A63200:132
A trial of the new-church way in New-England and in old ... by that…A tryall of the nevv-church vvay in New-England and in old ... by that…
A trial of the new-church way in New-England and in old ... by that learned and godly minister of Christ, John Ball of Whitmore ; penned a little before his death and sent over to the New England ministers, anno 1637, as a reply to an answer of theirs in justification of the said positions ... ; now published ... by William Rathband and Simeon Ash.A tryall of the nevv-church vvay in New-England and in old ... by that learned and godly minister of Christ, John Ball of Whitmore ; penned a little before his death and sent over to the New England ministers, anno 1637, as a reply to an answer of theirs in justification of the said positions ... ; now published ... by William Rathband and Simeon Ash.
London: printed by T. Paine and M. Simmons for Thomas Underhill, 1644
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
And when you say the dispensing of the Seals is an Ordinance given only for the edifying of the Church being gathered, and not for the gathering of it, must it not be understood in extraordinary, dispensation as well as ordinary: To what purpose then are those words (in ordinary dispensation) added to the proposition? if thereby you would intimate that the Sacraments be not the peculiar privileges of the Church, and Seals of the Covenant in extraordinary dispensation, it is evidently cross to the Text you cite, and to your selves afterward. If your meaning be, that in ordinary dispensation the Sacraments do of right belong to them only, who be 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 congregational Church whereunto they were baptised, nor in a Church way before baptism (as is evident and granted by the most of your selves) but by baptism ⟨p. 20⟩solemnly admitted into the Church, and then it is not for your purpose, or they were set members (as some of the brethren seem 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 self, and make it of no force. For as those believers were of the Church: so are approved Christians and their seed among us: therefore the privileges of the seals belong unto them.
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