follow this parallel so farre as wee might these may be sufficient instances to guide the Reader to apply whatever else is or can be said in this kinde from the common nature and logicall notions under which the Catholick Church visible
may be considered What is said that may more properly concern the case under the notion of an instituted Society we shall consider in due place Now from that which hath been said the Conclusion as we conceive doth easily and naturally follow That as notwithstanding all that is said there is no Catholick visible Body of mankinde to which or to the Officers wherof is given the power and priviledges of Civill government to rule this Catholick Body either as one totum politicum or the parts of it Families Cities Kingdoms in communi by subordination of all Societies with reference to the whole or so as every King Major c. should be an Officer of the whole So these and like consequences will not follow in respect of the guides government priviledges c. of the Catholick Church notwithstanding all that is said from these considerations of unity visibility priority of nature c. Object 1 If any shall Object the case is not alike because in this Catholick Church were universall Officers set up as the Apostles not so in the world of mankinde Ans We say these were but for a time in the first beginning for the setting up of the first order in all the Churches who being dead there is none to succeed them in that respect of Catholick power Secondly we say likewise at the first for a time Adam and after Noah had a generall power over mankinde though after them none had the like as it is here And therefore the comparison stil runs clear Object 2 If any object as some doe in answer to an argument somewhat like this that this similitude holds not because there is not that externall union of visible communion in the Common-wealths of the world as in the Church if one say God hath placed Kings Dukes in the Common-wealths as in one organicall Body who have one head who giveth influence to so many organs of head feet c. as the Apostle speaketh of the Body the Church 1 Cor. 12. then indeed all the Common-wealths of the world would make but one body Answ To the Scripture alledged we shall speak after here onely let us clear our parallel And first take the similitude as it is stated by us and it will be clear First compare the Catholick number of mankinde with the Catholick Church which is the number of called ones and then there is as much externall union of visible communion in one as in the other For first all mankinde may and ought to maintain Civill communion one with another in all Offices of humanity for the common good of the whole as the members of the Catholick Church doe or ought to doe and common humanity and the command of the Morall Law binds thereto as well as Christianity and rules of the Gospel bind here Secondly if we compare Civill societies as Families Cities Common-wealths with instituted Churches it is as possible and as well the duty of all Common-wealths in the world by principles of humanity and the Morall Law in all mens hearts to maintain externall union of leagues of friendship and communion in all Offices of Civill society as it is possible and the duty of all Church societies by the principles of Christianity and rule of the Gospel to maintain externall union of visible communion in the duties of Church society Thirdly not to dispute here whether there be such an externall union of visible communion amongst all the visible Churches as parts of the Church Catholick if the reason alledged be sufficient to prove the same viz. because there is one head in the Church who giveth influence to so many organs of head feet eyes c. in the Church Then still our parallel will hold for as this Head is no other then Christ Jesus in his spirituall Kingdom the Church giving that influence named so the same Lord that is King and Head over all 1 Chron. 29.11 Ephes 1.22 doth give influence to many organs in this Body of Mankinde even to all Kings Judges Fathers of Families And Christ is the same in respect of all authority power gifts administrations Civill c. to this Kingdome of Men as he is to the Kingdom of his Church of all power spiritual And although the Church be a Body of nearer relation to Christ then the Body of mankinde yet in regard of a common relation between a Head and Body there is a similitude which is sufficient in this case There is one thing more we meet withall that here we shall remove viz. when it is objected that the Catholick visible Church cannot be one because it cannot convent together in one Society it is answered usually that such comming together in one society is not needfull because as a Kingdom may be one though all parts of it never meet together having the same King Laws c. And as an Army may be one having the same Generall the same Laws of Discipline the same cause c. though the severall Brigades should never be drawn up into one body So the Catholick Church having the same King Laws Cause Enemies is but one though it never meet To this we shall here Reply so far as it lyes in our way 1 As all union is for communion and all communion flows from union so look of what nature the union is such and no other is the communion and look of what nature the communion ought to be of like nature ought the union to be else it will not reach the end And therefore here as the mysticall spirituall union of the Catholick Church to Christ the head by faith and to one another by love is sufficient to afford spirituall communion with the same So unto Politicall communion there must bee a Politicall union into one policy And as the nature of Politicall communion is such must the nature of the union be that it may reach the end To apply this a Politicall Church is instituted of Christ for communion in all the Worship and Ordinances of Christ instituted in the Gospel as the Ministery of the Word the Seales and Discipline now no Church as One can have communion with Christ and one another in these things but it must have a Politicall union suitable thereunto that is they must be one Society that can at least meet to combine together And therefore if all Churches make one Politicall Body for Politicall communion it must be such an union as will reach that end which cannot be imagined in such a Catholick totum politicum as the Catholick Church 'T is true distinct Churches as distinct Kingdoms may have communion in some politicall priviledges answerable to their union consisting in a fraternall relation one unto another yet not make up one Body Politicall of which we speak Secondly to the similitudes brought we answer This whole Kingdom or Army is properly and clearly one Politicall Body under one Politicall head the King or General as stands by Covenant as members of that one Policy and those
ordinances of Christ and priviledges of a Church which the other have not being out of that order of Christ prescribed in the Gospel in which order of a visible Church visible ordinances are to be dispensed as hath been proved before Reply If a Synod consisting of sundry members of particular Churches met together in the name of Christ about the common and publike affaires of the Churches shall joine together in prayer and Communion of the Supper we can see no ground to question it as unlawfull although that assembly bee no particular Congregation or Church hath no Pastour over them c. Answ That such an assembly may pray together is no question for every family may doe so and that they may receive the Supper also in a right order wee deny not for meeting where there is a particular instituted Church they may have Communion therewith in the Supper being many as well as few but whether they may as a Church being no politicall body but members of many Politicall Churches administer Church ordinances proper to a Church wee would see some reasons before wee can judge it lawfull so to doe for though some doe account such a Synod Ecclesia orta yet not properly such a Church as hath Ecclesiasticall power authority and priviledge belonging thereto they may consult and doctrinally determine of cases of that assembly Acts 15. but further to proceed we see no rule nor paterne Besides if such an assembly of many Churches may administer Seales why may not any other assembly of Church members or Ministers doe the same and so this power will be carried without limitation we know