all these ends which he hath appointed it for and so for those ends it is to be administred and the omission of it is a grievous sin But none of these ends is to give them a visible being in a visible church but by way of signification and confirmation Ergo baptisme is not the form of the church A 5th Argument is from the nature of Baptisme as it is the seal of the Covenant if there be no visible Ordinance before Baptisme to note out their visible being in the covenant whereby they may be known then it is baptisme that doth it But there is no other visible ordinance before baptisme to note out their visible being in the covenant whereby they may be known Ergo it is baptisme that doth it and so it is the form of the Church Answ 1. If he really grant it is the seal of the covenant then it is not the covenant it self for which hee hath formerly argued Secondly it must be considered to whom baptisme must note out their visible being in the covenant if to themselves they may know it before for he that believeth hath the witnesse in himself if to others either Christians they must know it before or not baptize them or else the world and baptisme can no way notifie such a thing unto them they cannot take notice thereof nor will they they know them not because they have not known Christ nor the Father And if a man truly baptized fall off from his profession to whom doth it note that he is in the covenant though it be known he was baptized And our Saviour giveth a rule wherby all men shall know his Disciples not if baptized but if they love one another and keep his commandements and if any say he hath fellowship with God and doth evill hee lies and all the world may know it though they know he was visibly baptized Ergo baptisme cannot be the form of a church seeing it doth not note out their visible being in covenant which is notified before and by other means both before and after Last of all again he contradicteth himself in saying here that baptisme is the form of the church and yet before denying baptisme or the covenant either to be the form of it The 6th Argument is taken from the commission given to the first Matth. 28.19 where the Participle baptizing concurres to making them Disciples and Mark 16.16 Faith puts a man into the state of salvation before God Baptisme before men the reason runs thus If from commission to the first planters baptisme was required to make a person a Disciple in a visible state of salvation and stated in all other ordinances of Christs kingdom then baptisme so administred is that which gives being to a true visible Church I answer First the Scripture requires first that they be made Disciples and then being Disciples to be baptized and therefore baptisme doth not make them Disciples Again faith makes them Disciples in the state of salvation before God and profession of that faith and not baptisme doth make visibly and outwardly Disciples in the state of salvation before men Rom. 10.9 10. They that baptize any must know them to be visibly such before they baptize them else not baptize them as himself hath saith from Acts 2.21.8.12 Secondly Baptisme is required to state them in the observation of all the ordinances of Christs kingdome not by making them a church or member to whom only such ordinances yea baptisme it self doth belong but to make them fit to observe them being members and there are other things though they be baptized that may hinder them from observaton of those ordinances as in the old Testament circumcision did not make them a church but being a church they were to be circumcised without which they might not observe the Passeover but there were other things also which did hinder them from observation of the Passeover though they were circumcised And thus of his Position and the grounds of it That baptisme is the thing that formeth the church only if I understand his close hee flatly contradicts himself in saying baptisme is the means and thing that formeth the church and yet it is not the outward form of our church formed For either it formeth the church withan outward or inward but not inward before God Faith doth that and therefore the outward form it must be and so hee said in his last Argument baptisme puts a man into the state of salvation before men Again hee grants the church to be formed with an outward form without baptisme in saying baptisme is not that outward form of the church formed If a formed church it hath a form that formed it but the form is not baptisme Ergo he overthrows all that he hath argued for or else the church hath two outward forms one he grants the church hath without baptisme the other by baptisme which these six arguments plead for It were well if he agreed with himself Next he answereth the Reasons I set down as he saith to prove that baptisme is not the form of a visible church The first whereof is this That which giveth being to a church must be removed to make a church cease to be a church but Baptisme cannot be removed from a church whilest it remains a church Ergo. Hee answers It is as easie to remove baptisme from a church as to remove a church from being a church Reply First this is a very easie answer and toucheth no part of the Argument Again a church is unchurched not by unbaptizing the baptized as it must be if it were the form of a church but by destroying the church it self The church must first in reasan be made no church before ordinances can cease to be ordinances in that church but destroy the church and baptisme will not be baptisme as the Edomites circumcision was not circumcision when they were not the church the Jewes circumcision and all that they do are nullities to this day since they ceased to be a church A second Reason is this That which being wanting to a church constituted doth not cause the church to be no church that cannot be the form of the church but baptisme may be wanting to a church constituted and yet it be a church As circumcision to Infants seven dayes alwayes to all females to them in the wildernesse forty yeers Josh 5. Ergo Answ He denies the second Proposition That baptisme may be wanting to a church constituted his Reason because a church is constituted by baptisme and so Josh 5. hee saith that case was extraordinary having speciall dispensation from God himself supplyed by miraculous Sacraments during the time of their necessary forbearances of circumcision and the Passeover while in travells unlesse wee can shew a like case and supply of miraculous Sacraments we cannot conclude that a church is a church or men members of a church without baptisme by which they are constituted Reply First the Reason he gives
birth is baptisme and for that cause called the birth of water Joh. 3.5 Tit. 3.5 Therefore by administration of true baptisme the church is is truly stated and constituted in her true being Reply Regeneration and natural birth hold proportion in many things together but not in all yet I will not trouble the discourse there the great mistake is in making baptisme regeneration and that which answereth naturall birth and the places quoted will not prove it For first it will ask more skill then it may bee hee hath to recover them out of the hands of many godly judicious that deny those places to be meant of baptisme but indeed of the new birth or regeneration by the Spirit putting forth the same effects upon the regenerate party that holds some proportion with the effects of water But secondly grant they be meant of baptisme yet it followes not that baptisme is regeneration because in John there is the Spirit also and in Titus Father Son and Holy Ghost and a full work of regeneration wrought afore baptisme and themselves also will necessarily require it before they will baptize any and therefore baptisme is not regeneration being not to be administred but to regenerate persons knowne before to bee so Thirdly it is not therefore called the birth of water but as bread and wine are called the body and bloud of Christ circumcision the covenant the Lamb the Passover as therefore the Lamb or Christ is the Passover circumcision the covenant bread and wine the Lords body and bloud so baptisme is the new birth that is a signe or seale of regeneration and not regeneration it self I dislike the phrase The birth of water Secondly hee argues from the forme of baptisme which is dipping and in that repect called a buriall with Christ Rom. 6.4 betokening our death and refurrection Ergo as the rising out of the grave at the last day is the beginning of our state of glory in our bodily being so the rising out of the water of baptisme is the beginning of our visible state of grace and the beginning of our visible spirituall life is from that day c. Reply First here is the same mistake with the former making baptisme the beginning of the spirituall visible state whereas it is the signe and seale of it onely which they are to have before for doe they baptize a grown person dead or alive If alive then visibly or invisibly in the state of spirituall life not invisibly for himself hath said they must professe their faith first and receive the word Acts 2. else not to baptize any their faith in Christ their union thereby to him their communion with him in death buriall c. are to goe before their baptisme And himselfe saith it betokeneth how it is then the thing it selfe Secondly whereas he makes dipping the form of baptisme he is in a double mistake First it is not the forme but the matter of baptisme Secondly he seemes to conclude sprinkling unlawfull whereas it is lawfull as shall be seen afterward Lastly he makes it a Sacrament of our last resurrection to glory the Text making it expresly a Sacrament of our dying to finne and resurrection to new obedience Thirdly he argues from the end of baptisme which amongst others is to unite them to the visible body of Christ 1 Cor. 12.13 Gal. 3.27.28 Eph. 4.5 6. and to distinguish them from the rest of the world Col. 2.12 with 20. as circumcision did distinguish the Jewes from the Heathens But except baptisme bee administred to beleevers subjects onely capable of such union communion and distinction they cannot have that end effected to be united to the body of Christ and distinguished from the rest of the world Ergo baptisme is to be administred to beleevers for that end Reply They be beleevers first for so himselfe saith but to beleeve is to bee in Christ and by his faith forsaking sinne and the world chuseth God to bee his God and Gods people to bee his people and as by the inward grace this is done effectually invisibly so by actuall profession thereof without which he were not to bee baptized he visibly declareth and effecteth the same ends and is baptized as a signe and seale thereof baptisme there doth not effect those ends but signifie and seale those ends before effected This Argument still laboureth of the former mistake making the signe to be the signe and the thing signified by it Again there are other ends of baptisme besides these as himselfe confesseth and therefore the church may be formed a church before and without these ends to be effected by baptisme one end is to be a signe seale of the covenant which precedes baptisme it selfe and therefore baptisme comes too late to doe that which was done before Last of all Ephes 5.25.27 the party to bee baptized is and must bee a member before because the church is to bee washed not made a church by washing but being a church to be washed A fourth argument he hath is from the not iteration of baptisme it being to be administred but once the Lords Supper often in which respect baptisme is the signe of our birth and initiation the Lords Supper of our growth and conservation in the visible body of Christ and if a man may be conceived to have a being for a time in a visible church without baptisme the signe and Sacrament of his entrance and initiation hee may have a continuance there also and so consequently baptisme needlesse But baptisme is needfull as a means of the beginning of our visible being in the visible body of Christ Ergo without baptisme they have no visible being in the church and so baptisme is the form of it I answer First he saith baptisme is a signe and Sacrament of the beginning of our visible being in the body of Christ then say I it is not the beginning it selfe of our visible being in the body the signe and the thing signified being really distinct the one from the other and the thing signified preceding the signe and seale of it But of this before Secondly he plainly contradicts himselfe in saying it is a signe and Sacrament of our entrance and yet there is no visible being in the church without baptisme Thirdly where he saith If a man may have a being for a time without baptisme then may he have a continuance also it follows not for they had a being in the Jewish state before they were circumcised but circumcision was not needlesse neither should they have continued in that state without circumcision Again as the males had a being and continued members of that church seven dayes so if God had not commanded them to bee circumcised the eighth day but left it to their own wills they should have continued visible members without it alwayes as women did being not commanded Abraham and his family fourteen yeers and they in the wildernesse forty In like manner Gods command makes baptisme necessary for
