A REPLY TO A CONFUTATION of some grounds for Infants Baptisme AS ALSO Concerning the form of a Church put forth against mee by one THOMAS LAMB Hereunto is added A Discourse of the Verity and Validity of Infants Baptisme wherein I endevour to clear it in it self As also in the Ministery administring it and the manner of administration by Sprinkling and not Dipping with sundry other particulars handled herein By George Philips of Watertown in New England MATTH 7.15 Beware of false Prophets which come unto you in Sheeps-cloathing A parvulo recens nato usque ad decrepitum senem nullus prohibendus est a Baptismo August Enchirid. cap. 42. Dic quaeso omni me libera quaestione quare infantuli baptizentur Orthodox ut iis peccata in baptismate dimittantur Hieron advers Pelagian Dialog ter LONDON Printed by Matthew Simmons for Henry Overton and are to be sold at his Shop in Popes-head-Alley 1645. To the Reader WHO is so ignorant but seeth what Satans Master-peece and greatest work in the kingdome of Christ is at this day viz. to divide and sow Tares of discord between man and man And truly whose heart bleeds not to behold the present divisions by sword by pen in affection in opinion under which the land of peace lies now a bleeding Among which divisions none more lamentable nor grievous to a tender spirit then those that are between persons professing the feare of God especially in those times when all their strength and spirits should be wholly taken up against the common Adversary watching their destruction at their very doores yet such is the malice of Satan to set them especially at a distance and at variance whom the pretious blood of Christ hath been shed to reconcile And this hee doth especially when he hath started a controversie according to the old observation In re Sacramentaria in matters of the Sacraments and therefore it is no wonder if hee troubles the world and divides the mindes of some piously affected about the baptisme of Infants although withall one would wonder in other respects how any godly men who have better things to minde should hold up the Buckler in defence of such a stigmatized doctrine by the pens of so many of Gods Worthies from the Scriptures If indeed there were any new light concerning it that was never yet discovered to the world this present age might have second thoughts and learn the more by others errours but when in this controversie men dig up onely the old Sepulchers and heap up little more then the dried bones and sculls of other mens examined condemned and corrupted devices this is very uncomfortable and very unbeseeming the spirit of a prudent and humble Christian who will never suffer himselfe to be removed much lesse attempt the moving of others from the ancient received opinion and practice of the most sincerely godly in all ages without mountains of arguments and light as cleare as the Sunne from the holy Scriptures to alter his mind or make him to remove the ancient Land-markes and therefore he that writ the life of Doctor Whitaker prudently observes of him that he was Academiae oraculum the Oracle of that University and Mundi miraculum the miracle of the world in his time because though hee was a man of such eminent parts yet he ever kept the ancient received Doctrine had nothing proper nor did he in veteri via novam semitam quaerere he did not seek a new path in the old way as almost all Divines of great parts doe use to doe as from Hierom he observes The Authour therefore of this Reply in which wee wish he had a stronger Adversary to honour well knowne in the gates of his people and among the Churches of Christ in this Westerne world for his learning godlinesse and peaceablenesse of disposition cannot bee justly blamed as any Fire-brand of contention in returning this Answer it doth but defend the Walls and Trenches of the ancient received Truth nor would he have made any resistance had he not been assaulted on that ground where himself with Gods truth have had just and quiet possession so long Nor hath he published it to increase disunion but for satisfaction of his conscience Firstly who hath given him this occasion to reply or if not of his yet of some others godly and tender who in simplicity have been or may be suddenly taken in the snares of the Fowlers of these evill times I remember it was Luthers prayer seconded often by learned holy and aged Paraeus A Doctore glorioso Pastore contentioso inutilibus quaestionibus liberet Ecclesiam suam Dominus To start this controversie about Infants baptisme I feare upon sad examination will fall under the head of those inutiles quaestiones especially in these unsetled and troublesome times and though pretended to be a work of Reformation yet will give as sad a blow to that which is firstly and principally to bee attended in it as almost any opinion I know and the end will speak as much And therefore a sober strong defence of the baptism of Infants may be very profitable useful against an unprofitable questioning of it now and the more because it is much to be feared that the doctrine of Anabaptisme especially in this controversie concerning Infants will gangrene farre and leaven much and that for these Reasons First because there is not that expresse word nor such manifest cleernesse in such full and expresse sentences of the Scripture as in many other practicall points For the practice of this there is sufficient Scripture to satisfy a sober humble mind that loves the truth in sincerity in this point yet they that are contentious and love scruples and questions a disease Paul would