following which he sets forth to be between those two states agree to also they being not substantiall but accidentall differences yet so as they are not to be distinctly limited to one time in respect of the substance and things themselves and the effects thereof for all that he saith belongs to the new Testament were communicated unto many of them under the Old as Moses Aaron and all the elect of God and none of them are made good to many in the New But on the contrary all that is spoken by him of the Old may bee verified of men in the New as experience witnesseth the Scriptures affirm Gal. 4.29 The fault why all did not enjoy all these priviledges in the new Testament dispensed under shadowes in the Old being in themselves 2 Cor. 3.13.14 Heb. 3.7.8.22.4.2 8.8 and many now deprive themselves of these priviledges Heb. 4.1 and attaine to no more then they in the Old to establish their owne righteousnesse onely Rom. 10.3 And therefore as none are to be admitted to the priviledges of the new Testament or Gospel now but such as are sutable though many prove otherwise So none ought to have been admitted nor were in the Old Testament the same Gospel preached unto them and the new Testament shadowed under the old to enjoy the priviledges of the Old shadowing the priviledges of the New but such as were sutable even such as are required in the New though few of them proved such with this difference they were to beleeve in Christ to come to whom the Law and shadowes directed them we are to beleeve in Christ already come to whom the Ordinances doe direct us And therefore what he further repeateth having said the same all before that whosoever circumcised themselves and their Males and observed the Rites of the Law they and their children though Proselytes were the seed fleshly seed too for so he saith all this time and in that covenant and of that Church But now onely such as beleeve in Christ and be thereby regenerated are the seed and in this covenant and of the Church might well have been spared and have been answered before yet seeing hee addeth six other reasons to prove this latter clearly proving as he saith I shall bee willing to follow him And he saith First beleevers regenerate onely are in this Covenant and of this Church because none of the naturall seed of Abraham are in this Covenant by vertue of naturall relation though they remained in the Jewish Churches till Christs death But their being in the Churches by naturall relation then ceased as the Church ceased I reply First I have shewed that their standing in that Covenant and Church was not by fleshly relation but by spirituall who were counted for the seed Rom. 9.8 2dly Those few that were added to the Gospel Church were not cut off as the rest but remained naturall branches still in their owne Olive tree and what naturall relation they had they put not off and when the rest be added the Apostle saith the naturall branches shall bee ingraffed into their own stock For if the root be holy the branches will be so too Rom. 11.16 17.24 3dly The Scriptures by him quoted prove not the thing he alledgeth them for Acts 10.28 Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.7 9 28 29. 4.28 His second Reason The Gentiles have no naturall relation to become his seed by and therefore their infants cannot become the seed of Abraham by being the seed of a beleever but must beleeve themselves otherwise they cannot be partakers in the Covenant made with Abraham Reply First there needs no such relation naturall nor were the Jewes as naturall seed onely without faith counted for the seed Rom. 9.8 Secondly the Gentiles Proselytes need not that naturall relation before to be in the covenant then but were ingraffed into the body by faith and therby their Infants Thirdly all now are not children of promise but many alwayes are deceivers and deceived as many then but not all only this may be noted that he yeeldeth that Believers now are partakers of the covenant of Abraham and therefore that then and now is the same And yet in the next and his third Reason hee denies the covenant under Christ to be the same with that which was made with Abraham because the three thousand converts Acts 2. when they were baptized did not baptize their Infants this he saith is plain Acts 2.41 and 8.12 where it is they that gladly received the Word were baptized they and they only which the Infants could not do Reply In the old Testament they that submitted themselves to the Jewish covenant and would take their God to be theirs were circumcised but Infants could not do that yet they were circumcised Secondly it is not said they were baptized and then it is not a perfect relation Reply It followeth not for all is not written that was done they might be baptized though it is not said they were For were not Christs Apostles baptized yet it is not written where when or who baptized them it is no argument to say it was not done because it is not set down but take it for granted their Infants were not baptized then which yet I will not grant for some considerations I shall afterward set down in another place