not how far if they once depart from a particular Church CHAP. VIII Consid 3. Reply TO the third consideration this whole reason as it is propounded makes onely against it selfe who ever thought that the Seales were not proper to confederates or the Church of God of old visible beleevers in the Covenant of grace were of the visible Church and in Church order according to the dispensation of those times though not joyned to the society of Abrahams family to exclude Job Melchisedeck c. because not of the visible Church is welnigh a contradiction and so to debarre known approved Christians c. Answ That this reason makes not against it self Mr. Ball himself hath cleared when he stated our consideration truely in the words following as will appeare however here he somewhat troubles the waters needlessely that the ground may not appeare for there is nothing in our answer which deny Melchisedech Job c. to bee of the visible Church according to the manner of those times indeed wee instance in them as persons under the covenant of grace not mentioning their membership in family Churches as being enough for our purpose if they had not right to Circumcision by vertue of their right in the covenant of grace except they joyned to the Church at first in Abrahams family and so after to the same Church in Israel and the more speciall Church relation in Abrahams family was required to Circumcision the stronger is the force of our reason not the weaker For so much the rather it followes that seales are not to bee dispensed to beleevers as such though visibly professing the faith except they joyne also to such a forme of the visible Church to or in which the seales are instituted and given Reply The true and proper meaning of this consideration is that as Circumcision and the Passeover were not to bee dispensed to all visible beleevers under the Covenant of grace but onely to such as were joyned to Abrahams family or the people of the God of Abraham no more may Baptisme and the Lords Supper be administred now to any beleevers unlesse they be joyned to some particular Congregation Answ These words rightly stating the consideration wee leave it to any indifferent reader to judge whether any way it make against it selfe or whether there was any cause first to darken it as was done in the former passage Reply The strength of it stands in the parity betweene Circumcision and Baptisme but this parity is not found in every thing as your selves alledge To unfold it more fully wee will consider three things First wherein the Sacraments agree and wherein they differ Answ It matters not in how many things the Sacraments differ so they agree in the thing questioned and though wee might raise Disputes and Queries about some particulars in this large discourse upon this first head yet seeing here is a grant of the parity in the point now questioned viz. Concerning the persons to whom Circumcision and Baptisme doe belong wee shall take what is granted and leave the rest For thus it is said Circumcision and Baptisme are both Sacraments of Divine institution and so they agree in substance of the things signified the persons to whom they are to be administred and the order of administration if the right proportion be observed Now that we hold the right proportion in the persons may appearâ—… First in that as was granted Circumcision sealed the entrance into the Covenant but this Covenant was not simply and onely the Covenant of grace but that whole Covenant that was made with Abraham whereby on Gods part they were assured of many speciall blessings whereof Lot and others not in this Covenant with Abraham were not capable and whereby Abraham his seed and family were bound for their part to be a people to God and to observe this signe of the Covenant which others in the Covenant of grace were not bound to Answ Secondly as is granted it was Abraham and his houshold and the seed of beleeving Jewes that were the persons to bee Circumcised and therefore not visible beleevers as such for then Lot had been included so by right proportion not all visible beleevers as such but such as with Abraham and his family are in visible Covenant to bee the people of God according to the institution of Churches when and to which the seale of Baptisme is given and therefore as all family Churches but Abrahams being in a new forme of a Church were excluded so much more such as are in no visible constituted Church at all Reply Secondly As for the proposition it selfe certaine it is Circumcision and the Passeover were to bee administred onely to the visible members of the Church i. e. to men in Covenant professing the true faith but that in Abrahams time none were members of the visible Church which joyned not to Abrahams family wee have not learned Answ The proposition wee see is granted yet it is obscured divers wayes to which wee answer First whereas it is said these members of the Church were men in Covenant professing the true faith True but where not in any place but in the Church of Abrahams family and so after in the Church of Israel Secondly what faith not onely faith in the Messiah for life and salvation but withall faith in the promises made to
Abraham and his seed with subjection to the visible worship of God in that Church and to circumcision in particular Thirdly that there were no others of the visible Church besides Abrahams family is not said but being so it strengthens the argument as was shewed before Reply In the first institution of Circumcision God gave it to Abraham as the seale of the Covenant formerly made with him but of any Church Covenant whereinto Abrahams family should enter we read not Answ Whether Circumcision sealed any new Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. or that before Gen. 15. wee will not contend neither is it materiall bee it the same covenant hee entred into before for substance yet it is evident 1 That this covenant was not simply and onely the covenant of grace but had many peculiar blessings belonging to Abraham and his posterity and family contained in it Gen. 12. and 15. 2 It is very considerable that God made this Covenant with Abraham when hee cal'd him out of that corrupt state of the Church in Ebers family to worship God more purely according to his institutions Gen. 12.1 with Josh 24.2 Thirdly this covenant Gen. 17. is more explicate and full then before and especially in that promise which most properly concernes Church covenant viz. that God would take Abraham and his seed into covenant with himselfe euen an everlasting covenant to be a God unto them Vers 7. and this in a speciall manner is that which the Lord saith hee would now establish betweene Abraham and himselfe viz. by this signe of the covenant Vers 9 10 11. Fourthly this is the very covenant which the Lord renewed with Abrahams seed afterward when hee established them to bee a Church or people to himselfe as is evident Deut. 29.12 13. this the Lord is said oft to remember viz. to remember his covenant with Abraham when hee visited his seed with any mercy Exod. 6.5 6 7 8. Psal 105.8 9. and therefore it must needs bee a Church covenant Fiftly as Gen. 17. the Lord instituted a visible token and seale of this covenant so hee strictly enjoyned the observation of the same in all the seed and family of Abraham and that in all their generations all which things especially joyntly considered make it evident that Abraham and his were not onely a people but established a people to God in a Church covenant and that the same covenant which was the foundation of the nationall Church of God that was after in his posterity and to this covenant the seale of Circumcision was added Reply Melchisedeck Lot Job might bee circumcised though wee reade not of it as wee read not that John Baptist or the Apostles were baptized or if they were not circumcised it may bee that institution was not knowne to them or they were not required to joyne to Abrahams family and if they had they should have transgressed and so the reason was not because they were not in Church order but because Circumcision was appropriated to Abrahams family in some peculiar respects Answ Though wee reade not of the administration of Baptisme to John Baptist the Apostles and many others yet wee reade of a rule that required it of them and it was a part of that righteousnesse of which the Lord Jesus saith to John Thus it becommeth us to fulfill all righteousnesse Matth. 