An Answer to M r. I. G. his XL. Queries, touching Church-Communion between such as have been Baptised after they have Beleeved, and others who have not otherwise been Baptised then in their Jnfancie. As likewise touching Infant and after Baptism.
THe thoughts of the Worthy Author of the Book Intituled Philadelphia, touching the subject matter of that Book, being propounded Queri [...]-wise, there is I suppose li [...]tle Question to be made, but that it was with an expectation on his part, to receive a return from the hand of some friend, or other, in order to a further Discovery of Truth in that particular Case of Conscience, about which the Queries are imployed. And therefore rather then [...]he desire of this worthy friend, should in this behalf be kept too long fasting, I have resolved (having first waited a while for some more able hand to have undertaken it) through the assistance of God, to offer my mite towards this service, to which I adress my self as follows.
Querie. I.
Whether is there any Precept or example in the Gospel of any Baptized Person, his disclaiming of Communion in Church-fellowship, with those whom he Judges true Beleevers upon account onely of their not having been Baptized?
Respondant.
As for matter of Example for such a practise, there is I suppose none in Scripture, no more then there is of disclaiming communion with the Church of Rome, as now it is, or with the the Parochial Churches in England or elsewhere; and yet it wil not follow, that the one is any more unlawful then the other. For Scripture examples are matters of Fact, and therefore, there having been no such corrupt practise crept into the world, till after all the books of the holy Scriptures were finished, as is the constituting of Churches without Baptism, or upon Infant sprinkling in stead of Baptism, which in true construction is not onely no Baptism at all, but even worse then none, as much as to commit an evil action is worse then to omit a good one; there being, I say, no such corruption as this then on foot, no more then there was the now Romish, the National, or Parochial Church-constitution then in being, there could be no occasion for any truely Baptized person, to disclaim communion, either with the one or with the other; and consequently no such matter of Fact to be Recorded, of which to make an example.
But then it no more follows, that it is unlawful to refuse communion with the one Church, then it is with the other, if there be no more ground in Scripture to constitute Churches without Baptism, then there is for the Romish, National, and Parochial constitution. The Querist then having himself disclaimed communion with the Church of Rome, and the Parochiall Churches in England, though he have no example in scripture so to do, and yet hath done it, because there is no example in Scripture for such Church-constitution as that of Rome and England is, he might as well disclaim communion with [Page 11] Churches built upon Infant Baptism too, since there is no more example in Scripture of such a Church constitution, then there is of the constitution of those Churches, with whom he hath disclaimed communion; especially considering, that there is example in abundance in Scripture of Churches of a better constitution, and that is of Saints Baptized after they had Beleeved.
2. As to matter of Precept; though there be no litteral or sillabical Precept for Baptized persons to disclaim communion in Church-fellowship with unbaptized ones, no more then there is for disclaiming communion with the fals Churches before mentioned; yet if the Querist will say, that there is Precept in Scripture, which does virtually require him to disclaim communion with the Church of Rome, and the Parochiall Churches in their way, then I will say the same concerning Baptized Beleevers, their refusing communion with unbaptized.
If it be demanded, what precept doth virtually require such a thing as non-communion of Baptized with unbaptized?
I Answer, 1. For those that plead the Precept of circumcising Infants under the Law, as virtually requiring the baptizing of Infants under the Gospel, me thinks this should be satisfactory as to them, and so to the Querist himself, as touching the Case in hand, viz. where God requires Circumcision under pain of being excluded communion with the Church, saying, the uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his fore-skin is not circumcised, that soul shal be cut off from his people, Gen. 17.14. for what less can be meant by that expression, shal be cut off from his people, then that such an one should be deprived communion with the people of Israel in Church-fellowship? If it be said a cuting off by death, is thereby intended, then I say, that is exclusive of Church-communion likewise; for the Major includes the Minor, and it is more to be cut off by the hand of death, from all oppertunity of future communion with the Church, then it is for a man to be debarred present communion, onely in order to his repentance, that he might be regularly capable of communion afterwards.
But whether such a cuting off be in that place intended or no most certain it is, that such a cuting off is enjoyned, Exod. 12.48. where its said, speaking of the Passover, That no uncircumcised person shal eat thereof.
And ther [...]fore, if it be good reasoning from circumcision to B [...]ptism, (which if it be not, let the Pedobaptists bid adieu to their cause of Infant Baptism, which is built and bottomed thereupon) then it follows undeniably by way of Analogie, that as uncircumc [...]sion by the command of God, did deprive persons of communion with the people of God in Church-fellowship, then, so non-Baptism does debar persons of Church-communion now. And now which of the hornes of this dilemma, will the Pedobaptists suffer themselves to be gored by? Will they say the consequence is not good, to argue the exclusion of unbaptized persons from Church-communion, from the exclusion of uncircumcised persons from acts of Church-communion, while circumcision was in force; if so, then how can the consequence be good, to argue the Baptism of Infants from the circumcision of Infants; for the same things have the same consequences; and to things alike, belongs the like reason and judgement, and therefore let them either grant my inference, or for ever cease any more to infer from Infants circumcision, to Infants Baptism.
2. I would argue further thus: the same Law which enjoynes the learned Querist, and others of his way, to deny the priviledge of their Churches to other Beleevers that are not of their Churches, but do scruple their way, and cannot submit to their order, the same Law does enjoyn baptized beleevers, not to admit into fellowship with them in Church priviledges such persons, though beleevers, as do scruple their order and way of being baptized in order to Church communion, and will not submit thereto. For the Scripture is every whit as express for Baptism to precede the enjoyment of Church priviledges, as it is for a voluntary consenting to Church order and government, to precede the same enjoyment. Nay I am confident, that the Arguments and Plea's, brought to prove it lawful to admit Beleevers to such communion without Baptism, if admited as good, would overthrow and level the Order and Discipline of particular Churches. For if one single person may be admited to Church-priviledges without Baptism, or without submiting to the order and rule of the Church, both which are previous to acts of Church-communion, and I affirm the [Page 13] case is more clear for Baptism in this behalf in Scripture, then it is for that submission and consent I speak of; I say, if one person may be admitted upon such terms, then why not two? if two, why not ten, and so a hundred, or a thousand? and consequently such Gospel order laid totally aside?
3. If these things serve not turn, yet those precepts, exhortations, or doctrines, by which men stand enjoyned to observe Gospel Order (1 Cor. 14.40. 2 Tim. 1.13. 2 Thess. 2.15. 1 Cor. 11.2. Titus 1.5. Col. 2.5. Rom. 6.17.) do virtually prohibit men Baptized, communion with unbaptized in Church fellowship, as that which is contrary thereunto.
