they were broken off by unbeliefe which necessarily implyes that either they had not been cut off if they had beleeved and so were not types or else if types they should have been cut off though they had beleeved Two Objections he raises First Were they not under unbeliefe before and he answereth yes no doubt Secondly Why were they not broken off before and why then He answereth because till Christ came they were in the Covenant and a true Church typically by being circumcised and observing the ceremonies of the Law This is his answer I reply to both First They were in unbeliefe before Secondly most of them were broken off many hundred yeares before as the ten Tribes in Hezekiahs dayes And God said Lo-ammi no peaple Hos 1.6.8 And Lo-ruhamah no mercy I will no more have mercy upon them but will utterly take them away But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah these ceased before Christ was come and therefore are not a type and so that no reason of their continuance But thirdly The Scriptures give us a true reason besides the former Rom. 11. why any of them continued till Christ came and were not cut off before First Because a remnant of them were to be saved Isa 1.9 Mat. 24.22 Secondly Because Christ was to come of them according to the flesh and borne under the Law Gal. 4. which he could not have been if the Church estate had been disanulled Thirdly Because they were to be rejected for casting off Christ Zach. 11.10 to 15. Mat. 21.33 to the end and 22.1 At last he comes to his inference from all this discourse and concludeth the Covenant then and now is not the same that was typicall in the fleshly seed and this of spirituall seed and not typicall To this I have replyed enough Secondly The standing of them in that Church and Covenant was by Circumcision and observing the rites of the Law the standing in this Covenant and Church is by faith and Baptisme and so upon different grounds I reply First Circumcision and observing of Rites being not the Covenant but additions to the Covenant and profession of Faith and Baptisme also being not the Covenant but additions the Covenant may be the same though the circumstances differ As the covenant made with Abraham till Moses and after to Moses and the people though to the latter were many additions which were not in the former Secondly their standing then and our standing now is the same in substance though much differing in circumstances viz. faith in Gods covenant this is cleare Rom. 11.20 they were cut off by unbeliefe thou standest by faith if they continue not in unbeliefe they shall be ingraffed again v. 23. We stand by faith and so should they have done if they had beleeved and shall stand again when they shall beleeve They were cut off for unbeleefe and we shall be cut off for unbeleefe if we give way to it their falling and ours from Gods covenant and the Church estate our standing and theirs in the covenant and the Church-estate is not upon different but the same grounds Thirdly if the covenant under Christ be the same with that before Christ then by the same right Abraham and his posterity possessed the Church estate then and circumcision by the same right they might possesse the Church estate and Baptisme now But they could not possesse the Church estate Baptisme now by the same right they possessed it Ergo. I answer they might and that right was and is partly the grace of God offered and partly their acceptance of that grace by faith working by love though I might deny the consequence for that the covenant may be the same and yet in some respect the right to be a member in the one and in the other might not be the same But I have said enough before to cleare my Argument and to make it good notwithstanding any thing in his answer against it In his further proceeding in this Argnment he granteth two things First the covenant of God makes a Church then and now a Church being nothing else but a people in covenant with God and that as the covenant whereby a Church is made differs so the Church differs which is made by that Covenant but the covenant then and the covenant now differs therefore the Church differs for the covenant which made them a Church was Gods taking them being circumcised to participate of all those outward meanes which leads to Christ who was to come That covenant which makes a Church now is Gods admitting men to be baptized making profession of faith in Christ I reply in one word I consent that the Church then and now is made by a covenant Secondly I say that circumcision was not baptisme is not the covenant but signes and seals of the covenant circumcision then baptisme now Thirdly that the covenant then was God would bee their God justifying and sanctifying them through his Sonne whom he would send if they would beleeve in him and the same is the covenant now Fourthly the signe and the seale of it then was circumcision whereby God confirmed hee would circumcise their hearts in his Sonne by cutting away their sinnes in justifying and sanctifying the signe and seale of it now is washing with water c. whereby God confirmes he will wash away their guilt and stain of sinne Fifthly the people then that were of years did restipulate and make profession of faith in Christ before circumcised And let any one shew me any one of Abrahams family or one Proselyte ever after that was admitted into the Church estate without some restipulation which is necessary in the nature of a covenant and subjection to God his righteousnes so circumcised without it In a word then as the covenant differs the Church made by it differs if the covenant differ essentially then the Church differs essentially but if the covenant differ but circumstantially then the Church differs circumstantially and not essentially And so much is cleare as I said unto which also himselfe consenteth in the next passage granting it as that Christ is and ever was the Mediator and meanes of salvation both before and since Christs coming dispensed by the covenant of God Christ being called the Covenant Isai 42.6 In whom also the promises are Yea Amen 2 Cor. 11.18 It is true that he saith that the outward meanes of making Christ known doth depend differently upon his being yet to come and upon his being come the one being more dark and carnall the other more plain and spirituall and therefore the participation of these means doe make the state of the participants to differ but this difference is not in regard of the thing it selfe but in regard of the manner of the thing more darke and more cleare doe not change the thing or make it diverse but onely circumstantially the substance is the same the circumstances differ And thus much all his eight differences
