ought rather to be appropriated to persons professing the Faith then unto Infants and not the contrary as the Qâ—erist would have it and the reason hereof is because Baptisme is more edifying both to the Bâ—ptized themselves and also to others when administered to persons professing the Faith then when to Infants And this must needs be so because Infants by reason of their want of understanding and Faith are not capable of receiving that Spirituall edification by Baptisme not of improving it unto their Spirituall advantage as those are that have the Use and Exercise of understanding and Faith too Nor is the administration of Baptisme like to be so taking with others that are but Spectators either as to the informing of their judgements or moving of their affections when applied to a Creature as an Infant is expressing no knowledge of God or Jesus Christ nor Love or Obedience to him or any desire to his wayes as the same would be when administred to a Believer who by his voluntary submission to that Ordinance Preaches to men his beliefe in Jesus Christ as Dead Buried and Risen againe And his exepectation of Remission of sins through Faith in his Name and their own desires and resolutions of giving up themselves wholly unto Jesus Christ unlesse you will suppose there is no difference betweene zeale and no zeale in this behalfe which cannot be supposed without contradicting the Spirit of those and the like Scriptures Mat. 21.32 with Luke 7.29 30. 2 Cor. 9.2 2. I cannot be of the Querists minde I confesse that Circumcision and Baptisme are the same in Spirit and Substance though differing in the Letter Because circumcision was no signe or resemblance of the Death Buriall and Resurrection of Christ and of Mens Death Buriall and Resurrection with him which yet the Scripture makes to be the spirit of Baptisme Rom. 6.3.4 5. Col. 2.12 And therefore this reason is no reason either why Baptisme should rather appropriately belong to Infants rather then any others or indeed that it should belong to them or all though Circumcision did 3. Whereas the Querist directs us diligently to compare Rom. 4.11 with Marke 1.4 Luke 3.3 c. out of which to finde that Baptisme and Circumcision are one in strength and substance of Spirit I confesse I have diligently considered these Texts and till I did diligently consider them was of the Querists mind herein but by a diligent considering of them am now of another minde I suppose the Querist would have us to conceive from these Scriptures that Circumcision was a Seale of the Righteousnesse which comes by Faith and Baptisme a Seale of the Righteousnesse wich comes by Repentance and therefore the same Spiritually But what relation soever Baptisme hath to Repentance as indeed I no where finde it called a Seale of the righteousnesse of Repentance yet confident I am that when the Apostle calls Circumcision A Seale of the Righteousnesse of that Faith which Abraham had before he was circumcised hee does not describe the common nature of Circumcision as he had done in those words imediately before where he calls it a Signe which agrees with Gods own Denomination of it when he first instituted it and therefore most likely adequately to answer the common end and use of it But hee describes Circumcision in these words A Seale of the Righteousnesse c. as that which it was peculiarly to Abraham For 1. It is not called a Seale of the Righteousnesse of Faith indefinitely but onely A Seale of the Righteousnesse of the Faith which HE HAD And 2. A Seale of the Righteousnesse of the Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised And then 3. The end wherefore Circumcision became such a Seale of the Righteousnesse of Abrahams Faith and it was this THAT hee might be the Father of all them that believe And were not these things in respect whereof Circumcision was a Seale peculiar unto Abraham onely Or did God ever give Circumcision as is said he gave to Abraham the Covenant of Circumcision Acts 7.8 to any other as the Seale of the Righteousnesse of the Faith which he had before he was Circumcised or to ratifie and establish him the Father of all that should afterward believe If not why should we thinke Circumcision was in common a Seale of the Righteousnesse of Faith to other men as long as the reasons wherefore it is so called are peculiar unto Abraham alone The Apostles scope here was as will appeare in the Context to prove that Circumcision did contribute nothing in the businesse of justification and this hee proves in that Abraham was justified before Circumcised and not onely so but his very receiving of Circumcision from God upon these tearmes hee did receive it was an evidence or demonstration that Abraham was justified in the sight of God before hee received it and that he did receive it for such an end as that he might stand declared under this Seale of God as a Man of such high acceptation with God as to be thereupon called and accounted the Father the famous example and patterne of all those that should believe And if Abraham did receive Circumcision as a Testimoniall of that love which God did beare to him before as Nehemiah sayes that God found his heart faithfull before him and entered into Covenant with him thereupon Neh. 9.8 then it could not be the procuring cause of Abrahams acceptation with God This construction of the word then so directly answering and accommodating the drift and Scope of the Apostle I see no reason to embrace any other that is contrary to it For to understand the Apostle as speaking of Circumcision in the common nature of it as a Seale of the Righteousnesse of Faith seemes to mee rather to disaccomodate the Apostle in his intendment then otherwise Since those with whom Paul here disputes might rather thereby be confiâ—med in their Opinion of the necâ—ssity of Circumcision unto Justification since things writings for example are not authentick till they are Sealed and therefore should Paul have told them that Circumcision had been the Seale of Justification might not they have inferred that therefore justification could not be compleat without it 3. Should wee grant that which the Querist would have viz. That Circumcision and Baptisme were the same in Spirit and Substance which yet we may not grant yet that would by no meanes follow thereupon which the Querist supposeth viz. That Baptisme is and Circumcision was most edifying when administred to Infants Or else that Circumcision was ordered by God unto the Spirituall losse and detriment of those to whom it was enjoyned For this Assertion cannot be true unlesse you will suppose that which is manifestly untrue viz. That there is no mean betweene most edifying and none at all or which is more that there is no mean betweene MOST edifying and Spirituall losse and detriment For Circumcision might have been edifying as administred to Children to the first or second degree
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
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
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
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