1. That this was the order of the Gospel, yea and an order enjoyned by Christ, viz. that Beleevers should first be Baptized, before admited into Church-fellowship, will sufficiently appear, if duly considered, from that Commission of Christ to his Disciples, Mat. 28.19. Go ye therefore teach all Nations Baptizing them. Where we see, that the very next thing they were to do, after they had taught men ( viz. so, as to make them willing to obey the Gospel, Acts 2.41.) was to Baptize them: which injunction therefore, as some well observe, is put by a participle of the present tense; Teach all Nations, Baptizing them, &c. i. e. presently upon their being taught, as all examples of that nature in the Acts of the Apostles do declare. And if this were the very next thing in order to be done, after men were instructed to the beleef of the Gospel, then an admiting them into Church fellowship without this, could not be without a deviation and turning from the rule of Christ in this behalf; which transgression to suppose the Disciples of Christ admiting, or the Disciples admited, to be guilty of, is a peece of uncharitableness, more then I am willing to communicate in.
2. The Apostles, according to the Commandement of Christ, begining first at Ierusalem to put this Commission of his into execution, Luke 24.47. did act accordingly. And doubtless their acting upon this Commission, ought to be taken by us, as an interpretation of this Commission, and their actions relating hereto, to be in pursuance of, and correspondent to this Commission; [Page 14] unless we will suppose them to stumble at the threshold, and to begin to depart from it assoon as they began to act upon it; which would be too great an 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 [Page 15] 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; [Page 16] 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 Church-members into Church-fellowship [Page 17] without baptism, to be a reason unto us likewise to steer the [...]ame course? unlesse we will say, those Gospell rules by which [...]hey ordered themselves in those times, were binding only to Christians of the first ag [...] of the Gospell, but not to us now; [...]nd if so, then farewell all Go [...]p [...] Obligations; for if we may [...]ake liberty to cast away one Law of Gospell Order; and Worship, then why not two, and so three, and in the end all? [...]o which indeed these l [...]sser beginnings do truly tend, and I would to God it might be more considered, and laid to heart.
Querist.
How can this ever be proved, that there were no believers unbaptized in the Apostles daies?
Respon.
I know none that does affirm any such thing, as that a be [...]ever was not at any time while he was a believer unbaptized; [...]ny doubtlesse men were believ [...]rs first, and then were bapti [...]ed after they began to believe. But if the Querist intends [...]hus, how will it be proved, that no believer in Church-fel [...]owsh [...]p was unbaptiz d? Th [...]n the answer is, that it is proved by those and the like Scriptures lately quoted, where its said in [...]ffect, that all of all [...]orts, [...]ks and d [...]gr [...]s, that were of the [...]ody, were baptized into that body, and if [...]ll were of the body by it, then none were without it.
Querist.
Be it granted, that th [...]re w [...] no believ [...] [...] the Apostles daies, upon what ground n [...]w [...] [...] practise [...]ow queri [...] be justified [...] maintained. [...] certainly know, and can satisfie themselves, [...] had been such believers in these times [...] unbaptized, or un [...] baptized [...]y those [...]ly [...] have declined s [...]ch communion with them, as that spe [...].
Respon.
Believers now, are doub [...] no [...] believers were then; (I do not mean [...] nu [...]) and if so, then the same ground that did satisfi [...] [...]ap [...]z [...] believer, then, in not joyning in Church fellowship [...] unbaptized, though they di [...] be [...]eve [...] (for they did believe before they were baptized, and yet were not admitted [Page 18] into Church communion till after baptized, as was proved above) will serve to satisfie baptized believers now, touching the lawfulnesse of the same practise, which is the will and appointment of Jesus Christ that so it should be; for in that we find such a thing practised with approbation of the Apostles, we may well conclude it to proc [...]d from their directions and instructions, and consequently from the Lord himself, as we are taught to infer, 1 Cor. 14.37.
II. Query.
Whether can it be pro [...]ed from the Scriptures, or by any argument like to s [...]tisfie the conscience of any tender and consider [...]ng Christian that the Apostles, or other Christians in their daies, would have d [...]clined Church communion with such persons, whom they judged true believers in Christ, only because they had not been baptized after a profession of their believing?
Respon.
It does not only appear, that the Apostles and other Christians would have declined Church-communion with believers, because not baptized, but it appears they did do it; for it sufficiently appeares that men and women did believe before they were baptized, Act. 2.41. & 8.12.37.38. & 18 8. with many other places: And I hope it is proved to satisfaction, in my answer to the first Query, that believers were not admitted to Church fellowship then, till after baptized, their believing notwithstanding; if so, what is a not admitting lesse, then a refusing to admit them to such communion?
The reason why the Querist seems to conceive, that the Apostles and other Christians would not have declined Church-communion with believers, only for their want of baptisme, runs thus:
Querist.
Considering that the Apostle Paul expresly saith, That in Jesus Christ (i. e. under the Gospel or profession of Jesus Christ in the world) neither circumcisi [...]n ava [...]eth any thing, not uncircumcision, but saith which worketh by love. Gal. 5.6. And again, That circumcision is nothing, nor uncircumcision is nothing, but the ke [...]ping of the Commandements of God, 1 Cor. 7.19. meaning, that under the Gospel, neither did the observation of any [Page 19] externall Rite or Ceremony, Circumcision by a Syneedothe Specie, being but for all kind of externall Rites or ceremonies, avail or contribute any thing towards the commending of any person unto God, nor yet the want of any such observation discommend any man unto God, or prejudice his acceptation with him; but that which was all in all unto men, and which availed any thing in and under the Gospel, that which being found in men, rendred them accepted and approved of God and the want of it disapproved, was such a kind of faith (not such or such a kind of ceremony, or such or such a kind of baptism) which by the mediation or intervening of that heavenly affection of love, uttereth and expresseth it selfe in keeping the Commandements of God.
Respon.
1. What does the Querist mean, when he says, that under the Gospell the observation of any externall rite or ceremony, avails a man nothing towards the commending of him to God, nor does the want of it prejudice his accep [...]ation with him; does he mean, that it does not avail him in any sense? (as one would suppose, that were minded to take him in the worst sense, since his assertion is indefinite) but surely this is not his meaning, since this would render the Ordinances of the Gospell, Baptisme and the Supper, unprofitable and vaine, and things but of like indifferency, as were those meats of which the Apostle saith, That if a man eat of them, neither is he the better, or if he eat not, neither is he the worse, 1 Cor. 8.8.
But I presume rather that he meanes, that they availe not comparatively, or els in the businesse of justification; our what then, will it follow, that because these externall rites, baptism and the like, do not avail unto mens Justification when they are observed, that therefore they are not necessary unto Church-communion? for did the externall Rite of Circumcision under the Law (which is the thing by which the Querist calculates the validity of baptism under the Gospell) availe any more to justification, th [...]n baptism does now; and yet how irrelative soever it was to justification, yet it was so necessary as to Church-communion, as that Church-communion wa [...] not to be had w [...]hout it, Gen. 17.4. Exod. 12.48. if so, then how can the Querist estimate the usefulnesse and disusefulnesse [Page 20] of baptism, as to Church-communion by Circumcision, as he does, and not conclude it necessary to Church-communion as well as Circumcision was?