doth this difference make that the covenant with Abraham and now is not the same It is not the same in this respect as all can be concluded which is but a circumstantiall difference The fourth Reason followeth if Paul and others writing to the visible Churches calls them Saints faithfull Brethren the Sons of God by adoption Rom. 16 c. and the Prophets notwithstanding they were led by the same Spirit were wont to speake otherwise of the visible Church of the Jewes as Isa 1.16 Jer. 1.2 Ezek. 3.4.4.12 Chap. 16.48.51 then naturall Infants were not in the covenant and of the Churches which the Apostles wrote unto as they were in that covenant and of that Church the Prophets spake to But Paul calls them Saints and the Prophets the other sinners yea grievous sinners and bids them wash themselves c. therefore naturall Infants were not in the Churches which the Apostle wrote unto as they were in the Jewes Reply I deny the consequence in the Reason as no way following and the proofe of it as invalid For as the Apostles do call the Churches Saints c. and the Prophets the Jewes sinners in the places alledged yet in other places the Scriptures call those sinners Saints Believers Brethren adopted c. as in many places may be made evident one or two may be enough Exod. 19.6 A kingdome of Priests a holy nation Deut. 33.2 3. Psal 22.22 and 122.8 Rom. 9.3 4. c. And the Apostle 2 Thes 2. calls them sinners carnall bids them repent c. to whom they wrote unto as Saints as Galat. Corinth where were many grosse things and sinfully amisse and most of the
and let believing Gentiles be counted branches yet Infants then were some of the branches when they were in the Olive or root and so were branches cut off when their parents were cut off as long as the parents stood branches so long the Infants were branches nor were any parents branches but from that state they had when Infants Gentiles Infants therefore are branches with their believing parents and stand in the same state with them Secondly wee know that the Scriptures do not so appropriate the words root and first fruits as not to apply them to others besides the particulars Jerem. 11.16 God called the Church there an Olive and the people branches so she is called a Vine Isa 5 c. So others are called first fruits as 1 Cor. 16.15 Rev. 14.4 c. And if parents had no relation to children nor Infants to parents in this respect how could Infants being branches with their parents to Abraham the root be cut off with their parents seeing they could not be cut off for their own unbeliefe and their relation to Abraham was intire in respect of any thing on their part to the contrary This place therefore is not abused in the application of it but fully concludeth what I brought it for Next hee considereth 1 Cor. 7.14 which hee saith neither suppresseth roots nor first fruits nor hath it any such meaning as that the holinesse of the parent should cause a holinesse in their Infant In a word I reply root and first fruits are not expressed but necessarily implyed and so much is expressed as amounts to that For if the children be holy upon their parents believing and if the parents did not believe the children should not be holy it is as much as if he had said the root is holy and the branches are holy not in the parents believing any cause of their childrens holinesse but Gods free grace But not to strive about words in the view of the place it self before he comes to expresse his Reasons negative and affirmative he conceives it necessary to observe what I say which hee thus sets down I suppose it is mistaken when expounded of the same holinesse spoken of before of an Infidel person sanctified to a believing yoke-fellow And the Apostle speaking of a two-fold holinesse the one not in the thing it self but to another use the other of the thing it self it cannot but be sinfull to confound them Hee answereth he◠will not contend nor gain-say any thing of this Reply Herein he makes himself an Adversary to some of his judgment in this case of Baptisme who maintain that state of holiness to be meant in the children that was in the parent that is holy to the believers use Further he saith I say the Apostle saith two things that to the pure all things are pure Ergo a believing person may dwell with an Infidell yoke-fellow Secondly that by vertue of a believers state in grace all the fruit is holy and partakers of the same state in grace unlesse they do by some act of theirs deprive themselves of it as Esau and Ishmael c. In answer to this he grants the former but denies the latter wholly and that it is not the purpose of Paul so to speak and therefore he gives divers reasons First ¶ 1 the Apostle intends such a holinesse in the Infants as is inseparable from their very being or else it would not have been a sufficient proof of the sanctification of the unbelieving unto the believer Reply I deny that the Apostle intends to conclude such a holinesse as is inseparable to their very being for then it would be common to all Infants whereas this is appropriate to an Infant of at least one believer In a word there is a