first branch be but what followes after this The next is they condemn all the best reformed churches forsake all Gods faithfull Ministers this is that Satan chiefly aimes at by whom happily they have been called and long edified then they confusedly gather into private churches set up and commend an unlearned Ministery it may be they like of none at all because they can edifie themselves best by promiscuous prophecies and any that can preach or prophesie as every one they say in his measure can hath commission also to baptize I will mention no more nor do I mention this to offend any but to humble and put a holy feare before the Saints eyes But when I consider of these and such like fruits I cannot but cry out with Calvin having published the opinions of Servetus these they are saith hee Vae autem eorum stupori qui ad ejusmodi portenta non exhorrescunt Let it be therefore the care of all the faithfull ones of Jesus Christ to studie peace and follow after it contend against the common enemies of faith but let it be more bitter then death to contend one with another nothing more lamentable then for to see Christs sheep scattered one from another a sad token of the Lords forsaking a people when they will not come and agree togethe under his wings Most certaine it is that abuse of libertie for every man to thinke what hee pleaseth and speak what hee list for Christians to contend and hang together like ropes of sand to make little other use of the light breaking forth gloriously in these latter dayes then drunkards do of candles in the night when they are fallen out which serve only to shew them on whom and where to lay the greatest blowes these things cry to heaven for a renewed tyrannie of blasted Prelacie or of that which shall be worse to this generation When the staffe of bonds was broken Zach. 11.14 the Lord immediately set over his people an idle Shepheard in the land vers 16. which should neither visit those that were cut off nor seek the young nor heale the broken nor feed that which stood still but only eat the fat and teare their clawes in pieces the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ therefore pitie his poore scattered flock bring back them that are driven or drawn away seek out them that are lost heal them that are broken feed and stablish them that stand destroy the enemies of his peoples peace untill that kingdome come in all his peoples hearts both from East to West in old England and new which is righteousnesse and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost that when the floods of Gods displeasure shall overwhelme the Christian world for that universall deep corruption of their own wayes the waters of effectuall baptisme being lockt up in the Arke of Gods eternall Covenant may lift us up in peace Tho. Shepard The Authour to the Christian Reader IF it were in my choyce I would not trouble you with reading any thing of mine being privie to mine owne insufficiencie to doe any thing in this kind that may bee worth your pains yet seeing I cannot avoid it being provoked by one who hath made himselfe my adversary without a cause and especially in a matter of so great weight and consequence wherein he goeth about to wrong the truth of God professed by us I desire you would hold me excused in undertaking the justifying so pretious a truth of the Lord and maintaining the cause by a reply unto his confutation of some grounds wherewith I am satisfied in my conscience about our practice in the case of baptizing of infants of beleevers I know you will meet with some things of no great weight I desire not that you should think better of any thing then it is only my request is that you would cover any weakness of mine in that kind nor let it at all prejudice your esteem and approbation of that which is according to God and deserves acknowledgement Something you shall finde which may be profitable to an humble and tractable spirit Concerning the question it self debated this seems to be a great matter with many that there is no expresse command for baptizing beleevers Infants and nothing will stop their mouthes but still they call for a commandment to be produced for practising hereof To answer this First Mat. 28.19 Go make Disciples in all nations baptizing them c. seems to want very little of an express commandment to baptize Infants of beleevers because they are certainly a part of all nations and that as opposed to one nation of the Iewes from whom the Gospel and Church estate was taken and given to all nations a part of which nation Infants were and under the same state of Gods dispensation of his grace and partakers of all the priviledges thereof And this may be further cleared from Mat. 21.33 43. where the Vineyard and King dom taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles are thâ— Church estate and covenant Now that infants were plants in that vineyard subjects of that kingdom as well as men of years and so must it be now in this vineyard must be young plants as well as old and Infants subjects in this kingdome as they were before It is true that the text saith Make them disciples and then baptize them and I fully beleeve that none but a disciple may be baptized but I am out of doubt and doe not in the least question but that an infant of a now beleeving parent is a disciple as wel as the parent which I have fully cleared I hope to any judicious readers judgement in the explanation of the arguments grounded upon these Scriptures I will be thy God and the God of thy seed c. 1 Cor. 7.14 Secondly let them press for a command in all things also and doe nothing further then they have an express command for every thing else that they doe or will doe and then I shall think they may shew forth more justice upright dealing then otherwise I can conceive And let any man give me an express command of baptizing women or admitting them to the Lords table besides many other things of weighty consideration in our practise that may upon the same ground be called into question And let them in good earnest give an express command for a man that is no Prophet nor son of a Prophet to take upon himself the office of teaching the word of God and administring the publick ordinances Amos 7.14 Ro. 10.14 Thirdly if there be no commandment nor example in the state of the new Testament for a person unbaptized to baptize any other then it is unlawfull for an unbaptized person to baptize any other But there is no command nor example in the state of the new Testament for an unbaptized person to baptize others Ergo. And so baptisme can never be administred by any unto any For concerning the instance of I. Baptist it will