But I demand how the Apostles or other Christians in their times would have known, or have been able upon good ground to have concluded, that such persons had truly believed in Christ unto justification, and had been meet to be admitted to communion with them, who should (if any such had been) have refused to obey Christ in submitting to baptism, whereby they were to make proof that they did believe in him in good earnest: Sure I am, that a refusing of Johns baptism was taken for a declared rejecting the counsell of God in the Gospel, Luk. 7.30. and how a refusing the baptism of Christ, could by the same rule be deemed lesse, I understand not, unlesse you will suppose that the counsell of God was not in the baptism of Christ, as well as in the baptism of John.
2. Why should our Querist estimate the Apostles judgment of Gospel Rites by what he speaks of Circumcision? since the one was abolished, and the other [...]stablished by the same Gospell; or does it follow, that because the Apostle doth oppose Faith to circumcision, that therefore Faith must be opposed to Gospell-Ordinances, or external Rites, as he calls them? does not a Gospell Faith exclude circumcision, and yet include baptism, as it doth all other precepts of the Gospel? and therefore pity it is, that such friends as Faith and Gospell-Rites are, should be set together by the ears.
3. Why does the Querist make circumcision a Gospel-Rite, which is indeed a Rite abolished by the Gospell? or does not he account it a Gospell-Rite, when he sayes, that under the Gospell, circumcision by a Synecdoche Specie, is put for all kind of externall rites or ceremonies; or which I think is the same, that under the Gospell, and the prof [...]ssion thereof, neither did the observation of any externall rite or cer [...]mony, circumcision by a Synecdoche Specie, being put for all kind of externall rites and ceremonies, &c. and if for all kind, then certainly for Gospell-Rites and Ceremonies, for they are some of all; neither surely would any man (much lesse the Querist) be so impertinent, as to assert no externall Rite available under the Gospell, because [Page 21] circumcision is not, unlesse he held circumcision to be as much a Gospell-Rite as any other, since it is against common sense, to say that which is greater is not available to such or such an end, because that which is lesse is not; and yet more irrationall would it be, to assert the non-availablenesse of that which is, from the non-availablenesse of that which is not, which yet would be the trip of the Querist, if he should not hold that circumcision had some manner of institutive being, yea and as eminent a being under the Gospell, as any other Rite of the Gospell hath.
But if it be the judgment of the Querist indeed, that circumcision is put by the Apostle as a Synecdoche Specie of Gospell-Rites, i. e. of the same kind with them, and as a part of them, then why does he not practise it as such? or if he judge it to be none of them, then why does he make it a Synecdoche Specie of them? or why does he estimate all Gospell-Rites and Ceremonies by that, and by what is said by the Apostle concerning that? I conf [...]sse I should as well as the Querist hold it an unreasonable thing for any baptized believer to disclaime Church-communion with those that are unbaptized, only because unbaptized; if I deemed a mans being unbaptized of no worse consequence then his being not circumcised. Truly I cannot but think that cause hard-bested, that is fain to beg its bread out of such desolate places, as is that of circumcision for one, whose foundation was long since rased by the hand of the Gospell to the very ground.
4. And lastly, but why also does the Querist oppose the Rites and Ceremonies of the Gospell, or under the Gospell, to the keeping of the Commandements of God? or does not he do so? who makes the observation of the Rites or Ceremonies of the Gospell to avail nothing towards the commending of a man to God, and yet withall, does make the keeping of the Commandements of God, as proceeding from Faith available hereunto, which constructively, clearly supposes the Rites and Ceremonies of the Gospell to be none of the Commandements of God. That the Querist makes the keeping of the Commandements of God, as proceeding from Faith, available as to a mans acceptation with God, in that very sense in which [Page 22] he had utterly denied the obs [...]rvation of Gospell-Rites and Ceremonies to be available, appears plainly in these words of his, viz. But that which was all in all unto men, and which availed any thing in an [...] under the Gospell, that which being found in men [...]endred them accepted and approved with God, and the want of it disapproved, was such a kind of Faith (not such or such a kind of cer [...]mony, or such or such a kind of baptism) which by the mediation or intervening of that heavenly affection of love, uttereth and expresseth it self, in keep [...]g the Commandements of God; so that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Gospell (baptism being there named for one) according to the tenor of this writing, must be none of the Commandements of God; (which yet I dare say is none of his opinion) or els the keeping of them, as produced by Faith and love, must be available to a mans acceptation with God, as well as the keeping of any other his commands, which yet to say, and it is the truth, doth utterly contradict what was said before, in denying the observation of the ceremonies of the Gospell to be available unto any such purpose.
III. Query.
Whether can it be proved by any text or passage of Scripture, either directly, or by any tolerable consequence, that Christian Churches were in the Apostles days constituted by baptism, or that none were reputed members of Churches, or admitted into Christian communion with those who were baptized, but only such wh [...] were baptized likewise?
Respon.
It hath been already proved (as I conceive) in the answer to the first qu [...]ry, by some text or passage of Scripture, either directly, or by some tolerable consequence, or rather both directly, and also by clear and pregnant consequence, that Christian Churche [...] were in the Apostles daies constituted, if not by baptism, yet [...]ut without baptism, and cons [...]quently that none were [...] into Church fellowship but such as were baptized; a [...] [...] [...]efore having proved this already, it is not necessary to [...]: But because such a thing as this, is not so [...] i [...] the eyes of those that plead it, as the Que [...] [...] in those words following, where he says, [Page 23] that that text Acts 2.41. is commonly, and only so far as he knows, prece [...]ded for proof of such a thing; I shall briefly point to severall other texts, by which it will appear, that the Churches i [...] the Apostles daies were not constituted without baptism.
That the Church of Rome was baptized, and therefore not constituted without baptism, appears Rom. 6.3. And so the Church of Corinth: the first beginning of that Church, so far as we read of its beginning, was laid in baptism, Acts 8.8. 1 Cor. 1.13.14.15.16. & 12.13. So the Churches of Galatia, Gal. 3.27. the Church of Ephesus, Acts 19.1.5. was surely begun by those twelve Disciples whom Paul baptized, or some that were with him. So also the first foundation of the Church at Philippi, was laid in baptism; for Lydia and her houshold, the Goaler and his houshold, as you will perceive by that part of history, Acts 16. from ver. 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 [Page 24] 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 Ʋniversalls, 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 [Page 25] 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? [Page 26] 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 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, [Page 27] 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. [Page 28] 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, its 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 its 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; [Page 29] 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 grou [...]d of their addition to the church, but not the only one, f [...]r Luke mentions their being baptized, as well as that; and why should any man go about to seperate them? The question is not, whether faith or baptisme is the originall, main, and principall ground of the holy brother-hood amongst the Saints, as he calls it; we willingly grant, (and therefore could have spared him the labour of proving) that faith hath the precedency herein: But what will it therefore follow, that because believing is the originall and principall ground of the holy brother-hood, or church-relation, that therefore baptism is none at all? does he not know, that though the Apostle gives repentance from dead works, and faith towards God, the first place in the foundation, yet he assigns baptism its place, and standing next to them in the same foundation, Heb. 6.1.2.
