Reply.

VVHat is here premised to prevent all mistakes, doth seem more to raise then to abate scruples if we mistake not your meaning. You refuse not all religious communion with all that are not Church members, and so much they professe, who formerly have gone for, and professed themselves Sepa­ratists from our Assemblies. You do not appropriate this priviledge of the Seals one­ly to the members of your own Churches, excluding all other Churches of Christ from the same; If your meaning be onely this, that you deny not the Sacraments administred in other Churches to be the true Sacraments of Christ for substance, then you ascribe little more to the Churches of Christ in this, then to the Synagogue of Satan, the Church of Rome. For you will not deny Baptisme administred a­mong them to be true for substance: If you deny not to have fellowship with them in the Scals, and to admit them to the Sacrament, and to communicate with them: then either your judgment is contrary to your practice, or you exclude the Chur­ches of England from the number of true visible Churches of Christ, which is to de­stroy what you formerly builded, and here professe. All possible care to keep the Ordinances of God from contempt, we allow and commend, provided you go not beyond the Lords warrant, and deny not the priviledges of the Church to them, to whom they are due by divine appointment, nor the name and title of Church to those societies, which God hath plentifully blessed with means of grace, have recei­ved the Tables and Seals, and have entred into Covenant with his Highnesse. Your [Page 18] liberty to receive such satisfaction as is meet, is not called into question, nor whe­ther you are to keep the bond of the Spirit inviolate according to order. But whe­ther this be to keep the bond of the Spirit inviolate (viz) to exclude from the Sacra­ment true visible believers or knowne recommended Christians, formerly members of visible Churches among us; and their children; because they are not members (as you speak) in Church Order. And whether God alloweth to put this difference be­tween Church mēbers of your societies & other visible believers walking in holines, though not admitted members of any society according to your Church order, as to receive the one, though members of another society, unto the Seals, and to debar the other and their children. These are the things to be considered in these present posi­tions. And first we will examine your Reasons for your judgment and practice by themselves, and then so far as we judge meet, try your answers to the objections you make against it.

Reply.

IF by the Church be understood the Society of men, professing the entire faith of Christ, the seales are given unto it as a peculiar priviledge; but if by the Church you understand onely a congregationall assembly in Church order, the seales were never appropriated to it. But to examine every thing in order as it is pro­pounded.

1 The Seales, Baptisme, and the Lords Supper, are given to the Church as pri­viledges peculiar thereunto, not onely in ordinary (as you say) but also in extraordinary dispensation. True baptisme is not without the Eph. 4. 4, 5. Church, but within it; an ordinance given to it, and they that are baptised, must needes be of a Church. The Sacraments are the seales of the Cove­nant to the faithfull, which is the forme of the Church, and when for substance rightly used, tokens and pledges of our spirituall admit­tance and entertainment into the Lords family, and Sym­bolls Acts. 2. 38. 41. Gen 1. 10. Math. 28. 14 20. Robins. against Bern. reas. discus. pa. 77. or testimonies whereby the people of God are distin­guished from all other Nations. This is most certain, as in the ordinary; so in the extraordinary dispensation of the Seales, as is confirmed by the Texts of Scripture alleadged in the Margine. For the Apostles (as you say) dispenced the seales in an extraordinary way, but the seales dispenced by the Apostles were Seales of the covenant, priviledges peculiar to the Church, priviledges of spirituall admittance and entertainment into the Lords family.

And when you say the dispencing of the Seals is an Ordinance given onely for the edifying of the Church being gathered, and not for the gathering of it, must it not be understood in extraordinary, dispensation as wel as ordinary: To what pupose then are those words (in ordinary dispensation) added to the proposition? if thereby you would intimate that the Sacraments be not the peculiar priviledges of the Church, and Seales of the Covenant in extraordinary dispensation, it is evidently crosse to the Text you cite, and to your selves afterward. If your meaning be, that in ordinary dispensation the Sacraments doe of right belong to them onely, who bee set members of a visible congregation, it is all one with the conclusion, that which is in question and should be proved, and that which this very Scripture doth plen­tifully disprove'; for they that were baptised were not set members of a particular congregationall Church whereunto they were baptised, nor in a Church way be­fore baptisme (as is evident and granted by the most of your selves) but by bap­tisme [Page 20] solemnly admitted into the Church, and then it is not for your purpose; or they were set members (as some of the brethren seeme to contend in answer to the objection framed against this consideration) and then the words are more then su­perfluous. Added, they were to prevent the objection which you foresaw might be made from the Apostles practice and example but so as they cut asunder the sinews of the consideration it selfe, and make it of no force. For as those beleivers were of the Church: so are approved Christians and their seed among us: therefore the priviledges of the seales belong unto them.

2 And as the seales: so is the word of salvation preached and received a privi­ledge of the Church. If by the preaching of the word you understand nothing but the tender of salvation or the publishing of the will of God, concerning the sal­vation of man, whether by private or publike persons; it is not proper to the Church but an ordinance given for the gathering of men to the Church, and not only for the edifying of the Church. For the Apostles first preached to the Gen­tiles when Infidels, that they might be converted; And we doubt not but a Mini­ster or private Christian comming into a country of Infidells, may as occasion is offered, and as they shall be inabled, instruct and perswade them to receive the faith of Christ: but if by the preaching of the word be meant the giving of the word to a people, to abide and continue with them, and consequently their receiving of it at least in profession then it is proper to the Church of God.

The word makes disciples to Christ, and the word given to a people is Gods covenanting with them, and the peoples receiving this Lev 2. 13. Deut. 29. 12. & 26. 17. 18. word and professing their faith in God through Iesus Christ is the taking of God to bee their God. The lawes and statutes which God gave to Israell, was the honour and ornament to that Nation, Rom. 3. 2 Deut. 4 6. Psa. 247 19 20 Neb. 9. 13. Act. 7. 38. Luk. 16. 29. 2 Cor 5 19 & 11. 2. Deut 33. 3. 10. 8. 30 and a testimony that God had separated them from all other peo­ple, even the Gentiles themselves being Iudges. The word of recon­ciliation is sent and given to the world reconciled in Iesus Christ, and they that receive the doctrine, law, or word of God are the Disciples, servants and people of God.

In your second consideration you intimate that there is a two fold preaching, the one by office and authority, the other in Common charity, or how ever else it may be called. For thus you write. God hath joyned to preach (viz by office) and to baptize together, therefore we may not separate them. Now to preach unto, that is to instruct or counsell in charity is a duty which may be performed to an infidell, but to preach by office is proper to them that are called to that office: and so to be taught and instructed by Officers in the Robin against Bern P 159. Church is proper to the Church.

To have pastors who shall feed with knowledge and understanding is a gift of [Page 21] matrimoniall love which God vouchsafeth unto his Church. The Apostles first gathered Churches and then ordained elders Act 14 22. Tit 1 5. Rob: against Bern. Act 11 26. In the same verse the same persons are called the Church disciples, and Christians pag. 106 107. 211 &c. also pag. 51 in everie Citie or Church; so that it is proper to the Church to be fed and guided by true spirituall pastors who teach and blesse in the name of the Lord. And if the word preached and recei­ved bee a certaine note of the true Church, they that have intyre­ly received the word of salvation and have Pastors godly and faithfull to feede and guide them, they and their seed have right and interest unto the seales in order.

Moreover the true worship of God is an inseparable and infallible marke of the true Church of God, for where Christ is, there is his Church. This is the preroga­tive of the church. The Prince shall be in the midst of them, and he shall go in when they goe in, &c. And Christ saith, where 2. or 3. are met together in my name there am I in the middest among them. And for cer­tain Ezeck. 46. 10 See Lava [...]er on Ezek Math 18. 20. Ier. 14. 9. they are gathered in the name of Christ that being lawfully cal­led doe assemble to worship God and call upon his name in the mediation of Iesus Christ. In times past, the Church was acknowledged by the feare of God, and entyre Service of his Majestie, by the pro­fessing Ios. 24. 14 of the true faith and faithfull calling upon Gods name. The signes of Apo­stolike Churches are these. The continuance in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread and prayer. And if faith, true and Rom. 10. 14 Act 2. 42 lively (though mixed with many doubtings and errors) make a man a living member of Iesus Christ, the entyre profession of true faith joyned with holy­nesse of life in some measure answerable thereunto, makes a man a true member of the visible Church. And if the feales belong to the Church in right and orderly dis­pensation, they that joyne together in the true worship of God, according to his will, with godly and faithfull pastors, they have right and title to the Sacraments according to divine institution.

Thirdly, that there is now no visible Catholike Church in your sense will ea­sily bee granted. i. e. there is no universall society consisting of all such as are ac­counted or to bee esteemed Christians, subjected to one or many vniversall Pastors or guides, wherwithall subordinates must communicate in some sacred things which may make them one Church and which may and can be performed by that vniversall and head Church only. Such an vniversall Christian Church Christ never ordained, no not in the dayes of the Apostles, to whom all the care of all the Churches, was committed. The Churches planted by the Apostles had all the same substantiall lawes and customes, the same guides and officers for kinde, the same ordinances of worship and meanes of Salvation: But one flock or Society in the fore mentioned acceptation they were not, because they were but subordinate to one visible head, Christ, with which they were to hold union and communion [Page 22] in some worship to be performed by them all jointly assembled at some speciall solemnity, nor subjected to the government of any supreame tribunall constantly to be erected and continued among them.

Neverthelesse, in some respects of rea­son, the visible Church, may be called As Christ is that one great Pastor, so hath hee generally one fold and flock, Iohn 10. 16. Ezeck. 34 22, 23 which is his Church, as he saith. And ye my flock, the flock of my pasture are men, Ezek 34. 31. Aynsw. Cant 1. 8. Sure it is that hee is none of Christs sheepe visibly, or in respect of men which is without Christs sheepfold, for there is one sheepfold and one sheepheard. Iohn 10 16. Robins against Bern likelihoods, p. 61. the Church, sheepfold or flock of Christ; for if the whole society or body mysti­call of Christ be one, this Church mili­tant in like sort is one: the unity of which society consists in that uniformi­ty, which all severall persons thereunto belonging, have by reason of that one Lord whose servants they all are, and professe themselves, that one Spirit whereby they are animated as the body by one soul; whereby they believe in Christ, and which they acknowledge and professe, that one Baptisme inward and outward, whereby they put on Christ, and are initiated.

This society is one in the inward frui­tion and enjoying of the benefits of Hieron. tom. 2. Ep. 85. Nec altera Ro­mae urbis Ecclesia, alteratotius orbis ex­istimanda est, & Gallia, & Britannia, & Asia, &c. & omnes barbarae Nationes unum Christum adorant, unam obser­vant regulam veritatis. Christs Death and Resurrection, and in outward profession of those things which supernaturally appertain to the very es­sence of the Church, and are necessarily re­quired in every Christian, this acceptation of the word is not unusuall in Scripture. As God hath set some in the Church. His bodies sake which is the Church. The Church viz. whereof Paul was made a Minister, and whereunto the rest of the Apostles were ordained, which was the Catholike visible Church, the society of men professing the faith of Christ throughout the 1 Cor 12. 28. Col. 1. 21. 1 Cor. 12, 13. world, divided into many particular Churches whereof some are pure, others impure, some more, others lesse sound. Hereunto it may be added, that every multitude and society of believers are indefinitely called the Church, I persecuted the Church of God. The house of God which is the Church of the living God. In which sense all the Churches 1 Cor. 15. 9. Gal. [...]. 13. Phil. 3. 6. 1 Tim. 3. 15. 1 Pet. 5. 2. in the world may truly be called one. And thus the Apostle Peter writing to many dispersed Churches, who could not assemble in one place nor be fed by one Shepherd, speaketh of them singularly as one flock. Feed the flock of God which is among you. But that flock are the strangers dispersed through Pontus, Galatia. Asia, Cappadocia, and Bythinia, which could not possibly joine together in the Ordinances of Worship, or make one distinct congregated assembly. Pastores sunt omnes, sed grex unus qui ab Apostolis omnibus u­nanimi consensu pas­catur. Cypr. de uni­tate Ecclesiae. [Page 23] And if the Catholike Militant Church be one Society, the Seals that are given as a prerogative to the Church are given unto it, and the true Members of the Catholike Church have right and title to them in due order, though they be not ad­mitted into the Church fellowship you speak of.