and he proceedeth to disprove setting downe a Proposition and the proofes of it that I alledged The Proposition is this An outward covenant acted between God and a company of beleevers to be one anothers and for the like among themselves is the form of the visible church I cannot say these were my expressions yet I shall justifie the Proposition That a visible Covenant according to my former distinction is the form of a visible church His answer to this is That the covenant of God makes the church but that any can be concluded to have an outward being in the covenant of the Gospel now without baptisme hee denieth requires me to prove it and saith he hath proved the contrary before To which with my answer to it I referre you Hee goeth on and saith Whereas I say a company of beleevers acting a covenant to become one anothers amongst themselves to be the form of the church He answereth By the same reason if without baptisme at present they may receive the forme of the church without administration of the Gospel for the future which he conceives will be absurd to affirm Reply First the administrations of the Gospel doe not concurre to the forme of the church and therefore she hath her forme without them nor could she bee partaker of them but being a church first They are necessary for her well-being not her being And if shee should neglect the administration of the Gospel and administer the contrary yet she should be a church still by her first constitution till God cast her off which without question in time hee will doe though she doe but neglect his Secondly a church receives her form to be a church for administrations sake and to enjoy those administrations to bee exercised therein according to Gods word and therefore shee will not be wanting to her self herein If I shall say If baptisme be the form of a church then by the same reason shee may receive the forme without all administration of the Gospel for the future I conceive it would be absurd to affirm it There is nothing in what hee said therefore worth answering And the same hath been said and answered before Secondly he saith God hath appointed no such thing for men to act such a covenant for any such end and therefore so to doe is will-worship invention of man and in Gods worship plain superstition and flat breach of the second commandement and therefore if it be the form of a Church it is a superstitious church which is so formed by such a superstitious action Reply I grant all humane inventions in Gods worship are sinfull superstitious and flat breaches of the second commandement and added to Gods worship doe pollute the same But secondly it doth not disanull a church that some inventions of men are joyned which ought not to be to Gods worship nor doe I thinke that himselfe thinkes as he saith that God hath not appointed men to act such a covenant for any such end because he hath said many times and granted a few lines before these words that the covenant of God makes the church Now a covenant of God is that which is acted between him and beleevers outwardly with whom he first makes it any other I suppose he understood not by it and so continued in by them following till God cut them off If thus then suppose it should be a mistake to say to become one anothers also that cannot so alter the covenant as to make it superstitious or a humane invention And when they baptize a man in yeares will they not first require him to take God in Christ to be his God and to submit to him in all things c. And is not this a covenant acted and the end of it to be to form him a church-member What invention of man is in this But if the proofe be found good this will be found his mistake so to say and therefore I shall stay till we come to them Thirdly he saith A covenant acted by beleevers to become one anothers cannot be a forme of a true visible church because it may be with ignorance both of the nature and duties of a true church as is proved by presupposing it to be the forme of the church before Baptisme Reply First I see no force in this reason for none ought to be ignorant of the nature and duties of a true church before they bee joyned but to be well catechised first nor is there any colour of reason to prove that such may be ignorant as are joyned by a covenant by presupposing it to bee the form of the Church before baptisme Secondly a covenant acted by beleevers and baptizing them are not supposed to be so distant in time as that they may not goe together but the covenant must proceed in order of nature and time baptisme being but the seale of it and is but an idoll with out it the covenant making them capable of baptisme and nothing else and baptisme being a visible and outward seale it must needs be an outward and visible covenant to which it is added and so maketh a member to be a formed member The Scriptures quoted by him 1 Cor. 1.15 c. to prove that all their externall relations must flow from their relation and union in baptisme are absurdly alledged