Querist.
2. That it cannot be demonstratively proved from the Scriptures that those hundred and twenty Disciples, Acts 1.15. unto which it [Page 30] 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 (a [...] 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 [Page 31] 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 b [...]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 [Page 32] 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 before Christ was crucified (though its true also on the other side, that neither could he truly estimate them to be of that number without any baptism at all) because the greatest part of those that were baptized by John, into the expectation of Christ to come, yet d [...]d not believe in him, or own him as the Christ of God when he was come, much lesse they, and many who had beene baptized by the Disciples of Christ, did believe in him, his being crucified notwithstanding; Luke had no reason to number them with the Church, though bap [...]ized, who had fallen from the Faith into which they were baptized, and c [...]nsequently had denied their baptism it self. so that all the account that Luke [Page 33] could truly give of the number of the Church, or of Disciples, was only of such baptized persons, who after the death and Resurrection of Christ, did believe in him, which it seemes amounted to no more then about an hundred and twenty.
And as for those who had beene baptized by John into the expectation of Christ to come, and yet did not own him when he was come; or els if they did believe in him for a season, yet did afterward renounce him, either before, or upon his being crucified; these were so far from being reputed of the number of the Gospell-church, upon account of their baptism received formerly, either from Iohn, or Christ, as that they were directed and exhorted by the Apostle, as well to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, as to repent for the remission of sin, before they could be admitted into the Church, or be counted of its number, their former baptism notwithstanding, Act. 2.38 41. For who can imagine, but that if not all, yet that many of the 3000. that were baptized upon the preaching of Peter and the rest, had been baptized before by Iohn; or who can conceive, but that if not all, yet that many, at the least, of that great multitude unto whom the Apostle preached at that time when the 3000. were converted, had beene baptized by Iohn, those Scriptures considered, cited by the Querist, Mat. 3.5.6. Mark 1.5. Luk. 3.7.21. where it is said, that all the Land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, were ALL baptized. And again, that ALL the people were baptized; and yet the Apostles exhortation to these inhabitants of Jerusalem, that were now gathered together to the number of many thousands, was, that they would repent and be baptized EVERY ONE of them, and as many as did receive this word, were baptized accordingly, and so added to the church.
Since then the owning of Christ crucified, together with a being baptized in his name, was requisite to render men of the number of Disciples, as a Church: Hence it came to passe, that Luke could not estimate their number to be more then 120. Acts 1.1.15. nor above about 5000. Acts 4.4. notwithstanding more had been baptized by Iohn, unlesse more of them had adhered to Christ crucified, as these did; so then, though baptism be one of the requisites, not without which, yet it is not [Page 34] the only requisite, by which the number of the church is to be estimated. By this time therefore I hope it doth appeare, that this Acts 2.41. doth both colour and cotten (to use the Querists own words) with the supposal or conclusion, viz. that churches, or at least the first Gospell-church, (a Sampler to the rest) was not constituted without baptism, notwithstanding all that by the Querist hath been offered to the contrary.
And if the first church or churches might not be constituted without baptism, then neither may those that succeed them, because the same reasons that made baptism necessary hereunto with them, makes it necessary also unto us; for Gospell-order, setled by Apostollicall authority and direction, as this was, hath not lost any of its native worth, efficacy, or obliging vertue, by disuse and discontinuance, upon occasion of the Papall defection, but ought to be the same to us now, who are studious of a thorough reformation, as it was unto them in the first beginning of such order, or rather according to Davids resolution upon a like occasion ( Psal. 119.126.127.128.) to be the more closely adhered to; and the vindication and observation of such Gospell-rules to be managed with so much the more zeal, after the example of Christ himself, who as well as the Psalmist, was even eaten up with the zeal of his fathers house, John. 2.16.17. when he found corruption crept into it.
IV. Quaere.
Whether did not the Church at Rome, in the Apostles daies, and so also the Church in Galatia, hold Church-communion with some who were not baptized, considering 1. That the Apostle to the former writeth thus; Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Rom. 6.3. and to the later (after the same manner) thus; For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, Gal. 3.27. 2. That this Particle as many as (used in both places) is in such constructions as these, alwayes partitive, distinguishing or dividing the entire number of persons spoken of, some from others by the character or property specified, or at least supposeth a possibility of such a distinction.
Respon.
1. I cannot grant the Querist his assertion, viz. that this particle [Page 35] as many as, is in such constructions as these alwayes partitive, though I grant that many times it is; for when the Apostle saith, 1 Tim. 6.1. Let as many servants as are under the yoke, count their own Masters worthy of all honor; doth he thereby suppose or imply, that there were some servants, who were not under the yoke, or that there were some servants, who were not to count their owne Masters worthy of all honour? both which must be supposed notwithstanding, if this form or manner of speaking, as many as, be alwayes to be understood partitively, or as dividing the entire number of persons spoken of, which yet to suppose, who sees not how absurd it would be?
Object. If it be said, this exhortation, Let as many servants as, &c. doth intentionally respect so many believing servants as were under the yoke, and that therefore in respect of other servants, who were not believers, it is partitive.
Answ. If so, then the answer is, that so do those expressions used Rom. 6.3. Gal. 3.27. intentionally only respect those at Rome, and in Galatia, who did believe, and were baptized, and therefore is partitive, in respect of others the Inhabitants of those places, dividing those of these churches, from others dwelling in the same places, who were not of these churches; so that if that objected should be granted, yet we shall gaine as much or more by it one way, then we shall lose by it in the other.
2. The coherence consulted, will evince the expressions so many of us as, and as many as, to comprehend all those persons of whom those churches did consist: For consider unto whom does the Apostle speak, Rom. 6.3. does he not speak to the whole church, and every individuall soul of them, in the 1.2. ver. when he sayes, What shall we say then? shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid: How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? And if these words in the 1.2. ver. respect the whole church, as they must be supposed to do, unlesse you will suppose that the Apostle did grant a liberty to some of the church to continue in sin, and to live therein; then those words [...]n ver. 3. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? are interrogatively [Page 36] 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 ind [...].
Besides, doth it not appear in the return that is made to the [Page 37] 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. Its 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 th [...] by way of reproof for it; for might not they have been very apt to have concluded the Apostles approbation of [Page 38] 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 [Page 39] 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 t [...]at Barnabas used no more words in his relation, then what are here recorded by Luke, since we have frequently, [Page 40] 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 its 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 its 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 [Page 41] 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 Q [...]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 clee [...]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 [...]o be observed and kept inviolably by all those servants of Christ, who are not willing to exchange Christs owne Order and Method, for that which is but of Man; and who are not willing to give way to Antichristian obtrusions, to justle out wayes sanctified by the Lord Jesus for the feet of his Saints. See more for this in the answer to Queries 1. and 3.
QUERIE IX.