two-fold holinesse of a person one is externall and is the separation of him from common state to be the Lords and bound up in covenant with him which is foederall holinesse The other is internall and is the speciall separation of a man from the state of sin by inherent sanctificaon from justification in Christ which is inseparable from them that have it The other is separable as in the case of Jewes who by this were called a holy people when yet they were not really sanctified by inherent grace and the holy city called an Harlot and of this in his place which fully will prove what the Apostle intends as wee shall see afterward His second Reason follows which is this ¶ 2 If by a believers state in grace be meant the covenant that Abraham and all believers do possesse by faith then he saith first Ishmael Esau c. were never of it Rom. 9.8 and therefore could not by any act of theirs deprive themselves of it Reply First by the state of grace is meant that covenant that Abraham and all believers do possesse by faith Secondly I say Ishmael Esau c. were of that covenant dispensed on Gods part unto them and to be received on their part by faith at present or afterward And if Ishmael and Esau were not so in that covenant as well as Isaac and Jacob then how could they be circumcised with the seal of the righteousnesse of faith they had the same seal set unto them that Abraham Isaac and Jacob had and if it were not the same covenant then Abraham Isaac and Jacob were in one covenant and sealed to that and Ishmael and Esau and the like were in another covenant and sealed to that with the same seal that the others were sealed to the other Further whether or no shall Ishmael Esau c. be judged according to that covenant of Abraham and punished for refusing it if so as it is certain then they were under that covenant though they injoyed not the benefit of it which is the meaning of Rom. 9.8 and deprived themselves of it by hardening their hearts and had a spirit of slumber inflicted upon them as a just punishment of that their refusing Rom. 11.7 Secondly he saith that if Ishmael and Esau were deprived by some act of theirs then we must fall upon Arminius tenet of falling from grace which all understanding Christians do utterly abhor Reply First it is well known that many holding with the Consuter in this point of paedobaptisme do maintain that a man truly elected and in state of salvation may and do fall away and perish if he dissents in this I will not blame him 2ly What understanding Christian did ever deny that some men fall from grace and are there not many Scriptures that do testifie as much Christians do deny that any elect of God and made partakers of saving calling can fall away from that estate they thereby are made partakers of But there is another state of grace whereof many non-elected are partakers of by the covenant on Gods part dispensed and of many effects of Gods operation in their hearts some more some lesse and from this all of them may many of them do fall
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
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
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
of Councell in one or other that they should have gathered a Synod or some of each Churches Presbyteries at least to have met about it and to have taken some course to rectifie things if hee knew there were or ought to be such a constitution or ordinance binding all ages And he had left them without advice in seeking some help without their own limits and bounds within which he terminates all his instructions and counsels upon these considerations I conceive it is not a well grounded apprehension nor to be made good by force of argument that every one of these seven Churches were Classicall or Synodall churches that is many churches in a consociation and the Angel in each to mean a company of Presbyters belonging to all those churches as the particular Elders of each but here attended as a Classis or collection of all the Presbyters of each church and that the seven Angels should be seven Classes or Synodall Presbyteriall assemblies notwithstanding I conceive there may bee good and necessary use of such assemblies in a way of prudence and brotherly helpfulnesse Thus of the power of applying to whom it belongeth a little now of the way of applying of this calling to a man which is done by these particular acts First by triall consisting in a right understanding of Christs rule and applying it to such a man as they shall discern the rule to fit to and herein though the help of Presbyters as better gifted be especially usefull yet not excluding the people as if their part in triall were nothing whereas they must try all things 1 Thess 5. the spirits 1 John 4. are able to discerne the voyce of Christ from a stranger Joh. 10. and prove the verity of Pauls teaching by the Scriptures Acts 17.2 ly the party thus tried is propounded and presented to the church or multitude who by their suffrages do consent to chuse and set apart that man for that office And that this belongeth to the people none that I know will