flesh successively Secondly by passing the promise into a solemne formall visible covenant as the father of the blessed and all-blessing seed and of all believers of all nations Thirdly confirming it by circumcision the sign and seal of the righteousnesse of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised 3. The third from Moses to Christs coming in the flesh this is the same in substance with the former the same Christ and doctrine and grace dispensed but differing from the former in the manner of dispensation in divers circumstances First in adding these ten words in tables of stone and drawing a vail of shadowes over it consisting of all those Lawes and Ordinances delivered to Moses on the mount according to the pattern shewed him and by him communicated to the people Secondly in adding the Ordinance of the Passeover with divers rites thereto belonging all which were to continue till the time of Reformation and this and not the former is the old Testament ratified by the death of Bulls and Goats c. Shadows of better things without the application whereof the other purified the flesh and not the conscience 4. The fourth begins with the manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh and still continues and is the new Testament ratified by the death and blood of the Lord Jesus the testator who being come the vaile of shadowes was utterly removed and the Mosaicall administrations quite abolished the old being done away that the new might be established which cannot be removed And this is to be attended that all the Scriptures that speak of the removall of the old and setting up of the new Testament or that declare the abolishing of the old and establishing of the new as was foretold is to be understood of these two periods from Moses to Christ and after not of that from Abraham to Moses and he opposition in this case made in the Scriptures is of that under Moses and Christ only 5. The covenant that God made with Abraham and continued to his seed the Jewes and us Gentiles hath two parts in it the first respecteth God the other respecteth us In the first concerning God is contained all that concerns our good temporall and eternall and himself held forth as the sole efficient of all preventing us with his grace freely and performing all the good pleasure of his grace in us according to his own will nor doth any thing that hee is pleased to work depend on us nor requires he any thing of us by way of efficiencie or causality yet so as that hee worketh something in us without us even being meerly passive in the act of working till it be first wrought something he works by us stirring up and assisting that which hee hath first wrought in us nor can we at first do any thing till hee hath principled us by supernaturall grace nor first or last more then hee helpeth us who worketh all the will and deed according to his will 6. Infants are passively capable of the dispensation of God and of the Spirit and grace of the covenant and what ever men of yeers are capable of though not wrought in the same way or by the same means yet the same things and by the same Spirit so far as is necessary to union with Christ and his justification to life thereby else no children dying Infants are elected or shall be raised up again in their bodies and saved nor is the judgement that we can have of men of yeers infallible as in Simon Magus c. 7. The Lord having taken hold of any man or woman by outward dispensation of means to call them out of Infidelity into visible profession of faith in the Word of his grace and obedience to his commands they are hereby made partakers of his covenant and all the priviledges outwardly belonging thereto yea though they have not saving faith but be hypocrites and so themselves and all that ever proceed from them continue in the same state parents and children successively so long as the Lord continues the course of his dispensation nor can any alteration befall them whereby this estate is dissolved but some apparent act of God breaking them off from him 8. Baptisme is not the first grace but the second nor doth it confer grace but confirm the former which therefore must be presupposed and it is the seal of the righteousnesse of faith in the new Testament to all that receive it as circumcision of old was to them Rom. 4.11 By baptisme I mean the ordinance of the church administred by a just calling which is too oft though it never should be separated from inward grace yet remains true baptisme so administred else Simon Magus and those false breathren Gal. 2. being not inwardly baptized were not truly baptized and if they had repented must be baptized anew 9. Last of all as of old more was required of Abraham and of men of yeers turning Proselytes when they were to be circumcised then of Isaac and their Infants continually afterwards circumcised So now in administring baptisme to persons more is required of men of yeers then of Infants God required faith of Abraham in the blessing seed before circumcised but hee required not faith of Isaac nor of any one of Abrahams seed after him before circumcision but that they should believe afterward which he promised to work in them So now of men of yeers faith is to be required and must be that a man of yeers be baptized but not so of Infants of baptized persons who are to be baptized that they may believe afterward c. Having premised thus much I come to the proof of the question that Infants of believing parents and in covenant with God by visible profession may and ought to be baptized ARGUMENTS ¶ 1 IF the covenant now under Christ be the same that it was with Abraham and the Jewes before Christ then as Infants were in that covenant and partakers of the signe thereof circumcision so are Infants now in the covenan and should receive the signe thereof baptisme But the covenant now under Christ is the same with that before Christ with Abraham and his posterity in the flesh Therefore as Infants were then in the covenant and signed with circumcision so are Infants now in the covenant and are to receive baptisme the signe thereof In this Argument three things are to be cleared First that the covenant made with Abraham and his posterity before Christ and this under Christ is the same And secondly that Infants were then in that covenant so they be now in this And thirdly that all Jewish Infants were then partakers of the signe and circumcised and so should Infants now receive baptisme the signe of it Of each of these I will set down particular grounds 1. That the covenant with Abraham and the Jewes before and the Gentiles now is the same is evident by these reasons First the Gospel is the doctrine of the covenant but this is but