by Christs coming To which I answer though they offered sacrifices before Abrahams dayes and they after Abrahams dayes circumcised yet before Moses time God manifested not his will in a testamentary dispensation nor can we properly say that those were abolished by Christs coming being removed before by Moses at least altered by a new institution nor were the sacrifices of Melchisedec nor his Priesthood abolished which was before Moses as was Aarons but unto Melchisedec our Saviour succeeded so that these exceptions might well have been spared seeing the doctrine contained in the Propositions is sound and wholesome and the contrary unsound and hurtfull yet before I go from this Proposition let mee commend this unto you all that the reason why they would weaken this Proposition is because they would maintain that opinion that the Covenant made with Abraham was a carnall covenant and of the flesh applying all those Scriptures that speake by way of derogation hither when as they are spoken of the old Testament and not of this period from Abraham which was the everlasting Covenant of God continued with Jewes and now to us Gentiles and the same for ever and so my Proposition is not answred nor refuted To the fourth of childrens capacity to receive all grace necessary to union with Christ and justification to life thereby as well as men of yeers hee yeeldeth only denying it to be manifest to us which this or that nor of Believers children more then Infidels I answer I grant it we cannot conclude it of this or that but of all alike yet otherwise of Believers children then of the Infants of Infidels for as Infidell parents are without God in the world so their children are also and we have no ground to think an Infidell man or woman is elected of God adopted c. and so wee can judge no better of their children but as the faith of the parents professed is a sufficient ground to me to think according to the rule that he belongs to God so Gods taking hold of a Believers childe to be his as he doth and we shall shew it afterward is a sufficient ground to me to think a Believers child to be justified and sanctified which though I may be mistaken and my judgement in this case is not infallible yet it is as much as I can have of any man of yeeres of whose state I cannot judge infallibly To the fifth where I say Baptisme is not the first grace but a second being a seal of the righteousnesse of faith as circumcision of old Rom. 4.11 which must be presupposed or else baptisme not to be administred he answereth that it is well to be heeded of all especially those that maintain Infants Baptisme having no ground to conclude that Infants have a first grace Rom. 4.11 will prove no such thing it will only prove circumcision was in the nature of it a seal of the righteousnesse of faith and did seal it to Abrham that had faith but not to them that had no faith nor was it a ground why wee should presuppose faith in all upon whom it was administred or why it was administred To this I reply 1. Baptisme is not the first grace but something precedes it to which Baptisme is added as a seal and if children have not some former grace to which Baptisme doth seal then I cannot see that they are to be baptized This former grace though many other things might be expressed yet having so plain a Scripture I rest in it is this righteousnesse of faith which what ground we have to conclude children have I shall labour to cleer under these distinctions First the righteousnesse of faith is to be considered either as it is dispensed by God in an offer or as it is received by them to whom it is offered Secondly in applying this offer God makes some partakers of it before the seal is put to as in Abraham the men of yeers in his house and Proselytes at least in our judgement some he makes partakers of it at the time of sealing both concurring some after and some never at all 3. That circumcision was not in the nature of it but by institution and Baptisme is the seal of this grace and is to be attended either on Gods part or ours On Gods part signifying and confirming that hee will make good his offer on our part that wee believe this offer and abide in it And to apply all God offered Abraham the righteousnesse of faith he believed God sealed and Abraham both again God continued the dispensation of this offer to Esau and Jacob and so all Infants of the Jewes after was willing to bestow it upon them God sets his seal to confirm he is willing Esau had not the rites before nor was it conferred at that time nor ever after and so it was with most of the Jewes as is cleer in them in the wildernesse who had it not before nor at the time nor ever after for the Gospell was preached unto them but they believed it not and so it profited nothing yet they were circumcised Infants though they had no faith before nor then nor ever after what was then the former grace that this seal was set to nothing in them but the offer of righteousnesse on Gods part which he said and sealed he was willing to bestow on them so I conclude the like in Baptisme The seal now of the righteousnesse of faith and that there is the same former grace in Infants now that was in Infants then namely the continuance of the dispensation of Gods offer of righteousnesse with which their fathers at first closed and were partakers of and which was one speciall ground why those Infants were circumcised and is now a ground of Infants baptizing and though many then were not and many now are not partakers of that grace offered and sealed yet that doth not make it no grace but on Gods part offered and sealed it is the same without alteration that it is to them who receive it and the difference lieth only in the subjects for I suppose no man will deny but God offered unto Ismael the righteousnesse of faith and that he shall be punished for refusing of it and so the rest of the Jewes that sleighted Gods grace so offered nor will any affirm that Simon Magus and others had not the offer of righteousnesse made unto them but they that refused shall surely perish for it as they Acts 13.38 Further it is not right which is said of them that circumcision to them was a sign only and to this end administred to distinguish them and to interest them in those Lawes and Ordinances c. which were means to typifie and lead to Christ that was to come wherein they were to be trained up For though this were one end yet not only nor all for as it was a sign distinguishing so it was a sign of justification and that God would thereby circumcise their hearts yea it
