the visible Church when yet they were visible Believers under the Covenant of Grace and in Church Order as those times required is well-nigh a contradiction And so it is to debar known and approved Christians members of our Congregation and their seed from the Seals because they be not of the visible Church for they are members of the Church and so to bee held and esteemed all true Churches and members of the Church The true proper meaning of this Consideration is that as Circumcision and the Passeover were not to be dispensed to all visible Believers under the Covenant of Grace but onely to such as were joyned to Abrahams Family or to the people of the God of Abraham no more may Baptisme and the Lords Supper be administred to any Believers now unlesse they be joyned to some particular Congregation in Church Membership or unlesse by solemne Covenant they be set members of some particular Assemblies The strength of this Consideration stands in the parity which is betwixt the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament Circumcision and Baptisme for parum par est ratio but this parity is not found in every thing as is manifest by the particulars alleadged in the Consideration it self And wee must justly require some reason to prove them like in that particular but to unfold it more fully we will consider three things First how far an argument may be drawn soundly from one Sacrament to another or wherein the Sacraments agree and wherein they differ Secondly What wee are to think of the proposition it self Thirdly whether the Reason of Circumcision and Baptisme be one in that particular First the Sacraments of the old Testament and the new agree in their Common author nature and end and therfore what is spoken of one in respect of the common author nature and end that doth hold true of everie one If Circumcision be of divine institution a seale of the Righteousnesse of faith and of the Covenant of grace a Sacrament in generall is an ordinance divine a seale of the Covenant proper and peculiar to them that bee confederates But what is peculiar to one Sacrament that agreeth not to another What is proper to the sacraments of the old Testament in respect of the manner of dispensation that agreeth not to the new as if the Sacraments of the old Testament be with bloud obscure in signification painfull for use peculiar to one Nation and to bee abolished the Sacraments of the new Testament must be without bloud cleere for signification easie for use universall to all Nations and perpetuall to continue in the Church for ever Circumcision and Baptisme are both Sacraments of divine institution and so they agree in the substance of the things signified the persons to whom they are to bee administred and the order of administration if the right proportion bee observed As circumcision sealed the entrance into the covenant the righteousnesse of faith and circumcision of the heart so doth Baptisme much more clearly As Abraham and his houshold and the infants of beleiving Iews were to be circumcised so the faithful their families and their seed are to bee baptized None must eate the passeover who was not circumcised women excepted who were circumcised in the males Nor may a man unbaptized be admitted to the Lords supper Circumcision was but once applied by Gods appointment and the same holds in baptisme according to the will and good pleasure of God But circumcision and baptisme agree not in their speciall forme and manner of dispensation appointed of God And in these things a reason cannot be drawn from the one to the other affirmatively The males onely were to be circumcised as only capable of that signe but males and semales both ought to be baptized The infants males were to be circumcised the eighth day because seaven dayes they were legally uncleane But the seed of the faithfull are not to bee reputed uncleane Ergo no set tyme is appointed for baptisme Circumcision as other Ceremonies did distinguish the Iewes from the Gentiles but Christ now of two hath made one Circumcision signified Christ to come Baptisme is the seale of the New covenant made in Christ already come And so in the degree of grace given some difference may be put The other differences alleadged in the considerations with the reasons thereof are not so cleere and undoubted for Baptisme is not tyed to the first day of the weeke and the Jewes might gather an Assembly on the eighth day as occasion required and it might be appropriated to the Priests and Levites though done in private But in whatsoever they agree or differ we must looke to the institution and neither stretch it wider nor draw it narrower then the Lord hath made it For hee is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his owne good pleasure And it is our part to learne of him both to whom how and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred how they agree and wherein they differ In all which we must affirme nothing but what God hath taught us and as he hath taught us Secondly as for the Proposition it selfe certaine it is Circumcision and the Passeover were to be administred onely to the visible members of the Church e. to men in Covenant professing the true faith But that in Abrahams time none were visible members of the Church which joyned not themselves in Church orders to the family of Abraham wee have not learned In the first Institution of Circumcision we find that God gave it to Abraham as the Seale of the Covenant formerly made with him But of any Church covenant or order whereunto Abrahams family should enter before Circumcision we read not Melchizedeck Lot Iob c. were not onely visible Beleevers under the Covenant of grace but visible members of the Church according to the order and dispensation of those times Wee read not you say that Melchizedeck Lot or Iob were circumcised but that is no good reason to inferre negatively that they were not Circumcised We read not that Iohn the Baptist or the Apostles or the 500. brethren were Baptized wee must not forthwith conclude that they were not initiated by that seale Moreover if they were not Circumcised it may bee the Institution of that Sacrament was not knowne unto them or the Authour of Circumcision upon whose will and pleasure they must depend did not command it unto them or require that they should joyne themselves in Covenant with Abrahams family and in that case if they had Circumcised themselves they had transgressed But then the reason why they were not circumcised was not this that they were not as you speake in Church order but because Circumcision was appropriated to Abrahams family by divine Institution in some speciall and peculiar respects belonging to the manner of Administration After the Church of the Jewes was constituted when wee can no more imagine that there was a Church among the Gentiles then