For as the flock or society is one: so is the Ministery, Faith, Covenant, and Sa­craments, Etsi pastores multi sumus, unum tamen gregem pascimus, Cypr. l. 3. Epistola 13. Cum sit a Christo una Ecclesia per totum mundum in multa membra divisa item Episcopatus unus Episcoporum multorum concordi numero diffusus, &c. Cypr. l. 4. Ep. 7. which are given as a communi­on prerogative unto the whole Church, and not appropriated to this or that part ormember, as separated from the whole; which is further evidenced hereby, that sometime it hath, and too often it may fall out, that a Christian may be a true member of the universall visible Church (i. e. he may hold, professe, and maintain that holy Catholike Faith, pure, and undefiled, without which no man can be saved) who for the present is no actuall member of any particular or visible society in Church order. As for example, a man may be cut off by Excommunication, from all commerce with the present visible Church wherein hee was bred and born, when hee is not cut off from the Catholike, Orthodoxall Iohn 9. 22 35. & 12. 42 & 16. 2. A [...]anasius may be for an ex­ample. Church. Hee may be deprived of participation of the Ordinance in every particular society, when his right and title to them is much bet­ter then these who have most injuriously cast him out, or debarred him of the means of salvation.

The communion of Saints, whether visible or invisible is the effect and proper­ty of the Church Catholike, and agreeth to the severall parts and members there­of, as they be members of that body under the head, and if particular Churches have communion together it must of necessity be, that they bee parts and mem­bers of the whole body which is one.

4. Though there be no universall congregation or assembly nor can be imagi­ned, yet there are and have beene many visible assemblies or societies, true Church­es of Christ, to whom the Prerogative of the Seals is given, which have not beene united and knit together, in Church-order into one congregationall body or soci­ety, For every society in covenant with God is the true Church of God: for what is it to be the flock, people or sheepe of God, but to be the Church of God? And where there is a Covenant, there is the people of God. They that are of the faith of Abraham, are the children and seed of Abraham, Gen 17. 7. Lev. 16. 12. Apo. 1 11. 13. Heb. 16. 10. and within the Covenant of Abraham (though but two or three) and so of the same Church with him by that covenant. The communicati­on [Page 24] and accepting of the tables of the covenant is an undoubted token of a people in covenant or confederate, but every society professing the Rob. against Bern. pa. 127. Rom. 4. 12. [...]8. Gen. 12. 3. Gal. 26, 7, 3, 15, 16, 17 Rob. against B [...]r. pa. 2 [...]2. true and entire faith, joyning in prayer and thankesgiving, receiving the truth of God to dwell among them, and in some measure confor­ming themselves to the obedience of Gods Commandements, is in co­venant with God. It is simply necessary to the being of a Church that it be laid upon Christ the foundation, which being done, the remaining of what is forbidden, or the want of what is commanded, cannot put the society from the title or right of a Church. For Christ is the founda­tion and head corner stone of the Church, and a people comming unto Christ, united unto him, built upon him, having communion with him and growing up in him, are the true Church of God: and if the seals be annexed to the covenant by God himselfe, as we cannot deny a people in covenant to be the Church, so we must not deny their right and title to the Sacraments. If therefore the meaning of the proposition be, that the seales be given to the Church, that is, to true and sound Christians, and people in covenant with God, as a priviledge whether in ordinary or extraordinary dispensation we accept it as good and sound, but it makes against your judgement and practice in keeping away such as have right and title to the ordinances. If you meane the seales are given to the Church, that is, onely to set members of some particular society combined by covenant (as it is among you) we cannot receive it, because it implieth a distinction not taught in Scripture, and crosse to your selves. And for the thing it selfe the Scripture hath nothing but many things against it as hath beene shewed.

5 If it be granted that the seales are the prerogative of a particular visible Church, known and approved Christians among us, and their seed are members of true and visible Churches, and so to be esteemed among you before they be entred into Church membership as you call it. For every society professing the intire and true faith, and joyning together in the right use of the Sacraments in matters substantiall is the true Church of God, and every visible See Mr. I. D. Apol. 11. Sect. exam p. 117. beleever receiving the word and professing the true intire faith, ad­mitted to the right and lawfull participation of the Sacraments is a visible member of the true Church, if he have neither renounced that society, nor de­served justly to be cast out by excommunication or Church censure. For the intire profession of the truth, the dwelling of the truth among men, the right use of the Sa­craments (which is ever joyned with truth of Doctrine, and to be esteemed by it) is proper to them that be in covenant with God, And they that truly partake of the Seales must needes be of a Church, for the seales are not without but within the Church an ordinance given unto it, and if they be true members of the true Church­es of Jesus Christ, other Churches, are bound to hold communion with them in the ordinance of worship as divine providence shall minister occasion.

[Page 25] In answer to the ninth position you say the members of other Churches, well known and approved by vertue of communion wich Churches, doe mutually and with good acceptance communicate each of them at others Churches, even so often as Gods providence leads them thereunto, and themselves desire it. In your pre­face to this consideration, you say you admit to fellowship of the seales, the known, approved, and orderly recommended members of any true Church, and if knowne and approved Christians, members of our Churches comming over into New Eng­land, shall desire either to have their children baptized, or to be admitted themselves to the Lords Supper before they be set members of any society these, we desire to know upon what grounds from God you can deny them, if you acknowledge our Churches, Ministery, and Sacraments, to be true and of God (as you professe) and the members of the Church be known and approved, orderly recommended unto you.

It is the priviledge of Christians baptised themselves, and walking in the faith, that their children should have right to baptisme in all true Churches in the world. It is the priviledge of Christians lawfully and justly admitted to the Lords Supper in one visible Church, and walking in covenant with God, that they have right to this priviledge in all Churches professing their intire faith, and you must shew just and sound reasons from God of your judgement and practice in debarring their seed from baptisme, and parents themselves from the Supper, or else (to use the words of a reverend Elder among you, in a case of lesse impor­tance, and not concerning so many) you will be found guilty of I. D. Apol. 5. Sect. exem. pag. 61, & 18. adding to the words, and making eleven Commandements, and setting up humane customes, and selfewill against Gods appoint­ment. For the Sacraments are given to the Church as a priviledge peculiar there­unto, but you deny this priviledge to the true visible members of the Church, (as your selves confesse.) For if the Ministers be the Ministers of Christ, and their con­gregations the Churches of Christ, then knowne and approved Christians are members of the Church. In your opinion the members of the Jewish Church might be received unto baptisme, upon confession of the Christian faith, before they were entred into Church fellowship, and it is more then strange to us that you should not thinke the true visible members of the Churches of Christ to have as much title and interest to the Seales, as the members of the Jewish Church to the Sacrament of Baptisme.

6 The distinct Churches mentioned in the New Testament, it is not certain that they were congregationall societies consisting onely of so many as might and did meete together ordinarily in one place at one time for the publike worship of God, and their own edification, and if this were granted it would not carry the weight that was laid upon it, But because it may make way for the clearing of some other [Page 26] points pertaining to discipline and Church orders, we intreat leave to set downe, and desire you to examine what may be objected against it. We will not insist up­on this that the least circuite wherein there is mention of Churches is ample enough to containe some diocesses and the least City, populous enough to make many numbersome congregations. Nor upon this, that to Bucer. diss. ep 3 pa 43 & ep 48. pa. 226. meete at one time and one place, as one assembly is a thing meere­ly accidentary to the unity of the Church and society Ecclesiasticall which is still one, when they are dispersed asunder, and no particular man of that society at first remaining now alive. The number of beleevers was so great in some Cities as they could not conveniently meete in one place as one assembly to worship the Lord according to his will and for their edifying. That there was a Church gathered in the City of Samaria by the ministery of Phillip will not be de­nyed, for they received the word and were baptised, but that the Church in that City was onely a congregationall assembly is more then can probably be conclu­ded out of Scripture. For the whole City or the greatest part could not ordinari­ly assemble in one place to their edification: But the whole City of Samaria, in a manner, (as it is probable) imbraced the faith. Act. 8. 6. & 15 4. Act 8. 12. 14. & 18. 12. As the whole City from the least to the greatest had given heede to Simon Magus before, so to Phillip now when he preached Christ, And the Text saith expresly that Samaria received the Gospell.

The Christian Church at Ierusalem was one and distinct, but it Acts 2. 41. & 4. 4. & 5 14. & 6. 1. & 6. 7 grew and increased first to 3000. then to 5000. afterwards multi­tudes of men and women were added, and the multitude of Dis­ciples increased; it is also noted that a company of the Priests received the faith. The Syriacke hath it of the Jews, (scil.) inhabiting Judea, but the Greeke, Ara­bian, vulgar, Chrisostoms & Ethiopians approve the former, and the number of the Priests was not small: there is mention also of millions of beleevers. And when all the Apostles, or the greatest part of them remained at Ezra. 2. 36, 37, 38. Act. 6. 2 & 81. 15. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23 & 16. 4. & 21 18. 28. Jerusalem for a time continuing in the ministery of the word and prayer, and that they might doe it the more earnestly and diligent­ly, left the care of the poore to others: how can we thinke but that Church did grow exceedingly, and the number of beleevers there to be more then could fitly meete ordinarily in one congregation. Without question the number of beleevers in Antioch was not small, of which it is said expresly, that a great number beleeved, turned to the Lord and that a great multitude was ad­ded to the Lord by the preaching of Barnabas, and that Paul and Barnabas continued there one whole yeere preaching the word of Act 11. 21. God, and teaching the multitude, so that the Disciples were first called Christians at Antiach. After that this Church was visited by Paul Act. 11 24 26 [Page 27] and Barnabas, who continued there teaching and preaching the Word of God with many others also, and may wee not thinke Act. 13 12 et 14. 27. et 15. 30 34, 35. that this Church did quickly rise to such bignesse that they could not well assemble in one congregation as now wee call them?

It will easily be credited that the number of believers was not small at Ephesus, if we call to minde that when Paul had been there but two yeers, all they that dwelt in Asia had heard the word of the Lord both Iews and Acts 19 10. & 16. 9 & 29. 27. Acts 19. 19. Grecians, that a great doore and effectuall was opened to him at E­phesus, That the art for making Shrines, and Dianaes Temple was in danger to be set at nought, and that those that had used curious arts, came and burnt their books in the sight of all men, which could not be done with­out great danger unto the Church, unlesse a great part of the City had believed. Where a Church did comprehend a City with its Suburbs and the Country circum­jacent, i. e. the believers who professed the faith within that circuit. It might well be that the number did so increase through the extraordinary blessing of God, which accompanied the preaching of the word in those primitive times, and first planting of the heavenly Kingdome, that they could not well meet ordinarily in one place, and yet continued one Society. For when a number is gathered in small Villages, or some added to the number already gathered, it is not meet they should be neg­lected because small, nor divided from the body, because the number not competent to make an intire and perfect body of it selfe. The increase of the Churches doth re­quire an increase of Elders, and (if they grow to bignesse more then ordinary) an increase of places for their assembling, when the essence of the visible Church is not changed, nor one multiplied or divided into many. And it is more available for the good of the Church, and further removed from all ambition, if the Society shall as­semble occasionally in divers places as parts and members of the body, then to con­stitute a distinct free Society consisting of a few Believers, not fit to make up an in­tire body contrary to the precedent examples of the Apostles. In times of grievous and hot persecution the Churches of God could not assemble in any great number in publick places, but have been compelled to meet in Woods, Caves, Dens, and dark corners, as the Lord hath offered opportunity, one and the same Society in sundry places: So that either it is not essentiall to the Church to meet together in one place ordinarily, or their Society is broken off by persecution, when their meet­ing together in one place is interrupted. It is said by some where the Church grew greater, sometimes by the suddain and extraordinary conversion of more then could well so assemble, then was there presently a disper­sion Robinson against Bern p. 196. of the former, and a multiplication of more particular Assem­blies. But in the Scriptures quoted no such thing doth appeare, but rather the con­trary [Page 28] as hath been proved. In aftertimes when the Church was within the Cities as of Rome, Ephesus, Alexandria, Carthage, Euseb h [...]st l. [...] c. 35 [...]at 43. G [...]ae [...] 33. Raff. Ierusalem, &c. the number of Believers did greatly exceed the bignesse of a convenient and fitting assembly which might ordi­narily congregate in one place to worship God according to his appointment when the Church was but one.

