suppose that those 3000. stood neerest unto him that spake and with best advantage to hear there being many thousands more present which can hardly be the supposition of any considering man in the case in hand Respon Not to take much notice how far the probable opinion of some will be accepted for proof against us when nothing but demonstrations will be accepted on our behalf I shall first demand of the Querist that if the children and families of those that gladly received the word and were baptized were indeed part of that number of 3000. that were added to the church or to the Discsples as he sayes it is the probable opinion of some that they were then I demand I say whether these children and families were baptized or no If he shall say they were not then he puts to rebuke another of his opinions which is that when believers themselves were baptized their children were baptized also to the belief of which he would perswade us at least as probable in his 24. Quaere from Acts 16.15.33 1 Cor. 1.16 If he say they were baptized why then though it should be granted that these were some of the number yet how would this prove that others besides those that were baptized were added to the church which yet is the thing he was to prove But then 2. to put the matter quite out of doubt that none of the children of those that gladly received the word were part of the 3000. that were added to the church if by children he mean little children or infants for els if they were adult ones they might gladly receive the word and be baptized as well as their parents it sufficiently appeares in that it is said They i. e. they that were added as well as they to whom they were added continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers and I presume the Querist will not say that little children infants did continue stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayers and if not then they were none of the number of the 3000. that were added to the church and so I think by this time the probable opinion of some in this behalf is rendred more then probably to be a weak groundlesse and erroneous opinion 3. To remove that doubt touching the improbability that 3000. men should distinctly hear the voice of a man speaking unlesse we will suppose them to stand neerest to him that spake 1. Evident it is that they did hear and so hear as to receive the word gladly but whether they were neerest to him that spake or no is more then he or I can tell or need to know But 2. There is no necessity to suppose that all the whole 3000. did all of them heare and convert in the self-same hour or juncture of time for one while the Apostle might preach to one company of them and another while to another company and yet this would not hinder but that they might all be converted baptized and added to the church the self-same day 3. Neither do I see any necessity to hold that all these 3000. that were in one day converted baptized and added to the church were thus converted and baptized by Peter only but by him and the rest of the Apostles or by them and the other Disciples also For 1. it is said that Peter standing up with the eleven lift up his voece and said unto them c. and doth not this imploy that the eleven did take part with him and assist him in the work 2. These men of Israel being pricked at their hearts they do not cry out to Peter only but the text saith They said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles men and brethren what shall we do ver 37. and therefore it should seem the rest of the Apostles as well as Peter had ministered occasion to them of this demand Nay 3. which is yet more it s said ver 4. that they all to wit the whole number of Disciples that were present together being filled with the Holy Ghost began to speak with tongues as the spirit gave them utterance which certainly was to the understanding of the multitude and also about such things as did much affect them for it s said the multitude were confounded at it and marvelled saying we do hear them speak in our own tongues the wonderfull works of God ver 6.7.8.11 All which things considered I think it will not be irrationall to suppose that others besides Peter might be instrumentall in the conversion of those 3000. Querist Nor 2. is it said or so much as intimated or hinted in the least that any of the whole number of the 3000. who were added unto them were added by means or upon the account of their being baptized although this addition be not mention'd till after their baptizing It is ten degrees mere probable that their believing or Discipleship which were precedent to their baptizing and not their being baptized were the reason and ground of Lukes saying they were added to the Church considering first that the originall main and principal foundation of the holy brother hood amongst the Saints is not the ceremony of their baptism but their fellowship and communion in the divine nature and inward relation to the same Christ by one and the same precious faith Respon We do not affirm that they were added to that particular church by baptism immediately without any other act intervening but we say they were not added without baptisme and so much is in effect acknowledged by the Querist himself in that he sayes this addition is not mentioned till after their being baptized and therefore their baptism must needs go before their addition to the church unlesse we will suppose Luke to have begun at the wrong end of this part of his Narrative in mentioning that first which was last done and that last which was first done and if so then according to the order of things done they were first added to the church and then afterward did gladly receive the word to conversion and were baptized which I suppose no man is so void of common sense as to believe And if their baptisme did precede their addition to the church then why does the Querist strive so as he does to interesse their believing or Discipleship with exclusion of their baptism as the reason and ground of Lukes saying they were added to the church For if he does not exclude baptisme in recounting the reason of that addition then we are agreed for there is no question but that their gladly receiving the Word or believing the Word or becoming Disciples by the Word was one reason or grouâ—d of their addition to the church but not the only one fâ—r Luke mentions their being baptized as well as that and why should any man go about to seperate them The question is not whether faith or baptisme is the originall main and
principall ground of the holy brother-hood amongst the Saints as he calls it we willingly grant and therefore could have spared him the labour of proving that faith hath the precedency herein But what will it therefore follow that because believing is the originall and principall ground of the holy brother-hood or church-relation that therefore baptism is none at all does he not know that though the Apostle gives repentance from dead works and faith towards God the first place in the foundation yet he assigns baptism its place and standing next to them in the same foundation Heb. 6.1.2 Querist 2. That it cannot be demonstratively proved from the Scriptures that those hundred and twenty Disciples Acts 1.15 unto which it is here said that 3000. were added were or had been all of them baptized nor can it any whit more be proved that the Apostles themselves mentioned Acts 1.13 had been baptized then that John the Baptist was baptized Respon 1 Suppose the Scripture no where mentions where when or by whom those 120. Disciples were baptized is this any good reason to conclude therefore that they were not baptized at all or will the Querist think that becaase we do not aâ— to the best of my memory we do not read in Scripture of the baptizing of the Church of Smyrna Pergamos Thyatira Sardis Philadelphia and Laodicea that therefore none of these Churches were baptized or because we read onely of the baptism of 3000. of the Church at Jerusalem that therefore all the rest when that Church encreased to the number of 5000. Acts 4.4 yea to many thousands Acts 21.20 were unbaptized Is it not enough that the Commission was to baptize all of all Nations who were first made Disciples by teaching Mat. 28.19 and that we have frequent mention in the Scriptures of the Apostles and other Disciples their walking and acting according to this Commission I say is not this enough to cause us to conclude that all those that were Disciples indeed and knew it to be their duty to be baptized were baptized accordingly unlesse we will be so uncharitable towards them as to conceive them guilty of living in the breach of one of the known precepts of the Gospell Neither can we reasonably imagine any of them to be ignorant of this viz. that submitting to baptism was their duty inasmuch as this was one of the first things they were directed to do in order to their becoming Christians Acts 2.38 8.12 16.33 22.16 2. It should seeme that these 120. Disciples had continued with Christ and kept company with the Apostles all the times that Jesus went in and out among them beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day in which he was taken up from among them as we have it Acts 1.21.22 and if so is not their being baptized sufficiently signified where it is said of Christ that he baptized and all men came to him John 3.26.22 unlesse we will suppose that he caused others to be baptized that did not follow him and did excuse those that did 3. As for the Apostles themselves who were mentioned Acts 1.13 to suppose them not to be baptized is to suppose them to be Pharisee-like who as our Saviour sayes did bind heavy burdens and grievous to be born and lay them on mens shoulders when they themselves would not touch them with one of their fingers for we see they imposed baptisme as a duty upon other men Acts 2.38 and therefore how can we think so evill of them as not to conceive that they had begun to them in the same way themselves or if they had not might not that multitude at Jerusalem upon whom they urged it as their duty have said unto them Physitians heal your selves or was it any lesse the duty of such men who became Apostles then of other men since we find Paul that great Apostle pressed to it by direction from Christ Jesus before he was to act as an Apostle Acts 22.10 compared with ver 16. 4. Suppose the Apostles had had no more oportunity of being baptized then John Baptist had which yet cannot reasonably be supposed nor is it certaine that John himselfe was not baptized since he said to Christ I have need to be baptized of thee Mat. 3 14. yet what is this to an ordinary case or how would this excuse them of baptism in order to Church-fellowship who want no such oportunity Querist 3. And lastly That had the Church or persons to whom these 3000. are said to have been added been estimated by their having been baptized which must be supposed if those who are added to them are said to have bâ—ene added upon account of their being baptized their number must needs have far exceeded an hundred and twenty considering the great numbers and vast multitudes of persons that had beene baptized by John Matth. 3.5.6 compared with Mark 1.5 Luke 3.7.21 as also by Christ himself and his Disciples John 3.22.26 yea had the Church been estimated or constituted by baptism the Evangelist Luke intending questionlesse Acts 4.4 to report the encrease of the Church and progresse of the Gospell with as much advantage as truth would afford had prevaricated with the cause which he intended to promote in reporting their number to have been about 5000. only when as upon the said supposition and tenor of the late premises he might with as much truth have reported them about 40000. yea and many more Respon All that is argued by the Querist in this particular is built upon a wrong ground or rather upon a supposed ground which is indeed supposed by him to be held by us but is not and that is that the Disciples or Church were in respect of their number estimated by their being baptized that is only by their being baptized for if he do not mean so he cou d not suppose that Luke might have reported the number of Disciples to be forty thousand instead of that he does report them to be upon such an account But the truth is we do not estimate the Church or number of Disciples only by their being baptized but by their being baptized in conjunction with their professed believing in and owning of Jesus Christ crucified and risen again as the Son of God and Saviour of the world And accordingly the 3000. that are said to be added to the Church Acts 2. are described not by their baptisme only but by their gladly receiving the Word and their being baptized too ver 41. and what word was it that they did gladly receive and believe but together with others that word of the Apostle by which he declared Jesus whom they had crucified to have beene raised from the dead and to have beene made both Lord and Christ ver 24.32.33 Both these qualifications then being requisite to denominate persons of the number of the Church Luke could not have duly estimated the number of Disciples or of the Church onely by that baptism which persons had received