of their Minister or if that may bee omitted till there be fit men among them to examine the fitnesse of him that is chosen 10 If subtile Heretikes arise and seduce and draw away many from the faith and the body of the society be not able to convince them either they must be let alone or cast out without conviction for neighbouring Ministers stand in peculiar relation to their flocks onely and must not meddle beyond their calling according to your tenent 11 There is no precept or example in Scripture more to warrant the admitting of a set member of one congregation unto the Supper in another or the baptising of his child occasionally in another assembly then there is for receiving of knowne and approved Christians and their seede that are not set members The Pastor is no more the pastor of the one then of the other nor the one more of his flock then the other neither of them set members and both sorts may be members for the time being and they most properly who are of longest abode among them But as we heare it is frequent among you as at Dorchester c. to baptise the children of another Assembly and usually you admit to the Supper of the Lord members of other Churches and therefore the Minister is not so limited to his particular Church or flock but he may dispence the seales to others which in this consideration is denyed 12 If the want of one Officer in a Congregation for a time may be supplyed by another as the want of the Doctor Ruling Elder or Deacon by the Pastor why may not the defects of some Congregation or Christians be supplyed by Pastors or Ministers of another Congregation when they are requested and desired the minde herein is godly and the means lawfull and well pleasing unto God 13 And if a Synod consisting of sundry members of particular Churches met together in the name of Christ about the common and publike affaires of the Churches shall joyn together in prayer and communion of the Supper wee can see no ground to question it as unlawfull although that Assembly be no particular Congregation or Church hath no Pastor over them make not one Ecclesiasticall body as a particular Congregationall Church unlesse it be for the time onely The Minister therefore may do an act of office to them that be not set members of his flock as he may stand in Relation to them for the time 14 Your comparison betwixt an Officer of a Town Corporate and of a particular Congregation is not alike unlesse you will say that a member of another Corporation occasionally comming into the Towne is thereby a member of that Society and subject to the authority of the Officer For so you professe that the members of one Society may occasionally communicate with another and so be subject to the Pastor for the time being which if you grant it overthrows the whole strength of this consideration Howsoever the comparison it selfe is very perilous if it be pressed For if the Officer of a Town Corporate presume to doe an act of power out of his owne Corporation it is a meer nullity but if a Minister of the Gospell dispence the Sacrament of Baptisme or the Lords Supper to believers of another Society though done without consent it was never deemed or judged a nullity in the Church of God Let the comparison hold good and most Christians have cause to question whether they be truly baptized or ever lawfully received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper If it may not be doubted whether ever the Sacraments of the New Testament were truly or by authority dispenced especially if we consider what follows in the other considerations This Argument from comparison is very usuall in the Writings of Brethren against communion with our Churches but for the most part greatly mistaken to say no more Answer 3 Consideration CIrcumcision and the Passoever were to be administred onely to the members of the Church Ergo Baptisme and the Lords Supper is so to be administred also The consequence is made good by the parity of these Ordinances For if the Argument hold strong for the proofe of Paedo-Baptisme which is taken from the circumcision of Infants why may we not as well infer a necessity of Church membership to Baptisme from the necessity of it to circumcision And that Circumcision was peculiar to the Church members of the Church may appeare in that persons circumcised onely they might eat the Passeover and they onely might enter into the Temple which were the priviledges of Church members In our answer to the second Objection against the first consideration we have shewed that Circumcision was not administred to all that were under the Covenant of Grace which all believers were but onely such of them as joyned themselves to the Church at first in Abrahams family whereunto Baptisme doth so far answer that the Apostle counteth these expresse equivalent to be circumcised in Christ with circumcision made without hands and to be buried with Christ in Baptisme Indeed in somethings they differ as onely the Males were circumcised whereas with us Females are also baptized The Reason is because God hath limited Circumcision to the Males but