have cured 1 Tim. 1.5 6. will be alway touching upon that string viz. Where is your commandement I see not any expresse Scripture Yes that you may by just and ful deduction from the Scripture and that is a good proof from Scripture or else our Saviours proof of the resurrection was bad from I am the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob which is not expresly contained in these words but deducted from them Secondly if conscience and experience may speak there are but few Christians that have tasted the sweet and comfort of their baptisme and therefore are very apt to question this ordinance if they meet with a fit tempter to deceive them For this is a certain and everlasting truth viz. that that truth which a man hath received without love to it by some sense of the sweetnesse of it in times of temptation he will quickly cast off A man will not care for that bread that doth not feed him nor will keep on those clothes in Winter time that do not warm him nor love that truth which doth not refresh him and consequently will be ready to cut down that barren baptisme under whose covert he hath so long lived but never tasted of the fruit
much degenerate and be defiled in their doctrine and government desperately corrupted with error and sinfull practices as the Jews before Christ commonly and most of all in Christs dayes after Christ the churches of Corinth Galatia the churches of Asia Rev. 2. and 3. c. yet till Christ remove the candlestick and come himself and unchurch them they still abide churches of Christ and are so to be acknowledged of all Fifthly such as the state of the church is such is the state of the Ministry of that church and administration and so long as the true church remains a true church so long the ministry remains a true ministry and all the divine institutions authenticall administrations and truly the Lords ordinances notwithstanding the mixture of humane devices with them making the commandments of God of none effect through their traditions To cleer all these in each particular by the light of divine revelation would require a larger discourse then I intend and not so difficult as tedious I doubt not but any truly judicious considering the state of churches in the old and new Testament will yeeld without any other travell what is here set down and that the church ministry and administrations stand and fall together To come then to the question I affirm that if there be true churches in England then there is a lawfull ministry there and true authenticall administrations But there are true churches there Ergo there is a lawfull ministry there and authenticall administration The Consequent is cleer because it is the true being of a church that giveth being to the truth of ministry and ordinances and not the ordinances that give being to a church Lot any company set up preaching and administer the Sacraments I so call them for discourse sake that will not make that company to be a church but because they are not a church therefore they are not Gods ordinances The antecedent that there are true churches in England I prove thus If the true visible state of Christs Church be to abide from his time unto the end of the world as it must Dan. 7. Luke 1.33 Mat. 16.16 18.18.20 28.19 20. 1 Cor. 11. Heb. 12.29 c. then it is in England and places of like consideration that it hath continued in some other places of the world But it hath not continued in any other places of the world it will be gratefull to all that desire truth if any man can shew where also in England and places of like consideration hath Christs visible church continued Again if there be no other churches in the world nor have bin for many hundred yeers but those that are infected with Papisme that is the dominion of the Pope and traditional doctrine or reformed churches and England amongst others then either the churches infected with Papisme are the true visible churches of Christ or the reformed But there are no other churches in the world nor have been for many hundred yeers but those that are infected with Papisme or the reformed Ergo the one or the other must be the true visible churches of Christ But notwithstanding those that are infected with Papisme few grant it as now they stand Ergo the reformed and England amongst others Further if Antichrist must fit in the Temple of God 2 Thes 2.4 and the courts of the Temple be given unto the Antichristian Gentiles for a certain time Rev. 11.1 to 15. to tread under foot then there was a true church-estate where he sate and whilest he sate there and the true measured Temple whose courts he treads under foot nor can there be Antichrist unlesse there be the Temple and courts thereof where he is And if Antichrist ever sate in England then there was the Temple of God there before he sate in it and whilest he sate in it as also in other reformed churches The Temple or church is the subject wherein hee must sit The Antichristian seat is not the subject nor constitutes it but is an accident vitiating the subject the removing thereof Antichristianity doth not destroy the subject or make it cease to be but changeth it into a better state I shall adde this If ever there were true churches constituted in England then they remain so still or God hath by some manifest act unchurched them unlesse therefore they that deny true ministry in England and baptisme there can and do prove that churches were never constituted there or make good some manifest act of God unchurching them sutable to such acts of his in Scriptures in the like cases and