Of Liturgies Power of the Keys, Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII. Conſid. 3.
Reply. TO the third conſideration, this whole reaſon as it is propounded makes onelyonly againſt it ſelfe; who ever thought that the Seales were not proper to confederates, or the Church of God; of old viſible beleevers in the Covenant of grace were of the viſible Church, and in Church order according to the diſpenſation of thoſe times, though not joyned to the ſociety of Abrahams family: to exclude Job, Melchiſedeck, &c. becauſe not of the viſible Church, is welnigh a contradiction, and ſo to debarre known approved Chriſtians, &c.
Anſw. That this reaſon makes not againſt it ſelf, Mr. Ball himſelf hath cleared, when he ſtated our conſideration truely in the words following, as will appeare, however here he ſomewhat troubles the waters needleſſely, that the ground may not appeare, for there is nothing in our anſwer which deny Melchiſedech, Job, &c. to bee of the viſible Church according to the manner of thoſe times, indeed wee inſtance in them as perſons under the covenant of grace, not mentioning their memberſhip in family Churches, as being enough for our purpoſe, if they had not right to Circumciſion by vertue of their right in the covenant of grace, except they joyned to the Church at firſt in Abrahams family, and ſo after to the ſame Church in Iſrael; and the more ſpeciall Church relation in Abrahams family was required to Circumciſion, the ſtronger is the force of our reaſon, not the weaker. For ſo much the rather it followes, that ſeales are not to bee diſpenſed to beleevers (as ſuch) though viſibly profeſſing the faith, except they joyne alſo to ſuch a forme of the viſible Church, to, or in which the ſeales are inſtituted and given.
Reply. The true and proper meaning of this conſideration is, that as Circumciſion, and the Paſſeover were not to bee diſpenſed to all viſible beleevers under the Covenant of grace, but onelyonly to ſuch as were joyned to Abrahams family, or the people of the God of Abraham, no more may Baptiſme, and the Lords Supper be adminiſtred now to any beleevers, unleſſe they be joyned to ſome particular Congregation.
Anſw. Theſe words rightly ſtating the conſideration wee leave it to any indifferent reader to judge, whether any way it make againſt it ſelfe, or whether there was any cauſe firſt to darken it as was done in the former paſſage.
Reply. The ſtrength of it ſtands in the parity betweene Circumciſion and Baptiſme, but this parity is not found in every thing, as your ſelves alledge. To unfold it more fully, wee will conſider three things. Firſt, wherein the Sacraments agree, and wherein they differ.
Anſw. It matters not in how many things the Sacraments differ, ſo they agree in the thing queſtioned, and though wee might raiſe Diſputes and Queries about ſome particulars in this large diſcourſe upon this firſt head, yet ſeeing here is a grant of the parity in the point now queſtioned, viz. Concerning the perſons to whom Circumciſion and Baptiſme doe belong, wee ſhall take what is granted, and leave the reſt. For thus it is ſaid, Circumciſion and Baptiſme are both Sacraments of Divine inſtitution, and ſo they agree in ſubſtance of the things ſignified, the perſons to whom they are to be adminiſtred, and the order of adminiſtration, if the right proportion be obſerved. Now that we …ld the right proportion in the perſons, may appeare,
Firſt, in that (as was granted) Circumciſion ſealed the entrance into the Covenant, but this Covenant was not ſimply, and onelyonly the Covenant of grace; but that whole Covenant, that was made with Abraham, whereby on Gods part they were aſſured of many ſpeciall bleſſings, (whereof Lot, and others not in this Covenant with Abraham, were not capable) and whereby Abraham his ſeed, and family were bound for their part to be a people to God, and to obſerve this ſigne of the Covenant, which others in the Covenant of grace were not bound to.
Anſw. Secondly, (as is granted) it was Abraham, and his houſhold, and the ſeed of beleeving Jewes that were the perſons to bee Circumciſed, and therefore not viſible beleevers, (as ſuch) for then Lot had been included: ſo by right proportion not all viſible beleevers as ſuch, but ſuch as with Abraham, and his family are in viſible Covenant to bee the people of God according to the inſtitution of Churches when, and to which the ſeale of Baptiſme is given; and therefore as all family Churches but Abrahams being in a new forme of a Church were excluded, ſo much more ſuch as are in no viſible conſtituted Church at all.