and he proceedeth to disprove setting downe a Proposition and the proofes of it that I alledged The Proposition is this An outward covenant acted between God and a company of beleevers to be one anothers and for the like among themselves is the form of the visible church I cannot say these were my expressions yet I shall justifie the Proposition That a visible Covenant according to my former distinction is the form of a visible church His answer to this is That the covenant of God makes the church but that any can be concluded to have an outward being in the covenant of the Gospel now without baptisme hee denieth requires me to prove it and saith he hath proved the contrary before To which with my answer to it I referre you Hee goeth on and saith Whereas I say a company of beleevers acting a covenant to become one anothers amongst themselves to be the form of the church He answereth By the same reason if without baptisme at present they may receive the forme of the church without administration of the Gospel for the future which he conceives will be absurd to affirm Reply First the administrations of the Gospel doe not concurre to the forme of the church and therefore she hath her forme without them nor could she bee partaker of them but being a church first They are necessary for her well-being not her being And if shee should neglect the administration of the Gospel and administer the contrary yet she should be a church still by her first constitution till God cast her off which without question in time hee will doe though she doe but neglect his Secondly a church receives her form to be a church for administrations sake and to enjoy those administrations to bee exercised therein according to Gods word and therefore shee will not be wanting to her self herein If I shall say If baptisme be the form of a church then by the same reason shee may receive the forme without all administration of the Gospel for the future I conceive it would be absurd to affirm it There is nothing in what hee said therefore worth answering And the same hath been said and answered before Secondly he saith God hath appointed no such thing for men to act such a covenant for any such end and therefore so to doe is will-worship invention of man and in Gods worship plain superstition and flat breach of the second commandement and therefore if it be the form of a Church it is a superstitious church which is so formed by such a superstitious action Reply I grant all humane inventions in Gods worship are sinfull superstitious and flat breaches of the second commandement and added to Gods worship doe pollute the same But secondly it doth not disanull a church that some inventions of men are joyned which ought not to be to Gods worship nor doe I thinke that himselfe thinkes as he saith that God hath not appointed men to act such a covenant for any such end because he hath said many times and granted a few lines before these words that the covenant of God makes the church Now a covenant of God is that which is acted between him and beleevers outwardly with whom he first makes it any other I suppose he understood not by it and so continued in by them following till God cut them off If thus then suppose it should be a mistake to say to become one anothers also that cannot so alter the covenant as to make it superstitious or a humane invention And when they baptize a man in yeares will they not first require him to take God in Christ to be his God and to submit to him in all things c. And is not this a covenant acted and the end of it to be to form him a church-member What invention of man is in this But if the proofe be found good this will be found his mistake so to say and therefore I shall stay till we come to them Thirdly he saith A covenant acted by beleevers to become one anothers cannot be a forme of a true visible church because it may be with ignorance both of the nature and duties of a true church as is proved by presupposing it to be the forme of the church before Baptisme Reply First I see no force in this reason for none ought to be ignorant of the nature and duties of a true church before they bee joyned but to be well catechised first nor is there any colour of reason to prove that such may be ignorant as are joyned by a covenant by presupposing it to bee the form of the Church before baptisme Secondly a covenant acted by beleevers and baptizing them are not supposed to be so distant in time as that they may not goe together but the covenant must proceed in order of nature and time baptisme being but the seale of it and is but an idoll with out it the covenant making them capable of baptisme and nothing else and baptisme being a visible and outward seale it must needs be an outward and visible covenant to which it is added and so maketh a member to be a formed member The Scriptures quoted by him 1 Cor. 1.15 c. to prove that all their externall relations must flow from their relation and union in baptisme are absurdly alledged and there is no relation and union in baptisme but by way of signification and confirmation The union must goe before if they doe not professe faith in Christ whereby they are united unto Christ before baptized they must not be baptized as himselfe hath often said and is truth But to come to the proofes I added to my proposition the first he saith was this If the Kingdome of heaven that is the Church state that we now have be the same that the Jewes had then if such a covenant as I have above expressed was the forme of that Church it is the form of ours now But the Kingdome of heaven that is the visible Church state that wee now have is the same they had Ergo If such a covenant was the forme of that church it is also the form of these now And the form of the Jewish Church was such a covenant Ergo. He answereth first If the Church state then and now bee not the same then the form of that is not the form of this and so my Argument grounded upon an IF is nothing But the Church state then constituted of a naturall seed was not that we have now constituted of a spirituall seed Ergo. Reply In denying the Church state then and now to bee the same he flatly contradicteth the Scripture Mat. 21.33 43. where it is clear that the Vineyard and Kingdome of heaven being the Church state they possessed is threatned to be taken away and given to other nations It is the same Vineyard and Kingdome taken away and given Secondly it is a grosse mistake to say that they were a Church stated of Abrahams natural seed
prove that it is the form of a church now Reply He denies not what I affirmed to wit that they could not stand in a right and pure church estate without renewall of their covenant hee denies that they could not stand in a church state without it and great difference there is between a church and no church a pure and impure church he saith nothing therefore to what I said and proved yet I am willing to heare what he saith First they were a church before and I say so too but much degenerated and much transgressing the covenant Secondly he saith they did no more then they were bound to doe by their circumcision Reply I have answered that Gal. 5. before that it did not engage them to keep the whole Law it being the seale of the righteousnesse of Faith nor did the seale bind them to any thing but as in relation to the covenant which onely bound them Hence Levit. 26. where God threatned to send a sword to avenge thequarrell of his covenant he did not plead with them about circumcision but for not beleeving circumcision of the heart as Jerem. 9. last and testifying their faith by obedience and so they did now mend this by attending to the covenant and thereby setting themselves visibly in a right church state again which therefore proves that the forme of the church was a visible covenant for that which makes a church impure to be pure according to the right constitution that is it which gives it the constitution but the renewall of the covenant maketh an impure church pure according to the right constitution Ergo the covenant giveth it a constitution Again if failing in the covenant causeth a true church to bee otherwise then according to constitution then the covenant gives her her constitution But the first is true Ergo the latter and circumcision the seal remains the same without any alteration As in mens covenants the seale annexed remains the same though the covenant to which it is adjoyned may in many things be violated My fourth and last particular to prove a covenant acted by them as beleevers was the forme of the Jewish church was this That which being taken away made that church cease to bee a church that was the form of that church But the dissolving of their covenant made that church cease to be a church Ergo. The first Proposition he meddles not with and I raise it on this ground That nothing can cease to be that hath a being but by annihilating the matter and form of its being nor can any thing cease to be that it is but by taking away that form of it whereby it is such a thing rather then another And therefore if any thing cease to be that it was it must be by taking away the form of it The second Proposition that the dissolving of their covenant made that church cease to be a church which I cleared from Zach. 11.10 14. take a view and you may see it clearly the chapter declares the rejection of the Jewes from being a church no man can deny it and that at Christs time and for rejecting of him and upon their rejection they ceased to be a visible church and Gods people as they had been First therefore it is to be observed how God will effect this that they shall be no church nor his people and that is by breaking his covenant with them vers 10. That I may break my covenant which I had made with this people Secondly this covenant had two branches one the staffe of Beauty and this is the covenant between God and them mutually called Beauty because God making a covenant with them did adorne them with all excellencie and comelinesse whereby they became beautifull above other people Ezek. 16.8 c. yea in the eyes of the Heathen v. 14. which could not be circumcision nor any invisible covenant but outward and visible The other branch of the covenant is called Bonds and that is the covenant on their parts one with another whereby they joyned together in a brotherhood to worship God called Bonds because they were thereby knit and bound together to be a compact body and brotherhood Ecclesiasticall Thirdly that God by breaking these two staves did break his covenant with them and thereby they ceased to be his visible people and a brotherhood amongst themselves all these are evidently foretold in the Text and accomplished after our Saviour his death when they were wholly rejected of God and never since enjoyed that estate From whence it followeth plainly that their constitution in that Church estate was by that covenant which being disanulled their Church estate and constitution is altogether annihilated Now let us see what hee answers to this reason First hee saith the covenant of Gods grace is eternall the Kingdome or Church state that comes by it cannot be shaken Heb. 12.28 baptisme the fruit of it a church constituted by it remaines eternally John 11.26 He that beleeves in Christ shall never die Reply First I grant that the covenant of grace is eternall and that as well in the time before Christ as since but I speak of it as it is made with men in which respect though it bee eternall in it selfe yet it is not eternall to all that it is made with but may and doth cease to this or that man to this or that Church Secondly the Kingdome shaken and that cannot be shaken is not the covenant of grace applied to the Jews or Gentiles but the manner of administration of one and the same covenant in it selfe but from the divers administration of it one way to them the old Testament another way to us now the new Testament the former is shaken and removed and changed into this that cannot be shaken or changed but shall remain till Christs coming 1 Cor. 15. yet this or that church may be shaken out of it and many have been and that this shaking is meant of the former manner of administration only is evident by the Scripture it self and not of the covenant else the covenant with them was not the eternall covenant of grace but a covenant of another nature this particular church therefore may be disanulled yet the covenant remains eternall and unshaken Again the kingdome of Heaven is taken two wayes in Scripture First as before for the manner of administration of the covenant and so it may be and hath been shaken and of this Heb. 12. Secondly for the church-estate and the covenant of grace by laying hold whereon a people became a church This can never be shaken so as that there should not be a visible church visibly in covenant with God and of this Matth. 21.43 which may be taken from one company and given to another as from the Jewes to the Gentiles but never cease to be with one people or other hells gate being not able to prevail against it Matth. 16. Thirdly baptisme the fruit of it or church-estate by partaking