by Christs coming To which I answer though they offered sacrifices before Abrahams dayes and they after Abrahams dayes circumcised yet before Moses time God manifested not his will in a testamentary dispensation nor can we properly say that those were abolished by Christs coming being removed before by Moses at least altered by a new institution nor were the sacrifices of Melchisedec nor his Priesthood abolished which was before Moses as was Aarons but unto Melchisedec our Saviour succeeded so that these exceptions might well have been spared seeing the doctrine contained in the Propositions is sound and wholesome and the contrary unsound and hurtfull yet before I go from this Proposition let mee commend this unto you all that the reason why they would weaken this Proposition is because they would maintain that opinion that the Covenant made with Abraham was a carnall covenant and of the flesh applying all those Scriptures that speake by way of derogation hither when as they are spoken of the old Testament and not of this period from Abraham which was the everlasting Covenant of God continued with Jewes and now to us Gentiles and the same for ever and so my Proposition is not answred nor refuted To the fourth of childrens capacity to receive all grace necessary to union with Christ and justification to life thereby as well as men of yeers hee yeeldeth only denying it to be manifest to us which this or that nor of Believers children more then Infidels I answer I grant it we cannot conclude it of this or that but of all alike yet otherwise of Believers children then of the Infants of Infidels for as Infidell parents are without God in the world so their children are also and we have no ground to think an Infidell man or woman is elected of God adopted c. and so wee can judge no better of their children but as the faith of the parents professed is a sufficient ground to me to think according to the rule that he belongs to God so Gods taking hold of a Believers childe to be his as he doth and we shall shew it afterward is a sufficient ground to me to think a Believers child to be justified and sanctified which though I may be mistaken and my judgement in this case is not infallible yet it is as much as I can have of any man of yeeres of whose state I cannot judge infallibly To the fifth where I say Baptisme is not the first grace but a second being a seal of the righteousnesse of faith as circumcision of old Rom. 4.11 which must be presupposed or else baptisme not to be administred he answereth that it is well to be heeded of all especially those that maintain Infants Baptisme having no ground to conclude that Infants have a first grace Rom. 4.11 will prove no such thing it will only prove circumcision was in the nature of it a seal of the righteousnesse of faith and did seal it to Abrham that had faith but not to them that had no faith nor was it a ground why wee should presuppose faith in all upon whom it was administred or why it was administred To this I reply 1. Baptisme is not the first grace but something precedes it to which Baptisme is added as a seal and if children have not some former grace to which Baptisme doth seal then I cannot see that they are to be baptized This former grace though many other things might be expressed yet having so plain a Scripture I rest in it is this righteousnesse of faith which what ground we have to conclude children have I shall labour to cleer under these distinctions First the righteousnesse of faith is to be considered either as it is dispensed by God in an offer or as it is received by them to whom it is offered Secondly in applying this offer God makes some partakers of it before the seal is put to as in Abraham the men of yeers in his house and Proselytes at least in our judgement some he makes partakers of it at the time of sealing both concurring some after and some never at all 3. That circumcision was not in the nature of it but by institution and Baptisme is the seal of this grace and is to be attended either on Gods part or ours On Gods part signifying and confirming that hee will make good his offer on our part that wee believe this offer and abide in it And to apply all God offered Abraham the righteousnesse of faith he believed God sealed and Abraham both again God continued the dispensation of this offer to Esau and Jacob and so all Infants of the Jewes after was willing to bestow it upon them God sets his seal to confirm he is willing Esau had not the rites before nor was it conferred at that time nor ever after and so it was with most of the Jewes as is cleer in them in the wildernesse who had it not before nor at the time nor ever after for the Gospell was preached unto them but they believed it not and so it profited nothing yet they were circumcised Infants though they had no faith before nor then nor ever after what was then the former grace that this seal was set to nothing in them but the offer of righteousnesse on Gods part which he said and sealed he was willing to bestow on them so I conclude the like in Baptisme The seal now of the righteousnesse of faith and that there is the same former grace in Infants now that was in Infants then namely the continuance of the dispensation of Gods offer of righteousnesse with which their fathers at first closed and were partakers of and which was one speciall ground why those Infants were circumcised and is now a ground of Infants baptizing and though many then were not and many now are not partakers of that grace offered and sealed yet that doth not make it no grace but on Gods part offered and sealed it is the same without alteration that it is to them who receive it and the difference lieth only in the subjects for I suppose no man will deny but God offered unto Ismael the righteousnesse of faith and that he shall be punished for refusing of it and so the rest of the Jewes that sleighted Gods grace so offered nor will any affirm that Simon Magus and others had not the offer of righteousnesse made unto them but they that refused shall surely perish for it as they Acts 13.38 Further it is not right which is said of them that circumcision to them was a sign only and to this end administred to distinguish them and to interest them in those Lawes and Ordinances c. which were means to typifie and lead to Christ that was to come wherein they were to be trained up For though this were one end yet not only nor all for as it was a sign distinguishing so it was a sign of justification and that God would thereby circumcise their hearts yea it