3.15 not for the institution of Circumcision did bind Lot Job c. yet that they were forbidden to joyne to Abrahams family and so bee circumcised wee cannot say seeing afterwards Proselytes were reecived into the same Covenant and Church and so circumcised Secondly that it was so appropriated to Abrahams family as that it was unlawfull for them to joyne to Abrahams covenant and be circumcised this is more then can bee shewed or if Lot Melchisedeck Job were excluded yet out of question Abraham might and did enlarge his family and so might take in proselytes visible beleevers in the covenant of grace and circumcise them and so still the appropriating of circumcision to the Church and Covenant of Abrahams family doth not weaken but strengthen the argument in as much as no visible beleever in the Covenant of grace might partake of the seale but by joyning in visible covenant with that Church to which it was given Thirdly suppose Job Lot c. and their families were circumcised as Junius alledgeth Jerome for it yet how will it appeare it was not by taking hold of the Covenant of Abraham to which Circumcision was applyed yet it seemes more probable that Lot and other families in Abrahams time were not partakers thereof God intending as the effect shewes not to establish them nor theirs to bee his people as by Circumcision hee established Abraham and his seed as for Iob if hee were of Abrahams seed and had Circumcision hereditarily à materno paternoque sanguine as some thinke yet this makes nothing against the argument wee have now in hand Answ After the Church of the Iewes was constituted when wee cannot imagine any Church amongst the Gentiles wee finde none must bee admitted to the Passeover that was not circumcised but nothing was required of a stranger but that hee professe the true faith and avouch the God of Abraham to be his God which must be done before hee could be reputed a visible beleever or under the covenant of Grace Reply If any doubtfulnesse can bee raised about the Church in Abrahams family yet the case is so cleare in the following story of the Church as you must needs grant the proposition as you do and the Church of the Jewes is still but the same Church that was in Abrahams house and the covenant the same for Gen. 17. God established the Covenant with him and his seed for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto them and in Egypt the Lord challenges them as his owne his first borne c. and therefore there is the same reason of circumcision first and last in respect of the Persons that had right unto it but say you nothing was required to circumcision but to professe the faith But we demand first What was it to a vouch the God of Abraham to be his God Was it not to subject himselfe to all the Statutes Commandements and judgements of God in his Church to walke in them as is cleare Deut. 26.17 Was there not the same Law for the stranger and the home-borne Secondly Where must they professe this faith and avouch this God Was it in any place where they dwelt and so might they circumcise themselves must not this bee done amongst and before the people of God in his visible Church whence such were called Proselytes and reckoned of the Common-wealth of Israel Esay 56.3 4 5 6. And is not all this to joyne themselves to the visible instituted Church before they were circumcised Lastly it is not true that no man could be reputed a visible beleever before hee did all this That which followes pag. 40. is answered before
Reply If Lot Job c. were not circumcised there is not the like reason for Circumcision and baptisme in this particular Answ The force of the consideration doth not depend upon the likenesse of reason betweene the persons to be circumcised and baptized in every respect but in this that as Circumcision and the Passeover were given onely to visible members of that instituted visible Church and therefore so in this case of baptisme and the Lords Supper now therefore if you could alledge many more different reasons betweene Lot Job c. that were not circumcised and those not to bee baptized it would little availe in the case but wee shall consider your differences particularly Reply First If ever circumcision was appropriated to Abrahams family and might not be communicated to other visible beleevers it was in the first institution but in the first institution of baptisme it was not so observed that beleevers should bee gathered into a Christian Church and then baptized Mat. 3.7 John baptized such as came to him confessing their sinnes the Apostles baptized Disciples such as gladly received their doctrine c. Answ There is no such disparity in this as is objected for Abrahams family was in Covenant before Circumcision was given onely the Covenant was more fully explained and confirmed and so when John baptized hee baptized the members of the Jewes Church in Covenant before to whom hee was sent to turne the heart of the fathers to the children c. and to prepare a people for the Lord and baptisme was then given to the Church of the Jewes with reference to so many as would receive the doctrine of John concerning repentance and remission of sinnes by faith in the Messiah now come amongst them and therefore Christ himselfe and his Disciples remained yet members of that Church Secondly Though the visible Kingdome of Christ was not yet to bee erected in Christian Churches till after Christs death and Resurrection whereby hee did put an end to the Jewish worship and therefore no Christian Churches could bee gathered by John yet there was a middle state of a people prepared for the Lord gathered out of the Jewish Church which according to that state were made the Disciples of John by solemne profession of their repentance or conversion to God and acknowledgement of Christ the Lambe of God already come to whom the seale of baptisme was appropriated As for the instances Act. 2.37 c. and 8.37 and 10.47 48. they are spoken to before in the first consideration Reply Secondly Lot Job c. were not bound to joyne to Abrahams family and bee circumcised but now all visible beleevers are bound to seeke baptisme in an holy manner Answ First This difference makes little to the point in hand it is enough that all that would be circumcised were bound to joyne to that Church and so now Secondly in after times no doubt every true proselyte fearing God was bound to joyne to that church as well as now and if now all visible beleevers be bound to professe their faith and seek baptisme in an holy manner why should they not bee bound to joyne to some visible Church and seeke it there as well as of old yea where should they professe their faith but in the visible Churches as the Proselytes of old did Your third difference is oft pressed and answered before Reply Fourthly If Circumcision bee appropriated to the family of Abraham it is because that Covenant was peculiar to Abrahams posterity namely that Christ should come of Isaac but baptisme is the Seale of the Covenant of Grace without peculiarity or respect Answ This difference is of little moment neither will it hold for first though that and other promises had a speciall eye to Abrahams family yet Circumcision sealed the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4. to them being in visible Covenant with the Church as baptisme now doth Secondly this peculiar respect you speake of no way hindereth the joyning of many servants to Abrahams family and Covenant nor any proselytes to the Church afterward of any nation no more then now in respect of baptisme Thirdly the true reason was because although the Covenant was made with others yet not established nor enlarged towards them and hence if they would partake of such a Covenant they must joyne in this which also is the glory of the rich grace of Christ shining forth in Church-Covenant with all that will become a people to him to this day The first difference is answered in the first and second CHAP. IX Consid 4. Reply TO the fourth consideration first Men are capable of Church censures either as having power to dispense them or as being subject unto them c. In the second sense many are capable of Church priviledges who are not subject to Church censures as the children of Christian Parents are capable of baptisme and approved members of any true Church are capable of Seales in other Congregations amongst you who are not subject to the censures of the other Congregation spiritual