Whether when God hath by Faith purified the hearts of a people walking in Christian brotherhood and fellowship together, hath he not Sanctified them? And in case any person shall now despise or decline their fellowship as unholy, doth he not sinne against that Heavenly admonition delivered by speciall Revelation unto Peter; Act. 10.15. What God hath cleansed (i. e. Purified or Sanctified) call not thou (or make not thou) common? Or can a man lightly call, or make that common, which God hath sanctified in a more opprebrious and contumelious way, then by flying from it as polluted or unholy?
Respon.
If this Querie suppose that Baptized believers withdraw Communion from unbaptized beleevers, as judging them unholy, common or uncleane, as it must suppose, or else its nothing to the purpose, then there is a great mistake in the Querist. For I for my part, doe judge many persons who are not Baptized, Holy and cleane, and their hearts purified to a good degree, and yet I cannot but judge withall, that the way of holding Church-Communion with these, without their being Baptized, a common way (too common indeed) and such as God hath not Sanctified. And therefore the question is not touching the state and condition of their persons, God-ward in resp [...]ct of justification, but of their way of holding Communion without Baptisme; and whether this be as well approved by God, as their persons are accepted with him upon their beleeving; if not, we may love and honour their persons, and yet disl [...]ke their way of Communion, without offence to God.
Communion with them then, is declined for their way-sake, because we cannot have Communion with their persons, in a Church-way Behold Israel after the flesh, are not they which eat of the Sac [...]ifice, partake [...]s of the Alta [...]? &c. 1 Cor. 10.18. without having Communion with their way it self, which I must witnesse against, as that which God hath not sanctified by any word of his, that I know of. And therefore our declining Communion upon these termes, is not a calling, or a making of them, but theirway-Common or uncleane.
The 10. and 11. Queries importing much what the same thing, I shall make the same answer serve both.
X. and XI. Queries contracted.
Whether need a man contract guilt of sinne, by walking in a society of men Christian and holy, though they have some practice among them which he cannot approve of, in case he openly declare his dislike of it, and be not constrained to communicate in it? Or whether a difference in judgement, in or about a matter of doubtfull disputation, be a sufficient barre to Church-Communion?
Respon.
1. There is little question to be made, but that persons who are in and of a Church duly constituted, may continue their Communion there, notwithstanding there may be some opinion or pract [...]ce among them of a doubtfull disputation; yea, though there be something a mong them which are certaine to them to be of an evil import, provided they faithfully witnesse against such evills: Nay surely it is not onely lawfull, but it is the duty of men in such cases to continue their Communion; that they that are stronger, might helpe the weaker, and be a meanes of purging the Church from that which doth defile.
But then 2. Though this be true, yet what is this to warrant a mans holding Communion with a company of believers, and acting with them as a Church, when he knowes they are no Church according to Gospell-rule? It is not a company of Stones and pieces of Timber lying on a heap together that make a House, till they are put in order, and into the forme of a building: nor can you properly and truly call that heap a House, till the Foundation be first laid, and then the superstructure set upon it. In like manner, neither are a company of Beleevers a Church, because they are a company of Beleevers, nor can they duly act as such, or be called or accounted such in a Gospell sense, and according to order thereof, (which is the rule by which we must judge) till they are built together in an orderly way, the Foundation first (which in primitive Churches was never laid without Baptisme) and the superstructure after. Ye also as lively stones, are built (or be ye built) up [Page 44] a spirituall House, 1 Pet. 2.5. They were first lively stones, and then built up a spirituall house, they were not a spirituall house because living stones, untill these living stones were built up: and can any man think that there was any one spirituall house in the New Testament, whose Foundation was laid without Baptisme? If not, as it is most certaine he cannot reasonably so think: then give me leave to think, that they build without their rule, and not according to the method of the wise Master-Buliders of the first Churches, who both lay Foundation, and put on the Top-Stone too, without Baptism.
For a man then to hold communion with a company of Believers, not in Gospell order, and to act with them as if they were, and yet to witnesse against such practice of theirs too, what is it else, then for a man to condemne himselfe in that which he alloweth, Rom. 14.22. yea and to make himselfe a transgressor in building what he destroyes? Gal. 2.18. This errour then of non-baptisme, being an errour, not of Believers in a Church, duly so called, but an errour against the way of their becomming a Church according to Gospell forme; it is not a mans reproving this practice in them will justifie his holding communion with them as a Church, no more then a mans reproving a woman for living with himselfe as his wife, because not duly marryed to him, will priviledge him in that communion with her. If this be not so, I demand of the Querist, why he and others could not have held communion with persons Episcopall and Presbyteriall in their judgements, if Believers though in no such Church-state and order as he now judgeth necessary, if his declaring his d [...]sl ke of their neglect of that Order he now holds necessary, would have excused the matter?
QUERIE XII.
Whether did the Lord Christ, pointing to any River or Water, say, Ʋpon this rock will I build my Church?
Respon.
I would also querie (since I know no reason why such a Querie should be put) why or for what cause the Querist should make such a Querie as this? and whether he did ever heare, or [Page 45] doth expect ever to heare such a senselesse assertion from any the Baptists whom he thus interogates? or doth any thing they say amount to as much? if not, why should it be insinuated as if their opinion or practise held confederacy with such a piece of 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, [Page 46] 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. [Page 47] 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 [Page 48] 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 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, wh [...]ch if they would, there would then be no need to contend earn [...]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 [Page 49] 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 [Page 50] 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 [Page 51] 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 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, [Page 52] neither prpoerly of the rabble rout of the world, nor yet formerly of the Church, (as a man that having served an apprenticesh [...]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 pr [...]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 Circumc [...]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 themselv [...]s doe, with those that urged the abrogated Ceremony of Circum [...]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 [Page 54] 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 profession of Christ.
Neither let any man think that I wrong the Querist in wresting his words contrary to his intention: For though I believe that which I infer from them, was no part of his intention, yet I doe not wrest his words, but onely infer from them that which must be true, if that which he layes downe querie-wise for a truth, be a truth. And it is a thing not unusuall for persons who plead the cause of any errour in Religion, at one turne or other, to utter that which cuts the throat of their own tenent.
But now to answer to that which the Querist intends indeed.
1. If there be no example in Scripture of any mans being baptised, after many yeares profession of the Gospell, it is because there is no example in Scripture of any such sinfull negligence in [Page 55] Believers, as to continue many yeares in the profession of the Gospell without being baptised: if there were any lingering and delaying in this case, they were awakened to their duty, as many Believers have now need to be: And now, why tarryest thou? Arise and be baptised, Acts 22.16. If then Believers in these dayes have been more remisse and negligent in yeilding obedience to Christ in this command of his, then Believers were in the Apostles dayes, well may it serve to humble and to shame them, but by no meanes to encourage them to persevere in that neglect.