body of the Jewish nation were the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh were commanded to be circumcised as so in the covenant and otherwise could not have been of the Jewish Church They were not to bring their sacrifices to the Temple nor eat the Passeover therefore these were legally in the covenant though but the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh yet none of the uncircumsion might before Christs time partake of those priviledges though they did believe The difference therefore was very great Reply That the Jewish Nation was Abrahams posterity according to the flesh who knowes not yet that they were thereby of the Church is not true and that they were in covenant before and Church-members is certain though he affirm the contrary never so often without any proof at all for circumcision followes the covenant at Church state being a sign of it doth not go before it as is evident in Abrahams case and his families as also in Isaacs case and all following him who were not circumcised at the 8th day but as in the covenant before and how could a Jew being uncircumcised be cut off from his people and despise Gods covenant if he had not interest in that estate before And were not those many hundred in Abrahams family and all proselytes after in the covenant and of the Church though not of Abrahams posterity in the flesh This is not required therefore to make them of the Jewish Church nor was it sufficient to be Abrahams posterity and circumcised to make them in the covenant and in the Church and no more required as in Esau's case and the rest of Abrahams children by Ketura where hee saith they were legally in the covenant though but Abrahams posterity I reply More was required of them to be in the covenant then to be Abrahams posterity in the flesh even to be the Lords to have Abrahams faith wrought in them without which they could not be or continue in the covenant If he mean by legally in the covenant they were in a legall covenant a covenant of works it is contrary to the Scriptures Galat. 3.17 18. Now was there any such covenant dispensed unto them by God But if he mean they were in the same covenant we have but legally being perverted by them contrary to the doctrine of God he grants what I said and contradicts himselfe Further he saith none uncircumcised before Christs time may partake in those priviledges though they did beleeve Reply It is not true For Enoch Noah Melchisedec and many others were partakers of some of them before circumcision was instituted and all they in the wildernesse during the fourty years travell there Though therefore the difference was very great in many circumstances yet it was the same in substance which is that I said A third consideration he hath is this No Gentiles are Abrahams seed at all but by beleeving the righteousnesse of faith although he be the child of beleeving parents Reply First I deny it For the infants of beleeving Gentiles in covenant are Abrahams seed though they doe not actually beleeve as the infants of Proselytes Gentiles before Christ were Abrahams seed with their beleeving parents Secondly none of the Jewish parents or children were Abrahams seed but by actually beleeving the righteousnesse of faith or under the promise of God to work it in them Rom. 9.6 8. But what is this to the disproof of my Argument That the covenant with Abraham then and now is the same I see not a word to that purpose A fourth consideration he thus sets downe None of the Jewes themselves Abrahams naturall seed and partakers of all the orders of the Old Testament by vertue of that naturall relation could bee admitted to be baptized but upon manifestation of faith Therefore the covenant before and this since is not the same Reply First all Abrahams naturall seed were not partakers of all ordinances of the old Testament by vertue of that relation as Esaus posterity nor was that relation necessary for then no Proselyte could have enjoyed them Secondly the natural posterity of Abraham did partake of those ordinances by vertue of the covenant or their actuall faith and therefore enjoyed them no longer then their covenant and faith continued Thirdly it followeth not that the covenant now and then is not the same because the Jewes of yeares were not baptized without manifestation of their faith for the difference onely is circumstantiall viz. the manifestation of their faith in Christ the Messiah now come which before they beleeved should come nor will he ever prove that the infants of those Jewes beleeving and baptized were not also baptized with their parents And this of his considerations to my second Reason my third Reason followeth The standing of the Jewes and of us Gentiles in the grace of God is the same with Abrahams therefore the Covenant is the same To this he answereth First distinguishing of the word Grace which is taken saith he particularly for the covenant of life generally for any effect of Gods goodnesse whereby he freely communicateth any benefits unto the sonnes of men which must needs be by grace seeing no man deserveth any thing Secondly he applieth this distinction and saith that if grace be taken in the first sense and particularly for the covenant of everlasting life unto free justification hee denieth that the Jewes were required to manifest their interest therein before they could be admitted to stand members of the Jewish visible Church state as all both Jews and Gentiles must now since the death of Christ and yet none saved but by grace in this first sense But if grace be taken in the latter and more generall sense for some effect of Gods goodnesse communicated freely to any in any kinde of benefit then he granteth that the Iewes stood under the same grace of God with Abraham and had circumcision and other ordinances to lead them to Christ to come yea to be born of their seed according to the flesh And in these respects the Jewes standing was the same with Abrahams and these respects are spoken of by Mary Luke 1.54 55. and Zachary Luke 1.72 73 Rep. First the distinction is not necessary for though in a general sense any thing from God may be called a grace as it is a free gift of God to them them that never deserve it yet in this discourse and usually in the Scriptures it is not used in this larger sense Secondly to make those priviledges of the Jewes to be but effects of common grace he wrongeth the grace of God as dispensing nothing more of particular favour to the Jewes then to the Gentiles though they had more and larger matters then the Gentiles Yet being from common grace it alters not the state of them under Gods grace from the Heathens whom in this case God leaveth not without witnesse of himself Thirdly in that he saith the Jewes had circumcision and other Ordinances leading them to Christ and