under the Gospel that difference is taken away Againe Circumcision was administred in the private family but Baptisme onely in the publick Assemblies of the Church The Reason of this difference is because they were bound to circumcise the Males on the eighth day but that could not stand with going to the Temple which was too far off for the purpose to bring every child thither from all parts of Judaea to be Circumcised the eighth day Nor had they alway opportunity of a solemne convention in the Synagogue on every eighth day when some child or other might be to be circumcised But there is no precise day set downe for Baptisme nor are opportunities of publick Assemblies so remote where Churches are kept in a congregationall frame but that every first day of the week Baptisme may be administred if it be required Again for the Aforesaid Reason Circumcision required not a peculiar Minister for ought we finde in Scripture but it is not so in Baptisme as was shewd in the second Consideration But no good Reason can be given why in this they should not both agree viz. that they are both to be dispensed onely to members of the visible Church as it hath been proved in the first Consideration Reply THis whole Reason as it is propounded makes onely against it selfe who ever thought that the Seals of the Covenant were not proper to confederates or the Church of God But of old all visible Believers under the Covenant of Grace walking in holinesse were of the visible Church and in Church Order according to the dispensation of those times though not joyned in externall society with the Family of Abraham And to exclude Melchisedeck or Iob because they were no members of
Reply THe particulars in this Answer hath been examined alreadie and might have well been passed over because it is tedious to repeat the same things againe and againe Two things are affirmed by you 1. That the scope of the Apostle Rom. 4. 11. was not to define a Sacrament nor to shew what was the proper and adequate subject of a Sacrament But this weakneth no part of the argument for if the Apostle do not fully define a Sacrament nor mention every particular benefit or prerogative sealed in the Sacrament yet he sheweth sufficiently to whom the Sacraments in due order do appertaine even to the heires of salvation to them that are justified by faith and walk in the steps of our Father Abraham And thus we argue from the text of the Apostle They that are partakers of the good things sealed in the Sacrament to them belong the Seales of the Covenant according to Gods Institution But they that are justified by faith are partakers of the good things sealed in the Sacrament to them belong the Seales of the Covenant according to Gods institution If Justification be not the onely thing that Circumcision sealed this is nothing to the point in hand For the gifts of the holy Ghost is not the onely thing that is sealed in Baptisme But you confesse in your Answer immediately going before that they have right to baptisme who have received the holy Ghost and the reason is the same of Justification Besides if Justification be not the onely thing that is sealed in the Sacrament it is one principall thing which doth inferre the rest For the blessings of the covenant of grace in Christ are inseparable where one is named others are implyed and where one is given no one is absolutely wanting Christ is made of God wisedome righteousnesse sanctification and redemption whom God doth justifie them he doth sanctifie and them he will glorifie 2. The second thing you affirme is that not onely the covenant of grace which is common to all beleevers but Church-Covenant also which is peculiar to confederates is necessarie to the participation of the Seales This sense your words must beare or else they reach not the point in hand but this is that which should be proved substantially and not barely affirmed and which as we conceive is contrary to the first Institution of the Sacrament and the lawfull practise of John the Baptist our Saviour Christ his Apostles and all others who are recorded lawfully to administer the Seales In Gen. 17. we find the first Institution of circumcision recorded and that it was the seale of the Covenant to Abraham and his seed to them that were borne in his house or bought with his money but we find no mention of any Church Covenant besides the covenant of promise which God made with Abraham There is no mention of any Church-order into which Abrahams family was now gathered more then formerly God gave circumcision to Abraham and his seed as a seale of the righteousnesse of faith but that this family was first gathered into Church-order as you speak we cannot beleeve because the Scripture saith it not whether Lot Job Melchizedech were circumcised or not we will not dispute but if they received not the seale we cannot think the reason to be because they were not in Church-order as those times required if any such thing had been required we cannot think that either they were ignorant of it or that they walked against their light But according to the dispensing of those times we judge as they were visible beleevers so they walked in that Church-fellowship which God prescribed and therefore if circumcision had been the seale of such Church-Covenant as you conceive it should have been given to them no lesse then to Abrahams family But of this sufficient is said before As for Baptisme it is the seal of the whole Covenant which the passages quoted prove it to be Whether it be the seale of our fellowship which Christ in affliction and the resurrection of our bodies we leave it to your consideration but that it should be a Seal of a Church-Covenant which is peculiar to confederates that to us is very strange That it is a solemne admission into the Church of Christ and that of necessitie it must be administred in a particular societie though in the passage to the Corinthians the mysticall bodie of Christ be understood will easily