hee admitted them that he would have their Infants also and so in time of the Gospel to the Jewes and Gentiles at first setting it up Secondly Disciples are those that being entred with their parents into the school and profession continue successively so till God turn them off and no otherwise were the Jewes from Isaac till Christs time Disciples and so also it is now to say therefore there is no command to baptize Infants now because Disciples are to baptized is not upon any just consequence Besides let any shew me a command of baptizing females there being no command to circumcise them examples there are of baptizing them but I suppose that without a command will not suffice If any shall say it is commanded Mat. 28. where under the term of nations they are included I reply Are not children a part of all nations as they were a part of the Jewish nation But yee will say they must be made Disciples first Reply First Disciples as I said are made two wayes actually by profession or foederally by imitation as Infants were then so Infants may be now Secondly God taketh care of Infants now and requirâ—â— they should be instructed in the discipline and admonition of the Lord now God never took the care of any that were not his and in that he commanded them to be nursed up in his discipline it plainly argueth they are his Disciples His fourth and last answer is the same with the former from the difference of the subjects that were circumcised now to be baptized there being the same reason of changing the subject that there is of changing the Sacrament viz. Christs coming and if it were absurd to circumcise children now because they were circumcised then then it is absurd to baptize Infants now because they were circumcised them because Christs coming doth put an end to the subject also and hath put another subject to be baptized namely believers and only believers Reply First there is not the same reason of changing the subject that there is of the change of the Sacrament God changed the Sacraments he gave to Adam in Paradise but hee changed not the subject but continued the same offer of happinesse to Adam the same subject but he continued not the same Sacrament Secondly the Sacrament is not changed into another of another nature For the grace signified in both is the same the manner of signifying is the same in both sacramentally but the signes only are changed Thirdly the subjects are not changed by reason of Christs coming as being types of him which I have disproved before though here again implyed but because of their unbelief the kingdome being taken from them because they refused to submit Mat. 21.22 and now the subjects shall be cut off if they cease to be loyall and they should not if they had been loyall Fourthly the change of Gods administration of his grace hath been divers but the subjects to whom the grace was offered were never changed from Adams time to Abrahams where were the same subjects men women and Infants none will say Infants were excluded if they died before they came to yeers of discretion From Abrahams time to Moses the administration of grace was changed not the subjects Infants also from Moses time it was more changed till Christs time the subjects were not changed Infants not shut out no not Infants of Proselytes and why should Infants be shut out since seeing the offer of grace is the same though the administration of it differs but especially with more inlargement Upon all that hath been said it may appeare that the consequence of mine Argument is not weakened and so the point proved by it certain that as Infants were then circumcised so Infants are now to be baptized baptisme succeeding circumcision The second Part. AND thus for reply to his full answer to the discourse touching Infants baptisme it remains that I proceed with him in the rest about the form a Church wherein first he saith I speak of agreement in this that matter and form doe constitute a Church Also that the matter is a company of visible Saints professing faith in the righteousnesse of Christ and living accordingly To which he answereth First this definition agreeth not to Infants which I would make to be subjects of baptisme who are born in sinne and are children of wrath Eph. 2.3 Psa 51.5 Secondly nor doth it agree with the Jewish Church which I would make to be a pattern for ours in bringing grounds from them for baptizing infants who never were required to make such profession at the time of their admission as all Churches and members added doe since Christs time Acts 2.41 8.12 c. Thus he Before I come to reply let me give notice of this That I cannot own these words thus expressed That he and I with whom I had this discourse agreed of this that matter and forme doe constitute a Church I am consident and before we accorded had many passages to and fro but proceeded not till wee consented there nor can I say that I writ it down And touching the definition of the matter of a Church as is there expressed I am confident so farre as I can remember it was none of mine nor doe I now owne them and therefore let all observe how vain and rash he is so ungroundedly to publish these things under my name unto all the world Yet because some things in the discourse I well remember to be mine I shall cleare my way in passing this in a word or two and setting down such a definition of a Church as I have by me and go along with him in the rest and to what he saith I make this reply First I would say that the matter of a Church is a company of visible Saints And this I conclude to be clear in every place where a Church is stiled Saints Beleevers and the like Secondly this definition agrees to children as well as grown men being Saints also and holy seed of holy parents though it is true they bee born in sinne and children of wrath by nature so were infants in the old Testament as well as now as the place Psal 51. by him alledged evinceth and the same is true of the holiest men of yeares and Paul confesseth himselfe with others to be the children of wrath by nature yea then when he said it there is no hinderance then why that description may not agree to infants Thirdly it agreeth right well to the Jewish Church who were not a company of prophane persons but a holy people unto God a company of Saints and no otherwise a Church but as such or beleevers and wee are upon these terms admitted continued members of that Church so long as it continued a church as hath been shewed afore So that the description of the matter of a church doth well agree to all churches and members of churches alwayes nor are Churches to consist of or admit