Seventhly Seeing then both the Seals in ordinary and in extraordinary dispensa­tion belong to the Church, id est, to the faithfull, and repentant, taught made Dis­ciples, who have received the word, believe, and professe the faith, have received the holy Ghost, and walke in obedience, who are members of other visible Churches, or to be made members of a visible Church for the time being, by admittance unto the Sacraments, and not unto set members of congregationall assemblies only. And seeing the godly and faithful Ministers among us are the true Ministers of Christ, and their godly congregations, true Churches, and knowne, and approved Christi­ans, true members of visible Churches formerly baptized, and admitted to the Lords Supper. This consideration is of no weight to justifie your opinion and practice in debarring known and approved Christians, professing the faith, members of the true visible Churches amongst us from the Lords Supper, or their seed from Ba­ptisme, because they be not yet received as set members of some particular cōgregati­on amongst you: And if such Believers are not to be received to the Seals, we desire you to consider if ever the Sacraments of the New Testament, were rightly dispensed in the Church of the New Testament from the first Plantation thereof unto this day.

The Seale doth follow the grant, and as the Seale is prophaned, if it be put to a false grant or Charter, so are the faithfull wronged if the Seale in a lawfull way de­sired, be denied to them that have received the grant, i. e. have right unto Jesus Christ, and communion with him. But the faith­full 1 hit de Sacra contr de bapt. qu 2 & 3 pag 237, 238. A [...]ers. of the Sacr: l. 2 c 6 fol. 211. who have received the word with gladnesse, believe, and professe, be members knowne and approved by other visible Churches, or such as desire to be admitted members of that visible Society for the time by communicating in the ordinance, are al­ready partakers of the grant or charter, have right and interest in Christ, may law­fully desire the Seals, and may be admitted as members for the time being of that particular Society. Therefore to debar such, from the Lords Supper, and their seed from Baptisme, is against the Law of nature, and the positive Law of God, an in­jury to the faithfull and their seed, a wrong to the Catholike visible Church, that particular society, and the Pastors themselves that so debar them. They sinned grie­vously who deferred Baptisme to the end of their life, and the negligence of Pastors and Teachers who did not instruct the ignorant and reprove the su­perstitious, was great. And is not the severity in debarring such as [...] de P [...]es­ [...]y [...]. pag. 79. crave and desire to be admitted to the Seals an injury to be repre­hended?

[Page 29] Answ. 2 Confider the ordinary administration of the Seales is limited to the ministery and the ministery to a particular Church; therefore the seals also must necessarily be proper to the Church and to the members thereof.

1. That the administration of the seales is limited to their Ministery is evident from the first institution Math. 28. 19. where God hath joyned (to preach) viz. by office, and (to baptize) together, therefore wee may not separate them. For howsoever: any man may by the appointment of the Lord and Master of the fa­mily, signifie his minde and deliver his message from him to the family, yet the dispensing of a fitt portion of food to everie one of the houshold is a branch of the stewards office. Indeed the keies are given to the whole Church yet the exercise and dispensation of them in this as well as in other particulars is concredited to the Ministers who are called to bee [...], 1 Cor. 4. 1. And no Church office can be orderly performed by any, but one that is called thereunto nor will God vouchsafe his presence, and blessing (wherupon all spirituall efficacy depends) in an ordinance dispensed, but when it is dispensed by those whom he hath ordayned and appointed therunto.

2. That the ministery is limited to the Church appeares as from evident texts of Scripture: so also upon this ground. 1 The office is founded in the relation betweene the Church and the officer, wher­fore Act. 14 [...]3 Col. 4. 17 1 Pet 5. 2 Act 20. 28 take away the relation, and the office and the worke ceaseth.

For where he hath not power, he may not doe an act of power, and he hath no powerwhere he hath not a relation by office. Herein the propor­tion holdeth between an officer of a towne corporate, and of a Church that as the power of the former is only within his owne corporation: so the power of the lat­ter is confined to his owne congregation.

Reply.

THe proposition is granted that the dispensation of the Sacraments in the New Testament both ordinary and extraordinary is limited to the Ministery. But in that you alleadge for confirmation, somethings may be noted.

1 The first institution of Baptisme is not contained in that passage Math. 28. 19. but confirmed; For the seales of the New Testament were instituted by Christ before his death, and his disciples had baptized many which they could not doe be­fore the institution of the Sacrament. Secondly we see not how you can Ioh. 4. 2. & 23 23. apply that text to Preaching by office, which according to our exposition must bee a dispensing of a fit portion of food to everie one of the houshould. For it is plaine the Apostles were sent forth to preach to everie Creature or unto the world, to convert men unto God, to make them disciples Mark. 9. 15. and not to preach unto disciples only, or members of the houshould. Act 17 22 23 32. & 19. 8. 9 The Apostles certainly had authority, and preached by authority, [Page 30] but they preached not to Infidells and Heathens, as to disciples or Rob. against [...]ern. p 151 these Keyes in d. &c. members of the Church, much lesse did they give a portion to them as to the houshold which is the preaching by office, which you ac­knowledge. Thirdly if under the power of the keyes you compre­hend preaching by office, dispensing the seales, casting out, and receiving againe into the bosome of the Church wee deny the power of the keyes to belong to the Church or community of the faithfull: we cannot find in Scripture that Christ e­ver granted such power to the faithfull, as faithfull joyned together in Covenant in those passages which speake of this power, the execution of this authority is given to them to whom the authoritie is commit­ted. In the Corporation (the Church) there is alwayes the whole power of Christ to residing, which you may call officers for the use of it selfe, to which it is sufficient that it can without officers use this power for things simply necessary; as for receiving in of members by pro­fession of faith and confession of sins, for edifying of them by exhortation and comforts in the ordinance of prophesying, and so for excommunication. Rob. against B. pag. 224.

If the power of the keyes be given to the whole Church the Apostles themselves must derive their authoritie immediatly from the Church, and not from Christ, for the power must be derived from them, unto whom it was given; but their power, and authority was not from the Church, but from Christ immediatly. And if the dispensation, and exercise of the keyes, be concredited to the Ministers; Doth it hold in all things or onely in the dispensation of the Sacraments, and preaching by office? Doe they dispense the seales as the Stewards of Christ, from whom they re­ceive their authority immediately or as the servants of the Church, from which they derive their authority? If in the first sense; the power of the keys is not in the com­munity of the faithfull. If in the second, the office of a Minister is not the immediate gift of Christ, nor the Minister, so much the servant of Christ, as of the Church, from whom he must receive lawes, in whose name he must doe his office, and to whom he must give an account. We could wish you had explained in what sense, you hold the dispensation, and execution of the power of the keyes is concredited to the Ministers, and by whom. For if the community of the faithfull have to doe in all matters concerning the body, to See Rob. against Ber. pag. 130. 131. 132. If you call it consultati­on in an assembly wherein all have e­quall power and voyce in determi­ning things some one going before the rest Idem pag 202 admit members, and cast them out, to make and depose Mi­nisters, to bind and loose by authority derived from Christ, wee cannot see how in your judgement the dispensation, and execution of the power of the keyes is concredited to the Ministers.

Fourthly That which you add, that God will not vouchsafe his presence and blessing to an ordinance but when it is dis­penced by those, whom hee hath ordayned and appointed thereunto, must bee warily understood, or it may occasion errors and distractions [Page 31] not a few, You know what corruptions soone entred into the Church of God, both in respect of Doctrine, Worship, Offices, and entrance thereunto, and how ready and apt is the conclusion from your words, That Robins against Bern. Coun. debated, p 32. ibid. p. 79. Christ hath not vouchsafed his presence, and blessing in his Ordi­nances to his Church? But of this before.

And on the contrary, seeing God hath vouchsafed his blessing in his Ordinances dispensed by your selves, when you stood as visible Ministers in the congregation, and Churches of old England, you must confesse, did approve both your standings and his Ordinances dispensed by you.

Secondly, as for the Assumption, that Pastors and Teachers are limited to a par­ticular charge or society; but that flock is not ever one congregationall assembly meeting in one place, neither the band so streight, whereby they are tied to that one society, that they may not upon occasion performe some Ministeriall Act or Office in another congregation, or to them that be not set members of their proper assem­bly. For first to dispence the Seals of the covenant is a ministeriall act, an act of Office, and not an exercise of gifts onely: But the Pastors of one Assembly may dispence the Sacrament to the set members of another society upon occasion, as you confesse in this and in your answer to the ninth position.

And if the members of one Church may lawfully upon occasion receive the Sa­crament of the Supper in another society from the Pastor thereof, then may the Pa­stor of one congregation performe a Ministeriall act to the members of another, and if to the members of another then in another congregation with consent, and upon occasion.

Secondly, As the Ministers are exhorted to feed their fleek: so is every Christian and Minister to try and examine himselfe whether hee be in the faith, but you will not allow this conclusion. I must examine my self. Ergo 1 Cor. 11 28. 2 Cor. 23. 5. no man is debarred from the Sacrament for his unworthinesse, or to be tried or examined by others, to be observed, admonished, and brought to repentance for notorious sin. No more can it be rightly gathered from the former passages of Scripture, that the Minister is not upon occasion to per­forme Beza de Pres­byt. & Excom. pag. 32 Robins against Bern. pag. 252. any Ministeriall act to any other people or society, because or­dinarily he is to attend his own flock.

Thirdly, As the Ministers have peculiar relation to their particular flocks, so the people unto their particular Ministers, unto whom they are ried in spe­ciall manner, as to their Overseers, who must give account for theirsculs. And if this peculiar relation betwixt the people & the Minister doth not hinder the people from receiving the Lords Supper at the hands of another Minister; nor the minister from performing the Ministeriall act to the members of another congregation. Neither doth his peculiar Relation to his own flock hinder him, from administring unto [Page 32] others upon just occasion being intreated thereunto. As the combining of the people to their peculiar Minister, doth not quite cut off their communion with other Mini­sters: so neither doth the restraining of a Minister to a peculiar flock quite cut him off from administring upon occasion: unto another people. Paul appointeth the Ephesian Elders unto the care & charg onely of their own particular flock, but so to attend them Acts 20 28 The Word of God and Canons of Councels will have Pastors so to care for their own flock, that they forbid them not to care for the whole Church, especially in a time of common combustion. The answer of some Brethren, pag 12. Publica Dei invocatio non minima pars communis in unâ fide consensionis. Beza contra Erastum, de Presbyt pap. 13. ordinarily according to the rules of the Scripture; that as occasion was offered, might performe some Ministeriall acts in another congregation. The taking heed un­to their flocks which Paul requires in this place doth cōprehend under it the admini­stration of the Word, Prayer, and Sacram­ent, and if it must be restrained to their owne particular Churches onely, it is un­lawfull for a Pastor to preach or call upon the name of God in any publike Assem­bly save his own, upon any occasion, as these be duties prtaining to common confes­sion or profession of faith. Ordinary Pastors and Teachers it is true, are not Apo­stles, who are to go from place to place, from Country to Country, to plant and e­rect Churches, but they are tied ordinarily to one flock, as the Text proveth, and to which purpose it is commonly cited. But that a Pastor is so tied to his flock, that he can perform no ministeriall act to any other upon any occasion that it proveth not, nor can we find that it was ever so understood by Divines ancient or modern. W. B. telleth us, the learned bring these alle­gations Euseb. Hist 5. c. 26. Graec. Cham [...] Panst. Tom 2. l. 10. c. 8. Sect. 16. The Churches Plea, pag 44. Ap [...]l pag. 117 & 298. to this purpose. But the authour in alledging the consent of the learned was very carelesse or much abused, for there is not one that speaketh to the purpose. I. D. disclaimeth that position; and for the rest it is a matter notorious, they were never thought to be of that opinion; and wee doubt not if any could be named to free this allegation from suspition of Novelty, you would have cited one or more as you have done in that which followeth.

Feed the flock of God (saith Peter.) But he speaks of all those dispersed Churches to whom he writes, which he calls a chosen Generation, a Royall Priesthood, a pe­culiar people: And in some respect of reason, under which we may apprehend them, are one flock, but not really as combined under the same Pastor, or meeting in one place. And as these dispersed believers, or socieities make one Flock: so the Mini­sters attending their flocks or societies, and the Ministery exercised by them is, or maketh one.

