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
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
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
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
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
it since we read of very foule evills in some of the primitive Churches themselves but doe not finde the sound party exhorted to separate from the corrupt but to proceed against them in a Church-way for their cure by admonition conviction and excommunication in case of obstinacy XVIII Querie answered What is said to the next precedent Querie will be a full and pertinent answer to this and therefore shall say no more to it XIX Querie answered To this I say that whatever else a company of true Believers have done yet if they have not done that which is necessary upon Scripture-account to render themselves a true Church according to Gospel order then it is not unreasonable for a Christian to deny them to be such a Church But yet for all that it does not follow that such a denyall renders them but as a rabble rout of the world because unbaptised Believers are a third thing neither prpoerly of the rabble rout of the world nor yet formerly of the Church as a man that having served an apprenticeshâ—p and is not yet made free of the Company of which his Master is neither servant nor freeman in the interim but have so far left the world as that they want nothing but an orderly induction to be of the Church Nor can it be concluded that because such have diligently enquired after the minde of God and have sought direction from him hereabout that therefore the way they are in must needes be right any more then that those that practise contrary to them in this particular upon like diligent search and seeking of God must needs upon that account not be in the wrong for they cannot both be in the right and yet both search and seek for the rule remains the same and will not bow at any mans intreaty and that 's it by which the one and the other must be tryed XX. Querie answered To this I answer 1. I have already said and now say it againe that a man may not depart from much lesse bid defiance to a Church because that Church cannot say Amen to every notion or conceit of his Nay I will say more he may not though that Church does not agree with every sober and savory apprehension of his supposing them still to be a Church duly so called from their due constitution 2. Though there is no example in Scripture of any mans being baptised after the profession of his faith who had been baptised before in his infancy because when the Scriptures were written there was no such thing as the baptizing of Infants practised by which to give opportunity of such an example yet if Infant-Baptisme cannot be proved to be that Baptisme which Christ requires his Disciples to submit to and consequently is none of his Baptisme but the Baptisme of Man then Infant-Baptisme and no Baptisme are of one and the same consideration and if so then there is example and precept enough in Scripture for such Believers to be once baptised who never have been baptised before and therefore the case is not so plain as the Querist supposes that there is no precept or example which warranteth the practise of the Children of after-Baptisme as he calls them But the Querist hath given himself an Answer to this Querie by the matter of his 7. and 8. Queries to which I referre him for further resolution in this XXI Querie answered Answer 1. If by Christians the Querist meanes no more then true Believers in Christ Jesus then I know none that so magnifie the Ceremony or externall Rite of Baptisme as to judge none Christians without it nay the truth is it is because we judge the Querist and others true Believers that we do perswade them to be baptised But if by Christians he meanes such as according to the Word have put on Christ then we must say that those that by being baptised into Christ have not put on Christ are not yet such Christians as they ought to be Gal. 3.27 And yet it does not follow that they who so say do stumble at the same stone of danger and perill of soul at which the Jews stumbled if they were Jews when they urged and prâ—ctised circumcision as necessary for justification Gal. 5.2 because they urged and practised that for necessary which was now abolished we that which is commanded and remaines in force we urge Baptisme to be necessary as a precept of Christ and necessary as a means of salvation they perhaps judged Circumcâ—sion as other works of the Law meritorious according to the Querists owne declared judg-ment upon another occasion And therefore I doubt the Querist does not deale so kindely with the Ordinance of Baptisme nor the Baptists themselves as he should doe in that he puts the one but much what in the same capacity with Circumcision as it was at that time when Paul said of it If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing and in that he yokes the Baptists who onely urge Baptisme as one of the precepts of Christ and a meanes of salvation as the Scriptures themselvâ—s doe with those that urged the abrogated Ceremony of Circumâ—â—sion as necessary unto Justification as the Querist himselfe supposes Truly I doubt the comparison in both respects is odious with God whatever it is with Men. XXII Querie answered That which will be very well worth our noting here in the first place is how the truth which we plead hath gained a faire and ample acknowledgement even from the Querist himselfe in this Querie though he oppose it in others For he does not only