Reply. Secondly, As for the propoſition it ſelfe, certaine it is, Circumciſion and the Paſſeover were to bee adminiſtred onelyonly to the viſible members of the Church, i. e. to men in Covenant profeſſing the true faith, but that in Abrahams time none were members of the viſible Church, which joyned not to Abrahams family, wee have not learned.
Anſw. The propoſition wee ſee is granted, yet it is obſcured divers wayes, to which wee anſwer: Firſt, whereas it is ſaid theſe members of the Church were men in Covenant, profeſſing the true faith. True, but where? not in any place, but in the Church of Abrahams family, and ſo after in the Church of Iſrael. Secondly, what faith? not onelyonly faith in the Meſſiah for life, and ſalvation, but withall faith in the promiſes made to Abraham, and his ſeed with ſubjection to the viſible worſhip of God in that Church, and to circumciſion in particular. Thirdly, that there were no others of the viſible Church beſides Abrahams family, is not ſaid, but being ſo it ſtrengthens the argument, as was ſhewed before.
Reply. In the firſt inſtitution of Circumciſion God gave it to Abraham, as the ſeale of the Covenant formerly made with him, but of any Church Covenant, whereinto Abrahams family ſhould enter, we read not.
Anſw. Whether Circumciſion ſealed any new Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. or that before, Gen. 15. wee will not contend, neither is it materiall, bee it the ſame covenant hee entred into before for ſubſtance, yet it is evident, 1 That this covenant was no… ſimply and onelyonly the covenant of grace, but had many peculiar bleſſings belonging to Abraham, and his poſterity, and family contained in it. Gen. 12. and 15. 2 It is very conſiderable that God made this Covenant with Abraham, when hee cal'd him out of that corrupt ſtate of the Church in Ebers family to worſhip God more purely according to his inſtitutions, Gen. 12. 1. with Joſh. 24. 2. Thirdly, this covenant, Gen. 17. is more explicate, and full then before, and eſpecially in that promiſe, which moſt properly concernes Church covenant, viz. that God would take Abraham and his ſeed into covenant with himſelfe, even an everlaſting covenant to be a God unto them, Verſ. 7. and this in a ſpeciall manner▪ is that, which the Lord ſaith hee would now eſtabliſh betweene Abraham and himſelfe, viz. by this ſigne of the covenant, Verſ. 9, 10, 11. Fourthly, this is the very covenant, which the Lord renewed with Abrahams ſeed afterward, when hee eſtabliſhed them to bee a Church or people to himſelfe, as is evident, Deut. 29. 12, 13. this the Lord is ſaid oft to remember, viz. to remember his covenant with Abraham, when hee viſited his ſeed with any mercy: Exod. 6. 5, 6, 7, 8. Pſal. 105. 8, 9. and therefore it muſt needs bee a Church covenant. Fiftly, as Gen. 17. the Lord inſtituted a viſible token, and ſeale of this covenant, ſo hee ſtrictly enjoyned the obſervation of the ſame in all the ſeed and family of Abraham, and that in all their generations: all which things eſpecially joyntly conſidered make it evident, that Abraham and his were not onelyonly a people, but eſtabliſhed a people to God in a Church covenant, and that the ſame covenant, which was the foundation of the nationall Church of God, that was after in his poſterity, and to this covenant the ſeale of Circumciſion was added.
Reply. Melchiſedeck, Lot, Job might bee circumciſed, though wee reade not of it, (as wee read not that John Baptiſt, or the Apoſtles were baptized) or if they were not circumciſed, it may bee that inſtitution was not knowne to them, or they were not required to joyne to Abrahams family, and if they had, they ſhould have tranſgreſſed, and ſo the reaſon was not, becauſe they were not in Church order, but becauſe Circumciſion was appropriated to Abrahams family in ſome peculiar reſpects.