4 A Minister chosen and set over one society, is to looke unto his people com­mitted to his charge, and feed the flock over which the Lord hath made him overseer, [Page 33] but he is a Minister in the Church Universall, for as Orig. in Isa. Hom. 6. Qui vo­catur ad Episcopatum, vocatur ad servitutem totius Ecclesiae. Chrysoft. in 2 Cor. hom. 18. Ʋ ­niversae curam gerimus. See Cham Panstr. Tom. 2. pag. 10. cap. 12. Sect. 8, 9, 10. &c. Jun. Animadv. in Bellar. con­tro. 5. lib. 1. c. 3. not. 3. & cap. 7 not. 7. the Church is one, so is the Ministery one, of which every Minister (sound or Orthodox) doth hold his part, and though he be Minister over that flock one­ly which he is to attend, yet he is a Minister in the universal Church. The functiō or power of exercising that Function in the abstract, must be distinguished from the power of exercising it, concretely, accord­ing to the divers circumstances of places. The first belongeth to a Minister every where in the Church, the latter is proper to the place and people where hedoth minister. The lawfull use of his power is limited to that congregation or­dinarily. The power it self is not so limited and bounded. In Ordination, Presby­ters are not restrained to one or other certaine place, as if they were to be deemed Ministers there onely, though they be set over a certain people. And as the faithfull in respect of a community betwixt them, must and ought to performe the Offices of love one to another, though of different societies, so the Ministers in respect of their communion, must and ought upon occasion to performe ministeriall Offices towards the faithfull of distinct societies.

5 If this be not so, what shall become of the poore flock when the Pastor is driven away by personall persecution, so that he cannot, if others may not afford them helpe and succour: what when the congregation it selfe is dispersed, must no sheepherd receive them into fold, when they are driven from their own, or neglect­ed by him?

6 If the Pastor may be absent from his flock upon necessary, just, and weighty occasion, respecting his own good, the good of that society, or the common good of Churches consociate, then may the Pastor, the society, the Churches procure some man to supply the defect, and doe the office of a Pastor, preach the Word, pray, and as occasion is offered, administer the Sacrament in that Congregation unto that Assembly untill their Sheepheard shall returne. Shall the people be left as sheepe without a sheepheard; because for the good of the Churches their owne sheepheard is called from them for a time, that he might returne with greater joy and comfort?

The Pastor is appointed to feed his own flock, and yet for the good of the whole Church he may be called to leave, if not the care, yet the over-sight of his flock fot a while; and by the same reason a pastor of another flock or congregation may per­forme the office, and doe the acts of a Minister in his congregation during absence: Yea if for the good of the Churches he be called away, doe not the Churches stand obliged in conscience to provide that the flock sustain no hurt by his absence which [Page 34] possibly yee cannot doe if one Minister may not performe a Ministeriall act in a­nother Congregation.

7 If the Prophets of one Church may prophesy in another, and apply their do­ctrines, exhortations and prayers to any of the occasions of the Churches where they speake, whereof they are not set members, Act. 13. 15. what hinders why the Pastor of one congregation, may not preach and pray, administer the Sacraments in another? The pastor of one congregation is appointed to his peculiar charge but he is a Minister in the universall Church, as well as the Prophets of one Church may bee called Prophets of the universall Church by vertue of that Communion which all true Churches have one with another. Without consent the Prophet may not prophesie by exhortation, and with consent the Pastor may administer the Sacraments.

8 In the Primitive Churches when Elders were ordained in every City, they were not onely to looke to their flock but indeavour the conversion of poore Infi­dels among whom they lived, and the inlargement of Christs King­dome, for the worke of the Lord must be done in its season, and Rom. 16 3. 12. Phil. 2. 15, 16. & 4. 2. then was the time of the calling of the Gentiles:

It was not their office proper and essentiall to travail from Countrey to Coun­trey as did the Apostles, nor were they pastors of the In­fidels, but by private instruction and publique teach­ing (if any of them would bee penitent) they were to [...]am 5. 19, 20. Act. 4. 26. 40 & 9 38. & 10. 5. & 11. 19. 21 1 Cor. 14. 23, 24. Esay 2. 3. Ezr. 8. 23. 10. 1. 41. 45. & 42. 9. & 12. 20. Revel. 3. 9 labour the comming of them to God. And these Infidels converted to the saith were to be baptised of the Elders or­dinarily in those Cities, though the number might bee so great as they could not well meete in one Congregation, nor be subject to the same Pastor; for either they must bee baptized by the pastors among whom they lived, (being converted to the faith) or continue unbaptized untill they were a number convenient to make a distinct so­ciety, or grow together into one body, and to elect and choose their own Minister by whom they may be baptised: But that either they must stay so long without baptisme, or that a society of unbaptised men had power in those times to elect and choose their Minister, by whom they should be baptised is contrary to all presidents in Scripture.

9 And so if a Pastor may not performe a ministeriall act to any other person or people but his own flock onely, then a company newly converted from infideli­ty, which cannot joyne themselves as set members to another assembly, must remain unbaptised till they have chosen their Minister to doe that office. Then must the people thus converted want officers til there be among themselves able men to pray, preach, exhort in the congregation at the ordination of their Minister, or (if that [Page 35] may bee omitted) till there be fit men among them to examine the fitnesse of him that is chosen.

10 If subtile Heretikes arise, and seduce, and draw away many from the faith, and the body of the society be not able to convince them, either they must be let a­lone or cast out without conviction, for neighbouring Ministers stand in peculiar relation to their flocks onely, and must not meddle beyond their calling according to your tenent.

11 There is no precept or example in What example have you but grounds for the baptising of infants? or where read you of any officer excommunicated by any Rob. against Ber. p. 214. we may not expect examples of any Pastors in scriptures: who did thus. I. D. Apol. 9. Sect. exam p. 1 [...]3. Scripture more to warrant the admitting of a set member of one congregation unto the Supper in another, or the baptising of his child, occasionally in another assembly then there is for receiving of knowne and appro­ved Christians and their seede that are not set members. The Pastor is no more the pastor of the one then of the other, nor the one more of his flock then the other, neither of them set members, and both sorts may be members for the time being, and they most pro­perly who are of longest abode among them. But as we heare it See I. D. Apol. texts. exam pa. 288. is frequent among you (as at Dorchester, &c.) to baptise the chil­dren of another Assembly, and usually you admit to the Supper of the Lord, members of other Churches, and therefore the Minister is not so limited to his particular Church or flock but he may dispence the seales to others, which in this consideration is denyed.

12 If the want of one Officer in a Congregation for a time may be sup­plyed by another, as the want of the Doctor, Ruling Elder, or Deacon, by the Pastor; why may not the defects of some Congregation or Christians be supplyed by Pa­stors or Ministers of another Congregation, when they are requested and desired? the minde herein is godly, and the means lawfull, and well pleasing unto God.

13 And if a Synod consisting of sundry members of particular Churches, met together in the name of Christ about the common and publike affaires of the Chur­ches shall joyn together in prayer and communion of the Supper, wee can see no ground to question it as unlawfull, although that Assembly be no particular Con­gregation or Church, hath no Pastor over them, make not one Ecclesiasticall body as a particular Congregationall Church, unlesse it be for the time onely. The Mi­nister therefore may do an act of office to them that be not set members of his flock as he may stand in Relation to them for the time.

14 Your comparison betwixt an Officer of a Town Corporate, and of a parti­cular Congregation is not alike, unlesse you will say that a member of another Corporation occasionally comming into the Towne, is thereby a member of that Society, and subject to the authority of the Officer. For so you professe that the [Page 36] members of one Society may occasionally communicate with another, and so be subject to the Pastor for the time being, which if you grant, it overthrows the whole strength of this consideration. Howsoever the comparison it selfe is very pe­rilous if it be pressed. For if the Officer of a Town Corporate, presume to doe an act of power out of his owne Corporation, it is a meer nullity, but if a Minister of the Gospell dispence the Sacrament of Baptisme, or the Lords Supper to believers of another Society (though done without consent) it was never deemed or judged a nullity in the Church of God. Let the comparison hold good, and most Christi­ans have cause to question whether they be truly baptized, or ever lawfully recei­ved the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. If it may not be doubted, whether ever the Sacraments of the New Testament were truly or by authority dispenced, espe­cially if we consider what follows in the other considerations. This Argument from comparison is very usuall in the Writings of Brethren against communion with our Churches, but for the most part greatly mistaken, to say no more.

Reply.

THis whole Reason as it is propounded makes onely against it selfe; who eve [...] thought that the Seals of the Covenant were not proper to confederates or th [...] Church of God? But of old all visible Believers under the Covenant of Grace walking in holinesse, were of the visible Church, and in Church Order according to the dispensation of those times, though not joyned in externall society with the Fa­mily of Abraham. And to exclude Melchisedeck or Iob, because they were n [...] members of the visible Church, when yet they were visible Believers under the Co­venant of Grace, and in Church Order as those times required, is well-nigh a con­tradiction, And so it is to debar known and approved Christians members of ou [...] Congregation, and their seed from the Seals, because they be not of the visible Church, for they are members of the Church, and so to bee held and esteemed all true Churches and members of the Church, The true & proper meaning of this Consideration, is that as Circumcision and the Passeover were not to be dispensed to all visible Believers under the Covenant of Grace, but onely to such as were joyned to Abrahams Family, or to the people of the God of Abraham, no more may Baptisme and the Lords Supper be administred to any Believers now, unlesse they be joyned to some particular Congregation in Church Membership, or unlesse by solemne Covenant, they be set members of some particular Assemblies.

The strength of this Consideration stands in the parity which is betwixt the Sacraments of the Old Erast so objects against Bern. Sicut a Circumcisione ad Bap­tismum argumentamur ut pro­bemus infantes esse baptizan­dos, ita etiam licet ab agno Paschatis ad Coenam Domini, &c. whereto hee truly reply­eth. Ego vero, non negolicere &c. at non temere & univer­saliter. Beza contra Erast. pag. 23. and New Testament, Circumcision and Baptisme, for parum par est ratio, but this parity is not found in every thing (as is manifest by the particulars al­leadged in the Consideration it self.) And wee must justly require some reason to prove them like in that particular, but to unfold it more fully, we will con­sider three things. First, how far an argument may be drawn soundly from one Sacrament to ano­ther, or wherein the Sacraments agree, and wherein they differ. Secondly, What wee are to think of the proposition it self. Thirdly, whether the Reason of Circumcision and Baptisme be one in that particular.

[Page 38] First the Sacraments of the old Testament and the new agree in their Common [...]uthor, nature and end, and therfore what is spoken of one in respect of the com­mon author, nature and end that doth hold true of everie one. If Circumcision be of divine institution a seale of the Righteousnesse of faith, and of the Covenant of grace, a Sacrament in generall is an ordinance divine, a seale of the Covenant pro­ [...]er and peculiar to them that bee confederates. But what is peculiar to one Sacra­ment that agreeth not to another. What is proper to the sacraments of the old Te­ [...]ament, in respect of the manner of dispensation that agreeth not to the new, as if [...]he Sacraments of the old Testament be with bloud, obscure in signification, painfull [...]or use, peculiar to one Nation, and to bee abolished, the Sacraments of the new Testament must be without bloud, cleere for signification, easie for use, universall [...]o all Nations, and perpetuall to continue in the Church for ever.