2. Christ Jesus himselfe would be baptised, because he would fulfill that law of righteousnesse which enjoyned B [...]ptisme, ( Mat. 13.15.) though oth [...]rwise he had as little need of it as the greatest he, that thinks his long standing, and great attainments in Christianity should privil [...]dge him from it: and therefore methinks as such have any tendernesse in them, lest they should be found neglecting any righteous precept of the Gospel, or any of that zeale that was in Christ to fulfill all righteousnesse, or any such love to Christ as to tread in his steps, should not have their hands out of this businesse upon any pretence whatsoever.
3. Cornelius had beene a long time a fearer of God, and it is probable had knowledge of Johns baptising, or of Christs baptising long before, in as much as he was famously knowne among the Jewes; for he is said to have a good report among all the nation of the Jewes, Acts 10.22. and therefore it is not unlike, but he might as well know what was done among the Jewes, as they know what was done by him: besides, Peter speaking to him, and those with him, saith, That word (I say) you know which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee, after the Baptisme which John preached, &c. Acts 10.37. and yet notwithstanding his long profession of the feare of God, and notwithstanding he had not been baptised when he had knowledge of others being bapt [...]sed; yet such were Gods respects to this upright man, that rather then he should be any longer without a more particular knowledge of the Gospel, and without that Ordinance of the Gospel-Baptisme, he spares not to send an Angel to him, to direct him to Peter, Acts 10.4, 5, 48.
[Page 56]4. He that is baptised, though not till long after the time in which he began to beleeve, does not by being baptised, then fall back from perfection to imperfection, from that which is more spirituall to that which is more carnall, as the Querist supposes; because he shall not thereby lose any thing he had before of that which is spirituall, but shall be sure to make a faire addition thereby unto his spirituall stock, if he doe it heartily, as unto Christ, and afterwards make that spirituall improvement of it, of which it is very capable.
5. The Ordinance of Baptisme is as well matter of obligation, as signification; to oblige and hold a man fast to the service of Jesus Christ, as to instruct him in the things of the Gospel: upon which account Paul presses the improvement of it upon the beleeving Romans, (Rom. 6.3.4, 5.) so long after they had begun to beleeve, as that their faith by that time was growne famous throughout the whole world, chap. 1. ver. 8. And what, hath not even the strongest Christian himselfe, need of all the holy bonds and ingagements of the Gospel, to engage and binde him faster and faster to Christ, and to presse him more and more forward in his way?
6. Baptisme as well as the Table of the Lord, is rememorative, yea in some respect more; for the Supper properly is but rememorative of the death of Christ, whereas Baptisme is rememorative, and declarative of the Death, Buriall, and Resurrection of Christ. And therefore the Q [...]erists reason being built upon this mistaken supposition, that Baptisme is not rememorative as well as the Table of the Lord, is invalid, as to tender Baptisme any more unnecessary to men of long profession, then the Supper it selfe is unnecessary for them.
7. What ever else they have professed, I am sure they have not professed so much, and so far as they ought, who by being baptised into Christ, have not professed the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ, and their owne Death, Buriall, and Resurrection with him.
8. There can no more reason be given (as I conceive) why Baptisme should cease to be a duty to a believer because he hath omitted it in the properest season of it, viz. the time of his new birth, then why Circumcision should cease to be a duty to [Page 57] the Israelites, having omitted it many years after the eighth day of their Age, which was the proper time for it; and yet we see such an Omission in them, did not cause Circumcision to cease to be a duty to them, though perhaps the ground of their Om [...]ssion, was much more approveable, or at least excusable before God, then the ground of that Omission of Baptisme, of which we speak, can well be conceived to be, Josh. 5.7.
9. An Omission or negl [...]ct of Baptisme by the Believers, let it be under what pretence soever it will, is guilty of an unkindnesse to God, and to Jesus Christ, in that they doe not Justifie God in the face of the World, in that as well as in any other way and in that they doe not put on the Lord Jesus in Baptisme, as the first and best approved Believers did, Luke 7.29. Gal. 3.27.
10. Such Believers as n [...]glect Baptisme, upon a supposall they have no need of it, because of their long-standing in Christianity, are unmercifull to their owne soules, in cutting themselves short of such a meanes or spirituall accommodation as Baptisme is, and doe offer injury both to that Wisdome and Goodnesse of God, which consulted their good in that Ordinance: They reject the Counsell of God against themselves in not being Baptized, Luke 7.30.
XXIII. Querie Answered.
1. If the Law of Edification, ought to over-rule all Lawes and Precepts concerning spirituall Church-administrations, as the Law of Salus popul [...] ought in things civill, as the Querist supposes, and takes for granted from Cor. 14.26. Then the Administration of B [...]ptisme ought rather to be appropriated to persons professing the Faith, then unto Infants, and not the contrary as the Q [...]erist would have it: and the reason hereof is, because Baptisme is more edifying both to the B [...]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. [Page 58] 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 [Page 59] 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 [Page 60] 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 confi [...]med in their Opinion of the nec [...]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 of Edification, and yet neither be most Edifying, nor yet matter of Spirituall detriment; unlesse the comparatives of Lesse and More, were not in use in those days. I will willingly grant, that the whole ministration of Moses, was edifying to a degree, and therefore Circumcision also, though administred to Infants, in [Page 61] some respect or other; but I shall withall deny, that it or Circumcision as administred to Infants, was Most edifying; for then it should have remained still as the Apostle saith, Heb. 8.7. If that first Covenant had been faultlesse, then should no place have been sought for the second.
It was then because of that little, low, and meane degree of Spirituall benefit or edification that was to be had by Circumcision as administred to Infants, or by other Rites or O [...]dinances of the Law, that the same were abrogated and made void, as is most evident also by that other saying of the Apostle, Heb. 7.18.19. For there is verily a disanulling of the Commandement going before, for the weakenesse and unprofitablenesse of it: for the Law made nothing perfect. If so, is it not most unreasonable to say, that the Law, or any part of it, and particularly Circumcision as administred to Infants, was most edifying? Or if it were most edifying according to the [...] of Gods Dispensation for the time then being, is there any shew or appearance of reason in it, that an administration to Infants must be most ed [...]fying now under the Gospell, because such a thing was the most edifying way which God was pleased to vouchsafe the Church in her non-age under the Law? when as it is plaine that as edifying as it was, it was disanulled for the unprofitablenesse of it.
4. What ever the confidence of the Querist is to the contrary, yet there is not onely a colour of reason, but the substance or reason also why Baptisme should not be so edifying as to its end, [...]hen administred to Infants, as Circumcisian was and might be, as to its end, when it was administred to Infants; because Circumcision was no such transient act as Baptisme is, but such as remained a permanent signe in the flesh as a visible matter of signification and instruction to the party circumcised all his dayes, ( Gen. 17.13.) which is a thing, that no man can affirm of Infants Baptisme.