all these ends which he hath appointed it for and so for those ends it is to be administred and the omission of it is a grievous sin But none of these ends is to give them a visible being in a visible church but by way of signification and confirmation Ergo baptisme is not the form of the church A 5th Argument is from the nature of Baptisme as it is the seal of the Covenant if there be no visible Ordinance before Baptisme to note out their visible being in the covenant whereby they may be known then it is baptisme that doth it But there is no other visible ordinance before baptisme to note out their visible being in the covenant whereby they may be known Ergo it is baptisme that doth it and so it is the form of the Church Answ 1. If he really grant it is the seal of the covenant then it is not the covenant it self for which hee hath formerly argued Secondly it must be considered to whom baptisme must note out their visible being in the covenant if to themselves they may know it before for he that believeth hath the witnesse in himself if to others either Christians they must know it before or not baptize them or else the world and baptisme can no way notifie such a thing unto them they cannot take notice thereof nor will they they know them not because they have not known Christ nor the Father And if a man truly baptized fall off from his profession to whom doth it note that he is in the covenant though it be known he was baptized And our Saviour giveth a rule wherby all men shall know his Disciples not if baptized but if they love one another and keep his commandements and if any say he hath fellowship with God and doth evill hee lies and all the world may know it though they know he was visibly baptized Ergo baptisme cannot be the form of a church seeing it doth not note out their visible being in covenant which is notified before and by other means both before and after Last of all again he contradicteth himself in saying here that baptisme is the form of the church and yet before denying baptisme or the covenant either to be the form of it The 6th Argument is taken from the commission given to the first Matth. 28.19 where the Participle baptizing concurres to making them Disciples and Mark 16.16 Faith puts a man into the state of salvation before God Baptisme before men the reason runs thus If from commission to the first planters baptisme was required to make a person a Disciple in a visible state of salvation and stated in all other ordinances of Christs kingdom then baptisme so administred is that which gives being to a true visible Church I answer First the Scripture requires first that they be made Disciples and then being Disciples to be baptized and therefore baptisme doth not make them Disciples Again faith makes them Disciples in the state of salvation before God and profession of that faith and not baptisme doth make visibly and outwardly Disciples in the state of salvation before men Rom. 10.9 10. They that baptize any must know them to be visibly such before they baptize them else not baptize them as himself hath saith from Acts 2.21.8.12 Secondly Baptisme is required to state them in the observation of all the ordinances of Christs kingdome not by making them a church or member to whom only such ordinances yea baptisme it self doth belong but to make them fit to observe them being members and there are other things though they be baptized that may hinder them from observaton of those ordinances as in the old Testament circumcision did not make them a church but being a church they were to be circumcised without which they might not observe the Passeover but there were other things also which did hinder them from observation of the Passeover though they were circumcised And thus of his Position and the grounds of it That baptisme is the thing that formeth the church only if I understand his close hee flatly contradicts himself in saying baptisme is the means and thing that formeth the church and yet it is not the outward form of our church formed For either it formeth the church withan outward or inward but not inward before God Faith doth that and therefore the outward form it must be and so hee said in his last Argument baptisme puts a man into the state of salvation before men Again hee grants the church to be formed with an outward form without baptisme in saying baptisme is not that outward form of the church formed If a formed church it hath a form that formed it but the form is not baptisme Ergo he overthrows all that he hath argued for or else the church hath two outward forms one he grants the church hath without baptisme the other by baptisme which these six arguments plead for It were well if he agreed with himself Next he answereth the Reasons I set down as he saith to prove that baptisme is not the form of a visible church The first whereof is this That which giveth being to a church must be removed to make a church cease to be a church but Baptisme cannot be removed from a church whilest it remains a church Ergo. Hee answers It is as easie to remove baptisme from a church as to remove a church from being a church Reply First this is a very easie answer and toucheth no part of the Argument Again a church is unchurched not by unbaptizing the baptized as it must be if it were the form of a church but by destroying the church it self The church must first in reasan be made no church before ordinances can cease to be ordinances in that church but destroy the church and baptisme will not be baptisme as the Edomites circumcision was not circumcision when they were not the church the Jewes circumcision and all that they do are nullities to this day since they ceased to be a church A second Reason is this That which being wanting to a church constituted doth not cause the church to be no church that cannot be the form of the church but baptisme may be wanting to a church constituted and yet it be a church As circumcision to Infants seven dayes alwayes to all females to them in the wildernesse forty yeers Josh 5. Ergo Answ He denies the second Proposition That baptisme may be wanting to a church constituted his Reason because a church is constituted by baptisme and so Josh 5. hee saith that case was extraordinary having speciall dispensation from God himself supplyed by miraculous Sacraments during the time of their necessary forbearances of circumcision and the Passeover while in travells unlesse wee can shew a like case and supply of miraculous Sacraments we cannot conclude that a church is a church or men members of a church without baptisme by which they are constituted Reply First the Reason he gives