Circumcision and Baptisme are both Sacraments of divine institution, and so they [...]gree in the substance of the things signified, the persons to whom they are to bee [...]dministred, and the order of administration, if the right proportion bee observed. [...]s circumcision sealed the entrance into the covenant the righteousnesse of faith, and [...]ircumcision of the heart: so doth Baptisme much more clearly: As Abraham and [...]is houshold, and the infants of beleiving Iews were to be circumcised, so the faithful, [...]heir families, and their seed are to bee baptized. None must eate the passeover who was not circumcised, women excepted, who were circumcised in the males. Nor may a man unbaptized be admitted to the Lords supper. Circumcision was but once applied by Gods appointment and the same holds in baptisme according to [...]he will and good pleasure of God: But circumcision and baptisme agree not in [...]heir speciall forme, and manner of dispensation appointed of God. And in these [...]hings a reason cannot be drawn from the one to the other affirmatively. The males onely were to be circumcised as only capable of that signe: but males and fe­males both ought to be baptized. The infants males were to be circumcised the eighth day because seaven dayes they were legally uncleane. [...]ev. 12. 23. & 22. 7 Exo. 22. 30, But the seed of the faithfull are not to bee reputed uncleane. Ergo, no set tyme is appointed for baptisme. Circumcision as other Ceremonies did distinguish the Iewes from the Gentiles; but Christ now of two hath made one. Circumcision signified Christ to come, Baptisme is the seale of Eph. 215. [...]he New covenant made in Christ already come. And so in the degree of grace given, some difference may be put: The other differences alleadged in the conside­rations with the reasons thereof are not so cleere and undoubted: for Baptisme is not tyed to the first day of the weeke: and the Jewes might gather an Assembly on [...]he eighth day as occasion required, and it might be appropriated to the Priests and Levites though done in private: But in whatsoever they agree or differ we must [...]ooke to the institution and neither stretch it wider, nor draw it narrower then the Lord hath made it. For hee is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his [Page 39] owne good pleasure. And it is our part to learne of him, both to whom, how, and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred, how they agree, and wherein they differ. In all which we must affirme nothing but what God hath taught us, and as he hath taught us.

Secondly, as for the Proposition it selfe; certaine it is, Circumcision and the Passe­over were to be administred onely to the visible members of the Church, i e. to men in Covenant, professing the true faith; But that in Abrahams time none were vi­sible members of the Church, which joyned not themselves in Church orders to the family of Abraham, wee have not learned. In the first Institution of Circumcisi­on, we find that God gave it to Abraham, as the Seale of the Covenant formerly made with him: But of any Church covenant or order whereunto Abrahams fa­mily should enter before Circumcision we read not. Melchizedeck, Lot, Iob, &c. were not onely visible Beleevers under the Covenant of grace, but visible members of the Church, according to the order and dispensation of those times. Wee read not (you say) that Melchizedeck, Lot or Iob were circumcised, but that is no good reason to inferre negatively that they were not Circumcised. We read not that Iohn the Baptist, or the Apostles, or the 500. brethren were Baptized, wee must not forth­with Etiam si daremus nullam legi ab A­postolis excommunicationem non ta­men sequeretur ita esse, quum satis constet non omnium singularia Apo­stolorum gesta perscripta fuisse. Bez. de Presb. p. 7. Et si de Melchize­deck & Iobo quae huc adferuntur non sunt extra controversiam. Nam foe­dere cum Abra. inito non exclu­duntur ij qui ante erant in foedere sed accensentur foederi. Ita autem se habuit Melchizedeck, &c. omnino e­nim consors promissionis divine fuit ante foedus cum eo initum. Gen. 17. Job vero & credens fuit promissioni­bus foederis & de sententia veterum fuit circumcisus etiam haereditarià circumcisione a paterno materna (que) sanguine. Vt elegantèr scribit author libri de verà Circumcisione qui Hie­ron. ad scribitur. Iun. anim adv. in Bel­lar. contrav. 4. lib. 3. cha. 16. not. 13. conclude, that they were not initiated by that seale. Moreover, if they were not Circumcised, it may bee the Institution of that Sacrament was not knowne unto them, or the Authour of Circumcision (upon whose will and pleasure they must depend) did not command it unto them, or require that they should joyne themselves in Covenant with Abrahams family: and in that case if they had Circumcised themselves they had trans­gressed. But then the reason why they were not circumcised was not this, that they were not (as you speake) in Church order: but because Circumcision was appropriated to Abrahams family by divine Institution in some speciall and peculiar respects belonging to the manner of Administration. After the Church of the Jewes was constituted (when wee can no more imagine that there was a Church among the Gentiles, then that there are Christians among the Barbarians at this day) we finde none must be admitted to the Passeover that was not first Circumcised, but nothing was required of a stranger [Page 40] to circumcision, but that he professe the true faith, and a vouch the God of Abraham to be his God, which of necessitie must be done before he could be reputed a visible Beleever, or under the Covenant of promise.

Thus a learned and reverend divine, Circumcision was a seale of the covenant, that God made with Abraham concerning Christ that 1 [...]. D. exam [...] tents p 309. should come as concerning the flesh of Isaac and so of Iacob of whom were the 12 tribes who were the Israelites, &c. Rom. 9. 4. 5. So that as in Abra­hams time none were bound to be Circumcised but those that were of his family as being borne there or bought, and so brought thither which were not of his seed: So afterwards none were bound to be Circumcised which were not borne in the family of Jacob and Patriarchs, or joyned to them. And after their comming out of Egypt none were bound to be Circumcised but the children of the Iewes (then the only Church of God,) and those that desired to joyne unto them. The summe is thus much, God gave circumcision to Abraham as a seale of the Covenant but whether it was given to other beleevers in his time it is (at least) a thing uncer­taine. And if they were not Circumcised it was by reason of the speciall Institution of God, and peculiar manner of administration of the Covenant of promise which in some respect was proper, to the family of Abraham, and not common to all the visible members of the Church at that time in Church fellowship and order. After­wards when there were none in covenant but the seed of Iacob or strangers pro­fessing the faith of Abraham, circumcision was not to be administred to any man who was not in Covenant nor any man to bee admitted to the Passeover who was not circumcised. This is the most that can be said with any probability: But hence it will not follow by iust analogie or proportion, that the seed of the faithfull must not bee admitted to Baptisme, or visible beleivers be received to the Lords Supper unlesse they bee set members of some particular congregation united in Church order. Thirdly, presupposing therefore that Melchizedeck, Lot and Iob, were not Cir­cumcised, we say there is not the like reason of Circumcision and Baptisme in this particular. For, first if Circumcision was ever appropriated to the family of Abra­ham, and might be communicated to other visible Beleevers, it was in the first In­stitution and administration; but in the first Institution and administration of Bap­tisme, it was not observed that beleevers should be first gathered into a politicall body or Christian church membership, and then baptized. Iohn the Bap­tist baptized such as came to him confessing their sins. The Apostles Mat. 3. 7. baptized Disciples, such as gladly received their doctrine, beleeved 10 42. Act. 2 37, 38. 41. & 8 37. & 10. 47. 48. in Jesus Christ, and received the gifts of the holy Ghost, before they were gathered into Christian Church order, or made fit mem­bers of a Christian congregationall Assembly.

2 If Circumcision was by speciall Institution given as a priviledge to the Males of Abrahams Familie, Melchizedecke, Iob, Lot, and other visible Beleevers were not bound to joyne themselves as members [Page 45] to Abrahams familie, or desire and seek to be circumcised: But they that have re­ceived the doctrine of salvation, beleeve Christ, and professe the faith, are bound to seek, and desire the priviledge of the seals in an holy manner.

3. Melchizedech, Job, and Lot were not onely visible beleevers, but visible mem­bers of the Church, according to the manner of dispensing in those times: but the Seals (as you confesse) belong to all beleevers knit together in Church-Cove­nant.

4. If circumcision be appropriated to the family of Abraham, it is because the Covenant sealed by circumcision is peculiar to Abrahams posteritie, (sc.) that Christ should come as concerning the flesh, of Isaac. But Baptisme is the seal of the Covenant of grace without any peculiar or speciall tye or respect.

5. You contend, that Baptisme did belong to such beleevers as were members of the then Jewish Church, which cannot stand, if Abrahams familie did answer to a Christian societie or congregationall Assembly; Just reason therefore may be gi­ven why circumcision was dispensed onely to the males of Abrahams familie, when baptisme is not to be limited onely to the set members of a particular societie; and if this consideration be applied to the purpose, instead of saying, Circumcision and the Passeover were to be administred onely to the members of the Church, you must say Circumcision was to be desired of or administred unto all the true appro­ved visible members of the Church. And if there be the same reason of both, then all visible approved members of the Church must not desire nor be admitted to the seals, but this conclusion you will not acknowledge.

Reply.

FIrst, men are capable of Church censures in two respects, either in having the power of the keyes, and authoritie to dispense them according to God, or as subject to the censures of the Church. In the first sense, many are capable of Church priviledges that are not capable of Church censures, as the seed of Chri­stian parents, children and women. You say you admit to the seales the knowne [Page 46] and approved, and orderly recommended members of any true Church: but to fel­lowship in the censures, admittance of members, and choice of Officers onely, the members of that particular Church whereof they and we (any of us) stand mem­bers. In the second sense also many are capable of Church priviledges who are not subject to Church censures: as the children of Christian parents are capable of baptisme, the known and approved members of any true Church are capable of the Seales in other Congregations among you who are not subject to the censures of that other Society. Spirituall communion in publick prayer is a Church priviledge, which is not denied to visible beleevers and godly persons, though not in Church order, and so not in subjection in your sense to Church censures.

Secondly, a person baptised is not baptised in that particular congregation one­ly, but into all Churches, and every particular Church where he cometh he hath all the priviledges of a baptised person in respect of his baptisme, and is so to be esteemed by them. Now the priviledge of a baptised person who is able to examine himself, and walketh in the truth, is to be admitted to the Lords Supper. All cir­cumcised persons had right thereby to eat the Passeover in any societie, in the place which God should chuse to put his Name there. Exod. 12. 4. 47. Deut. 16. 1, 2. So all baptised persons have true and intire right to the Lords Supper in everie true Church where God hath set his Name.

Thirdly, there is not the same reason of every Church priviledge, for one may have right to some, who is not to meddle with others. The members of one society may hear the Word, joyne in Prayer, and receive the Sacraments in another, when they are not to meddle in the election and ordination of their teachers. The Mini­sters of the Gospel may preach the Word, and administer the Sacraments in ano­ther congregation, and hereto he needs no other calling but that God offers an op­portunitie; there is much need of his help, and he is intreated, or hath leave from them in place or office; but he is not to admit members into the societie, or cast them out that be admitted. And if the Pastor of one Church shall preach or admi­nister the Sacraments in another, contrary to the liking and approbation of the Society and Governours, though the act be irregular, it was never esteemed a nulli­tie; but if he shall presume to excommunicate the members of another societie, with­out the consent o [...] the Church, and approbation of Pastors and Teachers, under whose charge and jurisdiction they live, it hath been judged a meer nullity. There­fore the proposition is not so evident as to be taken without proofe, that they have no power to admit a beleever into communion in any Church priviledge who have no power to excommunicate.

Fourthly, that visible beleevers baptised into a true Church professing the true faith, and walking in holy obedience, and godly conversation, that they and their seed should be judged such as are without in the Apo­stles 1. Cor. 5. 12. sense, because they be not externally joyned as set members to some particular congregation in Church-Covenant is affirmed, not proved.

[Page 47] 1. It hath, and may fall out many times through the ignorance, rashnesse, or pride of a prevailing faction in the Church, that the true members of the Ca­tholique Church, and the best members of the orthodox visible flock, or congre­gation of Christ may be no members of any distinct visible societie. And shall their posteritie be esteemed Aliens and Strangers from the Covenant, and debar­red from the Sacraments, because their parents are unjustly seperated from the inheritance of the Lord? Surely as parents unjustly excommunicated do con­tinue still not onely true members of the invisible body; but visible members of the flock of Christ: so the right of Baptisme doth belong to the Infants of such parents, though not actuall and constant members of this or that present assem­bly in Church order.

2. If they be without, because no members of a politike bodie or spirituall fellowship: then all members which are of one societie are without to another: For they that be not of the bodie are not capable of Church censures, or subject to the authoritie one of another. And so not being under the judgement of that particular Church to it they are without; whereas in ancient and moderne times distinct Societies did communicate together, admit and receive each other as brethren, to testifie their fellowship in the faith. If the reason whereupon the Apostle saith the Church of Corinth was not to judge them that were without, was because they were not within the Church of Corinth, and so not under their censure or judgement: this holds true of them that be of another society admit­ted to the Sacrament, as well as of such as be no set members desiring to be recei­ved to the Lords Supper.

3. (The fornicators of this world) do they not explaine whom the Apostle pointeth unto by the title of being without, ver. 10. 11. such as had not received the covenant of grace.