deny And upon the peoples manisestation of themselves if he shall accept it and yeeld himself up for that office to which they have set him apart I count this the chiefe part and most essentiall of a Ministeriall calling and true though there should be no more Thirdly ordination by imposition of hands upon the head of the elect party which was practised sometimes by the Apostles Acts 6. and by the Presbytery in Timothies calling 1 Tim. 4. Yet to cleare this a little further two things may be cleared First of the necessitie of this ceremony which some hold must be or else no calling and that it alone giveth the essence of calling to a man But I doe not think it is so necessary or of such consequence first because it was not used by Christ in ordaining his Apostles nor instituted by him for ordaining others That Christ imposed his hands upon many infirm and commanded his Apostles to lay their hands upon the sick for their recovery is cleare Matth. 9. Mark 5.6 7 8 16. Luke 4.13 but we never read that Christ commanded imposition of hands to ordain an officer In this case we read that it was also sometimes used 1 Tim. 5. Acts 6. 1 Tim. 4. and not any where else that I know of for Acts 13. is of a diverse consideration There are but two places therefore that speake to this case neither of which proves an institution they laid their hands upon many sick and upon others to conferre the holy Ghost but these prove no institution in these things Our Saviour breathed upon the Apostles and they received the holy Ghost but he made not that an institution Secondly Divines judge it a thing indifferent and therefore not essentiall as Polanus Tilenus that the act of triall and chusing is much greater then the laying on of hands Calvin Instit lib. cap. 3. sect 16. yet I count it a comely and convenient rite and not to be neglected where it may be had in Gods way nor doe they that hold it necessary so maintain it but that in some cases it may bee wanting and yet the calling lawfull which I judge disputable A second question is to whom it belongeth to impose hands I answer to a Presbytery if it may be had but that the want of it maketh the calling invalid I see nothing to conclude for then no calling to the Ministry can be cleared from that time that one being chosen out of the rest of the Presbytery and called peculiarly Episcopus and performing this action alone afterward usurped by the Hierarchy but all these Ministries must be null and there should be no true Ministry in the world and how can now any at this day have power legitimate to doe this first and being done by such as were no Presbyters or Antichristian Idols how can the act and acts of any following Presbytery be comfortably cleared In a word I think that as in the presentment of the Levits at first to the Lord Numb 8.9 10. all the Congregation was gathered together and laid their hands on the Levits it was the act of the whole company yet performed 〈◊〉 them and in their stead by some of them not the Elders they were too few but by the first born in whose stead they were given up to God So it may bee now in the like case there being no Presbytery the people chusing one for Office according to rule this rite may be at first performed by some chief in stead of the rest And if it be not practised at the first I see no such danger the rest concurring As in their return from Babylon after the 70 yeares captivity things were not so exact as at first institution yea five speciall things were alwayes wanting from that time in the second Temple that had been in the first But I cannot prove may some say all these nor the first two which I hold to be of the essence of Ministeriall calling in reference to the Ministry in England I answer First things are done either explicitly and in expresse termes or implicitly and by a tacite and virtuall consent Secondly every company meeting in one place for worship successively from the first constitution remained a true Church though much corrupted and still so much purer as they did or doe reform themselves in their standing and worship according to the word of Christ Thirdly the calling of Ministry in each church though greatly corrupted is essentially a true calling as the church is essentially a true church consisting of Saints foederally though they be not such Saints as they should bee Fourthly the maner of calling is not the Bishops ordination c. that makes it not a calling but marres the goodnesse of it addes nothing unto it but derogates from the purity of it But the people receiving a man sent unto them in a corrupt way and joyning with him to worship God though here also with much corruption and not exercising their power in refusing him though they doe not explicitly exercise their power in chusing they do implicitly chuse him I say by these three acts of receiving joyning with and not refusing they doe virtually and really give him all the just calling that he hath which is a true Ministeriall calling and so all the ordinances administred by him there which God hath prescribed as baptisme amongst others notwithstanding humane additions corrupting the purity of any of them are really Gods ordinances and of divine authority and validity As of old Jer. 5.30 31. There is a horrible thing committed in the Land the Prophets prophesie falshoods the Priests beare rule by their means and my people love to have it so Yet this did not make them no Church or take away the lawfulnesse of Ministry or nullifie their just administrations so in this case I judge the same and therewith conclude this Discourse FINIS
of it never felt the comfort of the shadow of it and assuredly what ever reasons men pretend against baptizing of Infants this is generally the root of those evills they never felt the benefit of it they never received this truth in love and for this cause God sends strong delusions about it 2 Thes 2.10 11. And it 's Calvins observation concerning the Libertines and Anabaptists in his time the Lord saith he never suffered a wicked man to fall into a strong delusion but because he did not love the truth at all nor leaves a godly man in a delusion for a time but because hee did not love the truth enough Some have therefore thought the best way to stop the spreading of Anabaptisme was for some holy and able men to leave the controversall part and more plainly cleerly and positively to set out the nature and use of baptisme and what benefits a Christian may reap thereby and how he may suck out the milk and honey from this Rock and then hee that once tastes the good of it beholds the infinite riches of Gods grace therein will not be easily perswaded to cast away that which he feels of such daily use and precious vertue to him Thirdly in regard of the unsetlednesse and ungroundednesse of so many godly Christians partly through the want of setled and able Ministers among them partly through a carelesnesse of spirit in taking truths upon trust of other mens judgements only not labouring to be grounded in them themselves and hence when they are strongly assaulted by Familists Anabaptists Antipsalmists c. they fall down heaps upon heaps and most miserably wounded because they want armour and weapons strong grounds and cleere principles from Scripture to defend themselves and therefore it was the ancient complaint of zealous Gildas that the Arrian heresie and other poisonfull opinions like so many poisonfull Serpents infected the ancient Britains because they were a people alwayes desirous of novelties and stablished in nothing and therefore let the Reader make much of such books and of this in speciall whereby the judgement may be convinced and the heart established in the blessed truth of Christ try all things herein and weigh them in the ballance of the Word what thou findest to be of weight receive in love and remember to take heed of rejecting that if some things herein should want some grains and seem too light do thus for the truths sake and so imbrace this truth in these divided times for peace sake that they that have one God and one and the same Jesus may have one faith and one and the same heart as in other so in speciall in this point and not set the whole house on fire to roast their own Egs and that this may be let sober minded men attend but unto these generall rules 1. First remember the blessed Apostles Golden rule of peace Phil. 3.8.9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. Let every Christian make it his chiefest studie his greatest businesse to prize Jesus Christ to be found in him to know him and the power of his death and resurrection to presse toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus here is work for you saith Paul sufficient to take up all your life-time and thoughts all your life long let us therefore saith hee as many as be perfect i. that think our selves most perfect and exact Christians knowing more then all others be thus minded and then if in any thing you be otherwise minded and differ one from another God will reveal the truth unto you On that God would give those that are most zealous against Paedo-baptisme to consider of this rule How usefull is it for many to trouble themselves and the churches with these conceits who if well catechized would be found extremely ignorant and ungrounded in the most necessary matters about their union and spirituall communion with Jesus Christ and if they were well busied in matters of that heavenly nature they would have little desire to spend their time and thoughts about lesse weighty and more doubtfull points 2. Secondly labour for holinesse of mind and a mean esteem of your gifts parts knowledge wisdome c. The Apostle doth beseech the Philippians if any consolation in Christ if any comfort of love if any fellowship of the Spirit that they would be like minded Phil. 2.1 2. and the means to this he sets down vers 3. In lowlinesse of mind let each man esteem of others better then themselves You that contend against Paedo-baptisme think thus viz. that as you are to prize Christ so every truth of Christ and you are perswaded in your consciences that you have herein the truth on your sides otherwise you would not strive for it and that though many nay most godly men have