audaciousnes in any man once to imagine If so then what is more plain then that the Commission of Christ to them was to teach and baptise first and to admit into Church fellowship thereupon and not otherwise as is visible in that prime example of theirs Acts 2.41.42 Then they that gladly received his Word were Baptized and the same day there was added unto them about three thousand souls And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in Prayers Where you see they were first taught by Preaching secondly did gladly receive the Word by which they were taught thirdly were baptized fourthly were added unto them viz. the Church ver 47. fifthly continued stedfastly in the Apstles Doctrine and fellowship c. Addition to the Church then and fellowship in it did follow baptism and not go before it according to the actuated commission of Christ Jesus And why should any servants of his then desire to vary from it unless they presume themselves wiser then he and hope to finde a greater good in their own way then in his 3. Baptism must needs precede the enjoyment of Church priviledge in Church fellowship in the Apostles dayes because it was then as it ought still to be a means of planting men into Christ or into the body of Christ the Church Hence they were said to be Baptized into Christ Galathians 3. vers 27. and to be baptized into his death Romans 6. v. 3. and to be planted together into the likeness of his death upon that accompt ver 5. of the same chapter And what does a planting and a planting together import but the first puting together of Christians in order to their growing together in Christ and yet all this is done by Baptism And may you not therefore as well suppose trees to grow together before they are planted together as to suppose Christians to grow together before they are planted together and yet planted together they are by Baptism not into this or that particular Church but into that one Church of Christ which is distributed into severall parts and particular Societies Hereupon it is that Baptism is called one of the Principles or begining Doctrines of Christ and likewise part of the Foundation Heb. 6.1 2. And what house stands without its Principles or is built without a foundation Nay the Apostle 1 Cor. 12 13. doth plainly declare Baptism to be of so constant and universall a use as to the inchurching of persons of all sorts ranks and degrees that were incorporated at all in his time as that none came into the Church but through this door For he sayes they were all Baptized into one body i. e. Church body whether Jewâ— or Gentils bond or free And if any man can name any persons that were neither Jews nor Gentiles neither Bond nor Free then I will confess those possibly might be brought into the Church without Baptism But otherwise though they were Jews and had been formerly entred in their Church by circumcision yet when they became of the Gospel Church it was not without Baptism Or if Gentles a people sometimes a far off yet by Baptism upon their beleeving were brought into capacity of the same enjoyments with the Jews If free as Masters yet not admited without Baptism if bound as servants yet made equally capable of the same Church priviledges by Baptism For so he sayes again Gal. 3.27 28. As many of you as have been Baptized into Christ have put on Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentle bond nor free male nor female for ye are all one in Christ Jesus i. e. all having thus put on Christ are become all one in him Some indeed seem somewhat to doubt whether the Apostle speaks of water Baptism when he sayes That by one Spirit we are all Baptised into one body or whether he does not rather speak of the Baptism of the Spirit without water Though these indeed are the doubtfull thoughs of some contrary to the generally received opinion of men upon the place yet I must do my honored Querist that right as to quit him from fellowship in that opinion and to acknowledge that he not long since in a discourse upon the same words did teach the Auditory to understand by being Baptized by one Spirit into one Body and by being made to drink into one Spirit as is exprest in the latter part of the verse that the Communion which Beleevers have with the holy Spirit in the two Ordinances Baptism and the Supper of the Lord is intended by the Apostle and this he did without doubt to me according to the truth For what else can be intended by drinking into one Spirit but the Saints communion in Spirit in and by the Supper drinking by a Synecdoche being put both for eating and drinking If so why should we not as wel understand the fiâ—st Ordinance Baptism in its proper sence for water Baptism in the former part as the latter Ordinance the Supper in its proper sence in the latter part of the verse Neither can we reasonably undeâ—stand the same thing to be intended by being Baptised by one Spirit and by drinking into one Spirit which yet we must do if a being indued with the Spirit were all that is here meant for they are said to be Baptized into one body but to drink into one Spirit and surely Baptizing and drinking here are no more the same then the Body and the Spirit are the same into which they are said respectively to be Baptized and to drink But cleerly the Apostle seems hereby to intend to minde these Corinthians how that by means of the same spirit working upon all their hearts they became members of the same body through Baptism and that being of the Body they came to have communion in Spirit or with the Spirit in the supper And that which will yet further serve to evince that it is not a Baptism with the spirit but a Baptism with water that is here meant is this because the spirit is here set forth by the Apostle as the Agent or working cause and Baptism as the effect and it is ridiculous to make both cause and effect the same thing It is true indeed the scripture doth speak of a being Baptized with the spirit but when ever it does so it still declares either Jesus Christ or God the Father as the Agent Baptizing with the spirit but never as making the spirit both the subject matter wherewith and also the Agent whereby men are Baptized in the same Baptism See for this Mat. 3.11 Mark 1.8 Luke 3.16 Act. 1.4 5. with Luke 24.49 Acts 11.16 The premises therefore considered I hope it will sufficiently appear and that to the satisfaction of any indifferent man that in the primitive times none were admited to Church-communion without Baptism and if so have we in these dayes reason to do any other wise Ought not that which was a reason to them not to admit
Church-members into Church-fellowship without baptism to be a reason unto us likewise to steer the â—ame course unlesse we will say those Gospell rules by which â—hey ordered themselves in those times were binding only to Christians of the first agâ— of the Gospell but not to us now â—nd if so then farewell all Goâ—pâ—â—â— Obligations for if we may â—ake liberty to cast away one Law of Gospell Order and Worship then why not two and so three and in the end all â—o which indeed these lâ—sser beginnings do truly tend and I would to God it might be more considered and laid to heart Querist How can this ever be proved that there were no believers unbaptized in the Apostles daies Respon I know none that does affirm any such thing as that a beâ—ever was not at any time while he was a believer unbaptized â—ny doubtlesse men were believâ—rs first and then were baptiâ—ed after they began to believe But if the Querist intends â—hus how will it be proved that no believer in Church-felâ—owshâ—p was unbaptiz d Thâ—n the answer is that it is proved by those and the like Scriptures lately quoted where it s said in â—ffect that all of all â—orts â—â—â—ks and dâ—grâ—â—s that were of the â—ody were baptized into that body and if â—ll were of the body by it then none were without it Querist Be it granted that thâ—re wâ—â—â— no believâ—â—◠〈…〉 the Apostles daies upon what ground nâ—â—wâ—â—◠〈…〉 practise â—ow queriâ—â— be justified 〈◊〉 maintained 〈…〉 certainly know and can satisfie themselves 〈…〉 had been such believers in these times 〈…〉 unbaptized or unâ—â—â—â— baptized â—y those â—â—ly 〈…〉 have declined sâ—ch communion with them as that speâ—â—â—â—â— Respon Believers now are doubâ—â—â— no 〈…〉 believers were then I do not mean 〈…〉 nuâ—â—â—â— and if so then the same ground that did satisfiâ—â—apâ—â—zâ—â— believer then in not joyning in Church fellowship 〈…〉 unbaptized though they diâ— beâ—â—eve 〈…〉 for they did believe before they were baptized and yet were not admitted into Church communion till after baptized as was proved above will serve to satisfie baptized believers now touching the lawfulnesse of the same practise which is the will and appointment of Jesus Christ that so it should be for in that we find such a thing practised with approbation of the Apostles we may well conclude it to procâ—â—d from their directions and instructions and consequently from the Lord himself as we are taught to infer 1 Cor. 14.37 II. Query Whether can it be proâ—ed from the Scriptures or by any argument like to sâ—tisfie the conscience of any tender and considerâ—ng Christian that the Apostles or other Christians in their daies would have dâ—clined Church communion with such persons whom they judged true believers in Christ only because they had not been baptized after a profession of their believing Respon It does not only appear that the Apostles and other Christians would have declined Church-communion with believers because not baptized but it appears they did do it for it sufficiently appeares that men and women did believe before they were baptized Act. 2.41 8.12.37.38 18 8. with many other places And I hope it is proved to satisfaction in my answer to the first Query that believers were not admitted to Church fellowship then till after baptized their believing notwithstanding if so what is a not admitting lesse then a refusing to admit them to such communion The reason why the Querist seems to conceive that the Apostles and other Christians would not have declined Church-communion with believers only for their want of baptisme runs thus Querist Considering that the Apostle Paul expresly saith That in Jesus Christ i. e. under the Gospel or profession of Jesus Christ in the world neither circumcisiâ—n avaâ—â—eth any thing not uncircumcision but saith which worketh by love Gal. 5.6 And again That circumcision is nothing nor uncircumcision is nothing but the keâ—ping of the Commandements of God 1 Cor. 7.19 meaning that under the Gospel neither did the observation of any externall Rite or Ceremony Circumcision by a Syneedothe Specie being but for all kind of externall Rites or ceremonies avail or contribute any thing towards the commending of any person unto God nor yet the want of any such observation discommend any man unto God or prejudice his acceptation with him but that which was all in all unto men and which availed any thing in and under the Gospel that which being found in men rendred them accepted and approved of God and the want of it disapproved was such a kind of faith not such or such a kind of ceremony or such or such a kind of baptism which by the mediation or intervening of that heavenly affection of love uttereth and expresseth it selfe in keeping the Commandements of God Respon 1. What does the Querist mean when he says that under the Gospell the observation of any externall rite or ceremony avails a man nothing towards the commending of him to God nor does the want of it prejudice his accepâ—ation with him does he mean that it does not avail him in any sense as one would suppose that were minded to take him in the worst sense since his assertion is indefinite but surely this is not his meaning since this would render the Ordinances of the Gospell Baptisme and the Supper unprofitable and vaine and things but of like indifferency as were those meats of which the Apostle saith That if a man eat of them neither is he the better or if he eat not neither is he the worse 1 Cor. 8.8 But I presume rather that he meanes that they availe not comparatively or els in the businesse of justification our what then will it follow that because these externall rites baptism and the like do not avail unto mens Justification when they are observed that therefore they are not necessary unto Church-communion for did the externall Rite of Circumcision under the Law which is the thing by which the Querist calculates the validity of baptism under the Gospell availe any more to justification thâ—n baptism does now and yet how irrelative soever it was to justification yet it was so necessary as to Church-communion as that Church-communion waâ— not to be had wâ—â—hout it Gen. 17.4 Exod. 12.48 if so then how can the Querist estimate the usefulnesse and disusefulnesse of baptism as to Church-communion by Circumcision as he does and not conclude it necessary to Church-communion as well as Circumcision was But I demand how the Apostles or other Christians in their times would have known or have been able upon good ground to have concluded that such persons had truly believed in Christ unto justification and had been meet to be admitted to communion with them who should if any such had been have refused to obey Christ in submitting to baptism whereby they were to make proof that they did believe in him in good earnest Sure I am that a refusing of Johns baptism was taken for a declared rejecting the counsell