whereby wee may cleerly discern the like effects all that can be said to disprove the lawfulnesse of ministry there or to prove the unlawfulnesse of administrations there so far as they are prescribed in the word will not be available And yet I shall be content to speak a little farther of the church-estate and ministry in England And concerning churches it is to be considered that a companny become or are a church either by conversion and initiall constitution or by continuance of the same constituted churches successively by propagation of members who all are born in the church-state and under the covenant of God and belong unto the church and are a church successively so long as God shall continue his begun dispensation even as well and as fully as the first and though in respect of the numericall members they are not the same yet truly they are the same in kinde Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 Gal. 2.15 even as man continues the same in kind from the first man though not the same in number so the church-estate continued from Adams time till Abrahams in the world by succession of generations So the Jewes continued a church from Abrahams time till Christs Secondly the way to prove churches to have had true constitution is no way to be attained but either by Scriptures or humane testimony By Scriptures we may take notice of many churches planted in Judea Syria Galatia Achaia Macedonia c. and by name Rome Corinth Cenchrea Philip Coloss Thessal Ephes Smyrna c. of any other by name I know not That the Apostle preached from Jerusalem to Illyricum and that hee mentions his coming into Italy by Spain is evident but whether any churches were planted there or no divine records manifest not And as cleer it is that those churches mentioned in Scriptures are destroyed nor can wee by Scriptures prove the continuance of Christs visible Kingdome in the world for many hundred yeeres upward but in Rome which few will plead for to have any truth of church-estate and I see no need of proving any such thing in this case So that by Scripture testimony I know not where we may cast our eys to look upon any Church now or for many yeers past existent By humane testimony we may take notice of the Gospel preached in many places and amongst other in Britain by Apostolicall authority where the Word hath ever continued since
my self towards him I leave to him to manifest or to be revealed when all secrets shall be made known The issue was that he had nothing to say only for his better consideration he desired that I would pen down those arguments that had passed betwixt us on my part I willingly not suspecting such an event yeelded and in a piece of paper sent them unto him expecting that he would have attended a further conference with mee about the matter but having got my paper and transcribed it he communicated it to some that were contrary to my apprehension in these points and either himself or some other by his means sent them into England whether to this confuter or who else I know not but this I am certain it hath been thus divulged and not written with my own hand nor subscribed by my name so far as I can remember And concerning the Propositions themselves and arguments here exprest I cannot say that here is all I writ or that I wrote all that is here having not the writing I gave him nor a copy thereof that I can find with me only so far as I shall question any thing I will give notice thereof as I shall meet with it And having premised thus much I come to the Book and therein pasfing by the title page First to the Epistle prefixed and secondly to the Discourse it self Concerning the Epistle I observe these things First the means of Gods glory and mans happinesse Secondly the order how these means are o be improved and dispensed Thirdly the grounds of his writing this Book with the conclusion Touching the first the means of Gods glory and mans happinesse these things are noted first it is Religion secondly that mens care and study should be principally how they should exercise themselves in Religion that they may attain that end Thirdly that this Religion must be pure and true Religion otherwise men may not only misse the right end but effect a quite contrary Fourthly that this true Religion is only to be Gods appointment in his Word Lastly that the Word sets forth Christ the Mediator as principall and all other subordinate unto him for the attainment of the end Gods glory in mens happinesse from all which in the generall and according to that sense they seem to bear I see no reason to dissent Nor from the intimation of Satan and his ministers policy to corrupt true Religion and counterfeit a false Religion under pretence of the true to cousen cheat and deceive poor souls with chaffe instead of wheat c. It being a certain truth as the Scriptures and experience of all ages and of this wherein wee live do too wofully manifest And I wish him self were none of the number as heartily as I pray for my self From this Discourse hee deduceth nine Conclusions to which I can subscribe under these Considerations To the first taking Religion and pleasing of God in a strict and peculiar sense otherwise I do not see a ground of difference between sins and duties materially To the second and third the bond of obedience lieth upon all men who therefore are to be taught in the law that they may become dead to the law through the law and so glad to flie to Christ for righteousnesse and life To the fourth the word Commission added to the rest seemed to make all actions of Religion common