prove that it is the form of a church now Reply He denies not what I affirmed to wit that they could not stand in a right and pure church estate without renewall of their covenant hee denies that they could not stand in a church state without it and great difference there is between a church and no church a pure and impure church he saith nothing therefore to what I said and proved yet I am willing to heare what he saith First they were a church before and I say so too but much degenerated and much transgressing the covenant Secondly he saith they did no more then they were bound to doe by their circumcision Reply I have answered that Gal. 5. before that it did not engage them to keep the whole Law it being the seale of the righteousnesse of Faith nor did the seale bind them to any thing but as in relation to the covenant which onely bound them Hence Levit. 26. where God threatned to send a sword to avenge thequarrell of his covenant he did not plead with them about circumcision but for not beleeving circumcision of the heart as Jerem. 9. last and testifying their faith by obedience and so they did now mend this by attending to the covenant and thereby setting themselves visibly in a right church state again which therefore proves that the forme of the church was a visible covenant for that which makes a church impure to be pure according to the right constitution that is it which gives it the constitution but the renewall of the covenant maketh an impure church pure according to the right constitution Ergo the covenant giveth it a constitution Again if failing in the covenant causeth a true church to bee otherwise then according to constitution then the covenant gives her her constitution But the first is true Ergo the latter and circumcision the seal remains the same without any alteration As in mens covenants the seale annexed remains the same though the covenant to which it is adjoyned may in many things be violated My fourth and last particular to prove a covenant acted by them as beleevers was the forme of the Jewish church was this That which being taken away made that church cease to bee a church that was the form of that church But the dissolving of their covenant made that church cease to be a church Ergo. The first Proposition he meddles not with and I raise it on this ground That nothing can cease to be that hath a being but by annihilating the matter and form of its being nor can any thing cease to be that it is but by taking away that form of it whereby it is such a thing rather then another And therefore if any thing cease to be that it was it must be by taking away the form of it The second Proposition that the dissolving of their covenant made that church cease to be a church which I cleared from Zach. 11.10 14. take a view and you may see it clearly the chapter declares the rejection of the Jewes from being a church no man can deny it and that at Christs time and for rejecting of him and upon their rejection they ceased to be a visible church and Gods people as they had been First therefore it is to be observed how God will effect this that they shall be no church nor his people and that is by breaking his covenant with them vers 10. That I may break my covenant which I had made with this people Secondly this covenant had two branches one the staffe of Beauty and this is the covenant between God and them mutually called Beauty because God making a covenant with them did adorne them with all excellencie and comelinesse whereby they became beautifull above other people Ezek. 16.8 c. yea in the eyes of the Heathen v. 14. which could not be circumcision nor any invisible covenant but outward and visible The other branch of the covenant is called Bonds and that is the covenant on their parts one with another whereby they joyned together in a brotherhood to worship God called Bonds because they were thereby knit and bound together to be a compact body and brotherhood Ecclesiasticall Thirdly that God by breaking these two staves did break his covenant with them and thereby they ceased to be his visible people and a brotherhood amongst themselves all these are evidently foretold in the Text and accomplished after our Saviour his death when they were wholly rejected of God and never since enjoyed that estate From whence it followeth plainly that their constitution in that Church estate was by that covenant which being disanulled their Church estate and constitution is altogether annihilated Now let us see what hee answers to this reason First hee saith the covenant of Gods grace is eternall the Kingdome or Church state that comes by it cannot be shaken Heb. 12.28 baptisme the fruit of it a church constituted by it remaines eternally John 11.26 He that beleeves in Christ shall never die Reply First I grant that the covenant of grace is eternall and that as well in the time before Christ as since but I speak of it as it is made with men in which respect though it bee eternall in it selfe yet it is not eternall to all that it is made with but may and doth cease to this or that man to this or that Church Secondly the Kingdome shaken and that cannot be shaken is not the covenant of grace applied to the Jews or Gentiles but the manner of administration of one and the same covenant in it selfe but from the divers administration of it one way to them the old Testament another way to us now the new Testament the former is shaken and removed and changed into this that cannot be shaken or changed but shall remain till Christs coming 1 Cor. 15. yet this or that church may be shaken out of it and many have been and that this shaking is meant of the former manner of administration only is evident by the Scripture it self and not of the covenant else the covenant with them was not the eternall covenant of grace but a covenant of another nature this particular church therefore may be disanulled yet the covenant remains eternall and unshaken Again the kingdome of Heaven is taken two wayes in Scripture First as before for the manner of administration of the covenant and so it may be and hath been shaken and of this Heb. 12. Secondly for the church-estate and the covenant of grace by laying hold whereon a people became a church This can never be shaken so as that there should not be a visible church visibly in covenant with God and of this Matth. 21.43 which may be taken from one company and given to another as from the Jewes to the Gentiles but never cease to be with one people or other hells gate being not able to prevail against it Matth. 16. Thirdly baptisme the fruit of it or church-estate by partaking