of God in the Gospel Luk. 7.30 and how a refusing the baptism of Christ could by the same rule be deemed lesse I understand not unlesse you will suppose that the counsell of God was not in the baptism of Christ as well as in the baptism of John 2. Why should our Querist estimate the Apostles judgment of Gospel Rites by what he speaks of Circumcision since the one was abolished and the other â—stablished by the same Gospell or does it follow that because the Apostle doth oppose Faith to circumcision that therefore Faith must be opposed to Gospell-Ordinances or external Rites as he calls them does not a Gospell Faith exclude circumcision and yet include baptism as it doth all other precepts of the Gospel and therefore pity it is that such friends as Faith and Gospell-Rites are should be set together by the ears 3. Why does the Querist make circumcision a Gospel-Rite which is indeed a Rite abolished by the Gospell or does not he account it a Gospell-Rite when he sayes that under the Gospell circumcision by a Synecdoche Specie is put for all kind of externall rites or ceremonies or which I think is the same that under the Gospell and the profâ—ssion thereof neither did the observation of any externall rite or cerâ—mony circumcision by a Synecdoche Specie being put for all kind of externall rites and ceremonies c. and if for all kind then certainly for Gospell-Rites and Ceremonies for they are some of all neither surely would any man much lesse the Querist be so impertinent as to assert no externall Rite available under the Gospell because circumcision is not unlesse he held circumcision to be as much a Gospell-Rite as any other since it is against common sense to say that which is greater is not available to such or such an end because that which is lesse is not and yet more irrationall would it be to assert the non-availablenesse of that which is from the non-availablenesse of that which is not which yet would be the trip of the Querist if he should not hold that circumcision had some manner of institutive being yea and as eminent a being under the Gospell as any other Rite of the Gospell hath But if it be the judgment of the Querist indeed that circumcision is put by the Apostle as a Synecdoche Specie of Gospell-Rites i. e. of the same kind with them and as a part of them then why does he not practise it as such or if he judge it to be none of them then why does he make it a Synecdoche Specie of them or why does he estimate all Gospell-Rites and Ceremonies by that and by what is said by the Apostle concerning that I confâ—sse I should as well as the Querist hold it an unreasonable thing for any baptized believer to disclaime Church-communion with those that are unbaptized only because unbaptized if I deemed a mans being unbaptized of no worse consequence then his being not circumcised Truly I cannot but think that cause hard-bested that is fain to beg its bread out of such desolate places as is that of circumcision for one whose foundation was long since rased by the hand of the Gospell to the very ground 4. And lastly but why also does the Querist oppose the Rites and Ceremonies of the Gospell or under the Gospell to the keeping of the Commandements of God or does not he do so who makes the observation of the Rites or Ceremonies of the Gospell to avail nothing towards the commending of a man to God and yet withall does make the keeping of the Commandements of God as proceeding from Faith available hereunto which constructively clearly supposes the Rites and Ceremonies of the Gospell to be none of the Commandements of God That the Querist makes the keeping of the Commandements of God as proceeding from Faith available as to a mans acceptation with God in that very sense in which he had utterly denied the obsâ—rvation of Gospell-Rites and Ceremonies to be available appears plainly in these words of his viz. But that which was all in all unto men and which availed any thing in anâ— under the Gospell that which being found in men â—endred them accepted and approved with God and the want of it disapproved was such a kind of Faith not such or such a kind of cerâ—mony or such or such a kind of baptism which by the mediation or intervening of that heavenly affection of love uttereth and expresseth it self in keepâ—â—g the Commandements of God so that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Gospell baptism being there named for one according to the tenor of this writing must be none of the Commandements of God which yet I dare say is none of his opinion or els the keeping of them as produced by Faith and love must be available to a mans acceptation with God as well as the keeping of any other his commands which yet to say and it is the truth doth utterly contradict what was said before in denying the observation of the ceremonies of the Gospell to be available unto any such purpose III. Query Whether can it be proved by any text or passage of Scripture either directly or by any tolerable consequence that Christian Churches were in the Apostles days constituted by baptism or that none were reputed members of Churches or admitted into Christian communion with those who were baptized but only such whâ— were baptized likewise Respon It hath been already proved as I conceive in the answer to the first quâ—ry by some text or passage of Scripture either directly or by some tolerable consequence or rather both directly and also by clear and pregnant consequence that Christian Churcheâ— were in the Apostles daies constituted if not by baptism yet â—ut without baptism and consâ—quently that none were 〈◊〉 into Church fellowship but such as were baptized aâ—◠〈◊〉 â—efore having proved this already it is not necessary to 〈…〉 But because such a thing as this is not so 〈…〉 iâ— the eyes of those that plead it as the Que◠〈…〉 in those words following where he says that that text Acts 2.41 is commonly and only so far as he knows preceâ—ded for proof of such a thing I shall briefly point to severall other texts by which it will appear that the Churches iâ— the Apostles daies were not constituted without baptism That the Church of Rome was baptized and therefore not constituted without baptism appears Rom. 6.3 And so the Church of Corinth the first beginning of that Church so far as we read of its beginning was laid in baptism Acts 8.8 1 Cor. 1.13.14.15.16 12.13 So the Churches of Galatia Gal. 3.27 the Church of Ephesus Acts 19.1.5 was surely begun by those twelve Disciples whom Paul baptized or some that were with him So also the first foundation of the Church at Philippi was laid in baptism for Lydia and her houshold the Goaler and his houshold as you will perceive by that part of history Acts 16. from ver
before Christ was crucified though its true also on the other side that neither could he truly estimate them to be of that number without any baptism at all because the greatest part of those that were baptized by John into the expectation of Christ to come yet dâ—d not believe in him or own him as the Christ of God when he was come much lesse they and many who had beene baptized by the Disciples of Christ did believe in him his being crucified notwithstanding * Luke had no reason to number them with the Church though bapâ—ized who had fallen from the Faith into which they were baptized and câ—nsequently had denied their baptism it self so that all the account that Luke could truly give of the number of the Church or of Disciples was only of such baptized persons who after the death and Resurrection of Christ did believe in him which it seemes amounted to no more then about an hundred and twenty And as for those who had beene baptized by John into the expectation of Christ to come and yet did not own him when he was come or els if they did believe in him for a season yet did afterward renounce him either before or upon his being crucified these were so far from being reputed of the number of the Gospell-church upon account of their baptism received formerly either from Iohn or Christ as that they were directed and exhorted by the Apostle as well to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus as to repent for the remission of sin before they could be admitted into the Church or be counted of its number their former baptism notwithstanding Act. 2.38 41. For who can imagine but that if not all yet that many of the 3000. that were baptized upon the preaching of Peter and the rest had been baptized before by Iohn or who can conceive but that if not all yet that many at the least of that great multitude unto whom the Apostle preached at that time when the 3000. were converted had beene baptized by Iohn those Scriptures considered cited by the Querist Mat. 3.5.6 Mark 1.5 Luk. 3.7.21 where it is said that all the Land of Judea and they of Jerusalem were ALL baptized And again that ALL the people were baptized and yet the Apostles exhortation to these inhabitants of Jerusalem that were now gathered together to the number of many thousands was that they would repent and be baptized EVERY ONE of them and as many as did receive this word were baptized accordingly and so added to the church Since then the owning of Christ crucified together with a being baptized in his name was requisite to render men of the number of Disciples as a Church Hence it came to passe that Luke could not estimate their number to be more then 120. Acts 1.1.15 nor above about 5000. Acts 4.4 notwithstanding more had been baptized by Iohn unlesse more of them had adhered to Christ crucified as these did so then though baptism be one of the requisites not without which yet it is not the only requisite by which the number of the church is to be estimated By this time therefore I hope it doth appeare that this Acts 2.41 doth both colour and cotten to use the Querists own words with the supposal or conclusion viz. that churches or at least the first Gospell-church a Sampler to the rest was not constituted without baptism notwithstanding all that by the Querist hath been offered to the contrary And if the first church or churches might not be constituted without baptism then neither may those that succeed them because the same reasons that made baptism necessary hereunto with them makes it necessary also unto us for Gospell-order setled by Apostollicall authority and direction as this was hath not lost any of its native worth efficacy or obliging vertue by disuse and discontinuance upon occasion of the Papall defection but ought to be the same to us now who are studious of a thorough reformation as it was unto them in the first beginning of such order or rather according to Davids resolution upon a like occasion Psal 119.126.127.128 to be the more closely adhered to and the vindication and observation of such Gospell-rules to be managed with so much the more zeal after the example of Christ himself who as well as the Psalmist was even eaten up with the zeal of his fathers house John 2.16.17 when he found corruption crept into it IV. Quaere Whether did not the Church at Rome in the Apostles daies and so also the Church in Galatia hold Church-communion with some who were not baptized considering 1. That the Apostle to the former writeth thus Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death Rom. 6.3 and to the later after the same manner thus For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ Gal. 3.27 2. That this Particle as many as used in both places is in such constructions as these alwayes partitive distinguishing or dividing the entire number of persons spoken of some from others by the character or property specified or at least supposeth a possibility of such a distinction Respon 1. I cannot grant the Querist his assertion viz. that this particle as many as is in such constructions as these alwayes partitive though I grant that many times it is for when the Apostle saith 1 Tim. 6.1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own Masters worthy of all honor doth he thereby suppose or imply that there were some servants who were not under the yoke or that there were some servants who were not to count their owne Masters worthy of all honour both which must be supposed notwithstanding if this form or manner of speaking as many as be alwayes to be understood partitively or as dividing the entire number of persons spoken of which yet to suppose who sees not how absurd it would be Object If it be said this exhortation Let as many servants as c. doth intentionally respect so many believing servants as were under the yoke and that therefore in respect of other servants who were not believers it is partitive Answ If so then the answer is that so do those expressions used Rom. 6.3 Gal. 3.27 intentionally only respect those at Rome and in Galatia who did believe and were baptized and therefore is partitive in respect of others the Inhabitants of those places dividing those of these churches from others dwelling in the same places who were not of these churches so that if that objected should be granted yet we shall gaine as much or more by it one way then we shall lose by it in the other 2. The coherence consulted will evince the expressions so many of us as and as many as to comprehend all those persons of whom those churches did consist For consider unto whom does the Apostle speak Rom. 6.3 does he not speak to the whole church
and every individuall soul of them in the 1.2 ver when he sayes What shall we say then shall we continue in sin that grace may abound God forbid How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein And if these words in the 1.2 ver respect the whole church as they must be supposed to do unlesse you will suppose that the Apostle did grant a liberty to some of the church to continue in sin and to live therein then those words â—n ver 3. Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death are interrogatively propounded not only to the same persons unto which the former words relate but also as an argument or reason why none of them should live any longer in sin which is the thing from which he was disswading not onely some of them but even all of them in the foregoing words and which he improves in an argumentative way throughout the greatest part of the chapter And it would not befit the wisdome of any ordinary man much lesse of a great Apostle to make choice of a reason or motive to inforce his exhortation or perswasion which is of lesse extent in the tendency and concernment of it then are the persons which he does exhort or dehort which yet is a piece of weaknesse of which you must suppose this Apostle to be here guilty unlesse you do conclude that all those of the church at Rome were disswaded from continuing any longer in sin upon this ground because that they had all been baptized into the death of Christ viz. a conformity to his death as well as a beliefe of it In a word if the whole church had not been under the motive the whole church could not be pressed by it as here you see they are And for that other place Gal. 3.27 the Apostle in ver 26. had asserted them viz. those to whom he now writes To be all the children of God by Faith in Christ Iesus i. e. were now looked upon as children of God by their confessing and owning of Christ Jesus of which he gives this account ver 27. because they had put on Christ in baptism ye are all the children of God by Faith in Christ Iesus for or because as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ as if he should say if the owning professing of Christ does denominate men to be the children of God now under the Gospell as indeed it does then ye are all the children of God because by being baptized into Christ ye have all of you put him on that is so as to appear with him where ever you become as you do appear with the cloaths you wear But now most certain it is that they could not all of them have been denominated the children of God by faith in Christ upon account of their being baptized into Christ which yet we see they are unlesse they had been all of them baptized into Christ indâ—â—â— Besides doth it not appear in the return that is made to the first and third Quaeries that in the Apostles daies none were inchurched without baptism and if so then these places cannot import the contrary V. Query Whether did not the Church at Corinth in the Apostles daies entertain members and hold communion with those who had not been baptized considering that he demandeth thus of this Church els what shall they do which are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not at all why are they then baptized for the dead 1 Cor. 15.29 Or doth not this imply that there was a corrupt and superstitious practise on foot in this Church to baptize one or other of the surviving kindred or friends in the name of such persons respectively who died unbaptized and if so is it not a plain case that there were some of these members who lived and died unbaptized Respon 1. Though it should be granted which may not that there was such a superstitious thing practised by some of that church in the behalf of some of their friends who died unbaptized yet it is not necessary at all to suppose those dead friends of theirs to have been of the church whilest they were alive but much more probable it would be if the practise it selfe were probable that the dead in behalf of whom such a thing was performed were of the Catechumeni or others who were not of the church but such who though they were under some Nurture and in a way of learning somewhat of the Gospell yet died before they were either baptized or admitted as Members of the Church But 2. It is but a meer conjecture and as will be found not only without ground but against reason that the Apostle in the forecited words should have respect unto such a superstitious practise as that specified For 1. It s no ways probable that Paul would argue this great Article of the Gospel the Resurrection from a superstitious custome or would draw such a clean thing out of that which was so unclean 2. Much lesse is it probable that he should do so without taxing thâ—â— by way of reproof for it for might not they have been very apt to have concluded the Apostles approbation of their practise should he have produced it as usefull to convince them of the doctrine of the Resurrection without declaring his dislike of it 3. Pauls interrogatory indefinitely propounded to the whole church supposes them all to have been baptized 1 Cor. 1.13 were ye baptized in the name of Paul and that saying of his does assert it 1 Cor. 12.13 we are all baptized into one body 3. Is it not far more probable and more agreeable to other Scriptures and with the coherence of the Text to suppose 1. That the Apostle should herein mind them of their baptism in water wherein the Resurrection is figuratively represented Rom. 6.4.5 Col. 2.12 and by which when they first received the Gospel they made profession of their Faith touching the Resurrection Or els 2. That hereby is intended the baptism of afflictions elswhere mentioned Mat. 20.22 Luk. 12.50 considering that the Apostle immediately subjoyns the mention of his own and others hazzards and sufferings saying And why stand we in jeopardy I protest by your rejoycing which I have in Christ Iesus I die daily if after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus what advantageth it me if the dead rise not let us eat and drink to morrow we shall die ver 30.31.32 as if he should say why have ye suffered trouble and persecution for the Gospell which is a kind of death for he here says of himself that he died daily meaning his sufferings if ye do not believe the Resurrection and why do we stand yet in further jeopardy nay then rather let us eat and drink for to morrow we shall die These interpretations surely carry a far greater probability to answer the drift of the Apostle
then that given by the Quaerist But surely there is little edification or satisfaction when only one doubtfull thing is brought to prove another or rather when one improbable thing must serve instead of a proof to make that seem probable which of it self is altogether improbable But is not that cause barren of proofes and destitute of friends that must be beholding to such strangers to stand by it and succour it VI. Query Whether when Paul soon after his conversion assayed to joyn to the Church and Disciples at Jerusalem Acts 9.26 did this Church make any enquiry after his baptism as whether he had been baptized or no in order to his reception among them or did they know he had been baptized or did Barnabas in giving satisfaction to the Apostles and Church concerning his meetnesse to be admitted into communion with them so much as mention his being baptized but only declared unto them how he had seene the Lord in the way and that he had spoken to him and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus Act. 9.17 Respon 1. We have no good reason to suppose much lesse conclude that Paul was admitted to communion with the church untill the church had knowledge either from himself Barnabas or some other of his having obeyed the Gospell in imbracing the first principles of it of which baptism is one for how should they know him to be a Disciple of Christ and so meet for communion with them but by knowing that he had at least done the first things of a Disciple of which we find all along this history of the Acts of the Apostles a being baptized to be one and doubtlesse lesse satisfaction would not serve them concerning him then would concerning another Disciple who had never appeared in that height of opposition against them as he had done 2. When Barnabas declared to them how he had seene the Lord in the way and had spoken to him did he not declare what it was that the Lord spake to him if so then how can it be thought but that the relation of his being baptized must come in at the one end of his report inasmuch as that direction which the Lord gave Saul about his going into straight street in order to his further information touching the will of the Lord concerning him led him to rehearse the carriage of Annanias towards Saul and consequently his baptizing of him unlesse you will suppose Barnabas to have made a broken and imperfect relation of the Lords dealing with him which you cannot lightly do without supposing Barnabas either weak or carelesse in the businesse But surely the Querist does not think tâ—at Barnabas used no more words in his relation then what are here recorded by Luke since we have frequently if not for the most part but the briefe heads of things recorded that were done and spoken by Christ the Apostles and other Disciples Iohn 21.25 Acts 2.40 3. Might not the Quaerist with as much reason have quaeried whether the church upon Pauls assaying to joyn with them did make any enquiry at all whether he were converted to the faith or no as whether he was baptized or no for indeed here is no expresse mention made of the churches enquiring after the one any more then the other only it s said They were afraid of him and believed not that he was a Disciple But what shall we therefore think that the church did not at all enquire of these things concerning him in order to their receiving of him into communion with them 4. We do not find here that Paul himself spake any one word to them when he assayed to joyn himself with them only it s said That when