Communion in publike prayer whereof visible beleivers not in Church order are capable but not subject to common censures in your sense Answ This distinction is needlesse our meaning is plaine in the second sense and therefore wee say nothing to what is objected against the first To the instances objected against the proposition in the second sense wee answer first concerning the Infants of Church-members they are subject to censures whensoever they offend the Church as others are though so long as they live innocently they need them not Secondly Members of any true visible Church are subject and so capable of censure though not in another Church which is not in in the proposition 2. Also they are capable of censures mediately by and in that other Church if they there offend for that Church may admonish and prosecute the admonition in the Church to which they belong and refuse society with them if they repent not which cannot bee said of such as are not members of any visible Church who cannot be prosecuted to excommunication in any place Thirdly Publike prayers of the Church though they bee an ordinance of Christ and the Church have a speciall Communion in them in which respect others do not share yet they are not a priviledge or peculiar ordinance wherein none but the Church may share for an Heathen or Infidel may hear the word and joyne in the prayers being cultus naturalis saying Amen unto the same which cannot be said of seales and censures being cultus institutus Reply Secondly A Person baptized is not baptized into that particular Congregation onely but into all Churches and in every particular Church hath all the priviledges of the baptized person and so to be esteemed of them Now the privilâ—…dge of the baptized person walking in the truth and able to examine himselfe is to bee admitted to the Lords Supper as all circumcised persons had right thereby to eate the Passeover in any
exposition of this Text wee have not observed one substantiall ground or approved author to bee alledged Dr. Ames shewing the necessitie of Christians joyning themselves to some peculiar Church giveth this reason Quoniam alias fieri non potest quin conturbentur signa illa quibus fideles ab infidelibus discerni possunt 1 Cor. 5.12 But herein Dr. Ames manifestly sheweth that by them without heathens and unbeleevers must be understood and not beleevers though of no setled society for the time for thus wee conceive hee argueth The signes whereby the faithfull are to bee discerned from unbeleevers must not bee confounded but unlesse Christians make themselves actuall members of a Church the signes whereby the faithfull are discerned from unbeleevers will bee obscured and darkned and if this be his reason how can that Text bee alledged unlesse by men without infidels bee understood Answ First That we have reasons to alledge it in that sense and respect declared may appeare by our answers to your objections Secondly That wee have one approved authour so alleadging it viz. Doctor Ames shall appeare in cleering his meaning from your objections 1. Grant that by men without according to Doctor Ames his reason Infidels be understood by the Apostle yet how shall the signes discerning beleevers from unbeleevers bee confounded by such as joyne not to some particular Church if those beleevers doe not in some respect stand without amongst unbeleevers and the consequence is so plaine that the owne Syllogisme whereinto you cast his argument would have concluded so much if it had been suffered to speake out in the conclusion For in stead of saying except such joyne to some Church the signes will be darkned and obscured the reason rightly concluded would have said fieri non potest it cannot bee but the signes will bee confounded and therefore in his judgement it is unavoidablâ—… that such mix themselves with unbeleevers that are without indeed properly in the Apostles sense Reply Againe Doctor Ames lib. 4. cap. 17. speaking of Infants to be received saith it is required first that they be in the Covenant of Grace by outward profession c. Answ What you alledge here out of Doctor Ames wee confesse sheweth that hee was very large in his charity about the baptizing of Infants extending the same to the child of a Papist c. but it may seeme by some passages that hee understood by profession of faith such as live in the visible Churches and lookes at the child of a Papist as one of a visible Church for substance though so exceedingly corrupt but all this do not disprove that he understood 1 Cor. 5.12 otherwise then hath been said What you alledge out of his second Manuduction concerning the Churches of England we consent unto neither doe wee deny seales to any if they demand them as members of any true Church in England and in an orderly way CHAP. X. Consid 5. Reply TO the first consideration If it bee repugnant to divine institution to admit of approved Christians lawfully baptized walking in the faith members of the visible Churches and partakers of Church priviledges amongst us to the Lords Supper or their children to baptisme because they bee not entered into Church-fellowship according to your order then it is unlawfull though no such evill consequences are to bee feared but if by accident some abuse should fall out the evill is to bee prevented by all lawfull meanes but the faithfull are not to be debarred utterly of the order of God whereto they have right and title by his free grant and gracious institution Answ Wee cannot but still complaine of this liberty which is taken in changing the termes of the question First that clause Members of visible Churches is not in the poâ—…ition nor is it maintained by us in that sense neither doe wee limit Church-fellowship to our order as it is called but acknowledge Churches defective in matters of order as was said in the answer and therefore it is an apparent wrong to us and to the readers so oft to put in such things as are not in the controversie Secondly If it bee unlawfull by divine institution may not evill consequences bee added and if both hold are not our reasons the more strong What needeth then such a Reply Thirdly We have oft granted a remote right but next and immediate we still deny and wee conceive no other order of God in his Churches to prevent such evils then by joyning to the instituted Churches of Christ Reply Seals may bee prophaned when the dispensers cannot helpe it but here is no feare or danger of such consequences necessary to follow for wee speake not of all sorts at randome but of Christians professing the faith intirely lawfully baptized knowne and approved to the wise and judicious visible members of the Churches amongst us sufficiently known to you or orderly recommended c. Answ The feare and danger in this case is more then so farre off can easily bee discerned though the limitations bee good in themselves yet the application of this description in the first part of it would open a doore wider then many can imagine for many such in the judgement even of the wisest comming into this state of temptations prove farre otherwise even your selves being Judges if you were here wee suppose the experience of the discoveries God hath made in these late trials of England amongst forward professors will teach our brethren to consider how many professors may prove here Yet secondly if you add such as retaining their membership in your Churches are recommended unto us by your Churches or by known godly Ministers wee can then according to order receive them and avoid the confusion and inconveniences wee objected Thirdly if also it be taken into the description knowne and sufficiently approved of our selves then the doore is open to them to the communion of the Church and all the priviledges thereof though they cannot settle in the place of their present abode and this way of order would prevent the inconveniences but if wee come to put a difference any other way wee cannot avoid it but great offence will be given to many and the inconveniences objected in some degree at least will follow here with us and it may be much more in some other places Reply You professe high respect to your brethren in Old England but it seemes you judge them insufficient to give you orderly testimony of the sincerity of approved Christians well known and living amongst them which two cannot well agree Answ This Position holds forth no such judgement of the insufficiency of our Brethren in the case neither have we shewed it by rejecting such orderly testimony that we know Reply Wee speake not of such who against light refuse to professe subjection to the Gospell of Christ or to joyne to some approved Church c. Answ Neither doe wee impute that to all that joyne not unto us but our meaning is that under such a