thereof not by baptisme but by the covenant is eternall to all the elect and so hee that believeth in Christ shall never die but these are not eternall to any else at all for reprobate members dying remain not members c. so that here is nothing in this answer that proveth the Jewes were not a church-estate by an acted covenant Secondly he answereth the covenant is a ground of a churches being a visible church that the visible participation in the covenant is by some visible thing which was circumcision then is baptisme now other visible participations there was not nor is any therefore by circumcision then and baptisme now they are a visible church And as the taking away of the covenant causeth the church to cease so it causeth their circumcision and baptisme to cease also whereby they had visible participation in the covenant and church Reply First he saith a covenant is the ground of a visible for the question saith he speaks of a visible church and so say I and a visible ground of any mans being circumcised then or baptized now if it be a ground of a visible church then a church cannot be a church without it and so constituted a visible church by it Secondly there must be some visible thing whereby a man may have visible participation in the covenant I grant it but saith he there is no other visible thing whereby any are partakers of the covenant but circumcision then and baptisme now I deny it and affirm there is some visible thing preceding circumcision then baptisme now For when they baptize a man do they baptize him as out of covenant or in it If in covenant then it is as hee is invisibly in it or visibly not invisibly that they cannot know therefore visibly by something they can discern and know and upon that baptize him and that is the profession of his faith in the covenant which as it must go before baptisme so it makes him partaker visibly of the covenant before he be baptized or circumcised therefore circumcision then baptisme now is not the only visible participation in the covenant nor indeed any participation at all but a visible sign and seal of his visible participation and this appeareth further from the description of a Sacrament an outward and visible sign of an inward and spirituall grace which must be there or the outward is not to be applied but it cannot be concluded to be there but by some outward evidence therefore something visible and thereby visible participation in the covenant must go before visible baptisme As then the covenant must be taken away before the church cease to be a church and not circumcision nor baptisme which cannot cease untill the church ceaseth all which himself granteth so as long as any continue visible profession of faith so long the covenant continueth and visible profession must cease before the covenant ceaseth in respect of men Ergo by visible profession of faith in the covenant is obtained and declared visible participation in the covenant and so is the church-estate constituted thereby Further hee saith the covenant before Christ did ceremonially lead to Christ and in that respect is dissolved and circumcision by which they had participation in that covenant is dissolved and therfore the visible church ceased as was prophesied Zach. 11. and accomplished at the death of Christ the partition wall being broken down Ephes 2.13 c. the covenant since Christ ratified by the death of the testator cannot be dissolved as I affirm in my third Proposition and fourth poriod and so baptisme by which they have true visible being in the covenant cannot be removed nor the visible church-state Reply Here is nothing said that hath not been said before again and again and so answered yet in a word First hee confoundeth covenant and testament there is but one covenant but yet two Testaments and the covenant was dispensed to Abraham before there was any testament instituted and the Scriptures that speake of abolishing the old and establishing the new are not to be understood of two covenants there being but one but of two Testaments as I shewed in my third Proposition and fourth period and he much mistakes himself abuseth his Reader and cannot but know that he speakes not truly in saying I affirmed the new covenant cannot be removed when as I said the new Testament cannot be removed Secondly the covenant before Christ did not ceremonially lead to Christ for the covenant alwayes from Adam held forth Christ the same yesterday to day and for ever but the old Testament before Christ did ceremonially lead to Christ and was abolished at Christs coming that the new confirmed by his blood might be established Thirdly the covenant and visible church-state thereby did not cease at Christs coming in it self but was taken away from the Jews and given to the Gentiles and that not because the covenant and church-estate typified Christ but because they believed not for had they believed they should have injoyed the covenant and church-state still though the old Testament should have ceased and the new be put in the room and now it shall be taken from such Gentiles so oft as any of them cease to believe as is already fallen out to many churches Yet without any prejudice to the covenant of God or visible church-estate which ever remain Last of all I have shewed before that circumcision did not give them a visible being in that covenant and church-estate nor baptisme us but outward profession of subjection to the covenant gave them and gives us a being in the covenant and visible church-state circumcision then and baptisme now being but signes and seals of it Further against his conclusion that the true visible church in respect of the ground of it cannot be removed or dissolved he putteth two exceptions and seeks to cleer it from them The first is this The true Church may possibly die and none survive them in that estate Ergo the true Church may cease to be His answer to this is the true Chrch ceaseth to be but only to our outward view for to our faith it is no more ceased then their relation to the covenant ceaseth which doth not cease to the faithfull when they die but it remains as the covenant it self which is as firm as God that made it Secondly as their outward view to the church ceaseth so their relation to the church by baptisme ceaseth by which they had visible participation with the body of Christ therefore the exception hinders not but that the true visible Church remains undissolved Reply Whether this were mine or no I cannot say as also many other things the which hee puts forth in my name a word or two First he changeth the State of the Question speaking of a visible state whereas he speaketh of an invisible state and of the elect only whereas himself will confesse that many may be in a visible with whom the covenant ceaseth