Saul was come to Jerusalem he assayed to joyn himself to the Disciples But what shall we therefore think that Paul made no relation to the Disciples of the Lords dealing with him in order to their receiving of him or if we will suppose he did as no one I think is so void of sense as to suppose otherwise can we suppose lesse then that he should declare to them what the Lord had done for him by the Ministery of Annanias and if so his being baptized especially considering that where we find Paul upon another occasion not greater then this making the relation of that great providence of the Lord towards him in his conversion he does particularly mention his baptism Acts 22.5 to 16. There being then so little in this Quaere as you see I confesse I have not a little marvelled to see some make so much of it as they have done The substance of the seventh Quaere being only this viz. Whether many things may not lawfully be done for which there is no example in Scripture of like action in all circumstances and whether therefore it is not lawfull for baptized to joyn with unbaptized persons in Church-communion though it should be granted that it cannot be proved that ever they did so in the Apostles dayes For answer to this I shall refer to what is giv◠〈◊〉 answer to the 1. Quaere this only I shal add that many things may lawfully be done for which there is no example in Scripture of like action in all circumstances yet it does not therefore follow that such an action may be lawfull which is contrary to such examples in Scripture which are Recorded for our direction and imitation which yet is the thing the Querist is to make good before he is like to satisfie me in this particular what ever he may doe to others QUERIE VIII Whether is an Action or Practice suppose in matters relating to the Service or Worship of God upon this account evicted to be unlawfull becaause it hath neither Precept I meane no particular or expresse Precept wherein the Action or Practice it selfe with all the Circumstances under which it becomes lawfull is named or Example to justifie it Respon An action relating to the worship of God is not to be concluded unlawfull though it have no particular nor expresse precept or example in so many words upon which to bottome it if there be any generall rule which will safely warrant it as there is for admitting women to the Table of the Lord or for a Ministers preaching though to young men only from Rev. 22.3 or 4. which are two of the Qâ—erists instances But if such an action be not only void of particular precept or example yea and of generall precept too but is also contrary to and a transgression of a generall rule and precept and a swerving from particular example stampt with Divine approbation then I hope it is not lawfull but unlawfull which yet cleeâ—ly is the case of Baptized persons holding communion with unbaptiztd in as much as it crosses that holy order of the Gospell commission of Christ and constant practice of primitive beleevers Recorded in Scripture for our learning and which is â—o be observed and kept inviolably by all those
Such whose ground on which they stand is truth though they ought with all sweetness love and meekness to invite and perswade others to come over to them yet may by no means depart thence or remove their standing no though it were to gain others to them 1 Cor. 9.21 To them that are without Law as without Law being not without Law to God but under the Law to Christ that I might gain them that are without Law Ier. 15.19 Let them return to thee but return not thou unto them Phil. 3.15 16. If in any thing ye be otherwise minded God shal reveal even this unto you Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same rule let us minde the same thing 6. Though endless Genealogies and striving â—bout the Law and the eating of meats and hearbs are but such things and the truth concerning them but of that nature as that for the sake thereof peace must not be broken Tit. 3.9 1 Tim. 1.4 Rom. 14. yet first such points or questions as concern the fulfilling of any righteousness of which those that concern the essentials of Baptism are Mat. 3.15 are such as of which the Kingdom of God does consist and in the defence of which men serve Iesus Christ and are accepted with God and ought to be approved of men RoÌ„ 14.17 18. Secondly not onely Gospel Doctrines about matters of faith but also matters of Gospel order such as the Apostle cals Ordinances appointmenâ—s or traditions 1 Cor. 11.2 even these are truths to be contended for and not to be let go for peace sake And the Apostle thought this a sufficient answer to such as should contend against these viz. that they had no such custome neither the Churches of God ver 16. with ver 2 3 4 5. c. And if the Churches of God then had no such custom neiâ—her as to sprinkle or Baptise little children or to admit members to Church-communion without Baptism does not the Apostles saying here though produced upon another occasion evince their contention sinful and unreasonable likewise that shal plead for and practise such things as these contrary to the custom of the first Churches which in all laudable things were patterns to al succeeding Churches The Apostle having in 2 Thes 2. given notice of the Mystery of iniquity itâ— bâ—gining then to work ver 7. and the coming of the man of sin with all deceiveableness of unrighteousness ver 10. which we know in the Papal Apostacy hath fallen out as wel in matters of Gospel order as in points of faith he to prevent a defection in both exhorts them ver 15. to stand fast and to hold the Traditions which they had been taught yea and in chap. 3. v. 6. counts that a disorderly walking which was not after the Tradition which they had received from the Apostles And if it were the wisdom and duty of the Churches then to stand fast and to hold fast the Traditions which they had received from the Apostles as wel touching matters of Gospel Order as otherwise to prevent their falling into Anti-christian pollutions then doubtless the way for men now to recover themselves and others from under those pollutions is by returning back to these Apostolical traditions and standing fast in them which doubtless is their duty what disturbance soever may follow thereupon ERRATA PAge 9. l. 15. r. those particular cases p. 25. l. 21. r. neither p. 44. l. 13 r. a p. 49. l. 25. r. supposing p. 52. l. 1 r. formally ib. l. 4. r. is p. 55. l. 16. r. such as have p. 55 l. 24. r. the time of his Baptism p. 57. l. 25. r. and p. 58. l. 24. r. of 59. l. 4. r. describe p. 59. l. 32. r. those p. 60. l. 6 r. words p. 61. l. 16. r. line p. 61. l. 26. r. of p. 61. l. 28. r. when p. 63. l. 3. r. 2 p. 64. l. 14. r. unreasonable p. 66. l. 1. r. much ib. l. 2. r. bapti ib. l. 14. r. meet p. 69. l. 26. r. about p. 72. l. 12. r. charging p. 72. l. 19. r. those p. 72. l. 19. r. practiseth An Answer to Mr. I. G. his XL. Queries touching Church-Communion between such as have been Baptised after they have Beleeved and others who have not otherwise been Baptised then in their Jnfancie As likewise touching Infant and after Baptism THe thoughts of the Worthy Author of the Book Intituled Philadelphia touching the subject matter of that Book being propounded Queriâ—-wise there is I suppose liâ—tle Question to be made but that it was with an expectation on his part to receive a return from the hand of some friend or other in order to a further Discovery of Truth in that particular Case of Conscience about which the Queries are imployed And therefore rather then â—he desire of this worthy friend should in this behalf be kept too long fasting I have resolved having first waited a while for some more able hand to have undertaken it through the assistance of God to offer my mite towards this service to which I adress my self as follows Querie I. Whether is there any Precept or example in the Gospel of any Baptized Person his disclaiming of Communion in Church-fellowship with those whom he Judges true Beleevers upon account onely of their not having been Baptized Respondant As for matter of Example for such a practise there is I suppose none in Scripture no more then there is of disclaiming communion with the Church of Rome as now it is or with the the Parochial Churches in England or elsewhere and yet it wil not follow that the one is any more unlawful then the other For Scripture examples are matters of Fact and therefore there having been no such corrupt practise crept into the world till after all the books of the holy Scriptures were finished as is the constituting of Churches without Baptism or upon Infant sprinkling in stead of Baptism which in true construction is not onely no Baptism at all but even worse then none as much as to commit an evil action is worse then to omit a good one there being I say no such corruption as this then on foot no more then there was the now Romish the National or Parochial Church-constitution then in being there could be no occasion for any truely Baptized person to disclaim communion either with the one or with the other and consequently no such matter of Fact to be Recorded of which to make an example But then it no more follows that it is unlawful to refuse communion with the one Church then it is with the other if there be no more ground in Scripture to constitute Churches without Baptism then there is for the Romish National and Parochial constitution The Querist then having himself disclaimed communion with the Church of Rome and the Parochiall Churches in England though he have no example in scripture so to do and yet hath done it because there is no example
in Scripture for such Church-constitution as that of Rome and England is he might as well disclaim communion with Churches built upon Infant Baptism too since there is no more example in Scripture of such a Church constitution then there is of the constitution of those Churches with whom he hath disclaimed communion especially considering that there is example in abundance in Scripture of Churches of a better constitution and that is of Saints Baptized after they had Beleeved 2. As to matter of Precept though there be no litteral or sillabical Precept for Baptized persons to disclaim communion in Church-fellowship with unbaptized ones no more then there is for disclaiming communion with the fals Churches before mentioned yet if the Querist will say that there is Precept in Scripture which does virtually require him to disclaim communion with the Church of Rome and the Parochiall Churches in their way then I will say the same concerning Baptized Beleevers their refusing communion with unbaptized If it be demanded what precept doth virtually require such a thing as non-communion of Baptized with unbaptized I Answer 1. For those that plead the Precept of circumcising Infants under the Law as virtually requiring the baptizing of Infants under the Gospel me thinks this should be satisfactory as to them and so to the Querist himself as touching the Case in hand viz. where God requires Circumcision under pain of being excluded communion with the Church saying the uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his fore-skin is not circumcised that soul shal be cut off from his people Gen. 17.14 for what less can be meant by that expression shal be cut off from his people then that such an one should be deprived communion with the people of Israel in Church-fellowship If it be said a cuting off by death is thereby intended then I say that is exclusive of Church-communion likewise for the Major includes the Minor and it is more to be cut off by the hand of death from all oppertunity of future communion with the Church then it is for a man to be debarred present communion onely in order to his repentance that he might be regularly capable of communion afterwards But whether such a cuting off be in that place intended or no most certain it is that such a cuting off is enjoyned Exod. 12.48 where it s said speaking of the Passover That no uncircumcised person shal eat thereof And therâ—fore if it be good reasoning from circumcision to Bâ—ptism which if it be not let the Pedobaptists bid adieu to their cause of Infant Baptism which is built and bottomed thereupon then it follows undeniably by way of Analogie that as uncircumcâ—sion by the command of God did deprive persons of communion with the people of God in Church-fellowship then so non-Baptism does debar persons of Church-communion now And now which of the hornes of this dilemma will the