4. Church order is necessarie we denie not; but this order that a man should be a constant and set member of a particular societie by covenant, to make him a true member of the visible Church, or to give him title or interest to the publick order, this is not taught of God.

5. Paul divides all men into two ranks, the first and greater without; the last and lesser within: but that beleevers who have received the holy Ghost, and have been baptised into Jesus Christ, that they and their children should be reckoned among them that are without, that we read not in this nor any other Scripture, but in phrase of Scripture hereticks themselves 1. Job. 2. 19. 1. Cor. 11. 19. are within the Church.

6. The beleevers not yet gathered (as the godly learned think) into a certain distinct body are called beleevers, brethren, disciples; but that they should be comprehended under them that are without, it hath not been beleeved in the Church.

7. Without (saith the Apostle whether alluding to this place or not, let others [Page 48] judge) are dogs, inchanters, whoremongers, not such as are cal­led Rev. 22. 15. [...]. 1. Tim. 3. 7. [...], & Script. eth­nici apud patres audiunt. 01 [...]. Matth. 8. 11. Ephes. 2. 12. Rob. against Ber. p. 101. faithfull and holy, walking in integritie, beleeving in and pro­fessing Jesus Christ to be their Saviour.

8. They that are without in the Apostes sense are Aliens from the Common­wealth of Israel, strangers from the covenant of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: but we hope you will not passe such rash and unad­vised censure upon your brethren, who be not gathered into your societie as set members.

9. Let the interpretation stand, and he is without, not onely who is no set member of some congregationall Assembly, but he that is not subject to the censure of the community of that particular combination few or many, with, or without Officers. And so all the reformed Churches in the world who ascribe the power of the keyes to the Presbitry or Classes, and not to the community, and some amongst your selves (if not the most) shall be without also.

And therefore we cannot think approved Christians desiring to be received unto the Sacrament, either to be without, or uncapable of Church censures for the time being if they should offend, though not set members of any particular congregation: for desiring baptisme for their children or themselves to be ad­mitted to the Lords Supper for the time they put themselves under the ordinance of Jesus Christ there. And as they are members for the time, so they might be proceeded against according to the rule prescribed by our Saviour, as they would proceed with an offending member.

10. If upon just and good reason a passage of Scripture can be cleared to prove that for which it was never alledged by any writer, we are not to except against any truth of God, because it wanteth mans testimonie. Onely if we desire credit in such cases, our reasons must be weightie and convincing. But for your exposition of this text of Scripture, as yet we have not observed one substantiall ground, or approved author to be alledged. Doctor Ames shewing the necessitie of Christians ioyning themselves to some particular Church, giveth this reason, Quoniam alias fieri non potest qu [...] conturbentur signa illa quibus fideles ab infideli­bus discerni possunt. 1. Cor. 5. 12. But herein Dr. Ames manifestly sheweth that by them that are [without] heathens, and unbeleevers must be understood, and not beleevers and godly men though of no particular setled societie for the time, for thus we conceive he argueth. The signes and evidences whereby the faithfull are to be discerned from unbeleevers, must not be confounded: but unlesse Chri­stians make themselves actuall members of a Societie or Church, the signes where­by the faithfull are discerned from unbeleevers, will be obscured and darkned. And if this be his reason how can that text of Scripture be alledged for confir­mation, unlesse by [men without] Infidels be understood. Again Doctor Ames [Page 49] in the same book, lib. 4. ca. 27. speaking of Infants to be received, it is required (he saith) that they be in the covenant of grace in respect of outward profession, and estimation in respect of their parents, and that there is hope they shall be in­structed and brought up in the same covenant. 2. That Baptisme doth most properly belong to those infants whose parents, at least one of them is in the Church, and not without, because baptisme is a signe and seale of the covenant of grace. 3. That children that are cast forth are in charitie to be esteemed the children of Christian parents, when there is no just cause of presuming the con­trary, that in admitting unto baptisme a difference must be put betweene the In­fants of those who in some sort belong to the Church, but openly break the co­venant of God, and the children of others.

1. Because a distinction must be observed in holy things betweene the cleane and uncleane; seeing else the ordinance of God cannot be preserved from all pollution. To say nothing of that which he addeth touching the baptisme of Infants borne in fornication, excommunication, and Papists, which is more then sufficient to cleare his meaning in the former passage. To this may be added that he holdeth it not necessarie that Christians should gather themselves into a particular society, but as opportunitie and occasion should offer it self. So that it was never his mind to censure them who be not gathered into Church-Cove­nant, because they want means or opportunitie as men without in the Apostles sense.

His judgement is further manifested in his second Manuduction, pa. 33. So many parish Assemblies of England (saith he) as have any competent number of good Christians in them, united to worship God ordinarily in one Societie, so many have the essence and integrall forme of a visible Church, and all they have intire right to Christ, and to all the meanes of injoying him, how ever they are defective in the puritie of their combination, and in the compleat free exercising of their power, whereupon a reverend Mr. 10. D. Apol. Sect. 40. exam p. 182. Elder now among you draws this conclusion, Ergo to dischurch them wholly, and to separate from them as no Churches of Christ, or to denie bap­tisme to the Infants of their known members is not warrantable by any rule of Scripture that I know, nor justified by any assertion or practise.

Reply.

IF it be repugnant to Divine Institution to admit of approved Christians law­fully baptized, walking in the faith, members of the visible Churches, and partakers of Church priviledges among us to the Lords Supper, or their children to baptisme, because they What though this inconve­nience do arise sometimes through mans corruption it should be otherwise; and we must ever consider of the nature of Gods ordinances in their right use, &c. Rob. against Ber. pa. 213. be not entred into Church fellowship according to your order, then it is unlawfull though no such evill consequences are to be feared.

But if by accident some abuse should fall out, the evill is to be prevented by all lawfull meanes: but the faithfull are not utterly to be de­barred Respondit caam nul­lam fuisse cur 10. Bapt. istos accedentes rejiceret ut qui ad ejus bapt. ve­nirent cum peccatorum agnitione nec ipse pote­statem haberet eos ex­communicandi etiamsi fu­issent excom. digni. Beza de Presb. p 23. of the order of God, whereto they have right and title by his free grant and gracious invitation. And no question but the seales of the Covenant may be profaned many times when it is not in the power of the dispensers to put back or expell such as profane them. If the Con­gregation shall admit of, or tolerate an unworthy mem­ber, the Churches priviledges are profaned; and yet we [Page 51] conceive you will say the Pastor is not faulty in receiving him, when the Church doth tolerate unworthily, if he do what pertaineth to his office to keep the ho­ly things of God from contempt. But in the case propounded there is no feare or danger of such consequences necessarie to follow: for the question is not of all sorts at randame, but of Christians professing the faith in­tirely, Recte sane quis illos à sacris prohibuerat, &c. etsi sit tam sceleratus quispiam quam esse ex­ist imatur tum si tale ju­dicium sibi quisque su­mat quae mox fuerit Ec­clesie facies? sed pretered tenendum est istud in hoc negotio inita cujus­piam cons. non proba­billas rectam alterius consciam. Id. pa. 26. Id in privatorum arbitrio relinquere ut alibi dixi­mus & periculosum ni­mis & toti Ecclesiae val­de damnosum fuisset. Id. p. 80. lawfully baptised, known, and approved to the consciences of the wise and judicious visible members of the Churches of Christ among us often admitted to the Lords Table, whether these either sufficiently knowne unto you, or orderly recommended may upon desire and suite themselves be admitted to communicate in the Lords Supper, and their children to be baptized, what feare is there now that the extraordinarie office of the Apostles, and the ordinarie office of Pastors and Teachers shall be much or little confounded? Is this to take as illimited power as the Apostles did in the execution of their office? How shal this tend to abrogate the distinction of Church Assemblies from the confused multitude? or how is the profanation of the seals thereby indangered?

You aske if without respect to their Church estate men of approved pietie (as we say) are to be admitted into fellowship in the seals, how shall their pietie be approved to the Church, not by their own report of themselves alone, &c. Do not you say the same, That there be many godly persons, and of approved pietie among us, who are not approved by their own report of themselves (unlesse ye will take their wisedome, faith, patience, cou­rage, constancie, and holinesse of life for their report) approved, we say by as ample and sufficient testimonie as the Apostles exacted of them whom they re­ceived into Church fellowship, or can be required of members admitted unto the priviledges of the Church, if men will follow the Lords direction, or as you can give to ordinances members of your societies. You professe high respect of your brethren in old England, but it seemes you judge them insufficient to give orderly testimonie of the sinceritie and uprightnesse of approved Christians, well known unto them, and living among them, which two cannot well agree. We speake not of such who against light refuse to professe subjection to the Gospel of Christ to joyne themselves orderly in fellowship with some approved Church: But of such as do with all readinesse professe subjection, and walk accordingly, and heartily desire to joyn themselves to the most pure and compleat Churches so farre as they are taught of God, or have opportunitie thereunto. And if ex­ception be taken against them onely, who refuse against light to submit them­selves to the Gospel; by what rule do you proceed when you judge men to re­fuse against light, or debarre them who do not refuse against conscience, but for [Page 52] lacke of opportunitie. No doubt (as you say) but now and then a man of ap­proved pietie in the judgement of some may be found too light, yea and in the judgement of his owne conscience when he hath come to triall. And no question but many have been admitted by the Church, who indeed and truth are much too light; and some refused who deserved better then they that cast them off, we will not dispute what errours have been committed, nor what blessing ye have found upon your proceedings; we heartily beseech the Lord to keep your congregation pure, make his ordinances more and more effectuall, go before you in the way wherein you should walk, and multiply his mercies upon you in the same. But this we are perswaded, and therefore we speak, that in debarring godly Christians from the Lords Supper, and much more the children of those parents who are in covenant with God, from holy baptisme you exceed your commission you have received from God, and go beyond your due bounds. And notwithstanding your circumspection more worthy and faithfull Christians have been denied when of lesse worth, and meaner sufficiencies have passed, and been by you received.

Reply.

THis conclusion is not to the question propounded, for we speake of such as cannot, not of such as refuse to joyne themselves unto the Church; or if they do not joyne, it is not out of contempt or wilfull neglect of Gods ordinance, or desire of carnall libertie, and not to be in subjection to Christ, but for lacke of opportunitie, or through their fault that should admit them but do not. For if in any of your Churches you shall require more of members to be admitted then Christ the chiefe Shepherd of the flock doth, or presse that upon their consci­ences [Page 53] which they cannot consent unto, if they shall sit downe quietly for the time and serve God in private, when they cannot injoy Church priviledges, it is your fault and not theirs. And they may more justly challenge the Assemblie as injurious and tyrannicall, then you them as wilfull despisers of Gods ordi­nance. We accuse not the wisedome and discretion of your Chuches, but we know the zealous multitude may sometimes be rash; And when a reason is cra­ved of your judgement, why you do debarre the most knowne and approved Christians which come over, and their children from the seals of the covenant, we dislike you should put this note upon them, as if against light they refused orderly to subject themselves to the Gospel of Jesus Christ: What warrant you have thus to censure, what use of this manner of dispute we leave it to your god­ly wisedome to judge. In the Consideration it self there are many Propositions couched together, which we must examine severally as they have reference to the conclusion intended, and then try whether it can be raised from them.

The first Proposition, That none have power to dispence the Seales, but they that are called to the office of Ministery, is freely granted.

The second, That no man can be so called till first there be a Church to call him, needeth explication. For by the Church you must understand the com­munity of the faithfull, as they are one bodie, without officers or guides. And such a Church there cannot be without a Ministery to call and admit them into Church-fellowship. The Apostles baptised not themselves, but by the help of others, & those not called of the people to be baptised, 1 Cor. 1. 17. The Apostles appointed by electiō, Elders in every city or Church. And so there was a Church before Elders were set over it, but this Church was a societie of beleevers by bap­tisme admitted into Church-fellowship. There can be no Church to call a Mi­nister to feed the flock, and dispence the seals, till they have received the doctrine of salvation intirely, and by the seale of initiation be solemnly received into the societie of men professing Christ. A company of men converted to the faith being unbaptized, may and ought to desire baptisme, but they have not power to elect and chuse one among themselves to dispence the seales unto the rest for ought is to be found in Scripture: The Churches constitution into which Christians are to gather themselves must be Apostolicall, and Rob. against Bern. likely veiwed. p. 40. not one day or houre younger in nature and forme of it, thus the first Church of the New Testament. But it can never be shewed in Scripture that any societie of unbaptised persons did first chuse from among them a Pastor or Teacher by whom they might be baptised: you cannot produce one example or other proofe in the Scripture, of one man teaching the Gospel ministerially but he was baptised, and a member of a true Church, or of a societie who made choice of a Pastor and teacher, but they were baptised persons.