of the manner of administration as I have shewed before a Kingdome is not to be taken there in the sense that it is here in Matthew it ceased to them but was not dissolved in it self nor in respect of others to whom it was given not another Kingdome and Church estate given to others diverse from that but the very same So Matth. 22.1 c. the marriage Supper in one and the same continued all the time of that church estate before Christ and in these churches since Christ They were invited and called from time to time but they would not come at last they were therfore destroyed the Gentiles called in their stead therfore that then and this now was but one covenant and the same church estate the form of it then and now the same which then was an outward and visible covenant acted between God and the people mutually and therefore this same is the forme of churches now Having passed through the Argument which I gathered out of the old Testament I next added some others and first from Mat. 18.20 where the word used in the Greek is commonly used for church assembling or Synagoguising taken from the Jewes whose assemblies and places of assembling were called Synagogues John 20 10. Acts 4.21 11.26 13.44 14.27 20.7 1 Cor. 5.4 11.18 c. and other places many though some by him set downe are misquoted His answere hereto was this that the assembling of persons meerly in the Scripture was not the cause of that denomination nor will any Scripture prove that that name Church is given to a company of unbaptized persons but the assembling of a company of persons baptized in Christs name is the reason why they are denominated a true visible Church Rep. I grant that according to the intent of the question that the assembling of a company of men unbaptized is not the occasion why they are denominated a church yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is generally applied to a company of unbaptized persons as Act. 19.31.39.41 thrice together but that a church so meeting is of baptized persons yet the reason why a company of baptized persons meeting together is called a Church is truely and onely because they meet together and that not accidentally for so many thousands meet together in one place because they constantly meet together in one place by agreement to performe the solemne duties which they are bound to perform to God and each other Such a meeting together is that which onely giveth them the denomination of a Church nor is baptisme any reason of their meeting together for then all baptized persons must meet together in one place nor could this or that company bee called a church for that reason much lesse severall companies churches if there were nothing else added Matth. 18.19 Whatsoever two of you shall agree together in where the word agree is properly by a consent manifested by concurring voyces and paction so used Matth. 20.2.13 To say no more to this though I might say much more because I am not privie to my selfe that it was used by me I come to the next reason which was That whatsoever maketh a man a member of a church or no member that makes a company of men to be a church or no church there is the same reason of the whole that there is of every part but the making or unmaking or restoring a man to bee a member is by a covenant acted Esay 56.4 6. Ergo that is the form of the church His answer grants that the covenant of God is the ground upon which the church and every member thereof is stated but hee denies that a covenant acted to become one another doe form the church or member either nor doth Esa 56.4 5. prove any such thing but onely that the Eunuch or stranger that took hold of Gods covenant that is were circumcised and performed the duties which they were thereby bound to performe Gal. 5.3 should have a place in his house not by acting a covenant and neglecting circumcision Reply What he saith here hath been said before and answered and I am confident that he cannot make good what hee grants that a Church is grounded upon Gods covenant and thereby stated but in this sense I speak of a covenant acted by beleevers between God and them which he alwayes leaves out and between themselves and therefore a covenant acted doth form the church or membership thereof Esay 56. doth prove it sufficiently where the Lord saith If an Eunuch or stranger shall take hold of and embrace my covenant that is shall submit themselves to enter into covenant with me taking me to be their God and becomming one of my people by joyning themselves to me and them thereby and receive circumcision as a seale thereof and doe my works shall have a place in my house whereas he expoundeth the covenant to be circumcision hee doth but run in a common mistake it being but a signe seale of the covenant and cannot be the covenant it selfe no more then a signeor seale of a thing can be the thing it selfe that it signifieth and sealeth and is not onely an errour in religion but against manifest reason too But of this often before though therefore they were to be circumcised yet that was the first thing before which there was nothing acted visibly and that they did not first make some outward profession and expression of being one with them and having their God to be theirs will never be proved by him and if he will not yeeld the contrary by what is and hath been said let him bee content that other men be of another judgement and have his leave to be quiet or else convince me of his calling hee hath to deale in such matters as he doth with arrogancy enough He addeth not by acting a covenant neglecting circumcision I grant it and so also not by acting a covenant or circumcision and neglecting sacrifices c. but acting a covenant doth form the church and giveth them right to circumcision and the rest which must be added or else they will be found despisers of Gods covenant which they had made whereby they were bound to observe circumcision and all other appointments of God before they were circumcised as is manifest in all them that lived before Abrahams dayes and in Abrahams dayes by Gods expressing himselfe to Abraham Gen. 12 13.15 chapters which was before hee was circumcised As for that Gal. 5.3 it hath been fully answered before and therefore I omit it My next reason was taken from the comparison of a church with a Candlestick Rev. 1.12.20 such as is the forme of a candlestick such by proportion is the form of a church as the matter signifies the matter of a church proportionally but the form of the candlestick is the joyning together of the shaft and branches signifying the uniting together of many members and Christ which cannot be but by agreement