XXIV. Querie Answered.
That the Baptizing of Infants in the Apostles dayes, is not sufficiently, or at all signified by those Scriptures which mention the Baptizing of housholds, Acts 16.15.33. 1 Cor. 1.16. will [Page 62] sufficiently appeare. 1. Because the housholds whose being Baptized, is recorded, being onely but three, it may with as good probability be affirmed, that there were no little Children in them, as that there were, and in that respect we are upon equall ground with our friends, in denying, what they take liberty only to suppose. 2. If there were Infants in those housholds, yet the word House, or Houshold, in Scripture frequently imports, not all and every individuall Soule in the house, but either the major part, or so many of the house, which according to common reason, are to be supposed capable of those affirmations that are made concerning them. 1 Sam. 1.21, 22. Gen. 50.4. & 35.2. 2 Sam. 3.1. Jer. 35.3.18. Mat. 10.13. & 12.35. John 4.53. Acts 18.8. & 10.2 Josh. 24.15. 2 Tim. 4.19. Rom. 16.10, 11. And accordingly must those Scriptures be understood where housholds are said to be Baptized. 3. In that it is said concerning one of the three housholds whose Baptisme is recorded, That the Word of the Lord was spoken to them, and that they believed, Acts 16.34. and of another, that they addicted themselves to the Ministery of the Saints, 1 Cor. 16.15. with Chap. 1. v. 16. It is evident, that either there were no Infants in those housholds, or else that when they speake of housholds, they meane onely such of them, as had attained the age of so much understanding, as to doe, heare, and believe such things, as were incompetible to the capacity of Infants or little Children.
To the reasons moving the Querist to thinke Infants were Baptized, when these housholds were Baptized, I answer,
1. That God hath not left the Precept, and perpetuall example of Circumcising Infants as a pit uncovered, (for Believers to fall into by Baptizing their Children) by giving no hint of the alteration of his minde in that behalfe: For in that hee hath in the New Testament, abolished the use and practice of Circumcising Infants, its cleare hee hath abolished the Law by which Circumcision of Infants was enjoyned. But hee hath done the former, Acts 21.21. 1 Cor. 7.19. Gal. 5.2. Therefore the latter. And therefore considering that the Law of Circumcision, as all other Mosaicall Rites, being disanulled, I cannot but wonder, that any man should build any thing upon it for the Baptizing of Infants: Is not a repealed Law, and no Law, of the same [Page 63] consideration, as to its being any ground of practice?
But may wee not much rather conceive, that since God did make a Law against mans opening, or digging a pit in his field, and not covering it, to prevent the miscarriage of Man or Beast, in falling into it, Exod. 21.33. that then surely, he himselfe would never have left the Precept, and perpetuall example of Baptiz [...]ng Beleevers, as a Pit uncovered for Christians to fall into, by n [...]glecting to Baptize their Children till they repent and beleeve, without giving the least notice of his mind and will to have any other then such Beleevers to be Baptized, if yet it had beene his minde that Children should have been bapt [...]zed?
2. That which the Querist offers to render children to be Beleevers in Scripture-sence, is insufficient as to the entitling of them to Baptism, or to cause us rationally to conceive them included in their number, who in the housholds aforesaid, are said to have beleeved. For 1. If it should be granted that children may be called Beleevers, not because they doe beleeve indeed, but because they are in like state and condition with Beleevers, in respect of the love and favour of God, and their Title to the Kingdome of Heaven, which yet is all the Querist argues from Mat. 18.6. Yet what is this to the proving of them actuall Beleevers, or such as imbraced the Gospell, or were made to beleeve by teaching? which yet were that kinde of Beleevers onely, unto whom Baptisme was, or was to be administred, for so much as appeares throughout the whole New Testament. But 2. The truth is, the little ones which are said to beleeve in Christ, Mat. 18.6. cannot with any congruity of reason be supposed to be any such little ones, as Infants are: Because they are described by an Act which presupposeth, not only the Faculty, but the Use, Act and Exercise of the understanding; for so the Act of beleeving in Christ does, by which they are described, which yet as all men know, is incompetible to Infants. And therefore we must suppose, either 1. That the Child which Jesus called to him, Ver. 2. was of so much 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 [Page 64] 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 D [...]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 capac [...]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 Bapt [...]z [...]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 H [...]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 Q [...]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 [Page 65] 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, & signifi [...]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 Q [...]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) b [...] 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 d [...]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 [Page 66] 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 rej [...]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 B [...]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 a [...]l that is not of Gods planting. But now, they that shall pract [...]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 reason may be pleaded by the Papists, for many of their superstitious customes and traditions; for neither are they by name excluded the parts of Gods worship. But we say, that Infant-Baptisme and what ever else is obtruded as necessary in the Worship and [Page 67] Ordinances of God, which he hath not made so by some word of his or other, is by vertue of that generall rule which warrants the plucking up every Plant that is not planted by God, to be rejected by men, as will-worship, and the serving of God, according to the precepts of men. Col. 2.18.23. Isa. 29.13.
XXVI. Querie answered.
1. I might here observe the discordancy and incongruity of this Q [...]erie, with severall that have gone before it: For whereas this renders the neglect of Baptisme so dangerous, as that the heavy hand of God may well be feared as the punishment of such a sinne, yet severall other precedent queries have rendered it so veniall a sinne, as that it would be unreasonable for the sake thereof, to barre any from Church-communion.
2. But to answer directly; I suppose it will not be denyed by the Baptists queried, but that Baptisme is as necessary, and of as high esteeme with God under the Gospell, as Circumcision was under the Law; and that they who neglect it whose duty it is to submit to it (the Q [...]erist I mean, and other Believerrs) have cause to feare the displeasure of God, as well as those who neglected Circumcision under the Law. But where there is no Law, there is no transgression, and where no transgression, no feare of wrath: if then there is no command from God to baptise Infants, as there was to circumcise them, (or if there be, the Pedobaptists were never yet so kinde as to shew it us) then there is no cause to feare the like danger for the forbearing of the one, as there was for neglecting of the other.
3. But though there be no cause to feare the displeasure of God for forbearing to baptise Infants, yet if there be the same cause for us to feare the displeasure of God for doing that which he hath not commanded, as there was for his people under the Law in like case, then there is just cause for those to feare the displeasure of God in one kinde or other, who though they do not offer strange fire which God commanded not, as did N [...]dab and Abihu, whom the Lord slew, L [...]vit. 10.1, 2. not transgresse the Order of God as Ʋzza did, who dyed before God, 1 Chron. 13.10. with chap. 15.13. yet doe as truly and really doe that as a service to him in sprinkling their children which he hath not commanded, as they did the other.