and there is no relation and union in baptisme but by way of signification and confirmation The union must goe before if they doe not professe faith in Christ whereby they are united unto Christ before baptized they must not be baptized as himselfe hath often said and is truth But to come to the proofes I added to my proposition the first he saith was this If the Kingdome of heaven that is the Church state that we now have be the same that the Jewes had then if such a covenant as I have above expressed was the forme of that Church it is the form of ours now But the Kingdome of heaven that is the visible Church state that wee now have is the same they had Ergo If such a covenant was the forme of that church it is also the form of these now And the form of the Jewish Church was such a covenant Ergo. He answereth first If the Church state then and now bee not the same then the form of that is not the form of this and so my Argument grounded upon an IF is nothing But the Church state then constituted of a naturall seed was not that we have now constituted of a spirituall seed Ergo. Reply In denying the Church state then and now to bee the same he flatly contradicteth the Scripture Mat. 21.33 43. where it is clear that the Vineyard and Kingdome of heaven being the Church state they possessed is threatned to be taken away and given to other nations It is the same Vineyard and Kingdome taken away and given Secondly it is a grosse mistake to say that they were a Church stated of Abrahams natural seed
and covenant Ergo a covenant acted is the form of a church His answer first granteth the comparison and proportion also But secondly denies that a covenant acted by beleevers or agreement mutually is necessary to form the church to be one body and concludes that persons may be united to Christ by faith and baptisme and so stated in the covenant of grace and members of the visible church proportionally as the form of the candlestick is the joyning together of the shaft and branches Reply First where he denies mutuall agreement or a covenant acted is the forme of the church hee doth it without any reason given which is an easie way of confuting for where he saith it may be by faith and baptism he should prove it is and must be or else he shewes himself to heare himself speak Secondly in saying faith in Christ and baptisme may unite them to Christ and so state them in the covenant of grace I affirm faith alone doth it But it is faith professed that may make a man capable of baptisme in those that they themselves will admit members and therefore it must be faith professed that unites a man to Christ visibly and so he is a member of Christ visibly before baptisme comes nor could be baptized without that visible union and therefore hee is not made a visible member of Christ by baptisme but is so before Thirdly though by faith professed a man is visibly united to Christ and may be so acknowledged yet this doth not unite him or make him a member of this or that particular church but there must be something whereby he may be united to this or that church and make him a member thereof rather then of another baptisme doth not so make him for then all baptized should be of one and the same church and not of Ephesus more then of Smyrna nor can they be any other things then mutuall agreement or covenant acted aâ— we know it to be certain in all consociations a mutuall covenant is the bond and form of them as in marriage common-wealths 2. Rev. 17.21 and so of other societies and bodies incorporate so also in this mysticall body of Christ a church visible being an Ecclesiasticall body politike consisting of many members consociated it must needs be by covenant acted mutually and by this comparison of marrying the Apostle sets forth the relation of Christ and the Church the bond tying the members each to other that uniteth them all to the head which is a marriage covenant Ephes 5. baptisme being but the seal of it And thus wee are come to the last Argument If the removing of the candlestick and so unchurching of a church be by dissolving the covenant and their fellowship as to them by dissipation Zach. 11. then a covenant acted is the form of a visible church But the removing of the candlestick is the dissolving the covenant and their fellowship thereby as to them by dissipation Ergo a covenant acted is the form of it To the second Proposition hee answereth two things First because the covenant in the new Testament established in Christs blood is everlasting and cannot be shaken and dissolved and differ from the covenant which was before Christ which was shaken dissolved and taken away therefore their kingdome of Heaven was shaken and church-estate was taken away but the kingdome and church-state now cannot be taken away Heb. 12.27 Matth. 21.43 Reply Here is nothing which is not said before and answered yet observe that he declines the true question which is of a visible church and flies to the invisible state for to visible churches there is an end many times of their visible state and yet the covenant of God remains eternall to all the elect of God and never is taken away from them nor indeed is the visible kingdome of Christ altogether taken away but it hath and doth remain somewhere upon earth though many particular churches are often ruinated and destroyed Again he speaks to the state before Christ and the difference of this since Christ whereas the Proposition speaks of this since Christ only and the argument is taken from the state of churches since Christ as the expressions fully declare Rev. 2. 