Pedobaptists suffer themselves to be gored by Will they say the consequence is not good to argue the exclusion of unbaptized persons from Church-communion from the exclusion of uncircumcised persons from acts of Church-communion while circumcision was in force if so then how can the consequence be good to argue the Baptism of Infants from the circumcision of Infants for the same things have the same consequences and to things alike belongs the like reason and judgement and therefore let them either grant my inference or for ever cease any more to infer from Infants circumcision to Infants Baptism 2. I would argue further thus the same Law which enjoynes the learned Querist and others of his way to deny the priviledge of their Churches to other Beleevers that are not of their Churches but do scruple their way and cannot submit to their order the same Law does enjoyn baptized beleevers not to admit into fellowship with them in Church priviledges such persons though beleevers as do scruple their order and way of being baptized in order to Church communion and will not submit thereto For the Scripture is every whit as express for Baptism to precede the enjoyment of Church priviledges as it is for a voluntary consenting to Church order and government to precede the same enjoyment Nay I am confident that the Arguments and Plea's brought to prove it lawful to admit Beleevers to such communion without Baptism if admited as good would overthrow and level the Order and Discipline of particular Churches For if one single person may be admited to Church-priviledges without Baptism or without submiting to the order and rule of the Church both which are previous to acts of Church-communion and I affirm the case is more clear for Baptism in this behalf in Scripture then it is for that submission and consent I speak of I say if one person may be admitted upon such terms then why not two if two why not ten and so a hundred or a thousand and consequently such Gospel order laid totally aside 3. If these things serve not turn yet those precepts exhortations or doctrines by which men stand enjoyned to observe Gospel Order 1 Cor. 14.40 2 Tim. 1.13 2 Thess 2.15 1 Cor. 11.2 Titus 1.5 Col. 2.5 Rom. 6.17 do virtually prohibit men Baptized communion with unbaptized in Church fellowship as that which is contrary thereunto 1. That this was the order of the Gospel yea and an order enjoyned by Christ viz. that Beleevers should first be Baptized before admited into Church-fellowship will sufficiently appear if duly considered from that Commission of Christ to his Disciples Mat. 28.19 Go ye therefore teach all Nations Baptizing them Where we see that the very next thing they were to do after they had taught men viz. so as to make them willing to obey the Gospel Acts 2.41 was to Baptize them which injunction therefore as some well observe is put by a participle of the present tense Teach all Nations Baptizing them c. i. e. presently upon their being taught as all examples of that nature in the Acts of the Apostles do declare And if this were the very next thing in order to be done after men were instructed to the beleef of the Gospel then an admiting them into Church fellowship without this could not be without a deviation and turning from the rule of Christ in this behalf which transgression to suppose the Disciples of Christ admiting or the Disciples admited to be guilty of is a peece of uncharitableness more then I am willing to communicate in 2. The Apostles according to the Commandement of Christ begining first at Ierusalem to put this Commission of his into execution Luke 24.47 did act accordingly And doubtless their acting upon this Commission ought to be taken by us as an interpretation of this Commission and their actions relating hereto to be in pursuance of and correspondent to this Commission unless we will suppose them to stumble at the threshold and to begin to depart from it assoon as they began to act upon it which would be too great an
12. to 34. who were the first fruits of the Gospell there were baptized The like may be said of the Church of Colosse chap. 2. ver 12. and so of the Hebrews Heb. 6.1.2 Acts 2.41 and therefore surely the Querist did not need to challenge us upon tolerable consequence to make proof that Christian Churches were constituted by baptism or by baptized persons in the Apostles daies nor yet to presume that Acts 2.41 was all the Scriptures that could be pretended to prove such a thing The Querist therefore supposing all our strength for this cause to be in that one Scripture of Acts 2.41 he tryes sundry wayes I will not say as Delilah did with Sampson to bereave us of this our strength as follows Querist Considering that that Text Acts 2.41 commonly and only so far as I know pretended for proof of such a thing doth not â—o much as colour much lesse cotten with such a supposall or conclusion viz. That Christian Churches were constituted be baptism 〈◊〉 the Apostles daies the tenor of the place being only this then they that gladly received his word were baptized and the sâ—â—e day there were added unto them about three thousand souls Respon However this text doth not now seem to the Querist either to colour or to cotten with the conclusion now opposâ—â— by him yet let me make bold to remember him because I judge his first thoughts his best thoughts as unto this that it is not many years since it did cotten well enough with the foresaid conclusion in the judgment and apprehension even of the Querist himself who in an Epistle to a friend a copy whereof I obtained had this saying upon this very text viz. Evident it is that those that were added to the Church were baptized before this was affirmed of them viz. that they were added now being baptized and that in an orderly and right way as ye will not deny this did immediately qualifie them for Church-fellowship according to your owne grounds and the truth it self And again a little after speaking of a Church covenant he thus saith That it is not lawfull before baptism is evident because it is not lawfull for a church to receive the unbaptized in to fellowship with them as members of their body neither is there appearance example or warrant in the Scripture for such a thing But it may be the Querist upon second thoughts hath found cause to alter his former opinion hereabout and a man may at any time with honor change for the better and therefore let us weigh and consider his reasons why he is of another mind now which he delivers as follows Querist For 1. It is not here said That all they that gladly received the Word were baptized but indefinitely only they that gladly received c. Now indefinite expressions in Scripture are not always equipolent to Vniversalls but sometimes to partitives or particulars Respon 1. Though indefinite expressions are not alwayes equipolent to Universalls yet many times they are as the Querist doth tacitly grant in saying only that they are not alwayes equipolent implying that many times they are which indeed is a truth obvious in these Scriptures and as I conceive huâ—dreds more Mat. 20.23 Mark 2.17 8.9 Joh. 5.25 â—9 17 2â—.23.24 Rom. 8.8 11.23 1 Cor. 7.29.30.31 15.18.48 Gal. 3.7.9 5.21 and therefore it in no wise follows that because â—uch an indefinite expression as is here uâ—â—d is not alwayes of an universall import or signification that therefore it is not so here But 2. The coherence of the words considered it cannot reasonably be otherwise conceived but that they is all they that gladly received the word were baptized For the Apostles exhortation and counsell to the whole multitude was that they would repent and be baptized EVERY one of them for remission of sins ver 38. and therefore if their receiving his Word glâ—dly import nothing elâ— but their believing imbracing and willingly obeying his Word as I suppose nothing lesse is hereby meant then it is impossible reasonably to conceive but that every one of those who gladly received his Word were also baptized because that word which they did receive enjoyned them so to be and for theâ— not to have been baptized as the case then stood they would have been so far from receiving his word gladly as that it must have been said of them instead of that which is said as it waâ— said of the Pharisees and Lawyers That they rejected the counsell of God against themselves and were not baptized Luk. 7.30 Querist 2. Whether is it here said nor is it a thing in it self much probable that ONLY they who were baptized were added unto them i. e. to the pre-existent number of Discirles but onely and simply that there were the number of three thousand added the same day Respon 1. It is to be noted that the Querist sayes only thus much that it is not much probable c. it should seem then in his opinion it was somewhat probable though not much that only they that were bapâ—ized were added to the church and if it be something probable though not much in his opinion whâ—se endeavour it is to render it improbable I believe it will be found much probable in their thoughts that shall be indifferent Judges of the case For 2 Of whom does Luke here speak when he said that the same day there added unto them about three thousand souls Have we any reason in the world to imagine that he intends any other persons then those of whom he is speaking to wit those that gladly received the Word and were baptized For what occasion is here ministred to any mans thoughts by any thing mentioned in or about the text to pitch upon any other then those very persons the mention of whom doth next and immediately precede the words in question and which looks like the most genuine and least strained sense either to say Then they that gladly received his word were baptized and the same day there was added of them about 3000. souls or to say there was added of them and some others of whom yet there is no mention made about three thousand souls But it seemes we must expect to have nothing granted though never so probable that favours our cause unlesse every word and tittle amount to the evidence of a demonstration It were well indeed if our friends would themselves walk by the same rule and give to us the same measure they require of us But I pray who or what should they be besides those that gladly received the word and were baptized that you suppose were added to the church Querist VVithin which number viz. of 3000. it is the probable opinion of some that the children and families of those who are said to have gladly received the word are comprehended it being no wayes likely scarce possible that 3000. men should distinctly hear the voice of a man speaking especially unlesse we should