to all as to preach baptize c. or to restrain acts of Religion to them in office only To the ninth If hee intend by these words no man ought to perform any act of Religion unlesse Christ be all in all in that action that therefore no man may or must pray c. be exhorted thereunto c. I agree not with him And so I come to the second thing in the Epistle The order how this Religion is to be wrought in mens hearts and this is set down thus First preaching the Gospel to convert men from sin to grace and then to baptize men converted professing their Faith and not before by which as the end of baptisme they may be distinguished as by a badge or livery to belong to the Church of Christ To this in a word I say thus much that there is a distinction to be made between a company to be converted and to be constituted and a Church now constituted in a company to be converted and to be constituted that which is said is true the Gospel must first be preached and by faith received and professed and then they are to be sealed and not before but in a Church now constituted the like is not required but the Churches are propagated by continuall succession till God out them off Thus was it with Abraham and his family the Gospel was preached to him and his he and his believed and were circumcised and after they did not believe before they were circumcised but were propagated and continued a Church till Christs time and so when the Gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles they were not to be baptized till they believed but believing they were joyned to the Church and then baptized and that Church continued by succession till God cut them off again But because this is the point in difference I shall spare farther speech till I come to reply unto the answer in the Book And touching the complaint is made again of Satan and his Ministers Policy and Malice to set up a false religion I joyn in it only I dare not account that to be any part of humane religion or of Satan the baptizing of Infants and I hope I shall prove it is no humane device for any thing wee cannot prove to be divine in the administrations in England I suppose our former practice and present state doth fully acquit us from giving our allowance therto but I shall have occasion to speak something likewise about this afterward And in a word concerning the occasions of his writing this Treatise he expresseth amongst others the miserable witchery and delusion of Satan which he had spoken of before and intends to wrap up my self and all other Gods servants and Saints in old England and here in new with all our way of religion and worship wherein we desire to glorifie the Lord To all which I shall spare to answer leaving any that desire satisfaction in the case as it concerns us here or them there to a Discourse I have written about that matter in justification of Infants baptisme with the calling of Ministers here and there and their adminstrations and leave him to the Lord who shall judge us all only I wish him to consider his own words that if it be without cause that hee thus traduceth and powres out his distaste against us he hurts himself more then hee doth us and will be found to kick against the pricks and it may be he shall not find it so easie a matter to answer all that hee hath here at randome written and in his Confutation
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
rest are hardened and take we heed that we increase not the number of them If in the whole body of Israel as well Infants as men of yeeres ¶ 3 were baptized and with the same spirituall baptisme that ours is then Infants are now to be baptized But in the whole body of Israel Infants were baptized with the same spirituall baptisme that ours is Ergo Infants are now to be baptized I mean Infants of believing parents and not any other 1. First that it was the same spirituall baptisme with ours is evident 1 Cor. 10.1 c. 1. The other ordinances there mentioned were the same spiritually with ours they eat the same spirituall meat and drank the same spirituall drink on Gods part dispensing and whosoever eat and drank unworthily not discerning the Lords body and blood were guilty on their part of his body and blood therefore they were baptized with the same spirituall baptisme with ours 2. Otherwise the Apostle should link things together in his argument that were not equall nor would it be of force with the Corinthians if they were not the same with ours spiritually nor the conclusion certain that they should be punished with the like punishment if they committed the like sins 2. Secondly it cannot be denied but those Infants were baptized with the same spirituall baptisme though they could not actually repent and believe for they were a part of all Israel nor had all men of yeers faith and repentance God baptized them all one as well as another though all obtained not the full benefit of it but only the elect If then Infants were baptized with the same spirituall baptisme signified and dispensed by those signes no reason can be given why Infants may not now be baptized with the same spirituall baptisme dispensed by other signes and here were have an example of Infants baptisme which some call for so much There is the same reason of the first fruits and the lump ¶ 4 of the root and branches but the first fruits and root believing parents are holy and must be baptized Ergo Infants the lump and branches are holy and must be baptized 1. The first is cleer from the Law of sanctifying the lump by offering the first fruits there is nothing more