3. where churches compared to candlesticks are threatened dissolution for their faults Ephesus Rev. 2.5 I will remove thy candlestick that is I will make thee no church Rev. 3.16 I will spue thee out of my mouth noting an utter undoing of them and an allusion was made to Zach. 11. to intimate the way how God would unchurch them not by taking away their baptisme but by destroying them and dissipating their fellowship in the covenant nor was that of Zachary any part of the argument that hee could have nor advantage from that to fetch in the state of the old Testament in his answer And whereas I say the destruction of the church of Ephesus or Laodicea was not by taking away their baptisme from them so that who so remains alive of them at the time of dissipation should not be accounted baptized persons having received baptisme though it will do them no good in the state they are in for let me put this case a whole church is dissipated and unchurched yet one or two of them that live still after a few dayes are truly converted from their hypocrifie and apostasie justifying the Lord and seeking the one to joyn to Philadelphia the other to Smyrna and each give such satisfaction to the church of their faith and repentance as they dare not deny the right hand of fellowship Shall these two be now anew baptized having received true baptisme before whilest they were members of Ephesus before shee was destroyed If any shall say as hee did before in his answer to the first Reason against baptisme being the form of the church that all before being but seeming was nothing indeed and so account he was not baptized at all and never had any capacity of being baptized truly till now Besides what hath been replied there I adde that the same state must be then of a man that is a member but an hypocrite in the church unknown so to be who in continuance of time by Gods Spirit in the Word is convinced of his unsound estate repents of it manifests this to the church and so cleers it that the church is satisfied that she was before mistaken and he was but seemingly a believer and so had but a seeming membership and baptisme I say likewise that this man also must be baptized if he were not before truly baptized And how fearfull a thing is it thus to dally in Gods matters and to make Gods ordinance descend upon our apprehension to be or not to be humanus intellectus non est mensura institutionum Dei the ordinance administred to such a man before was Gods ordinance and true baptisme but he did not receive it savingly which now upon this work of grace he doth and baptisme in it self applied
therefore propound to consideration what I have observed intending not to say all nor to quote their sayings at large but to give some references only and in this order First I will set down the judgement of single learned men in their writings Secondly the consent of whole assemblies And Thirdly the practice of all churches in all ages First that Infants have been and ought to be baptized receives confirmation from testimony of all ancient Writers which I have been able to take notice of as appeares by these places Justin Mart. in quaestion Orthodox Tertul. lib. de baptismo cap. 18. pag. 225. See Junius notes also upon it pag. 157. Dionysius Areop quoted by Thom. 3. qu. 68. art 9. Origen affirming that the church had it from the Apostles hom 2. in Ps 38 in Levit. hom 8. in 6. ad Rom. Cyprian Epist lib. 3.8 Epist ad Fidum Item Epist in the first Tome of Councels pag. 240. Cyril upon Lev. 8. Syricius epist in first tome of Councels Capit. 1. pag. 493. Hieron lib. 4. in Ezek. 16. Idem lib. 3. contra Pelag. Idem Epist ad Laetam Aug. in Enchirid. cap. 42.43.51.65 In lib. de definit Orthodox fidei cap. 21. de fide ad Petrum cap. 24.27.38 Idem lib. 4. de baptismo contra Donatist cap. 14. and in many other places and against Donatists lib. 4. cap. 23. hee hath these words The baptisme of Infants was not derived from the authority of men nor of Councels but from the tradition and doctrine of the Apostles Greg. Nazian de sacro Lavacro orat 3. Ambros de Abraha lib. 2. cap. 11. Jeron Critobul contra Pelag. lib. 3. c. Secondly the attestation of whole assemblies declare as much not ordaining but bearing witnesse unto it upon speciall occasions as the day and time of the yeer c. when they should be baptized Apostol constitut lib. 6. cap. 15. sub finem pag. 92. Concil Melevitan cap. 2. p. 555. Concil African cap. 77. pap 584. Epist concilii Carthag contra Caelest Pelag. p. 542. Concil Carthag quint. cap. 6. pag. 520. Thirdly the practice of all churches consent hereto In the African churches they used to baptize Infants as Athanasius testifieth Quaest 124. The same was used in the Asian churches as Nazianzen affirmeth And the Magdeburgens in their Centuries observe that in the first hundred yeeres after Christ Infants were baptized nor was it taken notice of in that age that Infants were excluded from baptisme and so continued in all ages to this day and though the Eastern and Western churches separated and did hold severall opinions and rites differing one from another yet neither omitted the baptizing of Infants Among the Eastern and African Christians whereof there are some whole kingdomes and very many in severall kingdomes scattered here and there in companies and divided amongst themselves into eleven observable factions and fractions yet have they all successively holden do hold baptizing Infants with some difference I confesse some not baptizing males afore forty dayes nor females before eightie though they die before some not before except in case of necessity some sooner but none later that I have observed In like manner the Westerne churches have had and have some difference in some rites and ceremonies yet not at all in the point of baptizing Infants And as in the Eastern churches before and after separation from the rest and never yeelding subjection to the Pope of Rome So in the Western it is evident that it was every where and alwayes practised before the exaltation of that Antichrist upon which