thereof not by baptisme but by the covenant is eternall to all the elect and so hee that believeth in Christ shall never die but these are not eternall to any else at all for reprobate members dying remain not members c. so that here is nothing in this answer that proveth the Jewes were not a church-estate by an acted covenant Secondly he answereth the covenant is a ground of a churches being a visible church that the visible participation in the covenant is by some visible thing which was circumcision then is baptisme now other visible participations there was not nor is any therefore by circumcision then and baptisme now they are a visible church And as the taking away of the covenant causeth the church to cease so it causeth their circumcision and baptisme to cease also whereby they had visible participation in the covenant and church Reply First he saith a covenant is the ground of a visible for the question saith he speaks of a visible church and so say I and a visible ground of any mans being circumcised then or baptized now if it be a ground of a visible church then a church cannot be a church without it and so constituted a visible church by it Secondly there must be some visible thing whereby a man may have visible participation in the covenant I grant it but saith he there is no other visible thing whereby any are partakers of the covenant but circumcision then and baptisme now I deny it and affirm there is some visible thing preceding circumcision then baptisme now For when they baptize a man do they baptize him as out of covenant or in it If in covenant then it is as hee is invisibly in it or visibly not invisibly that they cannot know therefore visibly by something they can discern and know and upon that baptize him and that is the profession of his faith in the covenant which as it must go before baptisme so it makes him partaker visibly of the covenant before he be baptized or circumcised therefore circumcision then baptisme now is not the only visible participation in the covenant nor indeed any participation at all but a visible sign and seal of his visible participation and this appeareth further from the description of a Sacrament an outward and visible sign of an inward and spirituall grace which must be there or the outward is not to be applied but it cannot be concluded to be there but by some outward evidence therefore something visible and thereby visible participation in the covenant must go before visible baptisme As then the covenant must be taken away before the church cease to be a church and not circumcision nor baptisme which cannot cease untill the church ceaseth all which himself granteth so as long as any continue visible profession of faith so long the covenant continueth and visible profession must cease before the covenant ceaseth in respect of men Ergo by visible profession of faith in the covenant is obtained and declared visible participation in the covenant and so is the church-estate constituted thereby Further hee saith the covenant before Christ did ceremonially lead to Christ and in that respect is dissolved and circumcision by which they had participation in that covenant is dissolved and therfore the visible church ceased as was prophesied Zach. 11. and accomplished at the death of Christ the partition wall being broken down Ephes 2.13 c. the covenant since Christ ratified by the death of the testator cannot be dissolved as I affirm in my third Proposition and fourth poriod and so baptisme by which they have true visible being in the covenant cannot be removed nor the visible church-state Reply Here is nothing said that hath not been said before again and again and so answered yet in a word First hee confoundeth covenant and testament there is but one covenant but yet two Testaments and the covenant was dispensed to Abraham before there was any testament instituted and the Scriptures that speake of abolishing the old and establishing the new are not to be understood of two covenants there being but one but of two Testaments as I shewed in my third Proposition and fourth period and he much mistakes himself abuseth his Reader and cannot but know that he speakes not truly in saying I affirmed the new covenant cannot be removed when as I said the new Testament cannot be removed Secondly the covenant before Christ did not ceremonially lead to Christ for the covenant alwayes from Adam held forth Christ the same yesterday to day and for ever but the old Testament before Christ did ceremonially lead to Christ and was abolished at Christs coming that the new confirmed by his blood might be established Thirdly the covenant and visible church-state thereby did not cease at Christs coming in it self but was taken away from the Jews and given to the Gentiles and that not because the covenant and church-estate typified Christ but because they believed not for had they believed they should have injoyed the covenant and church-state still though the old Testament should have ceased and the new be put in the room and now it shall be taken from such Gentiles so oft as any of them cease to believe as is already fallen out to many churches Yet without any prejudice to the covenant of God or visible church-estate which ever remain Last of all I have shewed before that circumcision did not give them a visible being in that covenant and church-estate nor baptisme us but outward profession of subjection to the covenant gave them and gives us a being in the covenant and visible church-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
and covenant Ergo a covenant acted is the form of a church His answer first granteth the comparison and proportion also But secondly denies that a covenant acted by beleevers or agreement mutually is necessary to form the church to be one body and concludes that persons may be united to Christ by faith and baptisme and so stated in the covenant of grace and members of the visible church proportionally as the form of the candlestick is the joyning together of the shaft and branches Reply First where he denies mutuall agreement or a covenant acted is the forme of the church hee doth it without any reason given which is an easie way of confuting for where he saith it may be by faith and baptism he should prove it is and must be or else he shewes himself to heare himself speak Secondly in saying faith in Christ and baptisme may unite them to Christ and so state them in the covenant of grace I affirm faith alone doth it But it is faith professed that may make a man capable of baptisme in those that they themselves will admit members and therefore it must be faith professed that unites a man to Christ visibly and so he is a member of Christ visibly before baptisme comes nor could be baptized without that visible union and therefore hee is not made a visible member of Christ by baptisme but is so before Thirdly though by faith professed a man is visibly united to Christ and may be so acknowledged yet this doth not unite him or make him a member of this or that particular church but there must be something whereby he may be united to this or that church and make him a member thereof rather then of another baptisme doth not so make him for then all baptized should be of one and the same church and not of Ephesus more then of Smyrna nor can they be any other things then mutuall agreement or covenant acted aâ— we know it to be certain in all consociations a mutuall covenant is the bond and form of them as in marriage common-wealths 2. Rev. 17.21 and so of other societies and bodies incorporate so also in this mysticall body of Christ a church visible being an Ecclesiasticall body politike consisting of many members consociated it must needs be by covenant acted mutually and by this comparison of marrying the Apostle sets forth the relation of Christ and the Church the bond tying the members each to other that uniteth them all to the head which is a marriage covenant Ephes 5. baptisme being but the seal of it And thus wee are come to the last Argument If the removing of the candlestick and so unchurching of a church be by dissolving the covenant and their fellowship as to them by dissipation Zach. 11. then a covenant acted is the form of a visible church But the removing of the candlestick is the dissolving the covenant and their fellowship thereby as to them by dissipation Ergo a covenant acted is the form of it To the second Proposition hee answereth two things First because the covenant in the new Testament established in Christs blood is everlasting and cannot be shaken and dissolved and differ from the covenant which was before Christ which was shaken dissolved and taken away therefore their kingdome of Heaven was shaken and church-estate was taken away but the kingdome and church-church-state now cannot be taken away Heb. 12.27 Matth. 21.43 Reply Here is nothing which is not said before and answered yet observe that he declines the true question which is of a visible church and flies to the invisible state for to visible churches there is an end many times of their visible state and yet the covenant of God remains eternall to all the elect of God and never is taken away from them nor indeed is the visible kingdome of Christ altogether taken away but it hath and doth remain somewhere upon earth though many particular churches are often ruinated and destroyed Again he speaks to the state before Christ and the difference of this since Christ whereas the Proposition speaks of this since Christ only and the argument is taken from the state of churches since Christ as the expressions fully declare Rev. 2. 3. where churches compared to candlesticks are threatened dissolution for their faults Ephesus Rev. 2.5 I will remove thy candlestick that is I will make thee no church Rev. 3.16 I will spue thee out of my mouth noting an utter undoing of them and an allusion was made to Zach. 11. to intimate the way how God would unchurch them not by taking away their baptisme but by destroying them and dissipating their fellowship in the covenant nor was that of Zachary any part of the argument that hee could have nor advantage from that to fetch in the state of the old Testament in his answer And whereas I say the destruction of the church of Ephesus or Laodicea was not by taking away their baptisme from them so that who so remains alive of them at the time of dissipation should not be accounted baptized persons having received baptisme though it will do them no good in the state they are in for let me put this case a whole church is dissipated and unchurched yet one or two of them that live still after a few dayes are truly converted from their hypocrifie and apostasie justifying the Lord and seeking the one to joyn to Philadelphia the other to Smyrna and each give such satisfaction to the church of their faith and repentance as they dare not deny the right hand of fellowship Shall these two be now anew baptized having received true baptisme before whilest they were members of Ephesus before shee was destroyed If any shall say as hee did before in his answer to the first Reason against baptisme being the form of the church that all before being but seeming was nothing indeed and so account he was not baptized at all and never had any capacity of being baptized truly till now Besides what hath been replied there I adde that the same state must be then of a man that is a member but an hypocrite in the church unknown so to be who in continuance of time by Gods Spirit in the Word is convinced of his unsound estate repents of it manifests this to the church and so cleers it that the church is satisfied that she was before mistaken and he was but seemingly a believer and so had but a seeming membership and baptisme I say likewise that this man also must be baptized if he were not before truly baptized And how fearfull a thing is it thus to dally in Gods matters and to make Gods ordinance descend upon our apprehension to be or not to be humanus intellectus non est mensura institutionum Dei the ordinance administred to such a man before was Gods ordinance and true baptisme but he did not receive it savingly which now upon this work of grace he doth and baptisme in it self applied
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