been and are otherwise minded yet you think they are but men and therefore may be deceived I answer 't is very true they are men and I had thought you had been so too and therefore may not you be deceived Is not lowlinesse of mind of use now to think how foolish thou art and apt to be deceived and to esteem of others very godly better then thy self didst never see the folly of thine own counsels hadst never experience how blind thou hast been many times not able to see things before thy very feet Did the Lord never acquaint thee with thy extreme ignorance and uncapablenesse of spirituall mysteries even about such as none question or doubt of and maist not thou be wofully deluded and blinded about that thy opinion with so many as much acquainted with God as thy self yet dare not but question and do fully condemn hast not felt thy heart naturally disliking truth and imbracing errour and through the hollownesse of it returning many ecchoes to one false noise Feare therefore thine own weaknesse deny thy own wisdome think meanly of thy self and this difference will soon cease Little threads may be easily tied together you can hardly do so with cables ends they are too big to fasten be little in thine own eyes and thou wilt soon cease contending about these points 3. Thirdly observe the fruit of this opinion for by the fruits not of false teachers lives for they are in sheeps clothing but of their false doctrines yee shall know them Mat. 7.6 First it leads men to destroy the extent of Gods free grace in that everlasting covenant he hath made with Abraham and all his seed Jewes and Gentiles to be a God to him and his seed and hence come those audacious cries of a carnall covenant God made with Abraham and not Evangelicall nor a covenant of grace and is it nothing to destroy Gods grace Is it not a crying sin to refuse God to be thy God and is it no sin to refuse his promise of being the God also of thy seed which but that I dispute not now is as much Evangelicall as the first branch is if the
put out against me before that Judge as he seems to be bold in troubling the world with it And so passing the Epistle I come to the Book it self wherein I shall endeavour by Gods good help to justifie what he takes upon him to confute and follow him step by step accordingly as he goeth along letting passe his Preamble only I can say hee speaks not truth in saying a Writing written by Georg. Phil. came to his hand and subscribed by him as Pastor of Watertown when as I writ it not and what I writ was not subscribed by me at all and therefore let him that sent it and himself take it betwixt them and see whether they may not justly repent of so speaking But to proceed hee sets down some Propositions which it seems that Writing expressed for the clearing of the Arguments To the first and second wherof hee saith nothing and therefore according to the second yeelds that though there be no expresse literall commands for Infants baptisme in the Scriptures nor example yet if by just consequence from thence it can be proved and cleered that is as sufficient as if it were literally commanded To the third Proposition about the tender of happinesse to man two wayes dispensed First to the first Adam and all man-kind by the law and works the other to the second Adam and all the elect in him which being one eternall covenant from the first promulgation for ever in substance yet varied by divers circumstances in a fourfold period manifested first from Adam to Abraham called the Promise secondly from Abraham to Moses in a visible outward covenant thirdly from Moses to Christ called the old Testament the fourth from Christ to the end called the new Testament To this I say hee hath divers exceptions and of such weight in his apprehension that he is not able to forbeare my person and calling as that I am not worthy the name of a Pastor and it doth very ill agree to mee as the doctrine delivered in this Proposition doth declare being not wholesome food but a barren wildernesse or rather hurtfull effecting nothing but noysome diseases and tending to death In answer whereunto in a word I freely acknowledge my self not worthy the name of a Pastor and that it very ill agrees to mee and many reasons there are which force me so to acknowledge though the censure of this Confuter makes me not think so at all nor the doctrine there delivered by me which is good and wholesome whatsoever hee saith to the contrary if that be wholesome that is contained in Gods sacred Scriptures as I shall cleer by and by But let all take notice of this that for a man to leave his cause and fall upon mens persons or callings it is an argument of a bad cause or a corrupted heart or both for I suppose hee will not challenge universall authority and who made him a Judge over me in regard of his own private I confesse he hath liberty to judge of what I say or any other and if I had written to him he might rightly have answered nor should I have taken it ill if hee had written to me about them I think I should have taken it well but the man will be a Judge over me and that without as much as a word of intination that I had offended him first but hee saith hee must have leave to tell me so As concerning his exceptions they are so weak and of no value as he must give me leave to tell you all that the name of a wise and reasonable man doth not or very ill agree to him and be your selves Judges For first he put an if If I limit reprobates from the tender of happinesse made to the second Adam and all the elect in him hee conceives I erre because they could not then be said to refuse the call of God c. but if I did not so limit it what then will he confesse he did ill to blot the paper with such needlesse suppositions Or that he wanted charity to think that I never read those Scriptures by him alledged and many others as also that of Heb. 3. 