thereof not by baptisme but by the covenant is eternall to all the elect and so hee that believeth in Christ shall never die but these are not eternall to any else at all for reprobate members dying remain not members c. so that here is nothing in this answer that proveth the Jewes were not a church-estate by an acted covenant Secondly he answereth the covenant is a ground of a churches being a visible church that the visible participation in the covenant is by some visible thing which was circumcision then is baptisme now other visible participations there was not nor is any therefore by circumcision then and baptisme now they are a visible church And as the taking away of the covenant causeth the church to cease so it causeth their circumcision and baptisme to cease also whereby they had visible participation in the covenant and church Reply First he saith a covenant is the ground of a visible for the question saith he speaks of a visible church and so say I and a visible ground of any mans being circumcised then or baptized now if it be a ground of a visible church then a church cannot be a church without it and so constituted a visible church by it Secondly there must be some visible thing whereby a man may have visible participation in the covenant I grant it but saith he there is no other visible thing whereby any are partakers of the covenant but circumcision then and baptisme now I deny it and affirm there is some visible thing preceding circumcision then baptisme now For when they baptize a man do they baptize him as out of covenant or in it If in covenant then it is as hee is invisibly in it or visibly not invisibly that they cannot know therefore visibly by something they can discern and know and upon that baptize him and that is the profession of his faith in the covenant which as it must go before baptisme so it makes him partaker visibly of the covenant before he be baptized or circumcised therefore circumcision then baptisme now is not the only visible participation in the covenant nor indeed any participation at all but a visible sign and seal of his visible participation and this appeareth further from the description of a Sacrament an outward and visible sign of an inward and spirituall grace which must be there or the outward is not to be applied but it cannot be concluded to be there but by some outward evidence therefore something visible and thereby visible participation in the covenant must go before visible baptisme As then the covenant must be taken away before the church cease to be a church and not circumcision nor baptisme which cannot cease untill the church ceaseth all which himself granteth so as long as any continue visible profession of faith so long the covenant continueth and visible profession must cease before the covenant ceaseth in respect of men Ergo by visible profession of faith in the covenant is obtained and declared visible participation in the covenant and so is the church-estate constituted thereby Further hee saith the covenant before Christ did ceremonially lead to Christ and in that respect is dissolved and circumcision by which they had participation in that covenant is dissolved and therfore the visible church ceased as was prophesied Zach. 11. and accomplished at the death of Christ the partition wall being broken down Ephes 2.13 c. the covenant since Christ ratified by the death of the testator cannot be dissolved as I affirm in my third Proposition and fourth poriod and so baptisme by which they have true visible being in the covenant cannot be removed nor the visible church-state Reply Here is nothing said that hath not been said before again and again and so answered yet in a word First hee confoundeth covenant and testament there is but one covenant but yet two Testaments and the covenant was dispensed to Abraham before there was any testament instituted and the Scriptures that speake of abolishing the old and establishing the new are not to be understood of two covenants there being but one but of two Testaments as I shewed in my third Proposition and fourth period and he much mistakes himself abuseth his Reader and cannot but know that he speakes not truly in saying I affirmed the new covenant cannot be removed when as I said the new Testament cannot be removed Secondly the covenant before Christ did not ceremonially lead to Christ for the covenant alwayes from Adam held forth Christ the same yesterday to day and for ever but the old Testament before Christ did ceremonially lead to Christ and was abolished at Christs coming that the new confirmed by his blood might be established Thirdly the covenant and visible church-state thereby did not cease at Christs coming in it self but was taken away from the Jews and given to the Gentiles and that not because the covenant and church-estate typified Christ but because they believed not for had they believed they should have injoyed the covenant and church-state still though the old Testament should have ceased and the new be put in the room and now it shall be taken from such Gentiles so oft as any of them cease to believe as is already fallen out to many churches Yet without any prejudice to the covenant of God or visible church-estate which ever remain Last of all I have shewed before that circumcision did not give them a visible being in that covenant and church-estate nor baptisme us but outward profession of subjection to the covenant gave them and gives us a being in the covenant and visible church-state circumcision then and baptisme now being but signes and seals of it Further against his conclusion that the true visible church in respect of the ground of it cannot be removed or dissolved he putteth two exceptions and seeks to cleer it from them The first is this The true Church may possibly die and none survive them in that estate Ergo the true Church may cease to be His answer to this is the true Chrch ceaseth to be but only to our outward view for to our faith it is no more ceased then their relation to the covenant ceaseth which doth not cease to the faithfull when they die but it remains as the covenant it self which is as firm as God that made it Secondly as their outward view to the church ceaseth so their relation to the church by baptisme ceaseth by which they had visible participation with the body of Christ therefore the exception hinders not but that the true visible Church remains undissolved Reply Whether this were mine or no I cannot say as also many other things the which hee puts forth in my name a word or two First he changeth the State of the Question speaking of a visible state whereas he speaketh of an invisible state and of the elect only whereas himself will confesse that many may be in a visible with whom the covenant ceaseth