considerations I count it a defect of modesty and charity to call this practice Antichristian and humane invention and to wave such light of all ages in so weighty and plain a case agreeable to the evidence of former arguments For cloze of the Arguments I shal say this more The first that denied the baptism of Infants and opposed the practice of the churches in this case was one Auxentius an Arrian with his adherents who died about 380. yeers after Christ as Mr. Philpot the martyr of Jesus noteth in an Epistle of his written out of prison to a fellow-prisoner of his about the point so Mr. Fox relateth in his Book of Martyrs ad an 1555. Bullinger after affirmeth the same Tom. 3. serm 8. decad quint. After him the Pelagians and Donatists opposed it against whom Augustin besides others wrote and defended it The Pelagians denied it upon this ground that Infants had no originall sin And in Bernards time one Peter Abilaird amongst many other grosse opinions wherein he saith he was magis Arrius quam Arrius held this also that Infants were not to be baptized Epist 190 c. And it is not unworthy consideration that in the severall ages wherein this practice was gain-said it was by such who in other things were grosly erroneous as most Anabaptists at this day And thus far of my grounds for baptizing Infants I next come to speak of a few things to the manner of baptizing whether it ought to be with dipping and may not be with sprinkling only That dipping hath been in use in some ages and places is out of question and dipping thrice also stories relate but that it was instituted and so belong to the essentials of baptisme I am not convinced For as I would have no man to yeeld to humane apprehensions without Gods Word so unlesse it can be proved from Scriptures I desire I may have the same leave I give others to reserve my faith for divine authority to captivate my faith hereto I observe these things pressed First the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they say signifies to dip and therefore to baptize is to dip and not to sprinkle many places are brought to this purpose wherein the word is so translated and must be so taken To which I answer The word I grant is so translated and must be so taken in some place but it is not alwayes so translated nor can be so taken as Heb. 9.10 with divers baptismes some of these were with sprinkling Heb. 9.13 compared with Numb 19.11 17 c. 1 Cor. 10.2 They were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea it is not they were dived and dipped into them Mar. 1.8 I baptize you with water but hee shall baptize you with the holy Ghost and with fire now this was not to be dipped with the holy Ghost and with fire but sprinkled as was fore-told And why may it not be translated I sprinkle you with water as well as it must be sprinkled with the holy Ghost powred on you Again Acts 1.5 10.16 in the last places of both clauses it must be understood sprinkling not dipping and why may it not be taken for sprinkled in the two former Howsoever the word is not alwayes to be translated dipped appears by these places but may and must be translated sprinkled and so the force of the word doth not
following which he sets forth to be between those two states agree to also they being not substantiall but accidentall differences yet so as they are not to be distinctly limited to one time in respect of the substance and things themselves and the effects thereof for all that he saith belongs to the new Testament were communicated unto many of them under the Old as Moses Aaron and all the elect of God and none of them are made good to many in the New But on the contrary all that is spoken by him of the Old may bee verified of men in the New as experience witnesseth the Scriptures affirm Gal. 4.29 The fault why all did not enjoy all these priviledges in the new Testament dispensed under shadowes in the Old being in themselves 2 Cor. 3.13.14 Heb. 3.7.8.22.4.2 8.8 and many now deprive themselves of these priviledges Heb. 4.1 and attaine to no more then they in the Old to establish their owne righteousnesse onely Rom. 10.3 And therefore as none are to be admitted to the priviledges of the new Testament or Gospel now but such as are sutable though many prove otherwise So none ought to have been admitted nor were in the Old Testament the same Gospel preached unto them and the new Testament shadowed under the old to enjoy the priviledges of the Old shadowing the priviledges of the New but such as were sutable even such as are required in the New though few of them proved such with this difference they were to beleeve in Christ to come to whom the Law and shadowes directed them we are to beleeve in Christ already come to whom the Ordinances doe direct us And therefore what he further repeateth having said the same all before that whosoever circumcised themselves and their Males and observed the Rites of the Law they and their children though Proselytes were the seed fleshly seed too for so he saith all this time and in that covenant and of that Church But now onely such as beleeve in Christ and be thereby regenerated are the seed and in this covenant and of the Church might well have been spared and have been answered before yet seeing hee addeth six other reasons to prove this latter clearly proving as he saith I shall bee willing to follow him And he saith First beleevers regenerate onely are in this Covenant and of this Church because none of the naturall seed of Abraham are in this Covenant by vertue of naturall relation though they remained in the Jewish Churches till Christs death But their being in the Churches by naturall relation then ceased as the Church ceased I reply First I have shewed that their standing in that Covenant and Church was not by fleshly relation but by spirituall who were counted for the seed Rom. 9.8 2dly Those few that were added to the Gospel Church were not cut off as the rest but remained naturall branches still in their owne Olive tree and what naturall relation they had they put not off and when the rest be added the Apostle saith the naturall branches shall bee ingraffed into their own stock For if the root be holy the branches will be so too Rom. 11.16 17.24 3dly The Scriptures by him quoted prove not the thing he alledgeth them for Acts 10.28 Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.7 9 28 29. 