be granted But that it is the seale of any other covenant but the covenant of grace we cannot digest The Sacraments are of God and we must learne of God for what end and use they were ordained But by the Institution or Baptisme recorded in Scripture we have learned it belongeth to the faithfull to disciples to them that are called of God and as for any other covenant necessarie to the right participation of the Seales there is deep silence of it in the Institution in the lawfull and approved practise of the first dispensers of these sacred mysteries Enough hath been said to this matter alreadie but we will conclude it with the words of that reverend Author whom we have cited many times before upon occasion Afterwards saith he John the Baptist walked in the same steps and by the same rule administred baptisme in the Church whereof he was a member required of all that came to his baptisme a profession of repentance and amendment of life for remission of sinnes whereof baptisme was a seale and preached Christ to them This order our Lord Jesus Christ after his resurrection established to continue in the Christian Churches giving a commission to his Disciples to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles and to gather all such as should beleeve through the world as a testimonie to them that the righteousnesse of faith did belong to them also and not to the Church of the Jews onely Accordingly the Apostles and servants of Christ were carefull to observe this rule in their administring baptisme Thus Peter when he saw those three thousand souls pricked in their hearts preached unto them concerning repentance remission of sin Christ the promise baptisme faith amendment of life baptised those that gladly received his word and testified the same by joyning together in the profession thereof The same course Philip took with the Church that was gathered in Samaria where many were baptized but none till they professed their beliefe of the Gospel and their receiving of the Word of God And therefore it is said expresly When they beleeved Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdome of God and the name of Jesus Christ they were baptised both men and women When Ananias was commanded to go and baptise Paul he objected against it at first till the Lord assured him that he was one to whom the Seale of the Covenant belonged and then he went and did it When Peter and those that came with him saw that the holy Ghost fell on Cornelius and those that
that there are Christians among the Barbarians at this day we finde none must be admitted to the Passeover that was not first Circumcised but nothing was required of a stranger to circumcision but that he professe the true faith and avouch the God of Abraham to be his God which of necessitie must be done before he could be reputed a visible Beleever or under the Covenant of promise Thus a learned and reverend divine Circumcision was a seale of the covenant that God made with Abraham concerning Christ that should come as concerning the flesh of Isaac and so of Iacob of whom were the 12 tribes who were the Israelites c. Rom. 9. 4. 5. So that as in Abrahams time none were bound to be Circumcised but those that were of his family as being borne there or bought and so brought thither which were not of his seed So afterwards none were bound to be Circumcised which were not borne in the family of Jacob and Patriarchs or joyned to them And after their comming out of Egypt none were bound to be Circumcised but the children of the Iewes then the only Church of God and those that desired to joyne unto them The summe is thus much God gave circumcision to Abraham as a seale of the Covenant but whether it was given to other beleevers in his time it is at least a thing uncertaine And if they were not Circumcised it was by reason of the speciall Institution of God and peculiar manner of administration of the Covenant of promise which in some respect was proper to the family of Abraham and not common to all the visible members of the Church at that time in Church fellowship and order Afterwards when there were none in covenant but the seed of Iacob or strangers professing the faith of Abraham circumcision was not to be administred to any man who was not in Covenant nor any man to bee admitted to the Passeover who was not circumcised This is the most that can be said with any probability But hence it will not follow by iust analogie or proportion that the seed of the faithfull must not bee admitted to Baptisme or visible believers be received to the Lords Supper unlesse they bee set members of some particular congregation united in Church order Thirdly presupposing therefore that Melchizedeck Lot and Iob were not Circumcised we say there is not the like reason of Circumcision and Baptisme in this particular For first if Circumcision was ever appropriated to the family of Abraham and might be communicated to other visible Beleevers it was in the first Institution and administration but in the first Institution and administration of Baptisme it was not observed that beleevers should be first gathered into a politicall body or Christian church membership and then baptized Iohn the Baptist baptized such as came to him confessing their sins The Apostles baptized Disciples such as gladly received their doctrine beleeved in Jesus Christ and received the gifts of the holy Ghost before they were gathered into Christian Church order or made fit members of a Christian congregationall Assembly 2 If Circumcision was by speciall Institution given as a priviledge to the Males of Abrahams Familie Melchizedecke Iob Lot and other visible Beleevers were not bound to joyne themselves as members to Abrahams familie or desire and seek to be circumcised But they that have received the doctrine of salvation beleeve Christ and professe the faith are bound to seek and desire the priviledge of the seals in an holy manner 3. Melchizedech Job and Lot were not onely