one Gal. 1.6 and was preached to Abraham Gal. 3.8 Rom. 4.11 and to the Jewes in the wildernesse Heb. 3. 4. and in Davids time Heb. 4.7 from Psal 95. and during their whole state Rom. 9.31 10.2 This Gospel is now preached to us Heb. 4.2 Therefore the covenant is the same in all and it is an injurious thing to Gods grace and utterly against the Scriptures to affirm that that covenant was of nature in the flesh and of earthly things This is of grace in the spirit and of heavenly things And as little understanding doe they shew in Gods word that say Gods covenant was in their flesh because circumcision outward was in their flesh For though God calls it his covenant yet it is not but the signe of it as he after expresseth and outward baptisme is no lesse on the flesh then it and so may be called Gods covenant on the flesh Secondly if Abraham be the Father of the Jewes and Gentiles equally as he beleeves the righteousnesse of faith and they his children equally as so beleeving and no otherwise then the covenant is the same But Abraham is the father of Jewes and Gentiles equally as he beleeves and they his children equally as so beleeving Rom. 4.11 12 16 17 23 24. Gal. 3.7 9 26.29 Therefore the covenant is the same By beleeving I mean the profession of Faith Thirdly the standing of the Jewes under the grace of God was the same with Abraham as is cleare from Gods often expressing himselfe to be the God of their Fathers Abraham c. and dispensing himselfe according to the covenant made with Abraham c and to his posterity Exod. 2.24 2 Reg. 13.23 And their praying to the Lord to remember his covenant made with Abraham c. acknowledging the accomplishment of it to them Luke 2.54 and 72.74 And let not any say it was a covenant of giving the Land of Canaan For if that were all why did David so long after Joshuah possesse them of Canaan when they had rest there yet still provoke them in his time to enter into Gods rest lest they should be shut out as their Fathers were in the wildernesse as the Apostle argueth Heb. 3.4 was this the land of Canaan unlesse as a type was it not Christ and Gods free grace Now our standing is the same with the Jewes as is evident Matth. 21.4 chap. 22.1 2. That the Infants of the Jewes were then in the covenant will not be denied That Infants are now in the covenant whose parents professe the faith I prove thus 1. Else the covenant was not the same with the former but another But it is the same with the former and not another diverse from that as I have proved Ergo c. Else the state of the grace of God should bee straitned and made of lesse extent by Christs comming then it was before whereas it is more enlarged and of greater extent 3. If Infants be not now in the covenant as well as then either it is because God hath excluded them expresly or there was something more in the persons of beleevers then then now to interest Infants in it But God hath no where expresly excluded them nor was there any thing in the persons then more then now to interest them Therefore Infants are now in the covenant as then 4. If Jewes and Gentiles bee incorporated into one body in Christ and the Jewes Infants were in the body before and so continued then so must the infants of Christian Gentiles be now But the Gentiles and Jewes be incorporate into one body in Christ by the Gentiles being made neere and Citizens which they were not before as the Jewes were but strangers and farre off Ephes 2.11 13 20. 3.6 and the Jewes Infants were and continued in that body therefore so are the Infants of beleeving Gentiles 3. Infants should now be baptized as then they were circumcised To cleare it further I adde these considerations 1. Else the covenant was not the same then and now nor Infants in it now as then which I have proved to be otherwise 2. If they have the thing and substance they cannot be denyed the signe and circumstance if the first grace then the second and confirming But Infants have the thing and substance for they have the same covenant and the Kingdome of heaven which was taken from the Jewes of which Infants were subjects as well as elder men is now given to the Gentiles Therefore as Peter Acts 10. so say I Who can forbid water that Infants should not be baptized as well as men of years seeing they are subjects of the Kingdome as well as they 3. Else there should be no difference between the Infants of Gentiles beleeving Pagans and Infidels as there was before between the Jews Infants and the Gentiles which as it is uncomfortable without just ground to say so so it is contrary to the word of God which affirmeth that the Infants of beleeving Gentiles are holy and not as the Infants of Infidels which are profane This is manifest 1 Cor. 7.14 where the Apostle resolving this scruple Whether a beleever might continue to cohabite and enjoy marriage-fellowship with an Infidell yoke-fellow and not be polluted and he affirming it cleareth his affirmation by three Arguments 1. First from the priviledge of the state of grace to a beleever himselfe that being by faith pure himselfe all things are pure to him and so the society of marriage with an Infidell And this to be so hee cleareth viz. That an Infidell is sanctified to a beleeving yoke-mate 2. From a priviledge of the state of grace to their children that they themselves being pure by faith their children are thereby born pure of them and holy in that estate which could not be if the society of marriage was polluted This is the true meaning of the words yet what holinesse is here meant hath troubled men who have travelled with variety in expounding or torturing these few words Some will have them understood politically and that two wayes 1. In respect of the present children born of them which could not be legitimate if their marriage was not lawfull 2. In respect of those children they might have by others if they should forsake this marriage and betake them to another those children would be bastards Some ceremonially of uncleannesse of children begotten in time of the womans disease and are holy when the Infidell partie forbears that time which is absurd and groundlesse Some take it religiously But here they differ some will have it to mean future holinesse which the Parent by cohabitation may make the child partaker of either obtaining it may bee baptized or by counsell when they come to age But if they forsake the Infidell party then the children will remain in infidelity still Others take it for present holinesse yet not in one sense for some conceive thus That the beleever abiding and gaining the Infidell party the children
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
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
