Of Liturgies Power of the Keys, Chapter 13
CHAP. XIII.
THus farre wee have anſwered to the Reply made to the conſiderations in our anſwer to the 3. and 4. poſitions. Now whereas wee tooke notice of three objections againſt our firſt conſideration, and anſwered the ſame: It pleaſeth the learned authour to take up onelyonly two of them, and with much inlargement to urge the ſame as his reaſons againſt the poſitions, and to apply our anſwers thereunto; by which meanes our anſwers to the objections briefly ſet downe may ſeeme not ſo apt and full here as they would appeare in their proper places: and therefore it will bee needfull for us to inlarge our ſelves ſomewhat in anſwering ſome paſſages at leaſt in the reaſons as they are here propounded, before we come to the Reply.
Reply. Reaſon. 1. That ſacred order God hath ſet in his viſible Church, &c.
Anſw. Theſe words with all that follow, whatever they may ſeeme to carry with them, are nothing but a bare denyall of the poſitions in variety of expreſſions.
Reply. For firſt, The baptiſme of John was true baptiſme, &c. but hee never demanded of thoſe hee received, whether they were entered into Church Covenant, &c.
Anſw. This wee had in ſubſtance before, and is anſwered (with all the other inſtances in this firſt reaſon) in our anſwer to the Reply to the firſt conſideration, and in other places; and therefore in vaine here to repeat the ſame. And wee have obſerved more then once your plaine confeſſion that the Apoſtles conſtituted Churches by baptiſme, even ſuch Churches as they ſet Elders in by the election of the people.
Reply. The ſecond reaſon in ſubſtance is this, becauſe from Chriſt and the conſtant practiſe of the Apoſtles we learne, that ſuch as are called of God, received the holy Ghoſt, beleeve in the Lord, profeſſe their faith in him with repentance and amendment of life, have a right to baptiſme, and deſiring it are wronged if they bee deprived thereof.
Anſw. We grant the whole; but as it is ſuppoſed in due order they muſt receive it; ſo wee deſire no more, for wee grant upon theſe common grounds, ſuch have jus ad rem, but not jus in re, and the immediate fruition of them.
Reply. Thirdly, By a lively faith a man hath internal Communion with Chriſt, by profeſſion of the intire faith joyned with conformity of life in righteouſnes, holineſſe and fellowſhip of love, hee is a member of the viſible Congregation or flock of Chriſt, though no ſet member of a free Independent ſociety: and baptiſme is a ſeale of our admiſſion into the flocke of Chriſt; not ever more, but by accident, of our receiving into a particular Congregation.
Anſw. This reaſon ſtands upon ſuch a ſenſe of the Catholik Church as cannot be found: and it was before confeſſed that the Catholick Church conſiſteth of all true particular Churches, as the parts of it. And therefore how can a man be viſibly a member of the whole, and belong to no part thereof?
Secondly, We deny not but ſuch have a right to be in the particular Church, and ſo to baptiſme and all ordinances? but as by ſuch profeſſion they are not members of any particular Church, ſo neither have they immediate right to the priviledges thereof without admittance into the ſame. Fit matter, ſuch are for a particular viſible Church that profeſſe the intire faith, &c. But it doth not admit them actually thereunto: and your owne expreſſion ſecretly implyeth as much, when you ſay baptiſme is a ſeale of our admiſſion into the Church or flocke of Chriſt; If baptiſme bee the ſeale of our admiſſion, then there is an admiſſion thereunto before baptiſme: but who doth admit, and where, and when is any admitted to the Church, but in particular Congregations? Can any bee admitted into a Church, that whole Church being ignorant thereof? but a man may profeſſe the intire faith, and live accordingly amongſt the Heathen, where neither any Church nor member of it take knowledge thereof; and therefore bare profeſſion doth not admit men, but make them fit to bee received and admitted into the viſible Church.
Your fourth Reaſon wee have had twice before, and anſwered the ſame.
Reply. To our anſwer of the first objection; from the Inſtances of the Centurion, Lydia, the Jailour, and the Eunuch.
Firſt, If where the holy Ghoſt is given and received, and faith profeſſed according to Gods Ordinance, there none may hinder from being baptized (ſoil▪ by ſuch as have power to baptize them,) then either ſuch are members of the Church, or baptiſme is not a priviledge of the Church; then it is not eſſentiall to baptiſme in the firſt inſtitution that it ſhould bee diſpenſed to none but members of a Congregationall aſſembly.