English Churches and we deny not the same in an orderly way as they also required Testimony of their piety if any did but present a child to baptisme in their Church Wee have often professed this and by your owne grant most of the approved Christians amongst us are not members of the English Churches having renounced their right of membership and Commuion with the Church they were of there Reply Thirdly This order was observed by them to prevent the impostures of some that pretended to the English they were joyned to the Strangers contra Answ This was not the onely reason of their order for his words are All strangers doe not joyne themselves to our Church yea there are those that avoiding all Churches c. which plainely sheweth they looked further then such according to our practise even their owne country men fled for religion as we are they yet received them not till by publike profession of faith and subjection to discipline they joyned themselves to some Congregationall Church Secondly this sheweth what disorder and abuse of ordinances will follow from such a liberty to admit such as are not joyned to some Church for by this meanes many will neglect all order and discipline if they may but have the seales Thirdly to put all out of question that their practise and judgement in effect was the same with ours in this point note the first question propounded by them Are these Infants which you offer the seed of this Church that they may lawfully be here baptized by our Ministery CHAP. XIII THus farre wee have answered to the Reply made to the considerations in our answer to the 3. and 4. positions Now whereas wee tooke notice of three objections against our first consideration and answered the same It pleaseth the learned authour to take up onely two of them and with much inlargement to urge the same as his reasons against the positions and to apply our answers thereunto by which meanes our answers to the objections briefly set downe may seeme not so apt and full here as they would appeare in their proper places and therefore it will bee needfull for us to inlarge our selves somewhat in answering some passages at least in the reasons as they are here propounded before we come to the Reply Reply Reason 1. That sacred order God hath set in his visible Church c. Answ These words with all that follow whatever they may seeme to carry with them are nothing but a bare denyall of the positions in variety of expressions Reply For first The baptisme of John was true baptisme c. but hee never demanded of those hee received whether they were entered into Church Covenant c. Answ This wee had in substance before and is answered with all the other instances in this first reason in our answer to the Reply to the first consideration and in other places and therefore in vaine here to repeat the same And wee have observed more then once your plaine confession that the Apostles constituted Churches by baptisme even such Churches as they set Elders in by the election of the people Reply The second reason in substance is this because from Christ and the constant practise of the Apostles we learne that such as are called of God received the holy Ghost beleeve in the Lord professe their faith in him with repentance and amendment of life have a right to baptisme and desiring it are wronged if they bee deprived thereof Answ We grant the whole but as it is supposed in due order they must receive it so wee desire no more for wee grant upon these common grounds such have jus ad rem but not jus in re and the immediate fruition of them Reply Thirdly By a lively faith a man hath internal Communion with Christ by profession of the intire faith joyned with conformity of life in righteousnes holinesse and fellowship of love hee is a member of the visible Congregation or flock of Christ though no set member of a free Independent society and baptisme is a seale of our admission into the flocke of Christ not ever more but by accident of our receiving into a particular Congregation Answ This reason stands upon such a sense of the Catholik Church as cannot be found and it was before confessed that the Catholick Church consisteth of all true particular Churches as the parts of it And therefore how can a man be visibly a member of the whole and belong to no part thereof Secondly We deny not but such have a right to be in the particular Church and so to baptisme and all ordinances but as by such profession they are not members of any particular Church so neither have they immediate right to the priviledges thereof without admittance into the same Fit matter such are for a particular visible Church that professe the intire faith c. But it doth not admit them actually thereunto and your owne expression secretly implyeth as much when you say baptisme is a seale of our admission into the Church or flocke of Christ If baptisme bee the seale of our admission then there is an admission thereunto before baptisme but who doth admit and where and when is any admitted to the Church but in particular Congregations Can any bee admitted into a Church that whole Church being ignorant thereof but a man may professe the intire faith and live accordingly amongst the Heathen where neither any Church nor member of it take knowledge thereof and therefore bare profession doth not admit men but make them fit to bee received and admitted into the visible Church Your fourth Reason wee have had twice before and answered the same Reply To our answer of the first objection from the Instances of the Centurion Lydia the Jailour and the Eâ—…nuch First If where the holy Ghost is given and received and faith professed according to Gods Ordinance there none may hinder from being baptized scil by such as have power to baptize them then either such are members of the Church or baptisme is not a priviledge of the Church then it is not essentiall to baptisme in the first institution that it should bee dispensed to none but members of a Congregationall assembly Answ It is freely granted First That baptisme is a priviledge of the Church Secondly that such as professe the faith and have received the Holy Ghost are members of the Church if by Church â—…ee meant the Church mysticall considered as visible though not alwayes political Thirdly that these may receive baptisme by such as have power to baptize them but immediately to baptize them none had power but by an extraordinary call of God so to doe as hath bin formerly shewed But it wil not hence follow that ordinary officers have such a power wanting such extraordinary call because the members of the Church Catholicke having right unto the seales yet the immediate fruition of them they must have by ordinary officers in a politicall body the onely
be joyned to a Church Secondly when a worke of grace is required and desired of those who are to joyne to a Church the meaning is not as if wee allowed none to â—…ee of the Church but reall Saints and such as give demonstrative evidence of being members of the invisible Church for we professe according to the Scripture and generall doctrine of all reformed Churches what ever their practise bee that it is not reall but visible faith not the inward being but the outward profession of faith whence men are called visible Saints that constitutes a visible Church which faith so professed is called visible not in the judgement of certainty from such infallible signes of it as may demonstrate the hidden being of it within but in the judgement of charity which hopes the best â—… Cor. 12 7 in the weakest Christian and meanest profession even when it sometimes feares the worst and is not able at the present to convince the contrary Thirdly this judgment of charity concerning the truth of anothers profession or that which is called the worke of grace is to be regulated by the word which Christ hath left as a compleat rule not onely of faith but also of love and charity to guide both in their acts unto their ends and hence large professions and long relations of the worke of grace though full of exceeding glory when humbly and prudently made wee exact not