visible beleevers but visible members of the Church according to the manner of dispensing in those times but the Seals as you confesse belong to all beleevers knit together in Church-Covenant 4. If circumcision be appropriated to the family of Abraham it is because the Covenant sealed by circumcision is peculiar to Abrahams posteritie sc that Christ should come as concerning the flesh of Isaac But Baptisme is the seal of the Covenant of grace without any peculiar or speciall tye or respect 5. You contend that Baptisme did belong to such beleevers as were members of the then Jewish Church which cannot stand if Abrahams familie did answer to a Christian societie or congregationall Assembly Just reason therefore may be given why circumcision was dispensed onely to the males of Abrahams familie when baptisme is not to be limited onely to the set members of a particular societie and if this consideration be applied to the purpose instead of saying Circumcision and the Passeover were to be administred onely to the members of the Church you must say Circumcision was to be desired of or administred unto all the true approved visible members of the Church And if there be the same reason of both then all visible approved members of the Church must not desire nor be admitted to the seals but this conclusion you will not acknowledge Answ 4. Consideration THey that are not capable of the Church censures are not capable of the Church priviledges but they that are not within Church-Covenant are not capable of Church censures Ergo. The proposition is evident The Assumption may be proved 1 Corinth 5. 12. What have I to do to judge them that are without Now to be without is not onely the case of Heathens and Excommunicates but of some beleevers also who though by externall union with Christ they are within the Covenant of grace yet being not joyned externally to the visible bodie of Christ a particular Church are in regard of visible Church communion said to be without To this purpose is this text alledged by other Divines also as Dr. Ames Cas of consci l. 4. c. 24. q. 1. resp 5. Reply FIrst men are capable of Church censures in two respects either in having the power of the keyes and authoritie to dispense them according to God or as subject to the censures of the Church In the first sense many are capable of Church priviledges that are not capable of Church censures as the seed of Christian parents children and women You say you admit to the seales the knowne and approved and orderly recommended members of any true Church but to fellowship in the censures admittance of members and choice of Officers onely the members of that particular Church whereof they and we any of us stand members In the second sense also many are capable of Church priviledges who are not subject to Church censures as the children of Christian parents are capable of baptisme the known and approved members of any true Church are capable of the Seales in other Congregations among you who are not subject to the censures of that other Society Spirituall communion in publick prayer is a Church priviledge which is not denied to visible beleevers and godly persons though not in Church order and so not in subjection in your sense to Church censures Secondly a person baptised is not baptised in that particular congregation onely but
credit in such cases our reasons must be weightie and convincing But for your exposition of this text of Scripture as yet we have not observed one substantiall ground or approved author to be alledged Doctor Ames shewing the necessitie of Christians joyning themselves to some particular Church giveth this reason Quoniam alias fieri non potest quum conturbentur signa illa quibus fideles ab infidelibus discerni possunt 1. Cor. 5. 12. But herein Dr. Ames manifestly sheweth that by them that are without heathens and unbeleevers must be understood and not beleevers and godly men though of no particular setled societie for the time for thus we conceive he argueth The signes and evidences whereby the faithfull are to be discerned from unbeleevers must not be confounded but unlesse Christians make themselves actuall members of a Societie or Church the signes whereby the faithfull are discerned from unbeleevers will be obscured and darkned And if this be his reason how can that text of Scripture be alledged for confirmation unlesse by men without Infidels be understood Again Doctor Ames in the same book lib. 4. ca. 27. speaking of Infants to be received it is required he saith that they be in the covenant of grace in respect of outward profession and estimation in respect of their parents and that there is hope they shall be instructed and brought up in the same covenant 2. That Baptisme doth most properly belong to those infants whose parents at least one of them is in the Church and not without because baptisme is a signe and seale of the covenant of grace 3. That children that are cast forth are in charitie to be esteemed the children of Christian parents when there is no just cause of presuming the contrary that in admitting unto baptisme a difference must be put betweene the Infants of those who in some sort belong to the Church but openly break the covenant of God and the children of others 1. Because a distinction must be observed in holy things betweene the cleane and uncleane seeing else the ordinance of God cannot be preserved from all pollution To say nothing of that which he addeth touching the baptisme of Infants borne in fornication excommunication and Papists which is more then sufficient to cleare his meaning in the former passage To this may be added that he holdeth it not necessarie that Christians should gather themselves into a particular society but as opportunitie and occasion should offer it self So that it was never his mind to censure them who be not gathered into Church-Covenant because they want means or opportunitie as men without in the Apostles sense His judgement