more or lesse and therefore it is false for Rome to challenge the conversion of the English nation and no lesse absurd and injurious for us to draw and derive our succession from them As the Gospel was received there so it hath not been without fruit as also in other places but under the tyrannie of Ethnick Emperors and apostafie of Antichristian Bishops many there have witnessed unto the truth of Christ and suffered for the testimony of Jesus nor hath it been at any time nor is now ineffectuall there but the Lord hath been pleased to blesse those means of his notwithstanding persecution or corruptions with conversion of many thousand soules from Satan to himself yea hee hath not only reserved successively even in England unto himself thousands that have not bowed their knees unto Baal but amongst others some of the most famous lights that he vouchsafed to raise up in the time of that horrid darknesse overspreading the world have been of English Christians as Mr. Wickliffe Pastor of Lutterworth though corruptly called in part in Lincolnshire It cannot be denyed that as in all other places of the Western world wheresoever Christianity setled the whole world went after the Beast and all churches I know not one excepted with that apostafie were corrupted and the courts of the Temple were not measured and the holy city was given to be troden under foot of the Gentiles Antichristian 42. moneths yet all this time the holy city remains a holy city and after too unlesse God himself rejecteth her In the same condition amongst others were the churches in England corrupted as the rest with false doctrine Idolatry c. and usurped upon by Antichrist against which God even there also had his two witnesses some few prophesying in sackcloth At last it pleased God more fully to cleer up the light and caused his truth to prevail so as many thousands were redeemed from amongst men Antichristian and they were the first fruits unto God and the Lamb nor was the church-estate altered essentially all this time nor are these first fruites unto God new constituted churches but members of some churches cleering themselves from corruption and by reformation recovering themselves out of a desperate diseased condition into a more healthfull and sound estate In which course the Lord went on mightily in many places especially after Luthers time yea even in England something by Henry the 8th more by Edward the 6th and Queen Elizabeth who did not constitute new churches but reformed the churches as Geneva Scotland c. in a further degree deeply degenerated from the first constitution and the pure state thereof as they did the like in the state of Judah often sometimes better and more fully and sometimes not so fully in the dayes of Judges David Asa Jehosaphat Hezekiah Josiah Ezra and Nehemiah To conclude this as I believe firmly Christs visible Church hath continued in the world from his time to this day though not alwayes in one estate nor ever in like purity So I know not how it may be better cleared in the generall or any thing more be said for any other church or churches then I have here set down for the continuance of the visible church-estate in England in particular if any can I think they shall do well and that which is necessary especially in these times and therefore as I said afore unlesse they that deny true ministry in England can shew that there never was church-estate in England nor constituted churches or that God hath given them a bill of divorce I shall desire all that will not be satisfied herewith that they will be content not to disquiet themselves with disturbance to others I come now to propound some things about the ministry there in particular To this purpose wee know all that no man can have a lawfull Calling but of God and that in one of these two wayes Immediately by himself without concurrence of man or mediately by men using them as instruments other way of calling I know not any according to the Word accounting all callings or way of calling not set down in the Word to be humane and Idolatrous Concerning the way of calling by men for of the other I know not any but the Apostles that ever were or are to be called two things I desire to speak to First who hath the power of applying a calling to a man Secondly how it is applyed 1. Who hath the power of applying a ministeriall calling to a man some say the Pope some stand for in mediate revelation both which I conceive to be alike contrary to the Word some say the Christian Magistrate quà Magistrate at least approbation but I see no warrant for this neither some say the Church but by Chuch they understand a Presbyterie or Classis a company of Presbyters of severall churches or Councell but of these wee have no cleer evidence in Scriptures to evince such a church or such a practice For though there be mention of laying on of the hands of Presbyters yet that was not the actuall calling of a man but a ceremony of confirmation as I shall shew afterward By church therefore I judge is meant a company of Saints joyned together in profession and successively standing up in the same estate and this company hath power to apply the office to such a man as may be according to Gods Word Thus I judge partly from Scriptures partly from reason the Scriptures are these in the old Testament the Jewes chose their own officers Deut. 1.13 16.18 In the new Testament Act. 1.26 The word signifies hee was incorporated into the societie of the eleven by common suffrages In the context I note two things First the whole company did choose two from out of themselves and set them before the Lord because the applying of that kinde of calling depended only on God yet they bring it thus far as to single out two Secondly God having chosen one of the two they subscribe to it by joynt suffrages nor did any other thing concur in that mans calling no imposition of hands which if it had been necessary certainly should have been especially there being eleven Apostles present and inferiour persons in a case imposed hands on Paul and Barnabas Acts 13. Again Acts 6.3 5. The multitude that is the church and it seems without the assistance of the Apostles did look out by examination and triall and choose seven men amongst themselves and then set them before the Apostles who prayed and laid their hands on them Acts 14.23 They set no Elders in every church by lifting up of hands that is they assisted the churches in ordaining Elders who were chosen by peoples suffrages manifested by their lifting up their hands and 2 Cor. 8.19 he whose praise is in the Gospel was chosen by the churches testifying their suffrages by lifting up their hands from which Scriptures I judge that the power of choosing and setting apart a person for
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
was a seal as well as a sign and did not only signifie but confirm And may I not say the same of Baptisme mutatis mutandis and for that end to be administred to Infants now that they by this means may be distinguished and thereby interested in all the priviledges of Lawes and Ordinances and Ministers c. which are means to set forth Christ come and to minde us of his obedience to the Father and that they may be trained up therein where I adde that by Baptisme I mean that outward part of Baptisme by a lawfull Minister with water in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost which is often separated from the inward in the party baptized and conclude this to be true Baptisme else Simon Magus and those false brethren Gal. 2. were not baptized having not that inward and if they had repented must have been baptized anew To this he answereth that it is true because false brethren are brethren though false and they seem to be true and make such a shew by manifestation of themselves and therefore according to us are to be judged true and therefore to be baptized though they be false yet their baptisme is true baptisme but to administer it to one no brother nor giving any manifestation of such an estate that is not commanded of God and so a humane devise to baptize such an one I grant this last but if hee mean Infants are no brethren nor can give any manifestation thereof and therefore God hath not commanded them to be baptized and therefore to baptize them is a humane invention I dissent wholly and in a word reply children are brethren for if God be their father as wll as to men of yeers then they are brethren as well as men of yeers but God is their God and calls them his children Ezek. 16.20 21. And though God hath not expressly said yee shall baptize Infants yet if by good deduction from Gods Word it may be made good it is sufficient to cleer it from being a humane invention but of these afterward Now I come to the sixt Proposition as more was required of Abraham and of men of yeers viz. faith before circumcision then of Isaac and other Infants successively circumcised so now no more is required of men of yeeres viz. faith that they may be baptized then of Infants of baptized persons To this he answereth that he grants more was in Abraham then in Isaac when circumcised but not more required of the one then of the other without which he might not be circumcised and therefore concludeth that all the males of Abrahams family were circumcised whether they had faith or no faith nor was any condition pre-required and so Proselytes that all males were to be circumcised before they might eat the Passeover but nothing required of them before circumcision Exod. 12.49 nor was there any ministeriall and teaching office ordained to circumcise himself and all his males and thereby become a proselyte without any other condition But now in the new Testament a teaching Ministery must precede the parties baptizing Matth. 28.19 and faith in the Word taught Acts 8.26 10.47 From whence he gathereth a double difference first then was required no Minister nor faith to go before circumcision secondly even in the constitution of the visible Church which then was constituted by naturall generation of Abrahams naturall seed but now is constituted by spirituall regeneration of Abrahams spirituall seed To all which I reply First if circumcision was the seal of the righteousnesse of faith then more was required of Abraham then of Isaac for Isaac could not actually believe and if Abraham had not actually believed before he had not been circumcised which was the seal of that faith he had before hee was circumcised Rom. 4. Secondly concerning Abrahams family that they were all to be circumcised and all the men of yeers also without any condition prerequired whether they had faith or no faith I might passe it by because hee saith it is but probable though far more probable yet in a word is it so much as probable had Abrahams males no faith at least in outward shew and manifestation so that Abraham judged they had 2. Doth not God give testimony that Abraham taught his house to feare him and keepe his commandements 3. And I conclude it very probable that they professed subjection to the same God and his Word with Abraham and were not Atheists or worshippers of a strange God which would ill beseem Abrahams family and faith To conclude this is unfound to say faith was not required of the grown males and yet all circumcised with the seal of the righteousnesse of faith which they had not Thirdly touching the proselytes that nothing was required of them before circumcision is taken for granted without the least proof and contrary unto the Scriptures which shew before they were accepted of God into the liberties of his House they were to take hold of his Covenant joyn themselves to God and the people of Abraham to feare the Lord and to love him c. 1 King 8.41 Ruth 1.16 Isa 56.3 c. Besides as before they should receive circumcision not as a seal of the righteousnesse of faith which were a great abuse and hereunto I might adde the testimony of Jewish Writers who record divers things to be done before they could be circumcised as Ainsworth relateth upon Gen. 9.4 Exod. 12.48 49. and other places the difference made therfore in this respect is void nor is that exception of teaching Ministers now prerequired but not then of any value the Proposition speaking of more required then of men of yeers then of Infans Touching the other difference he seems to make in the Churches constitution then of Abrahams carnall seed but now of Abrahams spirituall seed I conceive it very unfound For First were there not many proselytes in the Churches then and that of the constitution of it were they Abrahams naturall seed by naturall generation and all the males of his house which amounted to the number of three hundred and eighteen trained men born in his house besides others Secondly the Churches constitution then consisted not of them as Abrahams seed in the flesh but in being the people of God by covenant and thereby a peculiar people a royall priesthood though this state was continued by naturall generation from Abrahams dayes till Christ The Jewes indeed pleased themselves with the fleshly prerogative but our Saviour condemneth them John 8. and the Apostle cleareth this point fully Rom. 9.1 to 9. Chap. 10.2 3 c. 11.1 to 10. wherein the Apostle shewes plainly the reason why they were not spirituall as others were and they should have been because a spirit of slumber fell upon them so that the Churches constitution then consisted of many proselytes and all Jewes not as carnall or a naturall generation of Abraham in the flesh but as a spirituall seed of Abraham by following
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