rigorously and necessarily of all because the rule of charity directs us not so to judge because many Christians may bee drawne to Christ and have a seed of faith yet may sometimes not know it sometimes remember not the working of it sometimes through bashfulnesse feare want of parts nor not trained up under a knowing Ministery not be able to professe it so fully and clearely hence also to keepe out others from Communion out of groundlesse feares that all their profession might bee in hypocrisie wee allow not because no man in his charity is to bee ruled by his feares but by the word hence also to account any unfit for the Church because their hearts cannot close with them or because they like not their spirits speake not with favour or any such like principles and yet can give no rule or convicting argument from the word why thus they doe we thinke is rigour not charity regulated by the word for humane charity doth not make Gods Church but such persons which from God according to the rule of Gods charity is to receive and therefore the rule is to be attended here it is necessary to looke for a ground of certainty to faith but not for charity which cannot bee infallibly certaine of anothers estate and therefore upon a hopefull supposition that the premises their profession is true hopefully onely makes the conclusion The question â—…eing brought to this narrow it will here lye viz. First Whether profession of the worke of grace and faith be not required of those that enter into the Church Secondly With what profession of the worke of grace charity according to a rule is to rest satisfied The first wee thinke is writ with the beames of the Sunne for it is evident that neither the Lord in the Old Testament Exod. 19. or in the New Testament Acts 2. and in other like Scriptures did call for a profession of the Doctrine of faith onely but especially of the worke of faith for when the Lord promised to be a God to his people Exd. 19. Deut. 29. it was not with this condition if they did beleeve his word to bee true c. but if they will heare his voyce and keepe his Covenant which in a prepared people is a manifestation of a worke of grace So when the Apostles were required to goe preach to all Nations and baptize them and teach them looke as they did require such a faith as was saving he that beleeveth shall bee saved so upon the profession thereof they did receive them as also appeares Acts 2.38 which therefore could not bee of the doctrine of faith for that the devils doe and tremble and profane men of much knowledge may doe and yet unfit to bee received and therefore it was of the worke of faith and therefore Act. 8.37 Philip not onely requires faith but a beleeving with all the hearâ—… of the Eunuch and upon such a profession baptized him and hence the Churches erected by the Apostles at Corinth Colosse Ephesus c. are called Saints and sanctified of God in Christ Jesus c. How was it because debito and de jure onely they should be so then all who heare the Gospell though they reject it might bee called a Church for de jure they ought to be so Or was it because there were some that were truely such amongst them and so in concreto are called a Church and body of Christ not onely so for there may be some visible Churches of visible Saints and yet none among them of the invisible Church unlesse any will thinke that to bee of the Church invisible is essentiall to the beeing and title of a visible Church and therefore it was from their profession of saving faith which they maintained being a Church as it was required to the gathering into a Church John Baptist also though hee baptized none into a new Church and therefore might require the lesse yet as he really promised remission of sinnes by the Messiah so hee required that very faith and repentance which might make them partakers of this heavenly benefit and therefore if what hee required they manifested by their profession and confession of sinnes it was not onely to beleeve the doctrine of faith but a saving worke of faith which they held forth And therefore it is not an outward profession of faith according to a Creed which is required for then a Papist is fit matter for a Church nor willingnesse to heare the Word and receive the Sacraments for then heapes of prophane persons are to bee received into the Church but it 's profession of a worke and saving worke of grace which being ever required in the purest times is no novell invention of some more rigidly inclined in these things To the second with what profession charity according to rule is to rest satisfied Wee answer that there is a breadth in charity according to rule and profession of faith being but testimonium humanum or a mans owne testimony concerning himselfe therefore as in the most eminent profession potest sâ—…besse salsum there may bee hypocrisie latent it being no divine testimony so in the weakest profession of the worke of faith potest subesse verum idest there may be truth in the bottome hence man leaving all secrets to God the worke of grace wherewith charity is to be satisfied is one of these two First either with that which is onely verball and appeares to be false by conviction from the word Or secondly with that which appeares to bee reall which however it may bee false
professe their faith againe the visible Church being built upon this rocke Matth. 16.16 18. viz. Profession of the faith of Christ and lastly if there should be no necessity for such a profession yet if this bee desired of the people of God for the increase of their owne joy to see God glorified and Christs name professed and his vertues held forth and for the increase of their love to those that joyne with them why should it not be done before Saints which should bee done before persecutors 1 Pet. 3.15 What is now said we thinke sufficient to undermine what is opposed herein by others and may easily give answer to the three arguments of the learned Authourâ—… from the example of the Church of Israel John Baptist and the Apostles and so cleare up our practise and judgement to the world from the aspersion of our rigidum examen for which we are by some condemned but for further clearing we shall answer to the particulars Now to your Reasons more particularly against this from the Old Testament and the manner of entring and renewing Covenant then Answ Wee answer first when as you say they professing the Covenant promised to take God for their God to keepe the words of the Covenant and doe them to seek the Lord with all their hearts to walke before him in truth and uprightnes this implyeth a profession of a worke of grace Secondly They did not immediately enter into Covenant but the Lord was long before preparing them for it for they were humbled much in Egypt in so much as their sighings came up to God Exod. 2.23 24 25. They had seene the glory of God for their good against Pharaoh and all that Land by many miracles they had Gods visible presence in the Cloud were instructed by Moses concerning the Covenant of grace made with them in Abraham they were mightily delivered at the Red Sea so that they beleeved Moses and feared the Lord and sang his praise Exod. 14.31 Psalme 106.12 They were also instructed againe concerning the Covenant and were to sanctifie themselves three dayes legally which was for spirituall ends and of spirituall use Exod. 19.10 and thus being prepared as fit matter for Covenant they then entered thereinto And they were all of them for ought we know thus externally and ecclesiastically holy though many were internally stiffe-necked blind and prophane And for our parts we desire no more then such a preparation in some worke of grace if appearing though not indeed reall as may make way for Church Covenant among a people now as we see was then Reply When John Baptist began to preach the Gospell and gather a new people for Christ he admitted none but upon confession of their sinnes but we read of no question that hee put forth to them to discover the worke of grace in their soules or repelled any upon that pretence that voluntarily submitted themselves Answ Though the Scripture record such things very briefly else the world would not have contained the Bookes that must have beene written as John speaketh yet he that advisedly considers the case may see the profession of a work of grace in all that were received by John to his baptisme First John was sent with the Spirit and power of Elias