demand whether there be any precept or example in Scripture for the baptising of any person after many yeares profession of the Gospell but also whether there be any precept or example in Scripture for the baptising of any person at any other time SAVE AT OR ABOUT their first entrance upon a profession of Christ And not onely so neither but farther demands Whether there be any competent ground either in Reason or Religion why either such a thing should have beene practised by Christians in the Apostles dayes or why it ought to be practised by any in these dayes By which I am sure he sayes as much to the condemnation of Infant-Baptisme as lightly can be spoken in so few words and in substance as much as ever any man did say in opposition to that practise For if there be neither precept nor example in Scripture for the baptising of any person at any other time SAVE at or about the time of their first entrance upon the profession of Christ nor yet competent ground in Reason or Religion why it should otherwise be practised then certainly there is neither precept or example in Scripture for the baptising of Infants nor yet any competent ground why such a thing should be practised and the reason is because Infants in their infancy can make no profession of Christ nor doe they in their infancy make any entrance upon a
understanding as rendred him capable of beleeving and it was such a Child as came upon the call of Jesus or else 2. That the little ones ver 6. which are said to believe are not the same with that little Child mentioned ver 2. And there are these two reasons why they should not be thought the same 1. Because ver 2. speakes of one Child onely in the singular number but ver 6. speakes of little ones in the plurall number and that too not under the appellation of Child or Children as before but of little ones 2. If we compare this passage with the other Evangelists as Mark. 9.42 Luke 17.2 It will bee evident as it is rendred by them that little ones were not little Babes or little Children properly so called but the Dâ—sciples of Christ whom he frequently calls little ones and sometimes little Children John 13.33 2. But that which is further added by the Querist why Infants can upon no tollerable account be excluded when it is said of whole Housholds or Families that they were dipped though it should be supposed they were in no sence capable of believing is I confesse to mee seasonable and it is because they were as capable and in some respects more capable of being dipt then Men as if their being capable de facto to be dipped must needs argue them capable de jure of the Ordinance of Baptisme as well as Men Such a capacâ—ty not onely Infants but other Creatures also have as well as Men and if this had been all the capacity requisite no doubt but Children had been as capable as any yea and other Creatures too 3. Is that a good reason why we should thinke Children were Baptâ—zâ—d with the housholds before mentioned because wee ought not to contend with God or reject any part of his Counsell or Will because onely somewhat sparingly and with some scantinesse of evidence discovered in his word Nay rather since the Will of God is herein manifest that persons professing the Faith were the subject of his Baptisme all the while the Scriptures and the Hâ—story of things then were in composing let no man contend with God because he hath not framed the Scripture to his mind or opinion nor goe about to force the Scripture to speake that they have no minde to speake or suppose when God hath delivered his Mind plainly That yet he hath thoughts and counsells of another nature more comporting with his minde as Baalam sometime thought in another case 4. The Qâ—erist supposes severall other Tenents to be imbraced upon weaker and lesse lightsome grounds then such as are given for Infant-Baptisme but that hee should mention the admission of women to the Lords Table for one of these tenents is I confesse matter of wonder to me for there is both precept and example upon which this tenent is grounded but neither the one nor the other for the baptising of Infants and therefore how the ground for this should be more lightsome then for the other is that which passes my reason to comprehend For matter of precept for admitting women to the Table of the Lord we have it in these words Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup 1 Cor. 11.28 For I doubt not but the Querist well knowes that Man in this place is the common gender signifiâ—s the kind and not the sex and therefore women to be every whit as much concerned therein as men For example we have it Acts 2.42 compared with Acts 1.14 and 2.16.18 For in the former place we finde the three thousand that were added together with those to whom they were added continued in fellowship and breaking of bread In the other places we finde that among those Disciples to whom the three thousand were added there were Women and Hand-maids of the Lord and therefore it is every whit as plaine from this place that women did break bread as that men did And when it 's said Acts 20.7 That the Disciples came together to break Bread upon the first day of the weeke why should it be understood of men any more then women in as much as women are Disciples as well as men unlesse haply it be said there is particular mention made of Paul and Eutychus And now let the Qâ—erist produce us more lightsome grounds then precept and example for his sprinkling of Infants or else forbeare this comparison XXV Querie answered If a baptismall sprinkling of an Infant as the Querist's expression