Secondly if I may conclude they have the thing and cannot by a rule conclude they have not then though they cannot manifest it yet I may feel them and what more can be when they do manifest I may be mistaken I cannot conclude infallibly they have the thing Thirdly the Jews Infants were not able to manifest the thing yet circumcised and why may not Infants be baptized though they cannot manifest the substance seeing they may have it Last of all there is a double consideration of our being in Christian state one foederall and outward the other spirituall also and inward there is a double consideration of Baptisme as of Circumcision the one outward the other inward also now man applies on his part the outward baptisme to one that is outwardly in Christian state as Infants are it belonging to man to do no more and if hee should commonly apply it to them that are not spirituall in that state nor ever shall be yet herein hee sins not but doth that he ought to do in applying to the subject what belongs to it in respect of that which in the subject is proportionable to what hee doth My third Reason to prove that infants being now in the covenant as theirs and therefore ought to be now baptized as then circumcised was this By vertue of this word to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Infants of old were included and therefore circumcised and the same promise belongeth to the Gentiles in the same state as to Jewes therefore the Infants of Gentiles are included and must be baptized He answereth first that the Jews till Christs time were under that promise by naturall relation only and then they ceased to be under it by naturall relation and so circumcision ceased also Secondly neither to Jewes nor Gentiles is that promise continued in the same state the Gentiles being not Abrahams seed by naturall relation and that of the Jewes ceased and so hee concludes thus if the covenant touching the naturall seed be ceased then Infants are neither to be circumcised nor baptized but the covenant touching the naturall seed ceased at Christs death Acts 10.28 Gal. 3.25 Ephes 2.14 15. Rom. 11.20.21 Gal. 4.25 26. therefore Infants are neither to be circumcised nor baptized Reply First it is flat contrary to Scripture to say that the Jews were under the promise by naturall relation Rom. 9.6.8 the Apostle fully concludeth that all are not Israel nor under that promise that are of Israel that is as they were of the flesh they are not the children of Abraham under that promise and therefore though Abraham had other children yet the promise was limited to Isaac yea though Esau came of Isaac as well as Jacob yet was the promise limited to Jacob 10.11 though both of one father and mother Rom. 4.11 the promise is made to Abraham to be the father only of them that believe and therefore none first or last then or now are under the promise by vertue of naturall relation Secondly circumcision was not applied to Abrahams posterity as his naturall seed in that respect For First it was the seal of the righteousnesse of faith and therefore not be administred to any but as believing the righteousnesse of faith or such as God promised to work it in them Secondly otherwise the proselytes and their Infants could not have been circumcised being not Abrahams posterity in the flesh Thirdly all the Scriptures alledged by him speak not of the abolishing of the covenant but of ceremonies and shadowes dispensed unto them for a time which in Christs death were done away those that seem to speak of the covenant Rom. 11.20 21. adde 7. Gal. 4.25 26. speak not at all of the abolishing of the covenant but of the continuance of it altogether as the same then and now Rom. 11. speaks of the Jewes being cut off by unbelief from the covenant and not of disanulling the covenant and the Gentiles instated in that they were cut off from that of Gal. 4. speaks not of a change of the state of the promise but of the difference of persons now and then under the same state of the promise then and now as it was and is on Gods part dispensed From all in brief we may gather these particular conclusions First God made a promise to Abraham to be his God and the God of his seed as many as should believe Jews or Gentiles which was accepted by Abraham and his family and thereupon sealed by God Secondly God continued to hold out the same promise in the same state to the Jewes and Proselytes till Christs time that hee would be a God to them and their children as hee promised to Abraham and perform all that good hee promised to Abraham or promised him to perform to them and sealed their Infants to confirm all this on his part giving all means necessary thereunto nothing wanting Isa 5.4 Thirdly some alwayes received this good in this promise through all that time till Christ and in his time viz all and only the elect the rest were punished with a spirit of slumber for their neglect and at last cut off viz. all and onely non-elect Fourthly God continues the same promise in the same state unto some Jewes and offers it also to it he Gentiles if they will beleeve and so to have Abraham their Futher and their Infants father for seed includes Infants all along Fifthly that amongst them before Christ there was many had a work of the spirit of bondage wrought upon them and some a work of the spirit of adoption Ishmael in an Allegory was the type of the children of Bondage and Isaac of the children of Adoption And so it is now in the times after Christ there are some of Isaacs rank and some of Ishmaels there were alwayes two Jerusalems Ishmael and such as he was are of the Jerusalem below Isaac and such as he was are of Jerusalem from above the two mothers or Jerusalems being not two severall dispensations of one and the same Covenant in a twofold Testament any way No change therefore is in the promise in the state of it but it is the same from the time of revealing it till now And Infants all that time from Abraham to Moses and from Moses to Christ were of that seed and Proselyte Gentiles and their Infants and so now Gentile Infants are of the seed also and as Infants were then circumcised so now are they to be baptized And thus I have done with his answer to my first Argument the second followes thus If in the whole body of Israelites as well Infants as men of yeares were baptized with the same baptisme that ours is then Infants are now to be baptized as then they were But in the whole body of Israelites Infants were baptized with the same baptisme spiritually that ours is therefore Infants are now to be baptized as then they were He answereth first the Argument is a Sophisme that is