Anſw. It is freely granted, Firſt, That baptiſme is a priviledge of the Church. Secondly, that ſuch as profeſſe the faith, and have received the Holy Ghoſt, are members of the Church, (if by Church bee meant the Church myſticall conſidered as viſible, though not alwayes political) Thirdly, that theſe may receive baptiſme by ſuch as have power to baptize them; but immediately to baptize them, none had power but by an extraordinary call of God ſo to doe, as hath bin formerly ſhewed. But it wil not hence follow, that ordinary officers have ſuch a power, (wanting ſuch extraordinary call) becauſe the members of the Church Catholicke having right unto the ſeales; yet the immediate fruition of them, they muſt have by ordinary officers in a politicall body, the onelyonly ſubject according to order of all ſuch inſtitutions: otherwiſe we muſt admit private baptiſmes, if the extraordinary examples of the Apoſtles be preſſed for our patterne.
Reply. Then the Apoſtles in diſpenſing ſeales walked by rules of Scripture and grounds common to us, and then the difficulty remaining is onelyonly this: Whether a Paſtour may diſpenſe ſeales to ſuch as have right to them and do orderly deſire them, though hee be not yet a ſet member of a Congregation
Anſw. Wee grant the Apoſtles ordinarily and generally baptized upon common grounds, but ſtill when they did ſo they received them into ſome particular Church; and ſo baptized them: and in the like orderly way any paſtour may doe the ſame. Secondly, we anſwer, things may bee done (ſano ſenſu) upon common and morall grounds, and yet may not be done by others upon the ſame grounds. To give one inſtance in ſtead of many: the Apoſtles preached the Goſpel to gather in the elect of God and to edifie the Church &c. and Miniſters upon the ſame common grounds muſt now preach the Goſpel alſo: yet in that the Apoſtles on thoſe grounds preached to all Nations, this doth not warrant Miniſters now to do the like: ſo here though we baptize beleevers as they did, yet wee may not do it to all in all caſes as they did. And therefore the rule holds onelyonly when all circumſtances are alike as well as the Common grounds.
Reply. Secondly, In the inſtance given, it is not probable that baptiſme was evermore adminiſtred by the Apoſtles or Evangeliſts. For before the death of Chriſt the Diſciples baptized, when they were neither Apoſtles nor Evangeliſts properly. After the death of Chriſt, &c. If Philip, Ananias, and others might baptize ſuch as were no members of particular Congregations, then may ordinary Paſtours doe the like.
Anſw. You miſtake here in the force of our anſwer, as hath beene ſhewed in the firſt conſideration, to which this objection and anſwer belong. For wee doe not make all the Acts of the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts extraordinary, but generally orderly in the way wee profeſſe. Secondly, wee anſwer to the particulars, (not to wraſtle with the Ghoſts of humane imaginations and conjectures, whether any beſides the Apoſtles baptized the 3000. Act. 2.) As for Philip and Ananias if they baptized, did they baptize as private men, or as Church Officers? If the ſecond, what Officers were they? ordinary or extraordinary? Wee thinke it will not bee thought they were ordinary who were honoured with ſuch extraordinary worke: But in what Office ſoever they were, thoſe particular actions (in baptizing the Eunuch and Paul) were done by an immediate call of God, as is evident in the ſtory.
Reply. 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 members of the Jewiſh Church, but becauſe Diſciples, and as you ſay, joyned together in Covenant, &c.
Anſw. Wee grant, that ſince the viſible kingdome of Chriſt was ſet up in viſible Chriſtian Churches, the ſeales belong properly and ordinarily to the members of Chriſtian Churches not Jewiſh: yet wee may affirme that if in any ſpeciall caſe a beleever was baptized by any that had a ſpeciall call thereto, where there was no Chriſtian Church preſent actually to joyne unto: yet being a member of the Jewiſh Church not yet diſſolved, the caſe does not ſo much vary from the ſet▪ Order of Chriſt in thoſe times, and that is all wee intend.
Reply. If the Eunuch, and Centurion were proſelytes, and of the Jewiſh Church, the Samaritans whom Philip baptized were not ſo, and that any Gentiles, or the Jaylour were ſet members of a Chriſtian aſſembly, is very ſtrange, &c.
Anſw. This is fully anſwered before in the firſt conſideration; and that which is according to the rule and mind of Chriſt, and the firſt, and common practiſe of the Apoſtles, Act. 2. to joyne men to the Church when they baptized them, need not ſeeme ſtrange.
Reply. In the Apoſtles practiſe two things are to bee conſidered. Firſt, the circumſtance of the action. Secondly, the ſubſtance or quality of the Act. In ſome circumſtances the baptizing of ſome of theſe might bee extraordinary, but the ſubſtance, and quality of the action was grounded upon …ules perpetuall, and common to us and them. That is done in an extraordinary way, &c.