away the Scriptures affirming no understanding Christian denying it Heb. 6.4 c. 3ly He answereth then the being under the everlasting covenant of grace and peace with God by Christ should be conveyed by naturall descent and not by the Gospel which is absurd and contrary to many Scriptures Rom. 1.16 17. and 10.17 Gal. 3.2 2 Joh. 3. 5 c. These Scritpures saith he shews first that the Gospel is the power of God to save every one that believeth Secondly that faith cometh by hearing the Word preached by which conversion is wrought whereby wee become sons of God by adoption and grace But the Position saith that some are partakers thereof by vertue of their parents by generation directly contrary yea to the whole Gospel of Christ Rom. 4.14 where if they of the Law naturally descended and circumcised only be heirs the promise the whole Gospel and covenant of grace is made of none effect Reply First they were all under the everlasting covenant of Gods grace equally on Gods part dispensed offering unto them thereby all the Gospel to peace and life Secondly this offer was not made unto them for any naturall respect but freely of Gods grace The naturall generation though many Gentiles also were taken into covenant and had the grace thereof offered unto them and to be bestowed upon them but not out of any respect to them naturall civill or religious Deut. 17.7 8. 9.5 but meerely out of his good will and faithfulnesse Thirdly the Gospel was preached unto all the posterity of Abraham all along to Christ and his time by himself and Apostles preaching no other thing then Moses and the Prophets had preached before them to all that then believed it was the power of God to save them Act. 15.11 all ought to have believed it and if they had it would have been the power of God to their salvation also and they that did not believe it was not the power of God to their salvation because they believed not Heb. 4.12 and it was their sin and will be to their punishment Now it is the power of God not to salvation of all though Church-members to whom it is preached but many came short through unbeliefe All the Scriptures therefore by him alledged are hereby answered nor is there any footing for his distinction in regard of Gods part dispensing but from them who received not what God offered but refused it Hee proceedeth thus If by grace I mean that favour of God whereby hee made the Jewes partakers of circumcision and ordinances as the fleshly seed of Abraham leading them to Christ above other nations then he grants that Ishmael and such were partakers of that grace Reply First this is not all they were partakers of but of the former also and of this from the former nor were they partakers of this or any thing else as they were Abrahams seed barely but from his grace to their fathers and therein taking them above others to he his peculiar people Secondly they were partakers of these ordinances as leading to Christ therefore not of ordinances barely but Christ offered unto them by these ordinances and of these ordinances for Christs sake given unto them I would ask whether they were to believe in Christ or no and so to be saved If so as certain it is how then can he make good this distinction or deny that they were under the everlasting covenant of Gods grace and by these ordinances to be partakers of But granting this unto them hee saith But this was taken away when Christ came all which I have spoken to before more then once Secondly he saith that the Apostles purpose is not to conclude those children spoken of 1 Cor. 7. within the limits of such a distinction because the Lord there in that state did count children borne of one believer unclean and polluted and to be put away with their mothers being Infidels Ezra 9.2 and 11.3 Therefore that state even while it lasted did not allow children to be of that state when one of the parents were forreiner to the Church much lesse hath it any force now to conclude it should be so when that the state it self is disanulled Reply First it is the Apostles meaning to conclude such Infants under the covenant with their believing parents whereby they were foederally holy nor can there be any other holinesse here intended as we shal see afterward And the reason which he giveth to disprove it is not sufficient because it is of an instance of a diverse nature from this of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. though he would confound them whether willingly or no I leave others to judge His Reason is this That state did not allow of children born of one believing parent but accounted them unclean and required them to be put away with their mother Reply That of Ezra speaketh of a believing Jew married to an Infidel Heathen this of the Apostle speaketh not of a believing Christian marrying an Infidell but of one who being married when they were both Infidels the one being converted after marriage the other remaining unconverted That in Ezra was an unlawfull marriage first or last this in Corinth was a lawfull marriage Secondly that in Ezra therefore being unlawfull was not to be continued but the wife and children to be put away but this in Corinth is not so the Infidel here may be continued if contented to dwell with the believer nor are the children unclean but both the instances being of two cases so different thence is no ground for this reason and so that hee grounded on that reason falls with it A third Reason that he gives against that I said ¶ 3 that the Apostle speaketh of a holinesse which the Infants of a believer hath with their believing Parent standing under the same state of grace is this First that a Proselyte in the time of the Law by circumcision was made a member of the Jewish state as one born in the land Secondly hee was to circumcise all his males and thereby they were admitted and with the males wife females children there being no other Sacrament of entrance for them and unlesse he did circumcise himself and all his males though neither hee nor they believed hee could not be a member of that state Thirdly no president can be that ever one parent coming to be of the Jewish state and leave their married yoke-mates out did possesse their seed of the same state and therefore now in this state whereof men are partakers by faith only and thereupon a believer admitted and the unbelieving yoke-mate left out the Infants cannot be admitted into this state no more then the wife which in that state was brought in by the care of the husband being a proselyte and in this left out till shee believed Reply First a proselyte was not made a member of the Jewish Church by circumcision but by accepting the God of Israel to be his God and submitting himself to
their lawes receiving circumcision as a seal thereof that being not the first but a second grace not the covenant it self but the sign of the covenant Secondly I deny that all the males were to be circumcised or else their parents might not be admitted but only Infants were admitted and circumcised with the parent and those of yeers were not admitted and circumcised but upon their owne voluntary acceptance of and submitting to the covenant and so the believing proselytes yoke-fellow For if they had no faith though they had circumcision yet how could they partake in the Passeover or sacrifices to the remission of sin And therefore though there were no Sacrament for females entrance yet there must be faith either potentially by being under the covenant with their believing parent or actually by their own profession And as I have answered before to the like allegation they should receive the seal of the covenant which in order of nature followes it and were not in it and be admitted to circumcision the seal of the righteousnesse of faith which they had not Thirdly touching a president or rule of a believing proselyte admitted with his Infants leaving out the yoke-fellow I need say no more then this Whatsoever is not of faith is and ever was sin Rom. 14. ult and without faith it is impossible and ever was to please God Heb. 11.6 But this answer saith that a proselyte might be admitted and circumcised with all his males and females by vertue of his admission though neither hee nor they believed quite contrary to these Scriptures and so some should become one with Abrahams people neither by flesh nor faith which himself hath said are the only two wayes whereby any may be instated in such a condition As therefore in that state proselytes were admitted by faith into the fellowship thereof and therein Infants with them by vertue of Gods covenant accepted for themselves and their seed but those of yeers and their yoke-fellows excluded unlesse they did believe So in this state now abeliever and his Infants are admitted into fellowship of it but such children as are of yeers and unbelieving yoke-fellow excluded till they believe A 4th reason of this is this ¶ 4 The Apostle speaks indefinitly of children as children and in that relation to parents whose children they are whereof some of them might be twenty or thirty yeers old but children of twenty or thirty yeers old apparently wicked are not holy in such a sense as by vertue of their parents state in grace to be partakers of the same state with them and for that cause to be baptized Therefore holines here cannot be so understood by the Apostle Reply First the Apostle speaking indefinitely I grant children of any or no yeers may be understood Secondly children of twenty or thirty yeers or Infants have a state of holinesse upon them by vertue not of naturall relation but of foederall as children of a believer for that must be noted that one of them must be a believer that being the case that the Apostle resolveth Thirdly children of twenty yeers more apparently wicked were born either before the parent believed or after if after then they are holy seep a seed of a believer and so remain notwithstanding their wickednesse till they be cut off from that relation by God in his usuall way and then that holinesse is taken away from them their naturall relation stil continuing they are children stil of those parents whose they were if they were born before I say then they are unclean notwithstanding their parents believing and are not holy at all nor can be partakers of it but by their own faith in Gods covenant but for Infants as I said before they are holy and by vertue thereof may be baptized as a holy seed and so remain till by some act of theirs they be cut off and deprive themselves of it as Ishmael and Esau This exception hee excepted against saying the Apostie speaketh positively of a conclusion drawn from the state of the relation which can admit of no exception For if it could then will it be of no absolute validity to enforce the conclusion Again if the children do deprive themselves by some act of theirs of their state in grace then their believing parents can have no sanctified use of the believing yoke-mate but that may be whether the children be in the state of grace or no. Reply First the Apostle speaks positively of a conclusion drawn from the state of the relation that is not naturall as children but foederall as holy children of a believing parent Secondly it may and doth admit of an exception and yet is of absolute validity to enforce the conclusion because the exception lies in a diverse respect of the thing if it lay against the thing it self viz. as a believers childe then indeed it would not force but it lies here that when it comes to yeers and stands by its own faith in regard of personall relation acted to the covenant also by personall sin deprive it self of the personall state it had by personall relation to the covenant yet though the children cease to be and deprive themselves of that foederall holinesse which they had in regard of their personall the relation they had of children of believers and thereby holy remains still they were holy as born of them as is evident in the Jewish Infants cut off with their parents who were a holy seed before they were cut off But more of this afterward The fifth answer he makes ¶ 5 stands thus The holinesse here spoken of is such as must prove the unbeleeving parent sanctified to the beleeving yoak-mate But the holinesse of Infants in such a state of grace inward or outward will not prove an unbeleeving parent to be sanctified to the beleeving yoak-mate therefore it cannot bee meant of such a holinesse and hee gives this Reason of this Assumption Because it answers not the Corinthians scruple nor proves the thing in question by them Reply To cleer this discourse two things are to be attended First what was the Corinthians scruple and the state of the question amongst them Secondly by what argument the Apostle answers this scruple and question To the first hee saith The scruple that troubled the Church was whether their marriage were lawfull or no and sheweth that such a state of holinesse of Infants in grace whether inward or outward will not prove whether the parents were lawfully married or no because the childrens state in grace cannot prove the unbelieving parent sanctified to the believing yoke-fellow Reply First Grant the holinesse here spoken of must be such as must prove the unbelieving parent to be sanctified to the believing yoke-fellow yet to argue that such a holinesse of children in a state of grace will not prove that is but a mistake For if the children be holy then certainly the believing parents from whom they proceed must needs be holy For no man can bring