is further manifested in his second Manuduction pa. 33. So many parish Assemblies of England saith he as have any competent number of good Christians in them united to worship God ordinarily in one Societie so many have the essence and integrall forme of a visible Church and all they have intire right to Christ and to all the meanes of injoying him how ever they are defective in the puritie of their combination and in the compleat free exercising of their power whereupon a reverend Elder now among you draws this conclusion Ergo to dischurch them wholly and to separate from them as no Churches of Christ or to denie baptisme to the Infants of their known members is not warrantable by any rule of Scripture that I know nor justified by any assertion or practise Answ 5. Consideration VVE may adde hereunto for a fifth Consideration the evill and pernicious consequences of extending communion in Church priviledges beyond the bounds of Church fellowship for thus 1. The extraordinarie office of the Apostles and the ordinarie office of Pastors and Teachers will be much confounded if the latter be as illimited as the former in the execution of their office beyond the bounds of their own particular Churches 2. The distinction of Church assemblies from the confused multitude is abroagated if without membership in a particular Church the parents may communicate with the Churches in the Lords Supper and their seed in baptisme 3. The Church shall indanger the profaning of the seals and want one speciall meanes whereby the grace and pietie of men may be discerned and made known for if without respect to their Church estate men of approved pietie as you say are to be admitted to fellowship in the seales how shall their pietie be approved to the Church not by their own report of themselves alone without attestation of such as are approved by the Church and how can such beare witnesse to their approved pietie who against light refuse to professe subjection to the Gospel of Christ by orderly joyning themselves in fellowship with some approved Church of Christ as members thereof when they have opportunitie thereunto seeing such fellowship is an action of pietie required of all beleevers in the second Commandment and true pietie frameth mens spirits to have respect to all Gods Commandments And we have had much experience of it that men of approved pietie in the judgement of some have been found too light not onely in the judgement of others but even of their own consciences when they have come to triall in offering themselves to be members of Churches with such a blessing hath God followed this order of taking hold of Church-Covenant by publick profession of faith and repentance before men be admitted to the seales but this meanes of discoverie of mens pietie and sinceritie would be utterly lost if men should be admitted unto the Lords table without entring in Church-fellowship Reply IF it be repugnant to Divine Institution to admit of approved Christians lawfully baptized walking in the faith members of the visible Churches and partakers of Church priviledges among us to the Lords Supper or their children to baptisme because they be not entred into Church fellowship according to your order then it is unlawfull though no such evill consequences are to be feared But if by accident some abuse should fall out the evill is to be prevented by all lawfull meanes but the faithfull are not utterly to be debarred of the order of God whereto they have right and title by his free grant and gracious invitation And no question but the seales of the Covenant may be profaned many times when it is not in the power of the dispensers to put back or expell such as profane them If the Congregation shall admit of or tolerate an unworthy member the Churches priviledges are profaned and yet we conceive you will say the Pastor is not faulty in receiving him when the Church doth tolerate unworthily if he do what pertaineth to his office to keep the holy things of God from contempt But in the case propounded there is no feare or danger of such consequences necessarie to follow for the question is not of all sorts at randame but of Christians professing the faith intirely lawfully baptised known and approved to the consciences of
professing the true and intire doctrine of faith and salvation in respect of them that hold and professe the same faith of Christ and worship God according to his will whereupon it followeth that neither particular persons nor particular guides nor particular Churches are to worke as severall divided bodies by themselves but are to teach and be taught and to do all other duties as parts conjoyned to the whole and members of the same flock or societie in generall And so beleevers professing the faith and walking in holinesse may and ought to be admitted to the Seales as actuall members of the Church of Christ and sheep of his pasture though not set members of one congregationall Church 4. Not to insist upon this here that it hath and may fall out many times through ignorance rashnesse or pride of a prevailing faction in the Church that the true members of the Catholique Church and the best members of the Orthodox visible flock or Church of Christ may be no actuall members of any distinct Societie and shall they for this be accounted men out of Covenant and their posteritie be esteemed aliens and strangers but if they be in Covenant then are they holy in respect of the Covenant and their children holy as pertaining to the Covenant and have right to the Sacrament of initiation Thus Mr. Rob. frameth the argument The Sacrament of Baptisme is to be administred by Christs appointment and the Apostles example onely to such as are externally and so far as men can judge taught and made disciples do receive the Word gladly do beleeve and so professe have received the holy Ghost and to their seed And thus the Church of God ever since the Apostles dayes understood the covenant and promise and their practise in receiving beleevers and their seed to the Seales of the Covenant was answerable as might be shewed at large if it was not a thing confessed Hereunto you answer Answer VVHere the holy Ghost is given and received which was the case of the Centurion and where faith is professed according to Gods ordinance which was the case of the rest there none may hinder them from being baptised viz. by such as have power to baptise them In the Instances given baptisme was administred either by Apostles or Evangelists not ordinary Pastors the persons baptised if they were members of Churches had a right to baptisme in their state and the Apostles being Officers of all Churches might dispense the seales to them where ever they came which yet will not warrant ordinary Officers to do the same Nor is it improbable but that all these were in Church-order Aret. on Act. 18. 