is which is as much as to say a sprinkling by dipping bâ— no more the Ordinance of Baptisme then another common action is as I verily presume it is not till it be proved to be of a dâ—vine appointment then the baptismall sprinkling the Querist speakes of varies the case of baptising one after this sprinkling no more then the baptising of one after the doing of any Ordinarie and common action and therefore it might with as bapti-reason in my opinion have been demanded whether the much sing of one who hath been so and so nursed so and so attended so and so attired in his infancy be any where countenanced in Scripture by particularity or expressenesse of precept or example as whether the submitting to a baptismall dipping after a baptismall sprinkling be so countenanced But as touching particularity of precept or example in such cases I have answered more largely to querie 1.7.8.22 And whereas the Querist further demands Whether they doe not presume as much or rather more upon their owne judgements and understandings in making Infant-Baptisme a meere nullity the Scripture giving no such sentence against it as they do who make it an Ordinance of God or a meer and necessary administration of an Ordinance I answer No they doe not Because they doe not proceed upon their owne judgement onely but upon Scripture-ground who rejâ—ct every administration which is obtruded as necessary which hath no footing in the Word of God For every Plant which the heavenly Father hath not planted is to be plucked up Mat. 15.13 though every such Plant which men have or shall plant upon their owne judgements onely as Infant-Baptisme crosse in Bâ—ptisme Surplice upon the Priests back and many others be not particularly mentioned in Scripture yet it is sufficient that we have that generall warrant to reject aâ—l that is not of Gods planting But now they that shall practâ—se Infant-sprinkling as an Ordinance or as a necessary Administration of an Ordinance of God without warrant from God they plant and not God which plant is to be rooted up and rejected by those that will side with God against the corruptions and superstitions of men And therefore whereas the Querist makes that a reason of the practise of Infant-Baptisme viz. because as he sayes Infants at least of Believers are no where excluded by God from part and fellowship in that administration it is nothing but what hath been and with as good a shew of
of this that they are in such a condition cannot be the adequate reason of Mens admitting them to Baptisme because the reason of the ones participation must be the reason of the others admission of them to that partâ—cipation and Gods reason of appointing Baptisme to be administred to men must guide and limit men in their administration of it in respâ—ct of the persons to whom they doe administer it But now that persons being in a happy condition already is not the full and adequate reason why God would have them baptizâ—d but rather that they might be yet in a better and more happy condition is most apparent from the end of all Lawes and Ordinances of God g ven unto men and therefore this among the rest viz. the further good and benefit of men to be promoted by thâ—m for otherwise they would be no argument or token of his love to them And why else should God impose the use of them upon his Creature Certainly it is not because God stands in any need of them or of their using of them but because his Creature hath need of them and may be bettered by them Deut. 10.13 Mark 2.27 Job 22.3 35.7 8. If then the good of men that is a further good be the reason why God would have them Baptized then Faith becomes requisite here unto upon thâ—s account viz. not to declare them in good condition already but because it is that qualification or mean without which the ordinance will doe them no good without which the end of Baptisme is not attainable unlesse we will needs be of that Popish Opinion to thinke that the Grace of God and good of the Ordinance accrues meerly by the worke done which opinion it s very probable gâ—ve the first being unto Childrens Baptisme Faith then is to be insisted on in persons to whom Baptisme is to be administred not for Faiths sake nor yet simply as it is declarative of their being in a happy condition in whom it is but rather as it is declarative of this viz. that those persons in whom it is and that by means of it are in a due capacity to receive that good by baptisme which God intends men in it and so the proper subjects of it 5. That it seems which much inclines the Querist to think that Faâ—th was insisted on by the Apostles as necessary to be found in those to whom they administed baptisme only as declarative of their being in a good and happy condition and which would not so have beene insisted on by them could they have come to the certaine knowledge of that their good condition any other way I say that which it seemes inclines him thus to thinke is this because otherwise hee cannot tell how to conceive that Christ should be a meete or duly qualified subjâ—ct for this administration hee having no such Faith as the Apostles requâ—red in those whom they baptized nor does he think that any man will presume to say that he was baptâ—zed either contrary to or besides the rule or minde of God touching persons meete to be baptized espâ—cially considering that himselfe renders this account of his desiring of and submitting to baptisme viz. because it became him to fulfill all righteousnesse Mat. 3.15 To which I answer I will not indeed presume to say that Christ was Baptized either contrary to or