others unto them Now a Church I conceive to be an institution of it whereby a company of men and women called by the word of Gods grace and some work of Gods Spirit upon them doe joyn themselves unto the Lord and one to another by entring into covenant with the Lord to have him to be the God of them theirs and they and theirs to be the Lords and his Christs as also one with another to meet together to worship God for his glory their mutuall edification to life according to Gods revealed will Now as I tie no man to my expressions so I shall be willing to learn of any that shall help me to a better understanding in this point yet in this description all the causes concurre The efficient an institution of Christ with the instrumentall the Word in some effects upon their hearts the materiall a company of men and women so called and from thence Saints and beleevers the formall joyning themselves to the Lord and one with another by entring into covenant whereof there are two branches one called Zach. 11. The staffe of beauty taking the Lord to be the God of them and theirs and giving up themselves and theirs to be the Lords the other called The staffe of bonds or brotherhood and both the covenant the finall to meet together to glorifie God the supreme and edifie one another to life with the meanes worshipping God according to his own appointment revealed in his word onely I would be understood of a Church in the constituting of it which is continued in the same state by succession till the Lord the efficient dischurch them But to proceed this confuter next saith That I make this quaere Whether baptisme be not the form of a church and answering No giving reasons of my deniall I affirm a covenant acted is the form of it To all which he answereth first in generall And here he distinguisheth between the form and the thing formed and saith That a Church being an Assembly the form or fashion thereof is the relation that every member possesseth from Christ their head and each with other wherby every law and service is communicable and executed concluding that neither a covenant or baptisme is the form of a Church but baptisme of a beleever is an instrumentall meanes by which a Church is made partaker of that forme which it hath as by which it becomes a Church Further that the instrumentall meanes of the being of a Church both of matter and form is by consent of love issuing forth from the covenant of grace made in and from our Lord through one Spirit one Faith one Baptisme Ephes 4.4 5. And if any of these be wanting and be not supplied the Church can have no visible existence and being From whence it followeth though baptisme bee not the form of a Church yet being an essentiall meanes and the last too of the visible Church where true baptisme is wanting there can be no true visible Church Reply First to let passe his distinction onely this I say that he confoundeth forme and figure as one thing which are divers For water in a round glasse or square hath this or that figure or fashion but it is not the forme whereby water is water and not another thing and therefore form differs from figure and fashion Secondly whereas he denieth a covenant or baptisme either to be a Churches form he contradicteth what he said before in his answer to my first argument to prove the covenant before Christ and after to be the same It is true said he that the coventnt of God maketh the Church both in the time of the Law and Gospel too and a Church is nothing but a people in covenant with God That saying of his here and there cannot be both true Thirdly he saith that the form of the Church is that relation that each member possesseth from Christ the head and each with other which is by consent of love Reply First the relation that each member possesseth from Christ the head and each the other is either internall as Spirit Faith Love or externall the manifestation of these as they are internall they cannot be the form of an externall visible church as they are manifested outwardly they cannot make the churches form because they may manifest these graces and yet be no church nor members of a visible and this particular church And indeed they are neither matter nor form though hee makes them both but the manifestation of these maketh them to be fit matter for a church which yet cannot be a church without the form added to the matter and that is a covenant or as he calleth it a consent which indeed is a covenant by which alone every Law and Service is communicable and excecuted Last of all he saith that consent of love from one Spirit Faith and Baptisme are essentially necessary meanes of the being of a church for matter and forme Ephes 4.4 5. And if any of these bee wanting then there can be no visible church Reply First in making all these to concurre to the matter and form of the church as meanes thereof hee necessarily yeeldeth the form and matter to be something else differing from them all Secondly he confounds baptisme with faith and love which are internall graces unlesse he means the externall profession of them flowing from the covenant of grace which if he doe then I conceive he yeelds as much as I require that in a covenant or mutuall engagement of all parties and one main part by profession of faith and love through one spirit without which a covenant cannot be in the state we speak of it Thirdly that of Ephes 4. intends not to describe the forme of a church but perswades to unity by a sevenfold unity that they are already church-members were all partakers of Lastly if baptisme may be wanting for a time and yet a beleever essentially a church-member as Abraham and his many males and females were before circumcised for the space of at least 14. yeares between the covenant and circumcision and therefore doth not concurre to the constitution of a churches matter and form but for the confirmation of a church constituted in matter and forme before And when a man of yeares is baptized in a church is the baptized a visible Saint or no If yea for he may be no reall Saint then his baptisme doth not give him matter and forme but hee hath both before or else hee ought not to be baptized And thus much to his generall discourse In particular he goeth on and saith First as it is in natural birth so it is in spirituall but in naturall birth we have the beginning of our natural being among the world and in the affairs of this life by our birth from our parents therefore wee have the beginning of our spirituall and visible being among the church as in the affaires of life eternall by our spirituall birth and this spirituall
that baptism cannot be wanting in a church constituted because it is constituted by baptisme is of no force because a church is not constituted by baptisme as I have shewed before and he begs the question Secondly To that of Joshua the 5th the case was not extraordinary nor need they be hindred by their travells no more then they were hindred by the danger they were in after they were over Jordan for all the fighting men 60000 thousand were now all sore by circumcision easie had it been for the Canaanites to have come upon them and slain them as Jacobs two sons did the Sichemites If any shall say that God could and did defend them I say was not God as able to defend them in the wildernesse where the most of them would have been alwayes well To say that God dispensed with them is not proved it is as easie to say hee did not and who so reads Josh 5.2 c. shall have cause to conclude that they sinned in omitting it though God imputed it not unto them besides they stayed sometime a yeere in a place and often long enough to have been healed I rather think God did not dispense with them and that they sinned in omitting it and therefore called the reproach of Egypt and for the miraculous Sacraments they had it was not to supply the absence of the other ordinances for then they should not have begun before these were taken away as they did nor should these have been continued after those were given them as they were especially the Passeover celebrated the second yeer Numb 9.1 c. and for any thing I know continued all the time till they came into the land yeerly according to institution and so Calvin upon Johshua the 5th thinketh and that God did tolerate them though not circumcised and a reason he gives because they offered sacrifices continually which was not much lesse then to eat the Passeover no man being to bring a sacrifice that was unclean as all uncircumcised were nor is it probable that all were circumcised who celebrated the Passeover Numb 9. and therefore Manna and the Rock did not supply the absence of the Passeover but they were both together for a time as circumcision and the sea and cloud to all that were circumcised some whereof came into the land And therefore though I shew no extraordinary case nor miraculous sacraments to supply the absence of ordinary yet from that place especially adding the case of Infants alwayes seven dayes without circumcision and sometimes more and females alwayes and yet members I see nothing that is said but as then the church was a church and all members though many not circumcised so a church may be a church now and yet baptisme for a time wanting though it ought not to be and then baptisme is not the form of the church A third Reason I give as he saith for I cannot remember I used a word of it is this That which is an adjunct to a thing cannot be the form of it but baptisme is an adjunct of a church Ergo. To this hee answereth This is not against his question as hee stateth it because that which is an adjunct may be a means of forming the thing to which it is adjoyned and so baptisme is Reply First how hee states his Question is nothing to mee his Answer must be to the question as I stated it seeing he takes upon him to refute it In altering the state of the question therefore hee shewes he had nothing to say against it as I set it down But Secondly I grant an adjunct may be a means of forming the subject so as it is by the adjunct and without that adjunct the subject could not be so formed and denominated As freedome is an adjunct to man and is necessary to make him be and named a free man but it is not necessary to make him a man he may be a man without it So baptisme is necessary to forme a church or member to be and named a baptized church and member but it concurres not therefore to make a church or member to be a church or member and therefore that form whereby it is and called a church or member ariseth from something else A subject may have twenty adjuncts but not one nor all make it a subject that it is before the adjuncts and without them A 4th Reason That which is the seal of the covenant cannot be the form of the church but baptisme is the seal of the covenant Ergo. His answer is That the seal of the covenant may be a means to constitute and put the church into an outward visible form and referres to his fifth Argument where hee hath spoken something before Reply He answered to neither Proposition here That baptisme is the seal of Gods outward covenant cannot be denied that baptisme therefore cannot be the form of a visible church is evident as a seal cannot be the form of that place or honour which a man hath by the kings grant under writing it is the grant and contract that makes the man to honour this state or that from the king and not the seal though the seal be usefull and necessary So here baptisme makes not the church to be the church but it is added to Gods covenant made with the Church before whereby it is a Church and this seal added to the covenant made for confirmation without which the state would be the same though not so authenticall to us in regard of our weaknesse For his reference see my answer to it A fifth Reason That which remains when a man is excommunicate and is not to be administred to restore him again when cut off that cannot be the form of the church but baptisme remains when a man is excommunicated nor is to be administred to restore him to membership when cut off Ergo. To which hee answereth by denying the Assumption that is that baptisme remains when a man is excommunicate nor is to be administred again when he is to be restored and denying this hee must affirm that baptisme doth not remain where a man is no member by excommunication and such a man must be baptized that he may be restored again To make this good he giveth a long answer which I contract into these Propositions First that by faith a man possesseth Christ and so baptisme and membership with the Church Secondly that some have true saving faith and so they have Christ baptisme and membership in the truth of all and savingly and some have but seeming faith and so have Christ baptisme and membership not in truth but seemingly yet accounted by others true that cannot discern them to be but seeming Thirdly that a true believer excommunicate for sin is not really deprived of faith Christ baptisme and membership but seemeth only to be cut off but hee that seemed to have faith but had not indeed excommunicate for sin is cut wholly and really from Christ c.