4.2 To the second exception against the third period when I said that a vail of shadowes were drawn over the Covenant he saith it was not a vail simply but because Christ contained under them was not understood by the Jewes which rested in the deed done To which I answer that I did not say a vail simply but it was a vail and so the Scriptures Col. 2.16 Hebr. 9.1.8 c. Ezr. 10.1 2 Cor. 3.13 c. where the Apostle speaks of a double vail one upon Moses face signifying the obscurity of the ministerie which in the ministery of the new Testament is done away another upon their hearts which remaineth unto this day upon them and upon too many other but that shall be taken away when they turn to the Lord so that it was a vail and a vail simply so that he might well have spared those two and not said hee had many there remaining but two which are not many To the third exception and fourth whereas I said that the Scriptures speaking of the old Testament of the abolishing of the old Testament are to be understood of that dispensation from Moses time to Christs and the opposition made in the Scriptures between the old and new is of those two times from Moses to Christ and from Christ afterwards and not of the former hee sees no reason why I should so conclude I confesse so great is our sinfull nature we think that to be good reason that is not so and judge not that reason that is but I may see a reason why I so conclude though he sees it not and if I thought he would see it I should set it down but if he will not yet some may for their sakes therefore this is the reason yea more then reason why I so conclude First the Scriptures mention two an old and new Testament Secondly the Scriptures expresse the old to be that from Moses to Christ and the new that from Christ and after as I hope any will see cleerly by viewing these places Exod. 24.4.8 Heb. 9.15 to 24. Jer. 31.31 c. Heb. 8.6.8 to the end Heb. 12.18 to the end 2 Cor. 3.16 c. and the whole course of the Apostles dispute in removing the Law Tabernacle Service Priesthood c. which hee calls the old and establishing Christ and the true Tabernacle and limiting his whole discourse to these two cleers it to me beyond exception and this is the reason grounded upon these Scriptures and other considerations why I said as I did He further saith that the two first periods are the old Testament as well as that of Moses time till Christ and first because they offered sacrifices till Abraham and then they circumcised till Moses and secondly because those sacrifices before Moses time and circumcision then used are abolished
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
but when they sinned they were punished Ergo ordinances will not secure you ever Reply The drift of the Apostle is to deterre them from Idolatry and other sins lest they be punished as their fathers were If they object and say though they were punished yet wee may hope for more grace because he hath given us two sacraments Baptisme and the Lords Supper and thereby hath given us to have the Son on us and in us as pledges of his love and favour the Apostle taketh away this pretence by telling them they can promise to themselves no more security herein then they might promise unto themselves because they had the same signs of Gods favour spiritually the same Sacraments by other signs dispensed but the same Christ and therefore you can be no more secure then they might be and that these miraculous works were set apart by Gods appointment to be sacramentall signes to them of the same thing that water bread and wine are now to us an evident because First the Apostles argument should not be of things equall and so not of force to convince the conscience of the Corinthians Secondly there were other works of God that held proportion with these as their passing through Jordan their eating Quails c. but the like is not said of them by the Apostle nor can be said of any man Thirdly these works of God cannot of themselves signifie Christ but were only as all such works of providence of that nature are demonstrations of Gods power presence and goodnesse to the people but cannot of themselves signifie such a thing but by some cleer appointment no more then bread and wine could signifie now the body and blood of Christ if they were not set apart for that purpose by and according to an institution