4.28 His second Reason The Gentiles have no naturall relation to become his seed by and therefore their infants cannot become the seed of Abraham by being the seed of a beleever but must beleeve themselves otherwise they cannot be partakers in the Covenant made with Abraham Reply First there needs no such relation naturall nor were the Jewes as naturall seed onely without faith counted for the seed Rom. 9.8 Secondly the Gentiles Proselytes need not that naturall relation before to be in the covenant then but were ingraffed into the body by faith and therby their Infants Thirdly all now are not children of promise but many alwayes are deceivers and deceived as many then but not all only this may be noted that he yeeldeth that Believers now are partakers of the covenant of Abraham and therefore that then and now is the same And yet in the next and his third Reason hee denies the covenant under Christ to be the same with that which was made with Abraham because the three thousand converts Acts 2. when they were baptized did not baptize their Infants this he saith is plain Acts 2.41 and 8.12 where it is they that gladly received the Word were baptized they and they only which the Infants could not do Reply In the old Testament they that submitted themselves to the Jewish covenant and would take their God to be theirs were circumcised but Infants could not do that yet they were circumcised Secondly it is not said they were baptized and then it is not a perfect relation Reply It followeth not for all is not written that was done they might be baptized though it is not said they were For were not Christs Apostles baptized yet it is not written where when or who baptized them it is no argument to say it was not done because it is not set down but take it for granted their Infants were not baptized then which yet I will not grant for some considerations I shall afterward set down in another place doth this difference make that the covenant with Abraham and now is not the same It is not the same in this respect as all can be concluded which is but a circumstantiall difference The fourth Reason followeth if Paul and others writing to the visible Churches calls them Saints faithfull Brethren the Sons of God by adoption Rom. 16 c. and the Prophets notwithstanding they were led by the same Spirit were wont to speake otherwise of the visible Church of the Jewes as Isa 1.16 Jer. 1.2 Ezek. 3.4.4.12 Chap. 16.48.51 then naturall Infants were not in the covenant and of the Churches which the Apostles wrote unto as they were in that covenant and of that Church the Prophets spake to But Paul calls them Saints and the Prophets the other sinners yea grievous sinners and bids them wash themselves c. therefore naturall Infants were not in the Churches which the Apostle wrote unto as they were in the Jewes Reply I deny the consequence in the Reason as no way following and the proofe of it as invalid For as the Apostles do call the Churches Saints c. and the Prophets the Jewes sinners in the places alledged yet in other places the Scriptures call those sinners Saints Believers Brethren adopted c. as in many places may be made evident one or two may be enough Exod. 19.6 A kingdome of Priests a holy nation Deut. 33.2 3. Psal 22.22 and 122.8 Rom. 9.3 4. c. And the Apostle 2 Thes 2. calls them sinners carnall bids them repent c. to whom they wrote unto as Saints as Galat. Corinth where were many grosse things and sinfully amisse and most of the
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
and church-estate when they die if it cease not before Secondly this or that true visible church may die and none succeed them and then the visible church ceaseth for ever the outward covenant also and baptisme the seal of it ceaseth and that not only to the outward view but to our faith also For I suppose none have so much faith as to believe that a company of dead men and ceasing to be are a visible church in covenant and baptized that they were such may be believed but that they are such and hold their relation still with the visible church by their baptisme as members thereof is but his dream as any that are dead and saved may be accounted a part of a church it is of the church predestinate from all ages from the beginning to the end a part whereof are in heaven triumphant and a part on earth militant and otherwise to make them in heaven a part of any church or of this or that visible church is but a devised thing Nor doth it follow that this or that visible church ceasing and none surviving Ergo the visible Church of Christ ceaseth so this his exception might have been spared Nor doth his answer cleer his Proposition from it but it is wholly overthrown thereby A second exception is this persons may seem to be true members of a visible church and yet not be so and may shew themselves not to be afterwards and so the church may cease He answereth that when such do manifest themselves what they are they declare thereby that they never were in covenant nor church at all nor baptized So the church thereby cease not to be by being dissolved but they are discovered never to have been in that covenant nor church and so never were baptized 1 Joh. 2.19 Reply This exception savoureth of himself but briefly where hypocrites discover