which he only seemed to have and no faith Christ c. can be said to remain being neither believer nor baptized nor member indeed because hee forsaking the grounds and ends of his baptisme he forsaketh baptisme which was administred upon these grounds and for these ends Fourthly hee that by the renewall of his repentance returneth to his faith again by which hee is to be restored to communion with the church again after excommunication returneth thereby to his baptisme and membership again Reply Granting the first Proposition that faith possesseth a man of Christ c. and likewise this in the second that some have faith in Christ c. really and saving in the truth of all but where he saith some have but seeming faith and yet baptized c. and seem to have Christ baptisme and membership but have none in truth I deny that these are seeming unlesse as opposed to saving spirituall and supernaturall thus indeed many have not nor can any have these things but only elect persons and so their saith and all is seeming But faith considered in it self it is certaine that many have that faith they professe they have as the devills and do believe as they say they do nor do I think that if a man knew one to be a reprobate unlesse in the case of fin unto death yet having and professing faith hee is not to be rejected without some speciall word of God Thus Abraham and Isaac circumcised Ishmael and Esau though they knew before they were reprobates And our Saviour put Judas into Apostleship when he knew what hee was to the full Secondly a man having such a faith is in Christ in a sense John 15. hath baptisme and church-membership indeed and in the truth of it though not spiritually and savingly I cannot say these are all or any of them seeming but in opposition to saving so they seem to be indeed but are not Heb. 6.4.9 they are really enlightened they tast of the heavenly gift and fall away and perish for ever but they had no part in those as accompanying salvation these are distinct one from another The one sort are acquired by naturall powers and are morall only those will never save them the other are infused spirituall supernaturall and alwayes accompany salvation To the third Proposition I say that a believer to salvation excommunicate for some sin is not deprived of the faith he had but that he is cut off from membership and so from baptisme if it be the form of his membership it is most certain as much as the other is and it is more then a seeming to be cut off being ratified in heaven his everlasting estate remaining with God inalterable and he that seemed to have saving faith c. but had not is not deprived of that faith he had by excommunication nor cut off otherwise from his baptisme and membership then the former in foro humano being things that hee had as really as the former though not of the same kinde nor to the same benefit And if all were but seeming in the Refuters sense certainly his excommunication will be but seeming roo and doth this seem to be a seemly thing to speak thus of the things of God To the fourth he that by repentance returneth to his faith again that is in true meaning to an intire standing in the profession of faith returns to his baptisme and membership again I grant that by renewall of repentance hee is to be restored from under the censure unto communion with the church again And hence I gather that faith and repentance professed are the means whereby hee was stated in the covenant and membership and therefore now required of him again to set him in his former state and not baptisme which certainly would have been under some prejudice by excommunication and must have been cleered as well as his profession if that had constituted his membership especially if he had but seeming faith baptisme and membership before for let mee put this case which certainly may and sometimes doth fall out that a seeming believer having seeming baptisme c. to speak his language is excommunicated and so is cut off from all that he only seemed to have he had no baptisme and membership indeed but seemed to have and from all that is really and wholly cut off nothing remaines this penson was not before really converted but under the state of censure he is really converted and gives full satisfaction to the church shall he be restored to his seeming baptisme and membership that he had before by his seeming faith rather he cannot be restored to that seeming state because he saith nothing remains Or shall hee have a new membership and reall in the truth of it for his reall faith and repentance but this must be by a new reall baptizing the former not remaining and therefore though repentance of him that was a true believer recovers his former standing in the covenant and so his baptisme which he was not really deprived of yet it must needs be that he that did not truly believe being now really converted can not receive his former seeming baptisme nor were it worth the recovering by his repentance but must have a reall baptisme added to him for his reall faith instead of that seeming baptisme that he had by his seeming faith The truth is neither true believer nor seeming as he speaks have either of them their baptisme taken away by censure but both their memberships really and not seemingly and by repentance are restored to their former rights and membership That therefore that must be to make a man a member and the destruction whereof makes a man no member and the renewing wherof must be to restore him to be a member again that is the form of a church-member and so of a church but baptisme doth not make a man a visible member nor is baptisme nullified to make him no member but remains still true baptisme nor is it to be renewed to restore him to his membership again therefore baptisme is not the form of the church For to make a thing to cease to be that it was must necessarily be by taking away of the form by which it was that it was for so long as that form remains you cannot make the thing to be any other or not that it was but in making a member no member there is a destruction of that form whereby he was a member that is a reall casting him out from being the Lords or having the Lord to be his and to be delivered up to Satan likewise a casting him out from being one of Gods people to be of the world again as Demas and the contrary hereunto must be reacted to restore a member Therefore this alone is the forme of a member and so of a Church And this is no other thing but a Covenant acted as before I described therefore a Covenant is the form of the Church This I affirmed
which hath oft already been gainsaid by me Gods intention in entring into covenant with them was to have them all spirituall hee constituted them not a church as a naturall seed but as spirituall and if all were not spirituall it was their sinne And all now in Church estate are not spirituall many are carnall And the Jewes still remain naturall branches to be graffed in again though not as naturall seed but as beleeving c. Secondly he saith where I said A covenant acted by beleevers amongst themselves to become one anothers to be the forme of the Church and here arguing from the state of the Jewes to prove this form which did never form themselves so in so doing I overthrow my selfe and argue from my proofe to overthrow my principle Reply First let all observe that he constantly leaves out a part of my words and that of greatest weight viz. A covenant acted between God and themselves though I adde these words also Secondly I say the Jewes were formed a Church estate and only by such a covenant and this will bee evident by clearing those foure particulars I brought to prove that part of my argument The first is this The entrance into it with Abraham his family and seed was by a covenant acted visibly and outwardly This was that which distinguished them and made them differ from other people and whereby they became the Lords and the Lord theirs This was a visible and outward covenant because the seale of it was outward and visible and Ishmael and Esau were in it and reprobates as well as elect and this covenant was made with Abraham and his family at least 14 yeares before they were circumcised Gen. 17. that being but the renewall of the covenant made before onely let this be noted that Abraham and his family were all this time in covenant and a called people and so a church visibly formed for no man can think that he his were all that time under that covenant without a form A foederall form they had certainly that is a church forme and circumcision did not put the foederall form upon them but was added for confirmation on both parts Yet his answer is that this proves not the forme of the church to be such a covenant as is by me expressed acted by a company of beleevers to become one anothers For Abraham and his feed reprobates and elect enter into it now Abraham was but one believer Ishmael his seed who entred in with him was a reprobate Reply First it was a covenant acted between God and Abraham and his family because they were signed and sealed to the covenant fourteen yeers after Secondly though reprobates and elect were in the covenant yet that doth not disprove a covenant acted by believers to be the form of a church seeing many reprobates do believe for a time I do not mean they are known to be so but many prove so afterward and himself doth confesse that they have not infallible judgement but may be and many times are deceived and if hee should not confesse yet the Scriptures cleer it in Simon Magus case Judas c. Thirdly though Abraham was but one believer and Ishmael a reprobate yet they might joyn together in covenant because at first Ishmael was but an Infant and not presently known to be a reprobate and more then Ishmael entred into the first covenant as Sarah his wife and above three hundred males who therefore had the seal of the covenant set upon them which could not have been if they had not been in covenant Where I said circumcision was not the covenant but the token of it Gen. 17.11 He answereth it was not only a token of it but a part of the covenant it self being that whereby the parties were bound to keep the whole Law Gal. 5.3 and therefore God said Let every man childe be circumcised and hee that was not brake Gods covenant therefore the covenant here spoken of was such as was entred into by circumcision but not such as was acted by believers and so to be the form of the church Reply I deny circumcision to be a part of the covenant as without which the covenant is not intire and a reall formall covenant else Abraham Sarah and his family were not in the covenant all these fourteen yeers before circumcision he grants it is a sign of the covenant and I will grant him that as the signe of the thing may be a part of the thing signified so may circumcision be a part of the covenant and no otherwise and as a seal is a part of the thing sealed and not else and though it be called covenant oftentimes yet it is by impropriety of speech As in the Lords Supper bread and wine are called the body and blood of the Lord and baptisme regeneration because they signifie and seal those things to faith which are signified by them where hee saith the parties were bound thereby to keep the whole Law Gal. 5.3 it is a grosse mistake for it did seal to the righteousnesse of faith and not to the righteousnesse of the Law nor bound them more nor otherwise to fulfill the Law then baptisme doth us now It 's true the Apostle saith as much but First he speaks it in respect of the times then and after not with respect to times before Secondly hee speaks it in a certain sense that is when men make it an ingredient unto justification they that do so renounce justification by Christ alone and seek to be justified by their own righteousnesse and so they are bound to fulfill the whole Law or never to be justified how else could Paul circumcise Timothy Act. 16. Would he do that then which he condemneth here or did it oblige others otherwise then it did Timothy or David Isaiah c. It was Gods ordinance and institution it bound them to no such thing but that arose from their corrupt understanding of the things turning the covenant of grace into a covenant of works unto themselves and the same may be said of baptisme now Let this therefore be attended that God did never dispense a covenant of works to the Jewes but it was a covenant of grace and circumcision the signe and seal of it and not the covenant it selfe and the covenant was acted between God and Abraham and his family and seed believers they and theirs to be the Lords and to take God to be the God of them and theirs and so to become one anothers in the Lord whereby they were made the people of God and a visible church truly constituted My second particular was this the establishment of it in the plains of Moab but this establishment was by a covenant acted Deut. 26.17 18. and 29.10 15. In which God avouched them to be his people and they avouched him to be their God and their young children also with them nor could circumcision be the covenant here nor part of it or ingredient into it because