The third Proposition, That the power of calling Ministers is given by Christ unto the Church, must also be rightly understood: For by the Church must be [Page 54] meant the societie of the faithfull, not onely ingrafted into Christ, set into the state of salvation, and made heires apparent of everlasting blessednesse, but so­lemnly entred and inrolled into the societie of Christs flock, and acknowledged members by free admission into the Seales of the Covenant. Againe, by the Church if we speake of ordinary calling, must not be understood of the faith­full alone, but their guides and officers together with them, who are to goe before the rest, and to direct and governe them in their choice. Neither can we say, that any two or three beleevers linked together in societie doe make such a Church, as to whom the calling of the Minister doth belong: but that right was given by Christ to such Churches as were gathered and established by the Apo­stles. The Church hath a Ministery of calling one whom Christ hath described, that from Christ he may have power of Office given him in the vacant place. But the office, gift, and power of the Ministery, is immediately from Christ and not from the Church. The Church doth neither virtually nor formally give power to her Officers but ministerially onely, as ministring to him who hath power and vertue to conferre it. And this right of election is so given to the communitie and body of the people, that if they have consented to give away their right, or if it be taken injuriously from them, the calling of the Minister notwithstanding may be true, and ministeriall acts done by him that is thrust upon the people without their consent may be effectuall to their salvation. A wrong it is altogether to debarre the godly of their consent in the calling of such as must watch for their soules; but it makes not the calling it selfe a meere nullitie; for then many Churches in the world within a few hundred yeares after Christ should have wanted both ministery and Sacraments, and they would have been altogether destitute of both ministery and Sacraments for many hundred yeares.

The fourth, That all those who desire to partake in the Seales, are bound to joyne themselves together in Church-state, that so they may call a Minister to dispence the Seales unto them, will not follow from the former rightly under­stood. We deny not but Christians are bound to joyne themselves together in ho­ly fellowship, if God give them opportunitie: but they must partake in the Seales before they can joyne themselves together in Church-state. And such as for lack of meanes and opportunitie cannot joyne themselves into such an estate, or be dispersed by persecution, or be destitute of Pastors and Teachers, may for a time desire and seek to have the seales dispenced unto them by the Pastors and Teach­ers of other Societies, with whom they hold communion in the faith. The peo­ple also who are deprived of right and libertie to choose their Pastor, may desire and seek to have the Seales dispenced unto them by him who is set over them. If a company of Infidells should be converted to the faith, they must desire to partake in the ordinances of grace before they could joyne together in a Church-way to call a Minister of their own, who might administer the Sacraments unto [Page 55] them. To make Disciples and baptize are joyned together. And if these Propositions be allowed for current, a nation or people John 4. 2. Math. 28. 19. plunged into Idolatry or Infidelitie, or otherwise dischurched, can­not by ordinary meanes recover into a Church-estate, wherein they may law­fully and according to Gods appointment desire or expect that the Seales of the Covenant should be dispenced to them.

The fifth Proposition riseth beyond measure, that no Christian can expect by the appointment of God to partake in the Seales till he have joyned himselfe in Church-fellowship and the calling of the Minister. Wee conceive you will not say that children and women have to doe in the call of the Minister (for women they are debarred by their sex as from ordinary Prophesying, so 1 Cor. 14. 34, 35. Tit. 2. 11, 12. Rob. ag. Ber. pa. 206. from any other dealing wherein they take authority over the man) If some part of the Congregation doe not consent in the election of Pastors or Teachers, have they not right to expect to have the Seales of the Covenant dispenced to themselves or their seede? If the people be deprived of that libertie to choose or call their Minister, must they seperate from the ordinances of worship there dispenced, and from the Congre­gations as no true Churches? If some persons by the providence of God live in such places where they cannot joyne in Church-fellowship and call of the Mini­ster (as suppose the Christian wife, childe, or servant) nor lawfully remove to any such Societie must they and their children live as strangers and aliens from the Covenant of grace, wherein they may not expect to partake of the Seales▪ If Infidels be converted to the faith, must they not partake in the Seales, because they cannot joyne in Church-fellowship and call of the Minister, before they be admitted to Baptisme?

Here you say the people must joyne together in the call of the Minister, before they can lawfully desire to be admitted to the Seales. And another Rob. ag. Bern. pa. 239. hath zealously affirmed (It is a presumptuous sin in any to choose an Officer not trained up and tryed (scil.) in the debating, discussing, carrying, and contriving of Church-affaires, as also in admonition, exhortation, and com­fort, publickly occasioned and so manifested) Lay these two together, and let it be considered how long many a poore soule converted to the faith must be com­pelled to want the comfort of Gods ordinances. Besides, if a people be joyned together in Church-fellowship, and have called a Pastor to feed and watch over them, wee desire (not words but) proofe why the poore dispersed Christians wanting means or opportunitie to joyn themselves together into societie, ought not to desire, and that others be not bound in conscience to afford them the com­fort of Gods ordinances.

If the Propositions may stand for good, I feare we shall scarce finde that ever in ordinary way, the Sacraments were lawfully dispenced or received in the Christian Churches of God since the first foundation of them. Now the premises [Page 56] being liable to so many exceptions, the conclusion to be laid upon them, will fall of it selfe. And thereunto wee oppose the direct contrary. That Infidels con­verted to the faith, or godly Christians, formerly visible beleevers, knowne and approved members of Congregations professing the intire faith, and joyning to­gether in the lawfull use of the Sacraments for substance according to the Insti­tution, may and ought to desire and expect the Seales of the Covenant to be dis­penced to them, and to their seede, though for the present they be not joyned in­to such Church-state and call of Ministers as you require.

Reply.

THe practise of the Church of strangers in London, recorded by John Alasco, is farre different from your judgement and practise, not in some by-circum­stances, but in the maine point in question; for your judgement is that true visi­ble beleevers, baptized and partakers of the Lords Supper in other Churches not yet gathered into Church-estate or fellowship, have no right or interest in the Seales, (they nor their seede) But this Church of strangers held no such opinion as their own words (which you have omitted) doe plainly speake. And Paul testifyeth (say they) that by Christs Ordinance the Church it selfe without ex­ception of any member of it, is to be accounted cleane or holy by the ministery of Baptisme. Whence we may easily see, that Baptisme doth neither belong to those who are altogether without the Church, nor to be denyed to any member of the Church. Secondly, They held communion with the Church of England as one and the same with theirs. For so they professe: Yet neverthelesse, that we may openly shew that the English Churches and ours are one and the same Church (though we differ somewhat from them both in language and Ceremo­nies) We doe not refuse that the English may as publick witnesses of the Church offer the Infants of our members to Baptisme in our Churches, if they have both the use of our language and a certain testimony of their piety. As in like man­ner our members are accustomed to offer the Infants of the English to Baptisme in the English Churches. If your judgement be this of the English Churches, your judgement in acknowledging us members of true Churches, and practise in de­barring visible beleevers and their seede from the Seales, are opposite the one to the other. Thirdly, This order was observed by them to prevent the impostures of some, who whilst they avoyded all Churches, pretended to the English, that they were joyned to the strangers, and to the strangers that they were joyned to the English. But you debarre knowne Christians who desire to joyne themselves with you, not to prevent impostures of them who avoyde all Churches: yea, you debarre them as men having no right to the Sacraments, because they be not in Church-fellowship: and herein you can shew no president ancient or moderne, either from Scripture or Monuments of the Church: And as your practise is without example, so without warrant from the word of God. And this is the [Page 58] maine reason why we cannot consent unto you in this particular which we thus propound.

Reply.

THis Answer stands of many parts, wherein things doubtfull are affirmed, and that which more weakeneth the force of the consideration before alledged, and the Answer it selfe, then of the reason whereunto it is applyed. For

First, If where the holy Ghost is given and received, and where faith is pro­fessed according to Gods ordinance, there none may hinder them from being baptized, viz. by such as have power to baptize them: Then either men that have received the holy Ghost, and professe the faith, be members of the Church, or Baptisme is not a priviledge of the Church, then it is not essentiall to the first Institution of Baptisme, that it should be dispenced to none but such as were en­tered into Church-fellowship, or were set members of a congregationall Assem­bly. Then the Apostles in dispensing the Seales unto such, or commanding them to be dispenced, did walk according to the rules of Scripture, and upon grounds common to them and us, viz. they admitted them unto the Sacraments who had right and interest to them, according to the minde and pleasure of the Institutor, not extraordinarily revealed, besides the common rules, or by speciall dispensa­tion and prerogative excepted from the common rule, but made knowne in the Institution it selfe. And then the difficultie remaining is onely this, whether a Pastor or Teacher hath authority from Christ to dispence the Seales of the Cove­nant to one who hath right and title to them, and doth orderly desire that bene­fit because he is not as yet received as a set member of that particular societie which your practise in admitting of set members of other Congregations unto the Seales doth manifestly convince. For if both have equall interest unto the Seales, the Pastor upon lawfull suite and request hath equall authoritie to receive the one as well as the other.

Secondly, In the particular Instances given, it is not probable that Baptisme was evermore administred by Apostles or Evangelists; For before the death of Christ, the Disciples baptized when they were properly neither Apostles nor Evangelists: After the death of Christ (not to insist Joh 4. 2, 3. & 3. 27. upon conjectures whether any assisted the Apostles in the baptizing of the first three thousand converted) it is not certaine, whether Peter baptized Cornelius and his family, or commanded others then present with Act. 10. 48. [Page 63] him to baptize them: the words may be read: Et jussit eos baptiza­ri in nomine Domini. Syr. & Arab. Praecepit eis ut baptizarentur. Whit. de Sa­cra. q. 3. de Bap. cap. 2. pa 260. Act. 8. 12. & 9. 18. 1 Cor. 1. 17. The Interlineary glosse leaveth it doubtfull, Associis suis vel a scipso. Others are of opinion that Peter did baptize them himselfe. It can­not be proved that Philip and Ananias were both Evangelists, when the one baptized the Samaritans and the Eunuch, the other Paul. Paul himselfe baptized but a few as he testifieth of himselfe, and rea­son to convince that others converted by his preaching were baptized by Evan­gelists, we know not any. And if Philip, Ananias, and others might baptize such as had right and title to the Seales, being as yet no set members of any particular Congregation: and a Congregation destitute of their proper Pastor, may desire another to baptize their Infants, and dispence the Sacrament of the Supper to them in that their necessitie. And if the members of one Congregation may law­fully communicate in another, then may the Pastors of particular Congregati­ons upon occasion admit to the Seales of the Covenant such known and appro­ved Christians, as have right and title thereunto, and duely and orderly require the same; for of all these the reason is like and perpetuall.

Thirdly, It is very improbable that the persons baptized, were in Church-state or order. If they were members of the Jewish Church not yet dissolved, this is not to the purpose; for men have not right to Baptisme, because they were members of the Jewish Church, but because Disciples and (as you say) joyned together in Covenant, and have fellowship and calling of their Minister, who is to dispence the Seales unto them. And Baptisme is the Sacrament of initiation, not into the Jewish but the Christian Churches. Secondly, when you say, the Seales in ordinary dispensation are the priviledges of the Churches. There are no Mini­sters but of particular Churches. Baptisme and the Lords Supper are to be admini­stred onely to the members of the Church. No societie may lawfully desire the Seales, unlesse they have joyned in the choice and calling of their Minister. Beleevers not yet joyned in Church-order are without. Doe yee not in all these understand a Christi­an societie, united in a Church-way, &c. which cannot agree to the members of the Jewish Church, not yet dissolved. Thirdly, Against B. pa. 88. The constitution of the Church (saith M ^r. Robin.) is the orderly collection and conjunction of the Saints into and in the Covenant of the New Testament; but the members of Jewish Churches not yet dissolved, were not in such constitution. If the Eunuch and Centurion were proselytes and members of the Church of the Jewes; The Samaritanes whom Philip baptized were not so. And that any Gen­tiles, or the Gailor whom Paul baptized in the Apostles times, were set members of a Christian Assembly before baptized, is very strange If there was a Church at Philippi, yet the Gailor who was baptized and converted the same night, could not be a set member by solemne admission before Baptisme. It is said the Apostles baptized these persons in an extraordinary way. But in this practise of [Page 64] the Apostles two things are to be considered. 1. The circumstance of the action. 2. The qualitie or substance of the act. In some circumstances the baptizing of some of these persons might be extraordinary, but the substance and qualitie of the action was grounded upon rules perpetuall and common to us with them.