1. is of opinion that the Centurion had a constituted Church in his house the Eunuches coming to Jerusalem to worship argueth him to be a Proselyte and member of the Jewish Church not yet dissolved and therefore upon the profession of the Christian faith capable of Church priviledges at that time As for Lydia and the Gaylor it appeareth that in the beginning of the Gospel there was a Church at Philippi which communicated with Paul as concerning giving and receiving As he expresly saith before his departure was from Macedonia which departure was immediately upon the Gaylors conversion In which respect what should hinder that Lydia and the Gaylor should first be joyned to the Church and then to be baptised though it be not mentioned in that story As neither there is mention of a Christian Church which Paul mentioneth in his Epistle to the Philippians At least it is probable that Lydia was a member of the Jewish Church because she is said to be one that worshipped God But if any man think they were not members of any Church yet baptised though we see not how it will be proved yet if it were so the object doth no whit weaken the argument which speaketh of the ordinary dispensation of the seales and not of what was done in an extraordinary way So that suppose that in the cases alledged baptisme dispensed to some that were not in Church-fellowship yet the examples of the Apostles and Evangelists in so doing will not warrant ordinary Pastors to do the like The reason of the difference why Apostles and Evangelists might administer Baptisme out of Church-order whereas Pastors and Teachers may not is double 1. Because their calling gave them illimited power over all men especially Christians wheresoever they came But we do not find that ordinarie Pastors and Teachers can do an act of power but onely over their own Church which hath called them to watch over them in the Lord. 2. Because they were assisted with an immediate direction and guidance of the holy Ghost in the places of their administration in the cases alledged But ordinary Church-Officers are to walke according to ordinary rules of the Scripture in the dispensation of the Seales and not to expect immediate inspirations and extraordinary revelations for their helpe in such cases This difference between Apostles and ordinary Church-Officers must needs be acknowledged or otherwise a man might from their example justifie Baptisme in private houses Reply THis Answer stands of many parts wherein things doubtfull are affirmed and that which more weakeneth the force of the consideration before alledged and the Answer it selfe then of the reason whereunto it is applyed For First If where the holy Ghost is given and received and where faith is professed according to Gods ordinance there none may hinder them from being baptized viz. by such as have power to baptize them Then either men that have received the holy Ghost and professe the faith be members of the Church or Baptisme is not a priviledge of the Church then it is not essentiall to the first Institution of Baptisme that it should be dispenced to none but such as were entered into Church-fellowship or were set members of a congregationall Assembly Then the Apostles in dispensing the Seales unto such or commanding them to be dispenced did walk according to the rules of Scripture and upon grounds common to them and us viz. they admitted them unto the Sacraments who had right and interest to them according to the minde and pleasure of the Institutor not extraordinarily revealed besides the common rules or by speciall dispensation and prerogative excepted from the common rule but made knowne in the Institution it selfe And then the difficultie remaining is onely this whether a Pastor or Teacher hath authority from Christ to dispence the Seales of the Covenant to one who hath right and title to them and doth orderly desire that benefit because he is not as yet received as a set member of that particular societie which your practise in admitting of set members of other Congregations unto the Seales doth manifestly convince For if both have equall interest unto the Seales the Pastor upon lawfull suite and request hath equall authoritie to receive the one as well as the other Secondly In the particular Instances given