were occasioned by Christ Jesus himselfe in bringing his Gospel into the world Luke 12.50 51. and by the Apostles preaching of it 1 Thes 2.2 that therefore the doctrine of that Gospel ought justly to be numbred with the aforesaid vaine questions Nor 2. can I be of opinion with the Querist that the said question rightly understood in the nature and tendency of it leads but to very little that is considerable or of consequence for a Christian to know at least so little as to make it unprofitable and vaine because the knowledge of the Ordinance it selfe and of its nature use and tendency depends upon the knowledge of the appropriate subject as one of the essentialls of it and I cannot judge the knowledge and understanding the counsell of God in that Ordinance a matter of so little moment as to render the question about it the enquiring after it a vain thing Nor doe I understand how the knowledge that comes by the ventilation of it might arrive at the understandings of men in a more peaceable and lesse troublesome way then by pleadings arguings and debatings unlesse every man would of himselfe fall in with the truth whâ—ch if they would there would then be no need to contend earnâ—stly for the faith once given to the Saints as now there is Nor yet 3. can I jump with that conjecture that those who are confident they have found the treasure of truth viz. the appropriate subject of Baptisme especially if upon that discovery they have in conscience to God acted according to their light are rather impoverished then spiritually inriched by it because I suppose that which makes the Querist thus to judge is but his mistaking one thing for another viz. their former tamenesse and silent submission to the judgement of their guides for their sweetnesse meeknesse humility love patience and sobernesse of minde and likewise their present activity and zeale for the truth and the propagation of it and the drawing of others into the same participation and their impugning that by which they have found themselves deceived for rashnesse pride frowardnesse conceitednesse and the like For otherwise except some as in the best Churches of old by whom offences will come I trust in their owne cause and in the tenor of their lives he may discerne the same humility meeknesse sweetnesse love patience sobernesse of minde mortification to the world heavenlinesse of disposition endeavours of doing good which was found in them before not to boast of what additions God hath thereupon made to their spirituall store unlesse his judgement concerning these should be prejudiced by some alteration in his affection to the persons themselves and then it is an easie matter indeed to be so taken up with that onely which is troublesome as to neglect and overlooke that which would be more lovely in his eye if minded XV. Querie answered This Querie runs upon a like mistake with the tenth Querie as supplying that departure he speakes of to proceed onely from a conceit that the Church departed from does not in all things walk according to Gospel-rule whereas the separation proceeds not from the manner of their walking supposing them to be a Church but from the apprehension that such and such persons though Believers are no right constituted Church according to Gospell-rule and therefore cannot by walking with them owne them for such without approving in act what is disallowed in judgement This Querie might be retorted upon the Querist for his excommunicating the Church of England from his society but I shall now intend brevity XVI Querie answered To this Querie I shall say That the Commission of Christ to baptise upon their believing all that by teaching were brought to believe and the series of examples in Scripture answering this Commission and other Scriptures importing all of the Church to be incorporated by Baptisme as in our answer to the first and third Queries is more particularly declared This is sufficient ground for us to conclude that the converts at Antioch in Pisidia and Iconium Acts 13.43 and 14.1 were baptized by Paul and Barnabas who converted them before such time they departed and left them unlesse you will suppose Paul and Barnabas to neglect their duties towards those converts which if it could be proved they did yet would be no ground for Believers now to neglect theirs But why should the Querist presume any more of Paul and Barnabas their holding Church-communion with these converts then of their being baptised the one being no more mentioned then the other or why should he suppose that they had more opportunity to put them into Church-order and to joyn in communion thereupon then to baptise them XVII Querie answered This Querie being much of the same import with the tenth and fifteenth Queries the same Answer will serve For the Querist both in this and severall other Queries mis-represents and mistakes the case in question for the question is not whether a Member of a Christian Church may withdraw his communion because of some defect or errour in the Church which yet is the thing queried and I have elsewhere answered that he may not but the question if rightly stated would be whether a company of Believers though unbaptised either are or may become whilst such a true visible Church according to Gospel-order or whether a man who upon satisfactory grounds doth verily deem them not so to be may yet hold communion with them as if they were such untill he hath with long suffering endeavoured to convince them that they are no Church indeed according to Scripture-account For otherwise the Querist does but beg the question and then taking it as granted him which is utterly denyed proceeds to render a separation unreasonable upon account of this or that failing in the Church as indeed well he might if that were true which he supposes touching the constitutive being of the Church And therefore the businesse may be brought into a narrower compasse then so many queries extend to as are imployed hereabout For let the Querist prove us from the Word of God which is that which onely ought to sway us in this matter either 1. That a company of Believers without Baptisme may become truly and according to Gospel-order a Church of Christ visibly constituted or else 2. That a man who knowes or upon Scripture grounds does believe a company of men and women to be no Church according to such order though Believers unlesse they were baptised into Jesus Christ may notwithstanding this his knowledge or perswasion hold communion with them as if they were such a Church untill he hath convinced them that they are not and then these things being proved I suppose the contest will be ended For had the Querist himselfe been satisfied touching the due constitution of the Church of England of which he once professed himselfe a Member I suppose he would not have deemed the errours in it to have been a just ground of his separation from
meaning is that the offer and tender of Salvation did belong unto them and their children and to all a far off and the good of it to as many as God should call Though there be in Scripture severall Discoverie of the gracious councell of God concerning little children yet where ever any termes of grace and salvation are offered or promised upon the taking place of something to be believed or done by the creature there the Promise or Offer of Grace is alwayes to be understood to respect not Infants but persons having the use and exercise of their reason and understanding Deut. 11.1 2. Mark 4.9 23. and consquently not to Infants and if the Promise did not belong to Infants as Infants then no Baptisme upon account of the Promise The things here promised are the remâ—ssion of sinnes and gift of the holy Ghost for those are the things the Apostle does ascertaine them by the Promise Now this Promise of remission of Sinnes and gift of the holy Ghost is either absolute and without condition or else it is only conditionall for betweene these there is no mean If absolute then the remission of Sinnes and gift of the holy Ghost were promised to all the Jewes and their children without any condition at all whether they did repent and were baptised or no but this I think no man will affirme If the Promise then was conditionall as you see it must needs be then none had right to the Promise that is to the things promised but those that had performed the condition for take away the condition of the Obligation or Promise and the Obligation ceases to be now the condition of the Promise is here clearly set by the Apostle to be if not Repentance and a being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for if any knowes how upon good ground to divide them herein let it so be yet I am sure Repentance is Repent and be baptised c. and ye shall receive c. that is and thereupon ye shall receive c. And if Repentance was the condition of the Promise here mentioned by the Apostle then I am sure the children of these Jewes could no more have right to the Promise here made untill they did repent then the parents themselves could and consequently no more right to Baptisme upon account of the Promise then they had Which thing is so evident and cleare that I shall wonder if any rationall man shall not discerne it if he will but give his reason and judgement full scope to consider it XXXV Querie answered Here the Querist demands Whether God doth smell in the assemblies of those which he sayes judge themselves the only duly baptised persons under heaven with any such pleasure or delight as he smelleth many the Assemblies of those who are called unbaptised or are they filled with the glory and presence of God at such a rate or are there any such manifestations of the spirit there or are the powers of the world to come so active and busie in the Church meetings of the one as they are in the other Had the Querist given us to understand in what respects he speaks these things and by what he makes judgement when and when not such appearances of God as he speakes of are vouchsafed men in their Assemblies we might have knowne the better how to have satisfied his demand If he judge of the presence of God and the activity of the powers of the world to come in this case by those effects which the ministration of the Gospel in such or such Assemblies works in men in causing them to deny themselves in their worldly interest not seeking the great things of this world but being content to lose the favour and respect of men the love of relations and to expose themselves to the censures hard thoughts evill speakings reproachings revilings scoffings laughings and oppositions of men that they might approve themselves faithfull to God and likewise in causing them to seek the honour of God and good of Men in dispensing the Gospel freely and perswading all to a close and intire conformity thereto both in their drawings nigh to God in the matters of his house and worship and in their deportment and carriage towards men in common conversation I say if judgement shall be made of the presence of God with his pâ—ople by such effâ—cts as these which yet were the great tokens of the presence of his grace in the fiâ—st times of the Gospel then doubtlesse the Querist needed not to have made a question of it where these are most visible Or if he will estimate the presence of God we speak of by those glorious successes which he is pleased to give unto the meetings Ministery and endeavours of his Servants in bringing in great numbers and multitudes both of men and women to be obedient to the Faith according to the Doctrine and Order of the Gospel then I shall desire him to cast his eyes abroad in the Land and then tell us by whose hands the greatest part of those many Churches that are separated from the nationall way have been planted especially in those places where not long since scarce so much as a face of Religion was to be seene As concerning many of those of whom such Churches do consist it is very true that that which our Saviour speaks of the Ministry of the Prophets disposing and preparing a People for the hands of the Apostles and for that Gospel-mould into which they were to cast them may aptly enough be applyed to the Ministry of the Baptists in planting and building of Churches of such materialls as were in part prepared to their hands John 4.37 38. Herin is that saying true One soweth another reapeth I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour Other men laboured and ye are entred into their labour But the Lord hath been pleased not onely to use them as his workmen to polish some living stones which were in part hewne before and for the building them up into spirituall houses putting them into the right order and way of worshipping God perfecting as to this that which was lacking before but hath also so wonderfully prospered his word in their mouthes in turning of men from darknesse to light and from the power of Satan unto God in severall the dark places of this Nation that I confesse I have not heard of the like testimony given by God to the endeavours of any other sort of men in these dayes and surely such things as these were wont to be accounted signes of the presence of the Lord with his people Acts 11.21 And the hand of the Lord was with them and a great number beleeved and turned to the Lord. Neâ—ther can it reasonably be thought that the Scriptures are as a sealed Booke among these Men whilst such effects are produced by their opening and pressing of them Well may it be indeed that the Scriptures are not dished and carved out