Anſw. 1 Wee ſuppoſe amongſt ſuch Circumſtances you will reckon that for one, that the Eunuch was baptized alone in the Wilderneſſe, not in any viſible aſſembly of Saints. Wherein ordinary Paſtors may not imitate that Act: and this comes not farre ſhort of what wee ſay: for the chiefe proof that they were not received into a particular Church, lies in their abſence from ſuch an aſſembly: and if they might bee admitted to the Catholick Church without the preſence of any Chriſtian (but him that baptized them) why not into a particular Church as well? 2 The large diſcourſe about the Apoſtles extraordinary power, and doing things upon common grounds: is ſo oft ſaid for ſubſtance, and anſwered before, that it were vaine to trouble the Reader againe with the ſame thing.
Reply. Secondly, an argument followes neceſſarily from a particular example to a generall, when the proofe of one particular to another is made by force of the ſimilitude common to the whole kind under which thoſe particulars are contained. Now in this matter wee ſpeake of; no reaſon can bee named why wee ſhould thinke it lawfull for the Apoſtles to baptize ſuch as were no ſet members, and the ſame ſhould be unlawfull in all caſes for Paſtors of particular Congregations.
Anſw. Wee deny that the Apoſtles did ſo ordinarily, and therefore your Argument doth not hold; if it bee built upon the common practiſe; but if it be built upon ſome few ſpeciall caſes▪ we retort the Argument thus: That which the Apoſtles did ordinarily upon common grounds, that Paſtors ought to doe: but ordinarily they baptized Diſciples, admitting them firſt into particular Churches; therefore in the third reaſon wee grant the concluſion of it, that the Apoſtles did walke by ordinary rules generally.
Reply. Fourthly, the practiſe of the Apoſtles in receiving the faithfull, &c. is backed on divine precept, &c.
Anſw. If you meane they baptized ſuch without receiving them into ſome particular Church, wee deny this aſſumption upon the grounds laid downe before.
Reply. Fiftly, 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 the Apoſtles baptized by extraordinary diſpenſation in your ſenſe this teſtimony is inſufficient for that purpoſe.
Anſw. Although the printed Copy of our anſwer omit this proofe wholly, and alſo, Rom. 9. 4▪ yet in our true Cypy wee alledged, Acts 2 41, 42. 47. wherein you will finde not onelyonly this paſſage, Then they that gladly received the word were baptized: but withall that they were added to the Church, and ſuch a Church as continued ſtedfaſtly in the fellowſhip, &c. of the Apoſtles.
Likewiſe Verſe 47. that the converſion, and baptizing of Diſciples being omitted, the joyning or adding to the Church is put in the ſtead thereof, which proofes as they are omitted wholly in the printed Copy, ſo alſo you make no reply unto them.
Secondly, by theſe proofes it might eaſily have been ſeene that wee did not looke upon all the Apoſtles acts in this caſe of Baptiſme as extraordinary▪ but that their firſt and leading examples were ordinary, and in that order wee plead for: which if it had been regarded, much labour had been ſaved in this diſpute, which hath been ſpent to little purpoſe. And,
Our ſecond Reaſon.
Reply. In due order the ſeale… belong to them to whom the grant is given, but the grant is vouchſafed to the faithfull, and their ſeed, forgiveneſſe of ſinnes, &c. and the benefits of the Covenant are ſo linked together, that where one is granted none is denyed, &c.
Anſw. 'Tis true, the Seales belong to all them by a remote right to whom the grant is given, (as hath been oft ſaid) but not immediate: yet in the very propounding of this reaſon wee may obſerve two things that doe cut the …ewes of it. 1 The limitation of due order, which as hath been ſaid can no where be found but in a particular Church. Let any ſhew what order Chriſt hath put his Catholick viſible Church into, or where that order is to bee ſeene but in particular Churches, by which order every one is bound to joyne to ſuch Churches, as well as to partake in the outward Ordinances of Gods worſhip, which are there onelyonly to be found. Secondly, it is granted that not onelyonly forgiveneſſe of ſins, but all other benefits of the Covenant of grace are linked together, and are the grant ſealed up in the Sacrament; and if ſo, is not viſible conjunction with Chriſt and his Church; with all the priviledges of the Church, and ordinances of the ſame, part of that grant by the Covenant of grace, or of the Goſpell? wee ſuppoſe none would deny it, why then ſhould not viſible beleevers require, and take up this part of the grant, as well as the ſeale of it? for ſigillum ſequitur donum; let them take this gift and the ſeale is ready for them. And this may anſwer the firſt part of the Reply about Rom. 4. 11. as alſo all the reſt which followes being things ſo oft repeated, and anſwered before, as make it tedious to all.