the other miracles and concludes that if I had well weighed the Scripture I would not have made it a ground to justifie Infants baptisme Reply And what is this to that he should prove namely my proof evinceth that to be my sequele which hee said was my proof was not who was to be baptized but that all the ordinances there mentioned were the same with our baptisme as well as the rest Again where he saith they were the other miracles and not the other ordinances and that I erre in calling them so I reply it is too much bodlnesse in him to prescribe how others shall speak and hee erres grosly in saying as he doth for if that shewed that these miracles were ordinances also Ergo may be so called for could these miraculous works signifie such things unlesse they had been ordained thereto and whatsoever is ordained is an ordinance In a word I have upon his expression better viewed this place then ever I did and doubt not but every one that shall weigh how ill hee confutes it will see that there is a just ground in it to defend the baptisme of Infants which is the question A fourth answer he gives to my Argument is this If the Israelites were not baptized with these signes nor with any other after they came into the land of Canaan then this was not a perpetuall signe of the practice of baptisme but they were not baptized with these signes nor any other after they came in to the land of Canaan therefore it was not a perpetuall sign of the practice of baptisme Reply First it is the minde of the that they had another baptisme continued unto them And Hebrew Writers affirm that three things concurred to make a Jew or Proselyte male a stated member circumcision baptisme and sacrifice and to females baptisme and sacrifice And some conclude from hence that the Jewes therefore questioned John Baptist calling to baptize but not his baptisme being used to it before but to passe that 2ly What time will he prescribe to make an example sufficient it must have a period and why may not a moneth serve as wel as a longer time and those forty yeers in the wildernes as wel as a thousand 3ly How many things in the Scripture are recorded done in a short time which were examples of things done in a longer time Eze. 4.5 6. the acts of Abrahams justification by faith Gen. 15.6 an example of perpetuall justification Rom. 4.24 Jude 7. the instances in the Scripture 1 Cor. 10. many others so that this answer is of no force The fifth and last answer is this Baptisme of different kindes depend upon different grounds and are to be ministred upon different subjects to different ends but the baptisme of the cloud and Sea are of divers kindes therefore they depend upon different grounds and are to be administred upon different subjects for different ends Reply I shall say no more but this baptismes of the same kinde depend upon the same grounds and are to be administred upon the same subjects to the same ends but baptisme of the Sea and cloud is the same spiritually with ours therefore they depend upon the same grounds divine institution and to be administred upon the same subjects Gods people men and Infants and to the same ends to put on Christ Jesus Another proof I added to my Argument was this otherwise the Apostle should link things together that are not equall nor would it be of force against the Corinthians if they were not the same Sacraments spiritually now the conclusion is certain that the Corinthians should be punished with like punishment if they committed the like sins His answer hereunto denies the consequence because although the Cloud and Sea Manna and Rock were Sacraments of the same Christ that Baptisme and the Lords Supper is yet they were not the same Sacraments and it sufficeth the Apostles purpose that the cloud c. were as effectuall tokens of Christ as they were in the nature of them as Baptisme and the Lords Supper is though they were different Sacraments of the same Christ and not the same Sacrament And except they were dipped in water did eat and drink bread and wine as we do I cannot say they were the same Sacraments w th ours Reply First hee should say sacramentall signes and not Sacraments for neither the seal nor bread and wine are the Sacraments but sacramentall sigues the things signified concurring to make them sacraments nor can any be guilty of the body of the Lord in eating the bread if that alone were the Sacrament Secondly it is true that the sacramentall signes then and now were not the same and in that regard the Sacraments are not the same but to say absolutely they are not the same therefore is not right For a man though dressed in never so many fashions differing one from another yet he is the same man still although his fashions differ and in that respect he is not the same yet the man is the same in all So Christ is the same yesterday and to day and for ever though set forth by divers signes then and now 1 Cor. 5.7 Christ our Passeover is offered for us he is the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world their Lamb and ours their Passeover and ours theirs and ours dispensed the same but not by the same signs and therefore to what subjects the same Christ was applied then by those signes to such subjects may the same Christ be applied now by these signes but I have spoken to these things before now is my Argument refuted by any thing he hath said My third Argument follows which is this there is one and the same consideration of the root and branches of the first fruits and lump but the first fruits and root believing parents are holy and must be baptized therefore Infants the lump and branches are holy and must be baptized To this he answereth denying the Assumption viz. believing Parents are the roots and first fruits and the Scriptures that I bring will not prove it Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 which hee considering apart and First Rom. 11.16 concludeth that parents are not the root because they are branches of the root they bear not the root but the them therefore they cannot be this root nor their children naturally descending from them branches and concludeth this first place to be abused in so applying it Reply Grant that believing parents are branches and not the root yet Infants as well as men of yeers are branches and Abraham and the Fathers are the root and that of the Gentiles as well as the Jews 1 Cor. 10.1 Now the Argument holdeth as well here in this respect as in the other For if Abraham the root be holy so are the branches as is the state of the one so is the state of the other and this the Apostle concludes of all the body of Jewes yea counting them are cut off naturall branches still