themselves to be such they thereby declare they never were of the number of Gods elect and so not in the covenanted visible church and baptized as the elect of God but that they were not truly members of that visible church to which they belonged in the covenant and truly baptized is not true but crosse to Scriptures affirming such to be branches in the Vine Joh. 15. or else now cut off and members of the church as in the Epistles to the churches in Asia c. And if such an hypocrite after his discovery should repent and be truly converted then he must be joyned to the church not by restoring but by a new covenant and be new baptized having no covenant baptisme or membership before for that place 1 John 2.19 it doth not say they went out from us because they were not with us for how could they have gone out from them if not with them and really with them or else they seemingly went out from them but because they were not of us that they might be made manifest that they were not of us the Text therefore doth not deny them to be truly members with them visibly but they were not true members of them so that all hee hath said doth not wave the exception From all which it doth appeare that baptisme even of God himself cannot be the form of a church but only it is a seal of the covenant by which the church is constituted it is constituted by participation and visibly by visible participation and that is only by visible and outward acting to subjection in the covenant the continuance also in a church is by the continuance of the manifestation of the same participation possessed their visilbe profession of subjection to the covenant therefore baptisme of believers is not the constitution of church visible but a covenant acted as from all these four particulars I argued gathered up into this summe If a covenant acted by believers was the form of the visible church before Christ then it is the form of visible churches since Christ but the first is true as will appeare by all these four particulars therefore also the latter This he answereth by denying both Antecedent and Consequent his Reason against the Antecedent is because if God himself was not the form of the church of the old Testament much lesse can it be said that an outward covenant acted by the people of Israel was the form of the church as is manifested by what is above said his Reason of denying the Consequent is least of all nor doth it prove such a thing to form the churches now Reply This Reason of denying the Antecedent is not reasonable for what was the covenant of God himselfe but an outward covenant acted between God and the people of Israel I know no other covenant of God but that which he made with Abraham between Abraham and his seed and himselfe which was also continued to his posterity and that covenant was acted between God and them and one with another and so the form of that Church is evident from the former four particulars considered together notwithstanding all that he hath said to the contrary The covenant God made with Abraham his family and seed was an outward acted covenant the renewall of which by them in the plains of Moab was such so was that in Asa's Josiah's Nehemiah's dayes all these were outward and visible covenants acted outwardly Of this covenant under which the Jewes stood doth Zacharias speak Zach. 11.10.14 This Zachary shewes how it was in two branches the staffe of Beauty acted betwixt God and them and the staffe of Bonds acted between themselves to be a brotherhood by which title a Christian Church is frequently stiled in the new Testament by all which it appeares that it was such a covenant spoken off by which they were Gods people and church and by the dissolution whereof they were no Church Besides there was a visible Church from Adams restitution till Abrahams time by their profession of faith in Gods righteousnesse and neither circumcision nor baptisme yet a true constituted visible Church out of which Cain was ejected and cast out The consequent from hence is this That a covenant outwardly acted by beleevers with God and one another is the form of the visible Churches in the new Testament because it was the form of the Church before Christ and there can bee but one form of one and the same thing as a man grown and a child is but the same man and hath the same form that makes him a man now when he is grown that he had when he was a child Even so the church before Christ is compared to a child under age and churches since Christ to grown men Gal. 4.1 c. Further to prove that we have the same Church-estate not in number but in kind I alledged Matth. 21.43 where it is said The Kingdome of Heaven shall be taken from them and given to another Nation that Church estate was not dissolved but taken away from them Heb. 12. speakes not of the covenant as Church estate but
much degenerate and be defiled in their doctrine and government desperately corrupted with error and sinfull practices as the Jews before Christ commonly and most of all in Christs dayes after Christ the churches of Corinth Galatia the churches of Asia Rev. 2. and 3. c. yet till Christ remove the candlestick and come himself and unchurch them they still abide churches of Christ and are so to be acknowledged of all Fifthly such as the state of the church is such is the state of the Ministry of that church and administration and so long as the true church remains a true church so long the ministry remains a true ministry and all the divine institutions authenticall administrations and truly the Lords ordinances notwithstanding the mixture of humane devices with them making the commandments of God of none effect through their traditions To cleer all these in each particular by the light of divine revelation would require a larger discourse then I intend and not so difficult