to turne the hearts of the fathers c. to cast down every high hill c. Secondly His baptisme is called the baptisme of repentance for the remission of sinnes Mark 1.4 Thirdly confession of sins is ever put for true repentance when there is a promise of pardon made to it Prov. 28 1â—… 1 John 1.9 and therefore when he requires confession of sins was it without remorse or sorrow for it was it not with profession of faith in the Messiah which he pointed unto Joh. 1.29 and required with repentance Act. 19.4 Fourthly did not hee fall upon the Pharisees with dreadfull thundering of Gods judgements for comming to his baptisme without conversion of heart and fruits meet for repentance Mat. 3.7 and this Luke saith hee preached to the multitude Luke 3.7 and whether any were received that embraced not that Doctrine and shewed the same in their confession viz. that their hearts were humbled and that the renounced their high thoughts of their priviledges of the Law c. and professed amendment fruits meet for the same it will be hard for any to prove and thus much is evident on the contrary that Pharesees Lawyers distinguished from the People and Publicans rejected the counsell of God in not being baptized of him and what counsell but that wholesome doctrine of John Luke 7.29 30 Lay all these together and let any whose thoughts are not prepossessed with prejudices say whether this confession was not such a profession of faith and repentance which a discerning charity ought to take for a worke of grace Reply It appeares many wayes that when the Apostles planted Churches they made a Covenant betweene God and the people whom they received But they received men upon the profession of faith and promise of amendment of life without strict inquiry what worke of grace was wrought in the soule so in after ages c. Now the profession at first required of all that were received to baptisme was that they beleeved in the Father Sonne and holy Ghost This was the confession of the Enâ—…uch when he was baptized I beleeve that Jesus Christ is the Son of God Answ Wee cannot but observe how still the evidence of the truth of what wee proved in the third and fourth positions breakes out at every turne when the heat of that disputation doth not hinder for if the Apostles planted Churches and made a Covenant betweene God and the people when they baptized them as the proofes for this Act. 2.38 and 8.37 and 19.17 18 19. alledged in the margent shew then still it appeares they admitted men into planted Churches when they baptized them and the refore the Apostles ordinary and first leading practise and examples are for those Position not against them 2 You grant here that Acts 2. and 8. and 19. there was a profession of faith and promise of amendment of life and so wee must suppose though not expressed for how else could the Apostles distinguish such as gladly received the word from the mockers and others Now let us consider what kinde of profession this must bee by the story it selfe The Apostle Peter in his doctrine presseth three things 1. Conversion or repentance for their sinnes 2. Faith in Christ in those words Bee baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ Verse 38. 3. With many other words he exhorted them saying Save your selves from this untoward generation that is this was the scope of and substance of his exhortation which includes a gathering themselves to the Church Now the Text saith in respect of the first That they were pricked to the heart and cryed out Men and Brethren what shall wee doe 2. They gladly received the word that is
c. as flow from his spirituall relation unto them yea and also he hath a true right to all benefits purchased by Christ in a due order and manner yet we say instituted priviledges and ordinances doe not immediately flow from spirituall union and relation to Christ and his members but are dispensed by Christ to his people mediately and in such an order as he hath in wisdome ordained and this the nature of visible government and ordinances of Christ necessarily requires And hence it is that although the Church in its nature and essence and in respect of its spirituall union and relation to Christ and one another profession of the same faith c. have been always one and the same in all ages yet both the visible government and ordinances of Worship and also the instituted form and order of Church-societies hath been various according to the wisdome and will of Christ whereby it appears that the order government forms of visible Church-societies to which actuall enjoyment of visible ordinances doe belong cannot justly be deduced from the common nature of the Church Cathoilck or any respects of reason or logicall notions under which it may fall but onely this depends upon the will and pleasure of Christ who hath in all ages instituted the forms and orders of such Societies to whom the actual enjoyment of instituted ordinances was given And hence the argument for a nationall form of a Church to be in the New Testament as wel as in the Old drawn from the common nature essence profession of faith c. of the Church in all ages falls flat to the ground for by the same reason it must then be in families onely now as it was about Abrahams time Proposition 6 Hence it follows that the true state of this great dispute about a Catholick Church so far as tends to clear up to what Church the actuall administration of Church-government and all instituted Worship belongs doth not lye in the consideration of the common nature essence unity visibility or any other notions under which it may fall but the true state lyes here concerning the nature order form of such visible Societies as Christ Jesus by Divine institution in the Gospel hath reduced his visible members unto for the actuall and immediate enjoyment of all his instituted ordinances And therefore with due respect to the Godly-learned be it spoken we conceive many large disputes in this question fall short of the issue that is desired and intended for what if it be granted 1 That there is a Catholick visible Church which in some respects of reason as Mr. Ball saith is one that having partes visibiles is a totum visibile 2 That the visible Church is not onely a totum genericum in relation to all the particular Congregations as species specialissimae of a visible Church in generall which respect of reason in some sense we freely consent unto but also that it may fall under the notion of a totum integrale as some contend though we conceive in this notion they are so intangled in their own logicall principles as that they cannot get out without breaking them and flying to theologicall considerations yet we say what if that also be attained 3 Yea further what if this Catholick Church be in some respects of reason and order of nature also the first Church and particular Churches ortae 4 Yea further what if it were gained also by such disputes that the Keys and Officers Ordinances c. be given firstly to this Catholick Church as to the object and end We confesse we do not see that what our Brethren contend for is by all this obtained For first if the universall number of visible beleevers be one totum aggregatum yet it will bee hard to prove that these are one instituted and politicall Society that can enjoy visible communion together in visible Worship and government and yet more hard to prove that by the institution of Christ these all are to be actually governed as one totum Secondly what though the members of the Church Catholick be in order of time before particular Churches as being fit matter for them and constituting of them yet this proves not one politicall body before they combine but rather the contrary Thirdly be it so that this Catholick Church is the first Church to which Christ hath firstly given the Keys Ordinances Promises c. for which Christ firstly performed the Offices of King Priest and Prophet and what else soever can be said in this kinde yet all this may be in this respect that Christ looked at this Catholick Church firstly as the chief object and end for whose sake and good he ordained and gave all these things and this will not carry the cause for as the Church Catholick visible in this sense is the first Church in respect of the particulars so the invisible body of Christ is in nature and priority the first Church in respect of visible as visible for Christ no doubt firstly intends and gives all these things to the invisible Church as to the object and end of the same for whose good they are all ordained rather then for the Catholick visible Church which containes many hypocrites and reprobates within the verge of it But now if we speak of a subject of the Keys to which the actuall exercise and dispensation of Keys and instituted Ordinances belong who doe not see that in this sense the invisible Church quâ talis cannot be that instituted Society to which the Keys c. belong and by the same reason the Catholick visible Church quâ totum and quâ Catholick cannot be this instituted Society to which they are given It is a known rule in Reason that That which is first in intention is last in execution and so it is here first Christ propounds this end to himself to gather edifie perfect sanctifie save his Catholick Church Ephes 4.11 12. 