Anſw. Though wee reade not of the adminiſtration of Baptiſme to John Baptiſt, the Apoſtles, and many others, yet wee reade of a rule that required it of them, and it was a part of that righteouſneſſe, of which the Lord Jeſus ſaith to John, Thus it becommeth us to fulfill all righteouſneſſe, Matth. 3. 15. not for the inſtitution of Circumciſion did bind Lot, Job, &c. yet that they were forbidden to joyne to Abrahams family, and ſo bee circumciſed, wee cannot ſay; ſeeing afterwards Proſelytes were reecived into the ſame Covenant and Church, and ſo circumciſed.
Secondly, that it was ſo appropriated to Abrahams family, as that it was unlawfull for them to joyne to Abrahams covenant, and be circumciſed, this is more then can bee ſhewed; or if Lot, Melchiſedeck, Job were excluded, yet out of queſtion Abraham might and did enlarge his family, and ſo might take in proſelytes viſible beleevers in the covenant of grace, and circumciſe them, and ſo ſtill the appropriating of circumciſion to the Church, and Covenant of Abrahams family, doth not weaken, but ſtrengthen the argument, in as much as no viſible beleever in the Covenant of grace might partake of the ſeale but by joyning in viſible covenant with that Church to which it was given.
Thirdly, ſuppoſe Job, Lot, &c. and their families were circumciſed, (as Junius alledgeth Jerome for it) yet how will it appeare it was not by taking hold of the Covenant of Abraham, to which Circumciſion was applyed? yet it ſeemes more probable, that Lot, and other families in Abrahams time were not partakers thereof, God intending (as the effect ſhewes) not to eſtabliſh them nor theirs to bee his people, as by Circumciſion hee eſtabliſhed Abraham and his ſeed; as for Iob, if hee were of Abrahams ſeed, and had Circumciſion hereditarily à materno, paternoque ſanguine, (as ſome thinke) yet this makes nothing againſt the argument wee have now in hand.
Anſw. After the Church of the Iewes was conſtituted (when wee cannot imagine any Church amongst the Gentiles) wee finde none muſt bee admitted to the Paſſeover that was not circumciſed, but nothing was required of a ſtranger, but that hee profeſſe the true faith, and avouch the God of Abraham to be his God, which muſt be done before hee could be reputed a viſible beleever, or under the covenant of Grace.
Reply. If any doubtfulneſſe can bee raiſed about the Church in Abrahams family, yet the caſe is ſo cleare in the following ſtory of the Church, as you muſt needs grant the propoſition, (as you do) and the Church of the Jewes is ſtill but the ſame Church, that was in Abrahams houſe, and the covenant the ſame, for Gen. 17. God eſtabliſhed the Covenant with him and his ſeed for an everlaſting Covenant to be a God unto them; and in Egypt the Lord challenges them as his owne, his firſt borne, &c. and therefore there is the ſame reaſon of circumciſion, firſt and laſt in reſpect of the Perſons, that had right unto it, but ſay you nothing was required to circumciſion, but to profeſſe the faith. But we demand firſt, What was it to avouch the God of Abrabam to be his God? Was it not to ſubject himſelfe to all the Statutes, Commandements, and judgements of God in his Church to walke in them? as▪ is cleare: Deut. 26. 17. Was there not the ſame Law for the ſtranger, and the home-borne? Secondly, Where muſt they profeſſe this faith, and avouch this God? Was it in any place where they dwelt, and ſo might they circumciſe themſelves? muſt not this bee done amongſt, and before the people of God in his viſible Church? whence ſuch were called Proſelytes, and reckoned of the Common-wealth of Iſrael, Eſay 56. 3, 4, 5, 6. And is not all this to joyne themſelves to the viſible inſtituted Church before they were circumciſed? Laſtly, it is not true that no man could be reputed a viſible beleever before hee did all this, That which followes pag. 40. is anſwered before.
Reply. If Lot, Job, &c. were not circumciſed, there is not the like reaſon for Circumciſion, and baptiſme in this particular.