to believe and repent may and should be baptized and that none of yeers are to be baptized till they be converted and believe and repent nor doth the baptizing of Infants prevent the baptizing of men of yeers where any such are converted from Paganisme to Christianity no more then circumcising Infants of old prevented the circumcising of men of yeers which were converted from Gentilisme to Judaisme though it prevents the baptizing of believers children when they come to yeers because they are baptized Infants As the Jewish Infants circumcised when they were Infants could not be circumcised when they came to yeers It is a weak and feeble consequence to say where wee maintain baptizing Infants who do not actually believe that wee can never baptize any that do actually believe being only true of them that are baptized Infants and Infants of believers So wee come to the other sort of persons to be baptized viz. Infants where I shall indeavour two things 1. What Infants are to be baptized 2. That infants are to be baptized First Infants briefly are either of Infidels or believing parents The Infants of Infidels under which term I comprehend Jewes Turks Pagans and all but those that are true visible Christians are altogether strangers to the covenant of God in Christ and so can have no right at all to this ordinance yea though the parents consent much lesse against their consent Notwithstanding others undertaking for them I except only two cases 1. Slaves and servants bought with money these being Infants may be baptized for ought I know 2. When Infidell parents are converted and desire church-fellowship and thereby themselves and Infants are to be baptized I conclude in these two cases that Infants born of Infidell parents may be baptized and therefore I judge that Infidell Infants are in no wise to be baptized because they are unclean 1 Cor. 7.14 therefore such are to be deferred till they be converted and give testimony of their own faith and repentance Two Questions may be here resolved 1. In case of excommunicate persons Whether an Infant born of parents both under the censure of the church and the state of excommunication may be baptized if any will undertake for them I answer No. First because they are in that estate as Heathens and neither of them in visible covenant Secondly if by others undertaking why not Infants of Indians also Thirdly if by faith of fore-fathers as I see no Scriptures for it so where will you limit it Suppose a converted childe of Esau in Davids time could prove successively and to all evidently that hee came of Esau the son of Isaac whether should it have been circumcised as a Proselyte or as Isaac's seed A second Question is concerning Infants baptized of Heretikes whether lawfull I answer If the person baptizing had a true calling though stained with some corruption in the person or calling and in the administration of baptisme nothing essentiall omitted in matter or form those persons are not to be baptized again because baptisme is not to be administred twice to any But if any of the essentials were omitted such persons are to be baptized as not baptized before And now I come to the other particular that Infants of Believers and visible professors are to be baptized yea though but one of the parents be in church-fellowship which I shall prove after I have premised a few things 1. The Scriptures containing the books of the new and old Testament are full of perfection containing a most perfect rule of all things concerning faith and order So that in these respects nothing is to be urged as necessary nor allowed as lawfull but what is justly comprehended in them 2. There are two wayes whereby we may finde what Gods will is in all cases concerning the premises either in expresse terms or by just consequence drawn from thence So that whatsoever is not literally expressed or drawn from the letter by necessary consequence is to be rejected as not the Lords minde 3. Whatsoever can be collected by true deduction from any part of Scripture expounded in the largest sense is as truly contained in them as that which is set down in expresse terms and so is of the same force with that which is expressed So our Saviour urgeth the Devill Matth. 4. with that word only from Deut. which yet is not in the Text but truly drawn from thence So the Protestant urging justification by faith only oppose the Papists yet only is not expressed but necessarily drawn from thence For if there be but two wayes of justification as there is not and we be not justified by works as the Text saith then by faith only And Exod. 21.28 c. under the case of an Ox in all those particulars cleerly by consequence any other creature that may do hurt in the like case is intended as Cowe Dog Goat c. 4. The tender of immortality and happinesse of God to mankind hath been two wayes dispensed First to Adam and all mankind in his loynes by the Law upon condition of perfect obedience thereto in mans own personall righteousnesse Secondly Adam transgressing lost immortality and happinesse in himself and all man-kind and involved them and himself in sin and eternall wrath thereby God the Father for the praise of his grace having predestinated some to that adoption of son-ship in his Son and given them to his Son to be saved by him that hee might be glorified with the Father and hee receiving them at his Fathers hands because they were partakers of flesh and blood hee himself also took flesh and blood upon him and in that humane nature fulfilled the Law for them actually and so reconciled them all to the Father in himself that so God might be just and the justifier of the ungodly that should believe in Jesus From hence the Father maketh a new tender of life setting forth his Son to be a propitiation through his blood offering him and his righteousnesse in his humane nature and performed by it in obedience active passive to his holy will to all which shall believe and by that faith be found in him having his righeousnesse upon them accounting them thereby righteous and no sinners and making them from thence through the life of his Son manifested in them by sanctification of that holy Spirit partakers of life and immortality again This tender being one and the same in substance for ever from the first promulgation to Adam and Eve in Paradise till this day and to the end yet hath it admitted of variation in the circumstances thereof as is cleere from four severall and remarkable periods 1. From Adam fallen to Abraham under a promise of the seed of the woman to break the Serpents head Gen. 3.15 2. The second from Abraham to Moses time in the wildernesse in substance the same with the former yet differing from it First in promising the seed of the woman to proceed from Abrahams loynes according to the
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