Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	according_a	lord_n	spirit_n	2,291	5	4.7747	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A74992	An ansvver to Mr. J.G. his XL. queries, touching the lawfulness, or unlawfulness of holding church-communion, between such who have been baptized after their beleeving, and others who have not otherwise been baptized, then in their infancie. As likewise touching infant, and after baptism. In which answer, the undueness of such mixt communion is declared, the unlawfulness of infant-baptism, and the necessity of after baptism is asserted. By W.A.	Allen, William, d. 1686.	1653 (1653)	Wing A1054A; Thomason E713_17; ESTC R207237	74,298	97

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 Jew● 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 fi●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 unde●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

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 ●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 s●●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 oppos●● 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 hu●dreds more Mat. 20.23 Mark 2.17 8.9 Joh. 5.25 ●9 17 2●.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 ●uch an indefinite expression as is here u●●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 gl●dly import nothing el● 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 the● 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 wa● 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 bap●ized were added to the church and if it be something probable though not much in his opinion wh●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

ridiculosity as this Querist Or is there the softest whisper or gentlest breathing in Scripture that a true Church of Christ cannot be constituted no not of the soundest Believers in the world unlesse they have been baptised after their believing how or after what manner soever they have been haptised before Respon If Baptisme have been administred according to Gospel-rule to men who by profession appeared or seemed true Believers when they were baptised though at the time of their baptizing they were not so indeed in the sight of God it is not so farre as I know necessary to their being of a Church to be baptised againe when they come truly to believe But if persons before they did believe have not been baptised at all with any Baptism that will hold weight in the ballance of the Sanctuary but only with such which essentially differs from Scripture-Baptisme both in respect of the Subject and externall forme of Administration as Infant-Baptisme doth in which respects it is of no more validity then no Baptisme at all then it is necessary that such persons should be baptised after or upon their believing in order to their Union and Communion with the Church And that this was the constant and for ought appeares to the contrary the universall practise of the Apostles and Primitive Believers and that in pursuance of the comm●ssion of Christ and therefore ought to be the resolved practice of Believers now from which no pretences should turne them aside is not only whispered and gently breathed but loudly declared by many Scriptures lifting up their voice together in this t●stimony as you may see in my answer to the first and third Queries QUERIE XIII Whether is an errour or mistake about the adequate or appropriate subject of Baptisme of any worse consequence or greater danger then an errour or mistake about Melchisedech's Father as viz. in case a man should suppose him to have been Noah when as he was some other man Respon I would likewise demand of the Querist whether there would be any more danger for a man to list Souldiers in the name of the Parliament of England who hath no Commission so to doe then there would be for him to mistake the name or person of a man the knowledge of whom doth nothing at all concerne him If there be then I shall not doubt to affirme that there is more danger for a man to invocate the name of Father Sonne and Holy Ghost and in their name to say I baptise thee such or such a one when neither Father Sonne nor Holy Ghost have given him Commission so to doe which yet is the case indeed the crime of mistaking the true or right subject of Baptisme then there is in mistaking the man that was Melchisedechs Father For the one is a counterfeiting or feigning of a Commission from Heaven and the fathering of an untruth upon or the speaking of an untruth in the name of the Lord to provoke him to anger and the other viz. to suppose Melchisedechs Father to be Noah in case he were some other man would be an errour only of lesse import as viz for a man to go about to make himselfe wise above that which is written in a businesse that concernes him not to know and wherein his ignorance would not prejudice him but help him in the application of that resemblance which the Apostle makes between Christ and Melchisedech Heb. 7.3 QUERIE XIV Whether may not the question about the appropriate subject of Baptisme as it is stated by the brethren of new Baptisme in opposition to the judgement and practice almost of the whole Christian world justly be numbred amongst those questions which the Apostle calls foolish and unlearned and adviseth both Timothy and Titus to avoid as being questions wich ingender strife and are unprofitable and vaine 2 Tim. 2.23 Tit. 3.9 Respon 1. If the Querie had been whether such a question as this viz. who was Melchisedech's Father whether Noah or some other man or whether the law of Circumcision in the equity of it be not yet in force as to the intituling of Infants to Baptisme and to be as a Standard by which to judge the observation of Gospel Rites unavaileable as to the commending of a man to God I say if the Querie had been whether such questions as these are not to be numbred with those that are unlearned unprofitable and vaine I could easily have consented in the affirmative because the Apostle in that place quoted by the Querist Tit. 3.9 doth point at these questions about Genealogies and strivings about the Law as specially intended by him And what questions or strivings about the Law if not whether Circumcision were not yet in use under the Gospel since the same Apostle in the same Epistle chap. 1.10 calls those of the Circumcision vaine talkers and vain talkers or vaine talke or such questions as were unprofitable and vaine agree well enough to meet in the same persons 2. But that the question about the appropriate subject of Baptisme if stated according to truth though in opposition to almost the whole world called Christian or if but agitated and debated in order to the finding out the minde of God thereabout should deserve to be numbred with those foolish and unlearned questions which are unprofitable and vaine I cannot believe Because the appropriate subject of Baptisme is essentiall to the Ordinance it selfe neither is that any more the Baptisme of Christ which is applyed to any other subject then he hath appointed then that would be the punitive or remunerative Justice of the Parliament in case another man should be punished or rewarded by him or them whom they intrust with the executive part instead of him whom the Parliament hath commanded to be so and so dealt withall or then that would have beene Gods Circumcision if any instead of his Males should have circumcised his Females And surely if the true being and administration of Baptisme and the fulfilling of the command of Christ thereabout does depend upon the knowledge of the appropriate subject of Baptisme then doubtlesse an earnest enquity after and serious debates about the appropriate subject of Baptisme can be no foolish or unlearned question neither unprofitable nor vaine unlesse we will suppose true Baptisme it selfe and the command of Christ thereabout to be unprofitable and vaine which to question whether it were would be indeed a question unprofitable and vaine whatever wisdome or learning otherwise might seem to be in it But as touching the reasons which seem to induce the Querist to conceive that the aforesaid question ought to be numbred with transgressors 1. It does not follow that the question about the appropriate subject of Baptisme is therefore unprofitable unlearned foolish and vaine because upon debates about it strifes contentions evill surmisings divisions and revilings and the like have occasionally taken place in the world no more then it will follow that because such things as these