A Trial of the New Church Way in New England, Position 3 & 4 · Part 7 – Part 8
Reply.
THis whole Reaſon as it is propounded makes onelyonly againſt it ſelfe; who ever thought that the Seals of the Covenant were not proper to confederates or the 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 no 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 our 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 onelyonly 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 and New Teſtament,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 nego licere &c. at non temere & univerſaliter. Beza contra Eraſt. pag. 23. 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.
Firſt the Sacraments of the old Teſtament and the new agree in their Common author, 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 proper 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 Teſtament, in reſpect of the manner of diſpenſation that agreeth not to the new, as if the Sacraments of the old Teſtament be with bloud, obſcure in ſignification, painfull for 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 to all Nations, and perpetuall to continue in the Church for ever.
Circumciſion and Baptiſme are both Sacraments of divine inſtitution, and ſo they agree in the ſubſtance of the things ſignified, the perſons to whom they are to bee adminiſtred, and the order of adminiſtration, if the right proportion bee obſerved. As circumciſion ſealed the entrance into the covenant the righteouſneſſe of faith, and circumciſion of the heart: ſo doth Baptiſme much more clearly: As Abraham and his houſhold, and the infants of beleiving Iews were to be circumciſed, ſo the faithful, their 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 the will and good pleaſure of God: But circumciſion and baptiſme agree not in their ſpeciall forme, and manner of diſpenſation appointed of God. And in theſe things a reaſon cannot be drawn from the one to the other affirmatively. The males onelyonly were to be circumciſed as only capable of that ſigne: but males and ſemales both ought to be baptized. The infants males were to be circumciſed the eighth day becauſe ſeaven dayes they were legally uncleane.Lev. 12. 2. 3. & 22. 27 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.Eph. 2▪ 15. Circumciſion ſignified Chriſt to come, Baptiſme is the ſeale of the 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 the 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 looke 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 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 onelyonly to the viſible members of the Church, 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 onelyonly 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,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 divinae fuit ante foedus cum eo initum. Gen. 17. Job vero & credens fuit promiſſionibus foederis & de ſententia veterum fuit circumciſus etiam haereditariâ circumciſione a paterno materno que ſanguine. Vt elegantèr ſcribit author libri de verâ Circumciſione qui Hieron. ad ſcribitur. Iun. animadv. in Bellar. contrav. 4. lib. 3. cha. 16. not. 13. wee muſt not forthwith 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 to circumciſion, but that he profeſſe the true faith, and avouch 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,Io. D. exam of tents p 309. that God made with Abraham concerning Chriſt that 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 believers 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,Mat. 3. 7. and then baptized. Iohn the Baptiſt baptized ſuch as came to him confeſſing their ſins. The Apoſtles baptized Diſciples,Io 4 2. ſuch as gladly received their doctrine, beleeved in Jeſus Chriſt,Act. 2 37. 38. 41. & 8 37. & 10. 47. 48. 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 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly to the males of Abrahams familie, when baptiſme is not to be limited onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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.
Anſw. 4. Conſideration.
THey that are not capable of the Church cenſures, are not capable of the Church priviledges: but they that are not within Church-Covenant are not capable of Church cenſures. Ergo. The propoſition is evident, The Aſſumption may be proved, 1 Corinth. 5. 12. What have I to do to judge them that are without. Now to be without is not onelyonly the caſe of Heathens and Excommunicates, but of ſome beleevers alſo, who though by externall union with Chriſt they are within the Covenant of grace, yet being not joyned externally to the viſible bodie of Chriſt (a particular Church) are in regard of viſible Church communion ſaid to be without. To this purpoſe is this text alledged by other Divines alſo, as Dr. Ames Caſ. of conſci. l. 4. c. 24. q. 1. reſp. 5.