required and so Rom. 11.16 2. The second is cleer also from Rom. 11.16 where note 1. Abraham and the Father are the first fruits and root and so all believing parents 1 Cor. 7.14 c. Infants having no actuall unbeliefe could not be cut off with their parents 2. That Infants of believing parents are branches of that root and men of yeers no otherwise branches then as they were branches first when Infants 3. The branches then broken off are those men of yeers and Infants then rejected with all their posterity to this day 4. That all the Jewes were not rejected but some branches continued on and they men of yeeres with their Infants and were baptized that all those Jewes not broken off had no Infants is unlikely without question they had many that they were branches before their parents closing with the way of the new Testament cannot be denyed that they were broken off for actuall unbeliefe could not be that their parents continued on branches and the Infants broken off will never be proved but it is manifest that they continued branches of their parents or of the fathers with their parents and so were baptized else their parents condition should be worse under the state of grace administred in the new Testament then it was in the old and they should change from the better to the worse their children who before were branches of the root and now should be broken off their parents continuing still and should be in no better case then Infidels Infants and God who was their God before now should not be their God and before they were circumcised and that being abolished they are left destitute of all signes of Gods grace and may not be baptized O wofull change if so or rather a finfull charge upon Gods grace 5. When Jewes shall be ingraffed again as Infants with men of yeeres were broken off so Infants shall be again implanted with their converted parents else such branches should not be ingraffed as were broken off which is quite contrary to the Text and their case should be far worse then it was which to hold is to lay a stumbling block in the way of the Jewes to hinder them from closing with Christ 6. The Gentiles being implanted in stead of the Jewes broken off as they were Infants as well as men of yeers so Infants of Gentiles believing are ingraffed with their parents else such branches are not ingraffed as were broken off As then Jewes Infants while branches were by vertue thereof circumcised and such as continued when others were broken off were baptized So also must Infants of Gentiles be baptized which is in part to be made partakers of the fatnesse of the Olive Rom. 11.16 17. If baptisme succeeds circumcision ¶ 5 then as Infants were circumcised so now they must be baptized but baptisme succeeds circumcision Ergo. 1. That baptisme succeeds circumcision is cleere Col. 2.11 12. where the Apostle speaks of two circumcisions the one outward in the flesh made with hands the other inward in the heart made without hands And though they had not the outward which of old was the sign and means of the inward yet they needed it not because in Christ they were compleat and through him made partakers of the inward conveyed unto them by baptisme as the signe and seal thereof Again either baptisme succeeds circumcision or something else succeeds it or it hath nothing to succeed it But it hath something to succeed it as all other ordinances of the old Testament and nothing else can be shewne Ergo baptisme succeeds it Finally the thing signified in both is the same without alteration which is cleansing from sin by justification and sanctification Ergo the signe in the former being removed baptisme must needs succeed it in place as the sign of the same thing 2. Infants are therefore to be baptized as they were circumcised there being nothing more required now nor any thing that may hinder that Infants should be baptized then was required then or that might hinder that they should be then circumcised If then their outward circumcision the signe of the same spirituall circumcision with ours was applied to Infants then So outward baptisme the signe of the same spiritual circumcision with theirs may be applied to Infants now nor do I know of any objection that need trouble any judiciously godly For the two principall that we have no command for baptizing them now or any to be baptized but Disciples are fully taken away in this Discourse by the truth of it And though I account not of humane testimony without Scriptures of any authority to satisfie in divine matters yet added to the former it is not to be sleighted I shall
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
church-office is in the church it self Hereunto I adde these reasons First that which concerns all the church it is reason it should be done by all the church but to have this or that man an officer to administer concernes all the church Ergo it is reason it should be done by the church to choose him to office Secondly no adjunct in order of nature is before the subject nor is capable of receiving any thing but as it adheres to and so from the subject but ministry is the adjunct of the church and the church is the subject Ergo the ministery is not capable of any power but as it adheres to the church and so from it as the eye in the body c. Thirdly the Church is the Spouse of Christ and his body but a Presbyterie is not the Spouse not the body but a part of the Spouse or body Rom. 12.1 Cor. 12. Ergo the power is in the church primarily and not in the Presbyterie else the head should not derive power to the body at all and