besides the rule given by God touching persons meete to be Baptized But yet it will not therefore follow that Johns knowledge of the good and happy condition that Christ was in in respect of Gods love to him was the only and adequate reason and ground of his administring baptisme to him For though all the ends and reasons of administering Baptisme to others did not meete or were to be found in Christ to render him a meete subject of Baptisme as viz. Repentance for Remission of sins yet there were severall things in Christ obvious to John besides his being in the favour of God which in common with others rendered him a meet and capable subject of baptisme As 1. The confession of his Faith or which is the same the declaration of himselfe to John after such a manner and upon such terms as by which John did perceive him a person meet to be baptized for otherwise how should John come to know that hee was such an one for till he came to be baptized of him it seemes he did not know him to be the Son of God as he himselfe testâ—fies John 1.31.33.34 And howâ—ver if John knew that Christ was the Son of God either by his confession or otherwise he knew also that he did beleeve himseâ—fe so to be which very faith being found in another viz. of believing Jesus to be the Son of God rendered him a meete subj ct of baptisme according to common rule as we see in the Eunuch the profession of whose faith and upon which Philip did bâ—pâ—â—zâ— h m was but this I believe that Jesus Christ is the Sonne of God Acts 8.37 And why should not the same faith which rendred another duly capable oâ— baptisme render him capable of it in like manner 2. Another common reason of adm ssion to baptisme found in Christ was his professed desiâ—e to ob y the righteous Law institution or declared Will of God in being baptâ—zed though perhaps in other respects he had not that need of it as others that received it had Suffer it to be so now saith he to Iohn i.e. forme to be baptizâ—d by thee for thus it becomes us i.e. himself and others to fulfill all righteousnesse or every Lâ—w or Precept of God whereof this of Bâ—ptisme was one And though John as it seemes otherwise judgâ—d Christ to have no need of his baptisme yet upon this profession of Christs desire to obey God therein and his declaring it necessary and comely for him so to doe John did baptize him for the Text saith Then he suffered him Mat. 3.15 And I desire it may be observed that the true reason of Christ his being baptized is here rendered and that is not his being in the love and favour of God as the Querist supposes but partly his desiâ—e to fulfill and observe the same lâ—w himselfe which was imposed upon other men and partly because of that meetnesse or comlinesse that was in such an act of obedience or conformity to the Will of God as that was which may wâ—ll shame those who thinke themselves exempt from water baptism becâ—use they have attained more otherwise then those new borne babes in Christ were wont to have attained at the time of their taking up baptism Christ though hee had not that need of Bapâ—â—sm as others had yet he dâ—sired to shew himself as obedient as any in stooping though it had beene to the lowest ordinance and least command of God 3. That account which Christ had now given of his knowledge faith and desire to obey God might well be a reason for John to conclude that some good and blessed effect would redound to Christ upon his taking up that Ordinance of baptisme as indeed there did for there upon the holy Ghost descended upon him in the likenesse of a done and likewise a voyce from the Father declaring his high contentment in him saying this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased Mat. 3.16.17 And this reason of Iohns administring baptism to Christ was much of the same nature with that ground upon which other men and women were wont to be baptized For their declared qualification of their Knowledge Faith and Desire to obey God was still a ground to him that did administer baptisme to believe that the ordinance would not be in vaine to them but a means of much blessing And therefore unlesse some such qualifications as these could in some measure be found in Infants to render them capable suâ—jects of baptism as well as Christ theris nothing at all to be inferred from Christs being baptized to justifie the administration of baptisme to them Neither on the other hand is there any thing duly to be argued from Iohns admâ—nistering baptism to Christ to prove that a profession of faith and a willingnesse to obey God is not necessarily required in all persons whatsoever to whom baptisme ought to be administred The premisses then considered it is so far from being as evident as the Sun at noon-day that all persons and particularly Infants who may be known to be in the love and favour of God without a profession of faith are without faith or a profession of faith as regularly and compleatly quallified for baptism as the loudest professors of their faith under Heaven as that the quite contrary thereunto is evident if not as evident as the Sun at noon-day which any but those that are blind may see yet evident enough to be discerned by considering men And thus though I have not said all that might have been given in by way of answer to these Qâ—eries for then perhaps as much might have been bestowed upon one as now is upon them all yet I hope by what is said there are such hints of light delivered as by a rationall improvement wherof the Reader may easily come at ample satisfaction touching the cases of conscience therein debated FINIS