church-office is in the church it self Hereunto I adde these reasons First that which concerns all the church it is reason it should be done by all the church but to have this or that man an officer to administer concernes all the church Ergo it is reason it should be done by the church to choose him to office Secondly no adjunct in order of nature is before the subject nor is capable of receiving any thing but as it adheres to and so from the subject but ministry is the adjunct of the church and the church is the subject Ergo the ministery is not capable of any power but as it adheres to the church and so from it as the eye in the body c. Thirdly the Church is the Spouse of Christ and his body but a Presbyterie is not the Spouse not the body but a part of the Spouse or body Rom. 12.1 Cor. 12. Ergo the power is in the church primarily and not in the Presbyterie else the head should not derive power to the body at all and though the Presbyters qua Believers are a part of the body of Christ with the rest that make up the whole yet as Presbyters they are parts of Christ and not of the church the mouth and eyes of Christ and not of the church so they and the church as believers have no power but they derive it immediately from Christ which I cannot see how it may be made good Fourthly if the church hath power to refuse a man and to put him out then shee hath power to choose and put him in but the first is true else shee sins not in suffering false teachers nor can shee decline a vitious Elder or shut her self of him invito vel non curante presbyterio Fifthly there is no power that any can have from heaven ordinarily but by some transaction between God and them but there is no such transaction between God and the Presbyterie primarily the covenant is not made with them but with the church Rom. 9. v. 4. Ephes 2.12 13.19.20 Ergo the power is hers primarily and as the first subject of it from Christ Sixthly if the church and not the Presbyterie be the kingly nation royall priesthood and Kings and Priests unto God then the power belongs to the church and not to the Presbyterie but the church is the kingly nation c. and not the Presbyterie Ergo the power belongs to the church and not to the Presbyterie The Antecedent is true Exod. 19.1 Pet. 2.5 Rev. 7.6 and that as a church The Consequent is evident Because c. they should be titular things only and have a naked name only without power and they that are not Kings and Priests c. as the Presbyterie qua tales they should have the power Last of all if the words Go tell the Church be meant not of the presbyterie only but of the church of Saints the whole body consisting of flock and Elders then the power belongs not to the Presbyterie but to the whole But the words Go tell the church are not meant of a Presbyterie but of the whole consisting of flock and Elders Ergo the power belongs to the church as totum and not to the Presbyterie distinguished from the church All this is manifest from the use of the word church which in the new Testament is no where used for the Presbyterie alone but sometimes for the members alone without or distinct from Presbyterie as Acts 14.23 and 15.4.22 1 Cor. 12.28 frequently for the whole flock and Elders together Junius c. Some I confesse alledge those places Acts 14.27 and 18.22 to prove the word church to mean Presbyterie and the reason they give is this That it is not probable that the Apostle there saluted all the church or gathered all the church together but rather the Presbyterie But there is no force in this reason for it is like will I say that he gathered the whole church and saluted the whole church and might do it well enough without any inconvenience yea and the Text saith he did and therefore it is more then likely even a most certain truth The places therefore will not prove that the word church doth mean Presbyterie nor argue that Go tell the church is tell the Presbyterie Secondly from the relation of the party offending which is to the church and not to the Presbyterie for their fellowship is with the church as church the covenant and brotherhood is with them and therefore though the Presbyterie orderly exerciseth the power yet it is in ordine ad Ecclesiam there is no particular relation between the party and Presbyterie as may advantage the Presbyterie to exercise such an act of power over the party no more then they may administer the Sacraments to a private person but to him as a church member and with the whole church Thirdly the Presbyterie consisting of three or four Elders are ofsended by a brother bound up in fellowship with an hundred private brethren now the Presbyterie admonishing they can go no further if they be the church and the brother not hearing the Presbyterie is to be accounted as a Publican and Heathen though not one of the hundred know of it and so if a private brother offend and bring it to the Prebytery Fourthly the Presbytery may be the party offending and then you must tell the Church that the Church offendeth that is go tell themselves If you say I may tell the Classis I answer Take for granted there is such an ordinance yet I will suppose they may take in with the offending Presbytery and I must stay at a generall Councell if it may be had which is not free from errour neither And I shall as willingly stay at a Church of Saints unlesse I see more convincing grounds to enforce the institution of them as divine appointments And if a Church offend there is another course to be taken this rule will not reach here Fifthly if by Goe tell the Church bee meant the Presbytery then there being but two or three of the Presbytery a brother offended cannot take one or two of them for witnesses because then he should tell the Church before the turn come and could make no further proceeding But a brother offended may take one or two Presbyters for witnesses Ergo Presbytery cannot be the Church And if it cannot be taken for a Presbytery much lesse for a Classis Synod Councell Nor doe I observe any of Christs Apostles in any directions given by them to Timothy Titus or any Churches or people or Christ himself in his Epistles to the seven Churches of Asia speak one word of going to a Classis or Provinciall Synod and Church and which certainly they would have done if there had been such an institution Again Christ would have blamed the Classis or Presbyteriall Church and not every particular Angel and the particular church to which he belonged And I verily think hee would have spoken some word