by these men with such straines of humane Art and Oratory as thâ—y may be by some others but we know who it was who though hee had as himselfe sayes Tongues more then many others yet did decline â—he perswasible words of Mens Wisdome in his Preaching the Gospell to men lest their faith should have stood in the Wisdome of men and not in the Power of God 1 Cor. 2.4 5. And I am sure that may be truâ—y said in the vindication of these which Paul was faine sometimes to speake in his own vindication when dispâ—raged by some of the flanting Preachers of those Times 2 Cor. 11.6 viz. But though I be rude in Speech yet not in Knowledge I should not have mentioned any thing of this nature but that there was a kinde of necessity for it but if I have plaid the foole in this confideâ—t boasting as the Apostle speakes you know who hath compelled me to it XXXVI Querie answered Here I confesse I cannot but wonder at the over-sight of the Querist in that he brings Mark. 6.44 John 6.10 compared with Mat. 14.21 to prove that both Women and Children are to be understood when men onely are named when as indeed his quotations serve to prove the quite contrary For whereas Marke and John in the places before mentioned report the men that did eate of the five Loaves and two fishes to be about five thousand men Mathew hee reports the persons eating hereof to be about five thousand men besides Women and Children So that Mark and John take notice onely of the number of the men in their relation of the Miracle whereas Mathew though he does exactly agree with them as touching the same number of men yet he intimates that there were Women and Children that did eate besides the five thousand men By which it evidently appeares that though Women and Children were joyned with the men in the same action yet that where John and Marke mention the men onely the Women and Children are not to be understood as comprehended in that number which as I say is the contrary to that for the proofe whereof those Texts were alledged And therefore this is so farre from being any ground to conceive that Childrens being Baptized is meant when Men and Womens onely is mentioned as that it is a ground to conceive the contrary XXXVII Querie answered Here the Querist supposes that though it should be proved that there were no Children Baptized during the Apostles dayes that yet it would no more follow from thence that Children ought not to be Baptized now then it would have followed that because the Israelites omitted to curcumcise their Children for forty yeares Josh 5. that therefore it was not lawfull for them to Ciâ—cumcise them afterwards To which I answer that it is granted that the one would no more follow then the other if there were a like command for the one as there was for the other And therefore I marvell that the Querist should so contrary to this in other Queries argue the non-necessity of a mans being Baptized if he have but passed the time of his first entrance upon the profession of Christ as he does Qu. 22. But why the Querist shâ—uld suppose that the Baptizing of Children now should be more necessary then it was in the Apostles dayes I know not neither does he nor as I believe can he give us any account Something indeed hee alledges as a reason such as it is why possibly Christ the Apostles might omit the Baptizing of Children in their time though otherwise lawfull and that which they had been bound to doe had not such a reason interposed and it is this viz. Because Paul sayd I was not sent to Baptize but to Preach the Gospell meaning as hee expounds this saying that Baptizing was not onely not the Principall but not any considerable end of his sending but the publishing of the Gospell Which reason he further amplifies thus If he were not sent to Baptize neither one age nor one Sex or other neither could he be sent to Baptize Children and if not hee then neither Christ nor the rest of the Apostles in the sence declared and then what marvell if whilst sent about matters incomparably greater they should not be so intent upon things of a secondary and lighter consequence as to persecute them to the uttermost of what they lawfully might To all which I answer 1. I cannot consent to the interpretation which the Querist gives of those words Christ sent me not to Baptize c. When he thereby would have us understand that for Paul to Baptize was no considerable end of his being sent of Christ if by Baptizing we understand Baptizing either in his own person or by seeing it done by some other hands Which latitude notwithstanding the Querist allowes For there is no doubt but that for him to cause Baptisme to be administed to men when they did believe was a considerable end of the Apostles sending as well as his preaching the Gospell that men might beleeve and therefore they are joyned in the Commission thus goe yee therefore teach all Nations Baptizing them c. When therefore he sayes Christ sent him not to Baptize doubtlesse hee means that the injunction did not lie upon him so much to administer Baptisme with his owne hands for that is the thing of which hee was speaking as to Preach the Gospell because that being a worke that might be done by an ordinary Disciple hee was not otherwise obliged in that case but to take care that it should be done if not by himselfe yet by some other Acts 10.48 Peter commanded them to be Baptized in the Name of the Lord possibly by such assistants as the Apostles were wont to take with them and not unlike for that very purpose as well as for other causes Acts 13.5 15.38 Just as it was in the case of Ministering to the poore it lay upon the Apostles as the care of all the Churches did to take care that Deacons should be chosen for that worke but that they should be burdened with a personall attendance upon that service though sometimes they undertooke it seemed to them an unreasonable thing seeing they had other worke to attend which could not so well be done by other hands as that might Acts 6.2 3 4 But if Baptisme had been so inconsiderable a businesse and so little concerning the Apostles to take care of as this reason of the Querist imports one would thinke they should not have made such hast as Paul and Silas did to Baptize the Jaylor and his house not only the same houre of the night but even whilst those cutting lashes and stripes which they had newly received were fresh upon them Nor would Annanias have hastened Paul as he did to be Baptized before he did eate or drinke when as he had now fasted three dayes Acts 9.9.18 19 22.16 Surely if the like case should fall out in our dayes we would
the Apostollicall writings are written of baptism is apparent that Baptism was Administred to none by the Apostles but those of whom they concerning their regeneration made no doubt Page 21. Cassander in libello de infantium Baptismo It is certain that some believers in time past have withholden baptisme from their children untill they were grown and could understand and remember the misteries of their faith yea also counselled not to administer baptism as by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen appeareth In same Page Zwinglius in his Book of Articles Artic. 18. In the old time children were openly instructed who when they came to understand were called Catechumens i. e such as are instructed in the word of salvation and when they had imprinted the faith in their Hearts and made Confession thereof with their Mouthes they were admitted to Baptisme Page 25. Lodovicus vives in Augustinum de civetate dei Lib. 1. Cap. 26. No man in times past was brought to be baptâ—zed but those who were come to their full growth who having learned what it concerned of their own accord desired the same Page 31. Luther in his book of Annabaptisme acknowledgeth that it cannot be proved by sacred Scripturâ— that Childrens baptism was institutâ—d by Christ or begun by the first Christians after thâ— Apostles Page 20. Rupertus Tuitienfis lib 4 de divinus officiis cap. 18. In former times the custom in the Primitâ—ve Chuâ—ch was that they adminâ—stred not the Sacrament oâ— Regeneration but only at the feast of Easter and Penticost and all the children of the Church which throughout the whole yeare through the word were MOVED when Easter came gave up their names and were the following dayes till Penticost instructed in the rules of Faith rehearsed the same by their baptism and dying thus with Christ rose again with him Page 15. Justin Martyr in oratione ad Anthonium Pium I will declare unto you how we offer up our selves to God after that we are renewed through Christ Those amongst us that are instructed in the faith and believe that which we teach them is true being willing to live accordiâ—g to the same we do admonish to fast and pray for the forgivenesse of their sins and we also fast and pray with them And when they are brought by us unto the water and there as we were new born are they also by new biâ—th renewed And then in calling upon God the Father the Lord Iesus Christ and the holy Ghost they are washed in water Note that this Author is one of the first extant after the Apostles dayes Take also a few instances of such who though borne of Christian Parents yet were not baptized till instructed in the Faith Page 16. Erasmus and Wicleuius in vita Hieronomi ex ipsis Scriptis collecta Hieronimus borne in the City Sydon of Christian Parents and brought up in the Christian Religion was baptized at Rome in the 30 yeare of his age Also Paulinus de vita Ambrosij Nauclerus Chror Gener. 13. Ambrosius borne of Christian Parents his Fathers Name was Ambrosius and his Mothers Name Marcelina remained instructed in the faith unbaptized till he was chosen Bishop of Millain at which time he received Baptism of a Catholick Priest Likewise Nauclerus Generat 14. Anno Dom. 391. Augustinus the Son of the vertuous Monica being instructed in the Faith was baptized when hee was about 30 yeares of age at the Feast of Easter Moreover Idem Generat 14. Constantinus the Emperour born of Helena the Christian Queen was by Christian Priests converted to the Faith and was baptized by Pope Silvester Historia tripartita lib. 1. Bibliorum de Trinitate Theodosius the Emperour borne in Spain his Parents being both Christians was even from his youth instructed and educated in the Catholick Faith who faling sick at Thessalonia was by Achalio Bâ—shop of the City baptized and thereupon recovered of his sicknesse Page 21. Pontius the Son of Markus a Christian was Catechised and instructed in the Christian Religion and afterwards was baptized by Pontiano the Bishop Page 22. Nazarius the Son of a Christian woman called Perpetua imbraced and followed his Mothers Religion even from his tender age who being Catechised instructed by Lino the Pope received also Baptism Also Tecla and Erasma Daughters of Valentinian a Christâ—an of Aquilea were in the dayes of Nero the Emperour instâ—ucted in the Faith by their Father and brought up in the Feare of God who being Catechised by Harmagora were baptized in a running water And now let the Reader judge whether these Testimonies against the practise of baptizing Infants of old have not much more in them and are worthy of much more credit theâ— Mr. Philpots Testimony for it together with Austin and Ierom to help him XL. Querie answered 1. Whether faith or the profession of Faith be the only or best ground whereon to build a Baptismall administration we shall not need to dispute it is sufficient that accordiâ—g to Scripture it is such a ground as without which baptism was not administred to any that we can finde in the Apostles dayes and therefore we say neither ought it now so to be 2. If the Querist thinks that the Apostles did insist upon believing or a profession of believing in such men and women as were baptized by them onely for want of better grounds as supposing there were better to be had let him but prove it and I will think so too Or else for my part I think they had no reason to expect better then those which were every way sufficient or then such as God had appointed for that puâ—pose or if God did appoint any oâ—her why does not the Querist produce us a copy of that order or Appointmâ—nt of God 3. The Querist puts the Question whether Faith or a Profession of Faith in order to Baptisme were insisted on meerly as or because such in their absolute or possitive nature or whether not rather in respect of their relative natures and properties To which I answer that for my part I am of the Querists minde as unto this that it is altogether irrationall yea indeed I thinke a thing so irrationall as never entred into any mans head to thinke that Faith or a profession of Faith should be required of men in order to Baptisme simply for Faith sake or meerly for profession sake 4. But though we are not so absurd as to hold Faith necessary to Baptisme only for faiths sake yet it does not follow that then we must needs hold with the Querist that Faith is no otherwise or in no other respect to be insisted on as nâ—cessary to Baptisme but onely as it is Significative or Declarative unto the Baptizers and others of the happy estate of those in whom Faith is as being persons in the Grace and Favour of God For if persons being in a happy condition as touching Gods love to them be not the adeqâ—ate reason why he wouâ—d have them Bâ—ptizâ—d then the knowlâ—dge