though the Presbyters qua Believers are a part of the body of Christ with the rest that make up the whole yet as Presbyters they are parts of Christ and not of the church the mouth and eyes of Christ and not of the church so they and the church as believers have no power but they derive it immediately from Christ which I cannot see how it may be made good Fourthly if the church hath power to refuse a man and to put him out then shee hath power to choose and put him in but the first is true else shee sins not in suffering false teachers nor can shee decline a vitious Elder or shut her self of him invito vel non curante presbyterio Fifthly there is no power that any can have from heaven ordinarily but by some transaction between God and them but there is no such transaction between God and the Presbyterie primarily the covenant is not made with them but with the church Rom. 9. v. 4. Ephes 2.12 13.19.20 Ergo the power is hers primarily and as the first subject of it from Christ Sixthly if the church and not the Presbyterie be the kingly nation royall priesthood and Kings and Priests unto God then the power belongs to the church and not to the Presbyterie but the church is the kingly nation c. and not the Presbyterie Ergo the power belongs to the church and not to the Presbyterie The Antecedent is true Exod. 19.1 Pet. 2.5 Rev. 7.6 and that as a church The Consequent is evident Because c. they should be titular things only and have a naked name only without power and they that are not Kings and Priests c. as the Presbyterie qua tales they should have the power Last of all if the words Go tell the Church be meant not of the presbyterie only but of the church of Saints the whole body consisting of flock and Elders then the power belongs not to the Presbyterie but to the whole But the words Go tell the church are not meant of a Presbyterie but of the whole consisting of flock and Elders Ergo the power belongs to the church as totum and not to the Presbyterie distinguished from the church All this is manifest from the use of the word church which in the new Testament is no where used for the Presbyterie alone but sometimes for the members alone without or distinct from Presbyterie as Acts 14.23 and 15.4.22 1 Cor. 12.28 frequently for the whole flock and Elders together Junius c. Some I confesse alledge those places Acts 14.27 and 18.22 to prove the word church to mean Presbyterie and the reason they give is this That it is not probable that the Apostle there saluted all the church or gathered all the church together but rather the Presbyterie But there is no force in this reason for it is like will I say that he gathered the whole church and saluted the whole church and might do it well enough without any inconvenience yea and the Text saith he did and therefore it is more then likely even a most certain truth The places therefore will not prove that the word church doth mean Presbyterie nor argue that Go tell the church is tell the Presbyterie Secondly from the relation of the party offending which is to the church and not to the Presbyterie for their fellowship is with the church as church the covenant and brotherhood is with them and therefore though the Presbyterie orderly exerciseth the power yet it is in ordine ad Ecclesiam there is no particular relation between the party and Presbyterie as may advantage the Presbyterie to exercise such an act of power over the party no more then they may administer the Sacraments to a private person but to him as a church member and with the whole church Thirdly the Presbyterie consisting of three or four Elders are ofsended by a brother bound up in fellowship with an hundred private brethren now the Presbyterie admonishing they can go no further if they be the church and the brother not hearing the Presbyterie is to be accounted as a Publican and Heathen though not one of the hundred know of it and so if a private brother offend and bring it to the Prebytery Fourthly the Presbytery may be the party offending and then you must tell the Church that the Church offendeth that is go tell themselves If you say I may tell the Classis I answer Take for granted there is such an ordinance yet I will suppose they may take in with the offending Presbytery and I must stay at a generall Councell if it may be had which is not free from errour neither And I shall as willingly stay at a Church of Saints unlesse I see more convincing grounds to enforce the institution of them as divine appointments And if a Church offend there is another course to be taken this rule will not reach here Fifthly if by Goe tell the Church bee meant the Presbytery then there being but two or three of the Presbytery a brother offended cannot take one or two of them for witnesses because then he should tell the Church before the turn come and could make no further proceeding But a brother offended may take one or two Presbyters for witnesses Ergo Presbytery cannot be the Church And if it cannot be taken for a Presbytery much lesse for a Classis Synod Councell Nor doe I observe any of Christs Apostles in any directions given by them to Timothy Titus or any Churches or people or Christ himself in his Epistles to the seven Churches of Asia speak one word of going to a Classis or Provinciall Synod and Church and which certainly they would have done if there had been such an institution Again Christ would have blamed the Classis or Presbyteriall Church and not every particular Angel and the particular church to which he belonged And I verily think hee would have spoken some word