5.26 and therefore institutes all ordinances as means to farther and attain this great design but in execution he may for all this give the Keys and ordinances in regard of the immediate exercise to any form of visible Societies that he shall be pleased to institute and it may be that will prove the least Society sooner then a greater And seeing our Brethren otherwise minded make much use of similies in this dispute we hope it will not be amisse for us to illustrate what we say by a similitude â—…tly to make our conceivings the more plain to all whose edification we seek and partly to discover the invalidity of many discourses of this nature and because similia arguunt fidemque faciunt as he saith viz. so far as rightly applyed we will therefore propound it in way of argument The similitude is this genus humanum or mankinde in generall is the subject of Civill government in generall and of all the priviledges thereof as the object and the end and let the question be whether this Catholick number of
beleeving as well as Churches and therfore at some times by speciall guidance of the Spirit they might doe that which ordinary Pastors may not do Reply Secondly as the seals so the Word of salvation preached and received is a priviledge of the Church c. If by preaching be meant the giving of the Word unto a people to abide and continue with them and consequently the receiving of it at least in profession then it is proper to the church of God Answ We grant in some sense it is a priviledge and proper to the Church so to have the Word but this no way takes away the difference between the Seals and the Word which the answer makes viz. That the Word is not such a peculiar priviledge of the Church as the Seals in that the one is dispensed not onely to the Church but also to others for the gathering of them which is not so in the Seals for the Word of God received in Corinth abiding with them professed of them was not so peculiar but an Idiot comming in might partake in the same but not so in the Sacraments 1 Cor. 14. Reply The Word makes Disciples the Word given unto a people is Gods covenanting with them and the peoples receiving this Word and professing their faith in God through Jesus Christ is the taking of God to be their God the laws and statutes which God gave unto Israel were a testimony that God hath separated them from all other people the Word of reconciliation is sent and given to the world reconciled in Iesus Christ and they that receive the Doctrine Law or Word of God are the disciples servants and people of God Answ In these words and that which follows in the second Paragraph there seems to be a double scope First to prove the Word proper to the Church to which is answered afore Secondly that where-ever the Word of God is there is the true visible Church and so where the true Worship of God is there is a mark of the Church especially where it is received and confessed To which we answer 1 There is a covenâ—…nting between God and man which is personall and so whosoever receives the Word of Gods grace by faith sent unto him by God enters into Covenant to be his and that before he makes any visible profession thereof and so every beleever is a disciple a servant of God and one of Gods people but many thousands of these considered onely in this their personall relation to God doe not make a visible Church many such might be in the world but no members of the visible Church until they came and joyned to the Church of Israel of Old or to the visible Churches in the New Testament 2 There is a sociall or common covenanting between God and a people to be a God to them and they a people unto God in outward visible profession of his Worship and so the Lord took Abraham and his seed into Covenant and renewed that Covenant with them as an holy Nation and peculiar people to him and in this covenanting of God with a people whereby they become a Church there is required first that they be many not one Secondly that these many become one body one people Thirdly that they make visible profession of their Covenant with God really or vocally Fourthly that this Covenant contain a profession of subjection to the ordinances of Gods Worship wherein God requires a Church to walk together before him and all these may be seen in the Church of Israel who received Gods laws indeed but so as they became one people to God visibly avouched God for their God received and submitted unto all the laws of his Worship Government and other Ordinances And this is expresly or implicitly in every true visible Church though more or lesse fully and purely Now if you intend such a covenanting of a people with God by a professed receiving of his Word and subjection to his Ordinances we grant such to be true Churches and to such the seals do belong and therefore we willingly close with the Conclusion that follows They that have received the Word of salvation entirely and have Pastors godly and faithfull to feed and guide them they and their seed have right to the seals in order And they that joyn together in the true Worship of God according to his will with godly and faithfull Pastors they have right to the sacraments according to Divine institution These conclusions we willingly embrace and inferr that if the seals belong to such a Church then to particular Congregations For where shall we finde a people joyning together with godly Pastors but in such particular Assemblies For we doubt not our Brethren doe disclaim all Diocesan Pastors or Provinciall c. Reply That there is now no visible Catholick Church in your sense will easily be granted c. If this be granted in our sense so that there be no such Catholick church wherein seals are to be dispensed then it will fall to be the right and priviledge of particular Congregations to have the seals in the administration proper to them and so the cause is yeelded but because there is so much here spoken of the Catholick visible Church and so much urged from it we shall refer the Reader to what is said before onely one thing we shall note about the instance of Athanasius that a man may be a member of the Catholick visible Church but of no particular Society Reply You say it is evidenced in that a Christian as Athanasius for an example may be cut off unjustly from the particular visible Church wherâ—…in he was born and yet remains a member of the Catholick visible orthodox Church Answ This case proves nothing for look how such a Christian stands to the Catholick so he stands to the particular Church if he be unjustly censured as he remains before God a member of the Catholick so also the particular Church for clavis errans non ligat and in respect of men and communion with other Churches in the seals if they receive him being satisfied that he is unjustly cast out they may receive him not for his generall interest in the Catholick church but in respect of his true membership in the particular Church that unjustly cast him out Whereas if the Churches were not perswaded but that he were justly cast out of the particular they ought not to admit him to seales were he as Orthodox as Athanasius himself in doctrine and as holy in his life Reply Though there be no universall Congregation nor can be imagined yet there are and have been many visible Assemblies or Societies true Churches of Christ to whom the prerogative of the seals is given which have not been united and knit together into one Congregation or Society in Church-order For every Society in Covenant with God is the true Church of God For what is it to be the flock people or sheep of God but to be the Church