Anſw. The force of the conſideration doth not depend upon the likeneſſe of reaſon betweene the perſons to be circumciſed and baptized in every reſpect, but in this, that as Circumciſion and the Paſſeover were given onelyonly to viſible members of that inſtituted viſible Church, and therefore ſo in this caſe of baptiſme, and the Lords Supper: now therefore if you could alledge many more different reaſons betweene Lot, Job, &c. that were not circumciſed, and thoſe not to bee baptized, it would little availe in the caſe, but wee ſhall conſider your differences particularly.
Reply. Firſt, If ever circumciſion was appropriated to Abrahams family, and might not be communicated to other viſible beleevers, it was in the firſt inſtitution, but in the firſt inſtitution of baptiſme, it was not ſo obſerved, that beleevers ſhould bee gathered into a Chriſtian Church, and then baptized. Mat. 3. 7. John baptized ſuch as came to him, confeſſing their ſinnes, the Apoſtles baptized Diſciples, ſuch as gladly received their doctrine, &c.
Anſw. There is no ſuch diſparity in this as is objected, for Abrahams family was in Covenant before Circumciſion was given, onelyonly the Covenant was more fully explained and confirmed: and ſo when John baptized, hee baptized the members of the Jewes Church in Covenant before, to whom hee was ſent to turne the heart of the fathers to the children, &c. and to prepare a people for the Lord, and baptiſme was then given to the Church of the Jewes with reference to ſo many as would receive the doctrine of John, concerning repentance and remiſſion of ſinnes by faith in the Meſſiah now come amongſt them, and therefore Chriſt himſelfe, and his Diſciples remained yet members of that Church.
Secondly, Though the viſible Kingdome of Chriſt was not yet to bee erected in Chriſtian Churches, till after Chriſts death and Reſurrection, whereby hee did put an end to the Jewiſh worſhip, and therefore no Chriſtian Churches could bee gathered by John, yet there was a middle ſtate of a people prepared for the Lord, gathered out of the Jewiſh Church, which according to that ſtate were made the Diſciples of John, by ſolemne profeſſion of their repentance or converſion to God, and acknowledgement of Chriſt the Lambe of God already come, to whom the ſeale of baptiſme was appropriated. As for the inſtances, Act. 2. 37. &c. and 8. 37. and 10. 47, 48. they are ſpoken to before in the firſt conſideration.
Reply. Secondly, Lot, Job, &c. were not bound to joyne to Abrahams family, and bee circumciſed, but now all viſible beleevers are bound to ſeeke baptiſme in an holy manner.
Anſw. Firſt, This difference makes little to the point in hand, it is enough, that all that would be circumciſed were bound to joyne to that Church, and ſo now. Secondly, in after times no doubt every true proſelyte fearing God was bound to joyne to that church, as well as now; and if now all viſible beleevers be bound to profeſſe their faith, and ſeek baptiſme in an holy manner, why ſhould they not bee bound to joyne to ſome viſible Church, and ſeeke it there, (as well as of old?) yea where ſhould they profeſſe their faith, but in the viſible Churches, as the Proſelytes of old did?
Your third difference is oft preſſed, and anſwered before.
Reply. Fourthly, If Circumciſion bee appropriated to the family of Abraham, it is becauſe that Covenant was peculiar to Abrahams poſterity, namely, that Chriſt ſhould come of Iſaac, but baptiſme is the Seale of the Covenant of Grace without peculiarity or reſpect.
Anſw. This difference is of little moment, neither will it hold, for firſt, though that, and other promiſes had a ſpeciall eye to Abrahams family, yet Circumciſion ſealed the righteouſneſſe of faith, Rom. 4. to them being in viſible Covenant with the Church, as baptiſme now doth. Secondly, this peculiar reſpect you ſpeake of, no way hindereth the joyning of many ſervants to Abrahams family, and Covenant, nor any proſelytes to the Church afterward of any nation, no more then now in reſpect of baptiſme. Thirdly, the true reaſon was, becauſe although the Covenant was made with others, yet not eſtabliſhed, nor enlarged towards them; and hence if they would partake of ſuch a Covenant, they muſt joyne in this; which alſo is the glory of the rich grace of Chriſt ſhining forth in Church-Covenant with all that will become a people to him to this day.
The firſt difference is anſwered in the firſt and ſecond.