1. That is done in an extraordinary way, which by peculiar priviledge of dis­pensation is made lawfull to some one or few men, which is unlawfull to all o­thers, not having the same dispensation, but where the ground and reason of the action is common: we must not conceive the thing to be done in an extraordina­ry way by speciall dispensation. What was done by the Apostles upon speciall revelation and immediate direction, besides the ordinary and common rule, in that wee are not to immitate or follow them, because we have not their warrant. But what they did upon reasons and grounds reaching unto us no lesse then un­to them, in that we have the same libertie, allowance, or commandement that they did walk by. In one and the same action there may be and oft is something ordinary, something extraordinary or peculiar to speciall times or persons. So it was in the Apostles administration of the Seales: but in every place where they came by illimited power (as you speake) they did baptize Disciples, if they did baptize; this was proper to them, and could not be communicated to any others by them; For there is no passage of Scripture which teacheth this, that one Offi­cer may communicate his power to another, or doe that which particularly be­longeth to his office by a Deputie: But that they baptized beleevers professing their faith in the Lord Jesus, and repentance towards God, such as had gladly imbraced the Word, and received the gifts of the holy Ghost: this was common to them with all Pastors and Teachers, because they did it, not by power illimi­ted or speciall dispensation, but upon this standing perpetuall reason, that the promise was made to them and to their seede, and to as many as the Lord shall call, that they had received the holy Ghost, and the kingdome of heaven belonged to them. And if the grounds and reasons of their practise be common reaching to us, no lesse then unto them, the practise it selfe was not extraordinary. To say nothing that this Answer will not stand with the former; for if the parties baptized were set members of particular Societies, the Apostles did not baptize them in an extraor­dinary way, they did it by the guidance and direction of the Spirit, that is true, but not by guidance of dispensation, or prerogative, whereby that was made lawfull without such inspiration had been unlawfull. But they were infallibly guided to doe that which was according to the word of God, and might stand for our direction: that in case it be orderly desired a Pastor hath authoritie in his owne Congregation, to receive knowne and approved Christians to the seales of the Covenant, hath been proved before. If the Apostles dispenced the seales onely to the Church, Disciples, faithfull, who received the doctrine of sal­vation with gladnesse of heart, and were partakers of the holy Ghost, then they dispenced the seales in an ordinary way, for such have title and interest to the [Page 65] seales by the Institution and appointment of God. And every Pastor by his Of­fice may and ought to dispence the seales unto such, within the bounds and li­mits of his calling: But the Apostles dispenced the seales onely to the Church, Disciples, faithfull, &c.

2. An Argument followeth necessarily from particular example to a gene­rall; when one particular is proved by another particular, by force of the simili­tude common to the whole kinde, under which those particulars are contained: But the practise of the Apostles in baptizing Disciples and faithfull, by force of similitude common to the whole kinde, agreeth with the practise of Ministers receiving to Baptisme the seed of the faithfull, though as yet not set members of any particular societie, In some circumstances there may be difference when yet the reason is strong, if the difference be not in the very likenesse it selfe where­upon the reason is grounded. One circumstance that is materiall to the point may overthrow the likenesse pretended, and twenty different circumstances, if they be not to the point in hand make no dissimilitude. Now in this matter wee speake of, no circumstance is or can be named why we should thinke it lawfull for the Apostles to baptize Disciples as yet being no set members of particular societies, and the same should be unlawfull in all cases for ordinary Pastors in their particular Congregations, though it be desired.

3. What is done by extraordinary dispensation, that is lawfull for them onely who have received such dispensation, and by them cannot be communicated to others. But the Apostles baptized by others seldome by themselves, as hath been shewed.

4. We might urge the rule which a reverend Elder among you, giveth in ano­ther matter, (scil.) Those examples which are backed with some See J. D. Ap. Sect. 12. pa. 152, 153, 154. divine precept, or which are held forth in the first Institution of an ordinance, being part of the institution, or which were the con­stant lawfull actions of holy men in Scripture, not civill but sacred so binde us to imitation, as that not to conforme thereunto is sinne. For the Assumption to this Proposition, it is plaine and naturall: But the practise of the Apostles in re­ceiving the faithfull, Disciples, &c. is backed with divine precept, held forth in the first Institution, and was their constant lawfull practise, agreeable to the practise of all others who were imployed in that service; Ergo, &c.

5. In the first consideration, you prove the Seales to be the priviledge of the Church in ordinary dispensation, by this passage of Scripture, Then they that gladly received the Word were baptized: but if Apostles baptize by extraordinary dispensation in your sense this testimony is insufficient for that purpose.

Reply.

THe particulars in this Answer hath been examined alreadie, and might have well been passed over, because it is tedious to repeat the same things againe and againe. Two things are affirmed by you.

1. That the scope of the Apostle, Rom. 4. 11. was not to define a Sacrament, nor to shew what was the proper and adequate subject of a Sacrament. But this weakneth no part of the argument, for if the Apostle do not fully define a Sacra­ment, nor mention every particular benefit or prerogative sealed in the Sacra­ment; yet he sheweth sufficiently to whom the Sacraments in due order do ap­pertaine, even to the heires of salvation, to them that are justified by faith, and walk in the steps of our Father Abraham. And thus we argue from the text of the Apostle. They that are partakers of the good things sealed in the Sacrament, to them belong the Seales of the Covenant, according to Gods Institution. But they that are justified by faith are partakers of the good things sealed in the Sacrament, to them belong the Seales of the Covenant according to Gods insti­tution. If Justification be not the onely thing that Circumcision sealed, this is nothing to the point in hand. For the gifts of the holy Ghost is not the onely thing that is sealed in Baptisme: But you confesse in your Answer immediate­ly going before, that they have right to baptisme who have received the holy Ghost; and the reason is the same of Justification. Besides if Justification be not the onely thing that is sealed in the Sacrament, it is one principall thing which doth inferre the rest. For the blessings of the covenant of grace in Christ are inseparable; where one is named, others are implyed: and where one is gi­ven, no one is absolutely wanting. Christ is made of God wisedome, righteousnesse, sanctification, and redemption: whom God doth justi­fie, 1 Cor. 1. 30. [Page 68] them he doth sanctifie, and them he will glorifie.

2. The second thing you affirme is, that not onely the covenant of grace which is common to all beleevers; but Church-Covenant also which is peculiar to confederates is necessarie to the participation of the Seales. This sense your words must beare, or else they reach not the point in hand: but this is that which should be proved substantially, and not barely affirmed; and which (as we con­ceive) is contrary to the first institution of the Sacrament, and the lawfull pra­ctise of John the Baptist, our Saviour Christ, his Apostles, and all others who are recorded lawfully to administer the Seales. In Gen. 17. we find the first In­stitution of circumcision recorded, and that it was the seale of the Covenant to Abraham and his seed, to them that were borne in his house, or bought with his money: but we find no mention of any Church Covenant besides the covenant of promise which God made with Abraham. There is no mention of any Church-order into which Abrahams family was now gathered more then for­merly. God gave circumcision to Abraham and his seed as a seale of the righte­ousnesse of faith; but that this family was first gathered into Church-order as you speak we cannot beleeve, because the Scripture saith it not whether Lot, Job, Melchizedech were circumcised or not, we will not dispute; but if they re­ceived not the seale, we cannot think the reason to be because they were not in Church-order as those times required, if any such thing had been required, we cannot think that either they were ignorant of it, or that they walked against their light: But accordiug to the dispensing of those times we judge as they were visible beleevers, so they walked in that Church fellowship which God prescri­bed; and therefore if circumcision had been the seale of such Church-Covenant as you conceive, it should have been given to them no lesse then to Abrahams family. But of this sufficient is said before. As for Baptisme it is the seal of the whole Covenant, which the passages quoted prove it to be. Whether it be the seale of our fellowship which Christ in affliction, and the resurrection of our bo­dies, we leave it to your consideration: but that it should be a Seal of a Church-Covenant which is peculiar to confederates, that to us is very strange. That it is a solemne admission into the Church of Christ, and that of necessitie it must be administred in a particular societie (though in the passage to the Corinthians the mysticall bodie of Christ be understood) will easily be granted. But that it is the seale of any other covenant but the covenant of grace we cannot digest.

The Sacraments are of God, and we must learne of God for what end and use they were ordained. But by the Institution of Baptisme recorded in Scrip­ture we have learned it belongeth to the faithfull, to disciples, to them that are called of God: and as for any other covenant necessarie to the right participa­tion of the Seales, there is deep silence of it in the Institution, in the lawfull and approved practise of the first dispensers of these sacred mysteries. Enough hath been said to this matter alreadie, but we will conclude it with the words of that [Page 69] reverend Author whom we have cited many times before upon occasion. After­wards (saith he) John the Baptist walked in the same steps, and by the same rule ad­ministred baptisme in the Church whereof he was a member, required of all that came to his baptisme a profession of repentance, and amendment Matth. 3. 6. 7. Mark 1. 4. 5. Luk. 13. 3. 16. of life for remission of sinnes whereof baptisme was a seale, and preached Christ to them. This order our Lord Jesus Christ after his resurrection establish­ed to continue in the Christian Churches, giving a commission to Matth. 28. 19, 20. Mar. 16. 15, 16. his Disciples to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, and to gather all such as should beleeve through the world, as a testimonie to them, that the righteousnesse of faith did belong to them also, and not to the Church of the Jews onely. Accordingly the Apostles and servants of Christ were carefull to observe this rule in their administring baptisme. Thus Peter when he saw those three thousand souls pricked in their hearts, preached unto them concerning repentance, remission of sin, Christ, the promise, baptisme, faith, amendment of life, baptised those that gladly re­ceived Act. 2. 37. 47. his word, and testified the same by joyning together in the prosession thereof. The same course Philip took with the Church that was gathered in Samaria, where many were baptized, but none till they Act. 8. 12. 14. professed their beliefe of the Gospel, and their receiving of the Word of God. And therefore it is said expresly, When they beleeved Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdome of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised both men and women. When Ananias was commanded to go and baptise Paul, he objected against it at first, till the Lord assured Act 9. 11-17. him that he was one to whom the Seale of the Covenant belonged, and then he went and did it.

When Peter and those that came with him saw that the holy Ghost fell on Cornelius, and those that were assembled at that time in his house, Act. 10. 43-48. whilest he spake these words, To him give all the Prophets witnesse, that through the Name of Jesus whosoever beleeveth on him shall receive remission of sinnes. Peter demanded, Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptised, which have received the holy Ghost as well as we? In this catalogue we see profes­sion of faith and repentance required in them that were admitted to partake in the seals; but there is not a word of Church-Covenant, either in the Institution or administration of the Seales before they were admitted to them. That Chri­stians are solemnly ingrafted into the body of Christ, and into particular Socie­ties by the Seales, is a truth acknowledged on all sides: but that ever it was dee­med necessarie, that a Christian should be a set member of a particular Congre­gationall Church before he were admitted to the Seales, or that by divine insti­tution any such thing is ordained as necessarie thereunto, that upon the grounds before mentioned we denie, and cannot account it lesse then an addition to the institution. For if the Sacraments be seales of the Covenant of grace, and [Page 70] baptisme by divine Institution belong to Disciples, faithfull, Saints, who have gladly received the Word of grace, are justified by faith, sanctified by the Spirit, adopted to be the children of God by grace, and heires apparent to the kingdom of heaven; then to debarre such from the Seales, and their seed from Baptisme, because they be not in Church-Covenant (as you speake) is an addition to the ordinance of grace, and many wayes injurious to the people of God.