Apostles dispenced the seales onely to the Church Disciples faithfull c. 2. An Argument followeth necessarily from particular example to a generall when one particular is proved by another particular by force of the similitude common to the whole kinde under which those particulars are contained But the practise of the Apostles in baptizing Disciples and faithfull by force of similitude common to the whole kinde agreeth with the practise of Ministers receiving to Baptisme the seed of the faithfull though as yet not set members of any particular societie In some circumstances there may be difference when yet the reason is strong if the difference be not in the very likenesse it selfe whereupon the reason is grounded One circumstance that is materiall to the point may overthrow the likenesse pretended and twenty different circumstances if they be not to the point in hand make no dissimilitude Now in this matter wee speake of no circumstance is or can be named why we should thinke it lawfull for the Apostles to baptize Disciples as yet being no set members of particular societies and the same should be unlawfull in all cases for ordinary Pastors in their particular Congregations though it be desired 3. What is done by extraordinary dispensation that is lawfull for them onely who have received such dispensation and by them cannot be communicated to others But the Apostles baptized by others seldome by themselves as hath been shewed 4. We might urge the rule which a reverend Elder among you giveth in another matter scil Those examples which are backed with some divine precept or which are held forth in the first Institution of an ordinance being part of the institution or which were the constant lawfull actions of holy men in Scripture not civill but sacred so binde us to imitation as that not to conforme thereunto is sinne For the Assumption to this Proposition it is plaine and naturall But the practise of the Apostles in receiving the faithfull Disciples c. is backed with divine precept held forth in the first Institution and was their constant lawfull practise agreeable to the practise of all others who were imployed in that service Ergo c. 5. In the first consideration you prove the Seales to be the priviledge of the Church in ordinary dispensation by this passage of Scripture Then they that gladly received the Word were baptized but if Apostles baptize by extraordinary dispensation in your sense this testimony is insufficient for that purpose 2 Reason OUr second reason In due order the Seales belong to them to whom the grant is given viz. Baptisme to the seed of the faithfull and the Lords Supper to beleevers able to try and examine themselves But the grant is vouchsafed to the faithfull and their seed forgivenesse of sinnes sanctification adoption and what other good things are promised in the covenant of grace are the grant or good things sealed in the Sacrament But those are granted to beleevers according to the covenant and they are so linked together that under one promised all are understood and if one be vouchsafed none is denied When God promiseth to circumcise the heart the forgivenesse of sinnes is implyed And when Circumcision is said to be the Seale of the righteousnesse of faith the circumcision of the heart by spirituall regeneration is included To whomsoever then the spirituall gift or inward grace of the covenant is given and granted to them the Seales of that gift and grant doth belong in their due order But the spirituall gift or grace which is the thing signified in the Sacrament is freely granted to true beleevers who have received the doctrine of salvation and walk in the wayes of truth and righteousnesse therefore the priviledges of the Seales belong unto them To this you answer The scope of the Apostle in the place Rom. 4. 11. is not to define a Sacrament nor to shew what is the proper and adequate subject of the Sacrament but to prove by the example of Abraham that a sinner is justified before God not by works but by faith Thus as Abraham the Father of the faithfull was justified before God so must his seed be that is all beleevers whether Jews or Gentiles circumcised or uncircumcised for therefore Abraham received circumcision which belonged to the Jews to confirm the righteousnesse which he had before while he was uncircumcised that he might be the Father of both but lest any one should think his circumcision was needlesse if he was justified by faith before circumcision he addeth that his circumcision was of no use as a seale to confirme to him his faith and the righteousnesse which is by faith yet as Justification is not the onely thing that Circumcision sealed but the whole Covenant also made with Abraham and his seed was sealed thereby so Abraham is to be considered in using circumcision not simply or onely as a beleever without Church relation but as a confederate beleever and so in the state and order of a visible Church Though the Apostle maketh mention of the righteousnesse of faith as sealed thereby which was not that which served for his purpose Now that Circumcision also sealed the Church-Covenant may appear from Gen. 17. 9. 10 11. where you may find that Abraham and his seed though beleevers were not circumcised till God called them into Church-Covenant and there is the same reason use of Baptisme to us which serveth to seal our justification as circumcision did yet not that alone but also the whole covenant with all the priviledges of it as Adoption Sanctification and fellowship with Christ in affections and the salvation of our souls and the resurrection of our bodies And not onely the covenant of grace which is common to all beleevers but Church-Covenant also which is peculiar to confederates According to that of the Apostle By one Spirit we are baptized into one body 1 Cor. 12. 13. And by one bodie he meaneth that particular Church of Corinth whereunto he writeth and saith Now ye are the body of Christ and members in particular ver 27. And ergo Church-membership is required as well to the orderly partaking of Baptisme as it was of Circumcision Nor do we find that circumcision was administred to all that were in the Covenant of grace as all beleevers were but onely to such of them as were joyned to the people of the God of Abraham Melchizedech was under the covenant of grace so was Lot so was Job and his foure friends yet we no where read that they were circumcised nor do beleeve they were So that if Circumcision was administred to none but those that were joyned together in Abrahams familie and to the Church of God in his seed then may not baptisme in ordinarie course be administred to any beleevers now unlesse they be joyned to the Church of Christ for parum par est ratio But the first is true Ergo the second also