Fourthly in going through the Sea eating Manna drinking of the rock they could not put on eat or drink Christ as they were naturall things having no such vertue in them either to signifie or convey him unto them of themselves neither was Christ bodily applied unto them as therefore it must be sacramentally as now in these signes we have If any shall object and say first the Israelites understood no such thing secondly they did not all eat drink and put on Christ I answer First that all did not understand it is like nor now do all understand the mysteries of salvation now but they ought to have understood them as we ought now Moses Aaron and all truly regenerate did understand as it is now now do the understanding or not understanding of the things of God then and now alter the nature of them but so they are of themselves as Gods appointment makes them whatsoever mens understandings are Secondly they did not all eat c. I answer they did all eat and put on Christ sacramentally and some of them sacramentally and really and now all do not put on Christ eat and drink him really but only sacramentally yet some did both and the rest then did and now do make themselves guilty of the death of Christ in unworthy receiving and did and shall bear their judgement But to come to the Confuter having shewed what the scope of the Apostle was hee next sheweth what it was not and that saith he is this the Apostle intends not to shew that the Corinthians should administer the Sacraments to themselves and their Infants though they do not believe in Christ because then God did exercise such miracles to the Israelites which did not believe which saith hee is the sequele of my argument Rep. First he maketh of my argument what he pleaseth before he said this was the sequele that we may baptize Infants now without Gods command as God by his providence baptized Infants then Secondly the Apostles purpose is not at all to prove who are to be baptized men or Infants believers or unbelievers nor did I say a word that way and therefore he shewes himself to have but a little understanding in him to say that is the sequele of my argument I brought it not to prove that the Corinthians might baptize themselves and their Infants though they did not believe but that the Corinths and all Gods people may baptize their Infants if they and wee whose Infants they are be Gods people and the Antecedent from whence he would make the sequele is untrue which is thus because God did exercise such miracles to the Israelites who did not believe For First he saith they were miracles which is true considered as bare acts of God but they were not only miracles they were sacramental ordinances also as is evident by the Text and what I said before Secondly hee saith they did not believe whereas the Scripture saith With many of them God was not well pleased some therefore did believe yea the whole body were Gods people and therefore were not unbelievers in a proper sense though they did not so believe as they ought and Psal 106.12 They believed his Word and sang his praises yea those they presently are said they forgat his works and waited not for his counsell But it seems he little regarded what he said for he said any thing let all now consider that my consequence was this That vifible believers may now baptize their Infants with these signes of spirituall baptisme and following from this Antecedent because believing Israelites Infants were baptized with those signes of the same spirituall baptisme yet he goeth about to prove that that he said was the sequele of my Argument from my proofs added the first whereof is this the other ordinances there mentioned are the same spiritually with ours Ergo this of baptisme was the same spiritually with ours this I said because the Apostle doth not admit spiritually the same with ours as he said of the other my proof is of this that that baptizing and ours is the same spiritually and not of this that the Corinths may baptize themselves and theirs though neither do believe and therefore this was not my sequele that he saith but it may be his answers will make it good And First he saith that by consequence belike the Corinths must baptize themselves and their Infants though neither of them do believe because God did baptize them with the same spirituall baptisme that ours is though they did not believe the which thus laid open he hopes I will not affirm Reply This is the same with the former and therefore is answered fully that the Corinths did believe that the Israelites did believe and doth this sense convince that to be my sequele which he said by my proof I hope all will see that I might justly say the believing Corinths might baptize their Infants because the Israelites baptized theirs with the same spirituall baptisme that ours is and shall hold it still for any thing hee saith to the contrary yet not trusting to this he gives another answer Secondly saith he you erre in calling there the other ordinances whereas they are
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
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