as tedious I doubt not but any truly judicious considering the state of churches in the old and new Testament will yeeld without any other travell what is here set down and that the church ministry and administrations stand and fall together To come then to the question I affirm that if there be true churches in England then there is a lawfull ministry there and true authenticall administrations But there are true churches there Ergo there is a lawfull ministry there and authenticall administration The Consequent is cleer because it is the true being of a church that giveth being to the truth of ministry and ordinances and not the ordinances that give being to a church Lot any company set up preaching and administer the Sacraments I so call them for discourse sake that will not make that company to be a church but because they are not a church therefore they are not Gods ordinances The antecedent that there are true churches in England I prove thus If the true visible state of Christs Church be to abide from his time unto the end of the world as it must Dan. 7. Luke 1.33 Mat. 16.16 18.18.20 28.19 20. 1 Cor. 11. Heb. 12.29 c. then it is in England and places of like consideration that it hath continued in some other places of the world But it hath not continued in any other places of the world it will be gratefull to all that desire truth if any man can shew where also in England and places of like consideration hath Christs visible church continued Again if there be no other churches in the world nor have bin for many hundred yeers but those that are infected with Papisme that is the dominion of the Pope and traditional doctrine or reformed churches and England amongst others then either the churches infected with Papisme are the true visible churches of Christ or the reformed But there are no other churches in the world nor have been for many hundred yeers but those that are infected with Papisme or the reformed Ergo the one or the other must be the true visible churches of Christ But notwithstanding those that are infected with Papisme few grant it as now they stand Ergo the reformed and England amongst others Further if Antichrist must fit in the Temple of God 2 Thes 2.4 and the courts of the Temple be given unto the Antichristian Gentiles for a certain time Rev. 11.1 to 15. to tread under foot then there was a true church-estate where he sate and whilest he sate there and the true measured Temple whose courts he treads under foot nor can there be Antichrist unlesse there be the Temple and courts thereof where he is And if Antichrist ever sate in England then there was the Temple of God there before he sate in it and whilest he sate in it as also in other reformed churches The Temple or church is the subject wherein hee must sit The Antichristian seat is not the subject nor constitutes it but is an accident vitiating the subject the removing thereof Antichristianity doth not destroy the subject or make it cease to be but changeth it into a better state I shall adde this If ever there were true churches constituted in England then they remain so still or God hath by some manifest act unchurched them unlesse therefore they that deny true ministry in England and baptisme there can and do prove that churches were never constituted there or make good some manifest act of God unchurching them sutable to such acts of his in Scriptures in the like cases and whereby wee may cleerly discern the like effects all that can be said to disprove the lawfulnesse of ministry there or to prove the unlawfulnesse of administrations there so far as they are prescribed in the word will not be available And yet I shall be content to speak a little farther of the church-estate and ministry in England And concerning churches it is to be considered that a companny become or are a church either by conversion and initiall constitution or by continuance of the same constituted churches successively by propagation of members who all are born in the church-state and under the covenant of God and belong unto the church and are a church successively so long as God shall continue his begun dispensation even as well and as fully as the first and though in respect of the numericall members they are not the same yet truly they are the same in kinde Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 Gal. 2.15 even as man continues the same in kind from the first man though not the same in number so the church-estate continued from Adams time till Abrahams in the world by succession of generations So the Jewes continued a church from Abrahams time till Christs Secondly the way to prove churches to have had true constitution is no way to be attained but either by Scriptures or humane testimony By Scriptures we may take notice of many churches planted in Judea Syria Galatia Achaia Macedonia c. and by name Rome Corinth Cenchrea Philip Coloss Thessal Ephes Smyrna c. of any other by name I know not That the Apostle preached from Jerusalem to Illyricum and that hee mentions his coming into Italy by Spain is evident but whether any churches were planted there or no divine records manifest not And as cleer it is that those churches mentioned in Scriptures are destroyed nor can wee by Scriptures prove the continuance of Christs visible Kingdome in the world for many hundred yeeres upward but in Rome which few will plead for to have any truth of church-estate and I see no need of proving any such thing in this case So that by Scripture testimony I know not where we may cast our eys to look upon any Church now or for many yeers past existent By humane testimony we may take notice of the Gospel preached in many places and amongst other in Britain by Apostolicall authority where the Word hath ever continued since
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