they had not circumcised in forty yeers ever since they came out of Egypt nor did they circumcise any now nor afterward till Moses was dead and Joshua had brought them through Jordan into the land Joshua 5. To this he answereth divers things First that this was but a renewall of the covenant made with Abraham Isaac and Jacob before which they entred into with God in behalf of them and their children by being circumcised and therefore they being before did not now begin to be a church and therefore this doth not prove that a covenant acted by a company of believers should be it that did constitute them a church now Reply First I grant this was but a renewall of the covenant made with Abraham c. and upon his grant inferre that this was a spirituall covenant and not carnall and the same with Abrahams and ours which before he opposed mee in Secondly hee saith they entred into the covenant by circumcision Reply It is false Abraham and his were not circumcised till fourteen yeers after and now few of them in yeers were circumcised before nor any now Thirdly they did not now begin to be a church being one before It 's true but the renewall of their church estate here after many provocations of God and many declarations against them of Gods anger whereby they might feare that God would own them no more being by a covenant acted formally and outwardly between God and them as is cleerly expressed in the Text doth fully shew that both now and then they were found Gods people as believers acting a covenant betwixt God and them and one another and seeing hee grants this to be the same with that of Abraham c. that was also thus acted is out of question as this here though therefore a covenant acted now did not constitute them a church yet a covenant is acted now and is for the renewing of their church estate therefore much more was it so in the first constitution every thing decayed in the true forme of it being made the same it was by renewing the same form and otherwise cannot be the same Nor did circumcision here concurre nor any thing else and yet perfectly stated a church and so called Acts 7.1 Secondly hee answereth whereas I say circumcision was no ingredient here having not circumcised during the forty yeers nor now Hee conceives notwithstanding that circumcision was an ingredient in their parents who thereby entred into covenant for themselves and these their children as the covenant here expressed did comprehend the posterity to come Reply First howsoever they stood intire in the covenant and church-estate without personall circumcision for except Moses Caleb and Joshua there was not a man of those 600000. that came out of Egypt alive and all born in the wildernesse during the forty yeers were uncircumcised and at the time of this covenant making not one was circumcised and so the church consisted of a company of men personally uncircumcised and performed services to God and each other which ought to have been done by circumcised persons only In like manner men and women believing the Word of God and doing as these did may become thereby a true visible church though they were not baptized before nor are baptized at present covenanting and perform services to God and each other Secondly if they injoyed their perfect church-estate being not personally circumcised by vertue of their parents circumcision before them then certainly as much may be granted now that by vertue of a parents believing and being baptized their Infants may be counted and really are in the covenant before they be baptized If it be said these were grown men and expressed their faith in God I answer All were not grown men many were Infants yea posterity for and with whom this covenant was made were not yet born and for the rest what faith the most of them had may be seen Deut. 29.4 Thirdly hee answereth it was an extraordinary case and they had miraculous sacraments in stead of circumcision and the Passeover c. Reply To all this I have spoken before yet a word or two First hee calleth them miraculous sacraments here and before but he found fault with me for calling them ordinances which is all one sacraments they were therefore though extraordinary nor did the sea continue with them all this time being a transient act and many hundred thousands never past through the sea nor did the cloud baptize them all till circumcision was administred to them all Josh 5. The cloud ceased on the other side Jordan and continued not till they came into the land therefore all the members were not personally constituted members by that miraculous sacrament of baptisme which gives them hee saith their imitation Further he saith that the acting of a covenant by a company of believers was not the same of that church then but the communication of Gods covenant by circumcision ordinarily with the whole nation believers and Infidels and whosoever of any nation that would be circumcised and joyn with them to worship much lesse hath it any consequence to prove it so now Reply First I have proved that a covenant acted by them as beleevers did make them to be the people of God and circumcision was ordinarily added as a signe and seale thereof But in that hee saith the whole Nation beleevers and infidels it is an unchristian speech nor ever will he prove that any of the nation were infidels nor any of any nation joyning with them though many of them did not beleeve as they should yet beleevers they all were and God manifested it in accepting their sacrifices pardoning their sins and making an atonement for them by the Priests administrations It is therefore injurious to the grace of God so to speak and justly to be blamed Nextly he comes to my third particular by which I conceived the form of the Jewish church state outwardly was by a covenant acted by a company of beleevers c. which is from the renewall of their estate after some apostasie 2 Chron. 15.12 13 16. 34. chap. 30 31. Nehem. 9.3 10.1 from whence I collected that without which they could not stand in a right church estate visibly that was the forme of that church but without the renewall of their covenant they could not stand in a right or pure church estate but without renewall of circumcision they might Ergo. His answer hereto is First he grants they made a covenant and did well in so doing but secondly that they could not be in a church estate without so doing nor have I proved it and he will prove the contrary first because they were a church before secondly this covenant was but an animating them to doe that which they were engaged to doe before by their circumcision Gal. 5.3 Ergo. As the renewall of their covenant is not by me proved to bee the form of the church then much lesse hath it any consequence to
unto him is not truer baptisme now then it was before it proves only unto him more profitable But I go on further where he saith the covenant before Christ might be and was dissolved shaken and removed this covenant since Christ cannot be dissolved shaken or removed All may easily see that either wilfully or ignorantly hee confoundeth covenant and testament which are divers things for the kingdome before Christ spoken of Heb. 12. is not the covenant but manner of administration that before Christ the old Testament to be shaken and removed this since Christ the new Testament established and never to be shaken nor removed and this kingdome shaken was not taken away from the Jewes and given to the Gentiles but utterly abolished and a new kingdome given and set up that shall not be abolished nor end till Christ shall give it up to the Father 1 Cor. 15. Last of all the covenant before Christ was the eternall covenant of God and remains the same for ever and cannot be shaken this covenant God made with Abraham continued to the Jewes till Christs time and this also is called the kingdome of God Matth. 27.34 which cannot be altered nor was it disanulled nor abolished then but only taken away from the Jewes whereas kingdome in the other sense was utterly abolished and given to the Gentiles and a new or another but the same and therefore though the Jewish people were cut off yet the covenant and church-state remained and was given to the Gentiles yet so as that many of the Gentile churches have been cut off and may be and shall be cut off for the same cause that the Jewes were cut off viz. if they continue not in faith Rom. 11. His second answer is this the removing of the candlesticks and unchurching of them is only by discovery or manifestation of a people to be void of any participation in the covenant which formerly they professed were esteemed and had a name to have 1 John 2.19 Rev. 3.1 and not dissolving or taking away of covenant which once they had and enjoyed much lesse is it a dissolving of an outward covenant acted by believers such a covenant is will-worship and the churches constituted thereby meerly Antichristian the dissolving of such a covenant cannot be the unchurching of any true churches Jesus Christ having no true visible church so constituted Reply All hath been said and answered before that here hee speaks yet a word here If the removing of the candlestick and unchurching of such be nothing but only a discovery that they were in no covenant before then the Jewes before Christ were in no covenant but only seemed to be so c. Ephesus and the rest were in no covenant but had a name only to be in it who are long ago rejected nor were the Saints in Rome graffed branches into the true Olive but only were esteemed so to be and the cutting breaking off dissolving of all those and the like is but a declaration and manifest discovery that they were never in covenant and what great punishment is it for these and the like to have that taken away from them which they never had But I doubt not but that all that have any judgement to discerne of things aright will easily see as the unsoundnesse so the unreasonablenesse of what hee faith Secondly the places alledged by him are not to his purpose the first not speaking of their membership and state in the covenant which they had and departed from but of the soundnesse of their state therein and of saving grace from the Father election in Christ which they had not and hereby manifested that they had not in that they departed from the fellowship of faith The other place Rev. 3. speaks not of them as having a name to be a church for that they were and Christ so called them and would not have so acknowledged them had they not so been but it speaks of the condition they were in in this church-estate as having a name to be alive in faith and holinesse but indeed were in this respect dead and yet not quite dead but almost and therefore are bidden to strengthen the things that are ready to die these places therefore do not at all speak of their being in covenant or church-estate but only of the unsoundnesse of their estate in faith and godlinesse Thirdly whereas he opposeth a covenant and a covenant acted by believers as divers things or contrary if hee understood himself hee should have done well to expresse himself what he meant by them both that others might understand him For can there be a covenant and not outwardly acted Is not a covenant between two parties Or is it a covenant unlesse all parties agree there is no covenant of God but it is outwardly manifested to men and by visible means made known to such as hee would have to be in it nor is that a covenant made with them but as they outwardly receive it and by some visible act answer the Lord therein and so make themselves partakers thereof and visibly by visible participation which cannot be but by acting or passing consent to the covenant whereby God and they become one anothers and they visibly Gods people which being once done they remain a church and Gods people as long as this state continues and when it ceaseth then they cease to be Gods people forsaking each other again mutually which also is further evident in that God useth this expression to note out his dissolution giving them a bill of divorcement and so dissolving that marriage covenant which they were joyned together in Jerem. 13. I cannot but therefore conclude that hee doth speak unchristianly in saying an outward covenant acted by a company of believers is will-worship and churches so constituted are Antichristian or the dissolving of such a covenant cannot be the unchurching of any true churches because Jesus Christ hath no other true visible churches but those only that are so constituted A Discourse of the Verity and Validity of Infants Baptisme in it selfe considered As also it hath been administred in the Church of ENGLAND WHEREIN Besides the Arguments duly propounded and clearly explained for the proofe thereof occasionally The calling of the Ministers in England and here administring that ordinance Likewise the manner of administring it by sprinkling and not dipping is handled and justified AS it hath ever been the fruit of Satans malice to pervert the right wayes of the Lord and if not utterly to abolish yet greatly to corrupt the worship and ordinances of God So there have never wanted men of evill minds who give themselves to promote his sinfull designes A proofe whereof beyond exception is that man of Sin with all that Apostasie wherein the prevailing efficacie of Satan is not so much to be wondred at as the severe judgement of God is to bee adored who thereby punisheth the wanton spirits of men giving them up to make and beleeve lies because they
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-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