XXVII. Querie answered.
Whether the Israelites were blamelesse under the omission of Circumcision for fourty yeares together, upon account of that bodily inconvenience or danger the Querist speakes of, I know not, I leave it to him to determine: But that a being dipped over head and eares in water, in obedience to a command of Jesus Christ, should be a tempting of the providence of God, as to the endangering of either life or health, I cannot believe; because more then frequent, even constant experience, teacheth the contrary. Nor do I believe there is the like danger or difficulty attends this dipping, as did the circumcising of those Israelites, Josh. 5. after they had omitted it forty yeares: and yet the danger and difficulty notwithstanding, God would have it done. What ever the danger might be for a man to be dipt upon his owne account, I shall not speak; but I am very confident, God hath not made a snare of Baptisme; and unlesse we will conceive, that God takes lesse care to preserve his people now in the times of the Gospel, from such inconveniences as these feared, in the way of serving and obeying him, then he did to preserve his people from those hazards they exposed themselves to in obeying him under the Law, Exod. 34.24. there will be no cause for any man to feare the miscarriage of his life or health in the hand of Jesus Christ, and in the way of obeying him; he that rebuked the Windes and the Seas for his servants sakes, can rebuke the feared cold: and though ease slayeth the foolish, yet whoso harkeneth unto me (saith God, Prov. 1.32, 33.) shall dwell safely, and shall be free from the feare of evill. And how can he trust God with the keeping of his soule in well doing, 1 Pet. 4.19. that cannot trust him with the keeping of his body in well doing? Little does he think who ever is turned aside by this Lyon in the way, what peace and satisfaction a mans experience of the uprightnesse and cordialnesse of his heart to God will produce him, when notwithstanding the danger which fl [...]sh and bloud will suggest in the case, he can in love and obedience to his Lord and Master Jesus Christ, throw health, and life, and all into the hands of God.
XXVIII. Querie answered.
1. If the Querist will suppose that those Scriptures which require faith, or the profession of faith in those that are to be admitted to Baptisme, are to be understood onely of men and women who are capable of making such a profession, and that they are no more exclusive of Infants, then the Apostles Injunction, 2 Thes. 3.10. If any will not worke, let him not eat, is exclusive of Infants in the point of eating, wherein he intends men onely and not children; then I desire him to shew us what Scriptures those are, that doe speak of the baptising of infants and not of men and women professing the faith if those doe not: for if such Scriptures as require faith in those that will be baptised, doe no more intend children, then the foresaid Injunction of the Apostle doth, then there must be some other Scriptures that do intend Infants, when they speak of baptising, or else there are no Scriptures at all that doe speake of Childrens Baptisme: if there be any other, why are they not produced? if there be not, why is the world troubled with these disputes as if there were?
2. Why does not, or may not the Querist as well suppose, that those words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man therefore examine himselfe, and so let him eat of that Bread, and drinke of that Cup, are no more exclusive of Children then those are, He that will not worke, let him net eat; or then those are, which require a profession of faith before Baptisme? For may not any man that will give himselfe liberty and scope to puzzle mens understandings without plaine Scriptures, as well deny that children are debarred Communion at the Table of the Lord, by this Text which requires a man to examine himselfe in order to his approach thereto, as to deny that children are debarred Baptisme by those Scriptures that require faith in men and women to render them capable of Baptisme? if there be any difference, let us understand it; or if children be not here excluded the Supper, then shew us by what other Scripture they are: or if the Querist will grant that children are hereby excluded Communion in the Supper, then we desire him, if he can, to shew reason why such a requiring of faith in persons to bee baptised, does not as well exclude children from Baptisme, as from the Supper, there [Page 70] being no other Scriptures that doe any more warrant the baptising of children, then the admission of them to the Supper of the Lord.
XXIX. Querie answered.
That dipping is of the essence and necessity of Baptisme, I conceive there is good reason to believe; But that they are selfe-Baptisers, who by going into the water, dispose their bodies for a buriall under the water, by the hands of the Baptiser, I do no more believe, then I believe they are selfe-Murderers, or selfe-Slayers, who lay their bodyes downe, and their necks upon the block when they are to be executed.
Nor have I seene or knowne any to convey all but the head under water in order to their being baptised, or dipped, nor do I judge it convenient so to doe, unlesse a shallower water cannot conveniently be come at; though I believe withall, that so the body of him who is baptised, be buried under water by him that does baptise, it does not at all varie the case as to the thing of Baptism, whether a man goe lesse or more into the water; the Scripture placing the thing, not in a mans going to the knees, or neck, in water, but in his being baptised, or buried in water.
XXX. Querie answered.
I demand of the Querist, whether God in the institution of Circumcision, Gen. 17. did any more prescribe or determine all circumstances essentiall to Circumcision, then God, then Christ have determined all circumstances requisite to Baptisme in the Commission given by them to baptise? John 1.33. Mat. 28 19. Did God command Circumcision? So God, so Christ have commanded Baptisme. Did God appoint what persons should be circumcised, viz. every male child among the Jewes? so hath Christ who shall be baptised, viz. such of the nations as shall be taught or made Disciples. Did God appoint the eighth day for Circumcision? Christ hath appointed the time of Baptisme, viz. though not such or such a day, yet that it should follow mens being discipled or taught, without any long intermission, as the very words of the Commission doe import, and Scripture examples conforme to this Commission, doe shew. Did God direct what part of the body should be circumcised, viz. the flesh [Page 71] of the fore-skin? So Christ hee hath appointed the subject matter to be Baptized, under this word or expression THEM, Baptizing them. i. e. Such persons of the Nations as shall be taught; not this or that part of them, but THEM, even them themselves; by which personall expression when applied to washing or dipping, in Scripture, is wont to be signified, not the washing of this or that part, as Hands, Face, Feet, or the like, which are wont to be particularly mentioned, when no more is intended, but a totall washing or dipping, as very many learned Men, though friends to Infant-Baptism, doe also render the word Baptize to signifie.
Did God declare for what end circumcision should serve, viz. For a token between him and his people? So Christ in Commissionating his Disciples to Baptize, in, or (as it is rendred from the Greeke) into the Name of the Father, the Sonne, and the Holy Ghost, declared that Baptisme should be a solemne putting, or planting of Men, into the Father, Son, and Spirit, or into a professed expectation of Salvation from, and of the service of, and subjection to, the Father, Son, and Spirit. Nay, I may say, the Commission for Baptiz [...]ng, is more particular and expresse then that for circumcising: for here it is directed by Christ, by whom, or by what hands Baptisme shall be administred, viz. D [...]sciples; but it is not prescribed by what hands the Males should be Circumcised, nor yet with what instrument, as viz. whether with a Knife, or sharp Stone, or the like.
And therefore, there being in the Commission of Christ to Baptize, as much (yea in some respects more) particularity of subject, and manner of Administration, as was in Gods Command to Circumcise, (and the same might be said if compared with the Passover or Supper of the Lord,) the Querist doubtlesse had no reason rashly to charge those, with making themselves wise above that which is written, or with obtruding upon the consciences of men, an institution of their own, in the name of the Ordinance and Institution of God. Who undertake to determine particularity of subjects or manner of Administration in Baptisme, which yet he does.
But I would demand of the Querist, whether he doth not determine particularity of subject, and manner of Administration in Baptisme, when he Sprinkles such and such Infants in that form [Page 72] and manner which hee uses therein? and whether hee doe this of his own head, or by vertue of any Institution or command of Chirst? If he will say, he does it by verture of an Institution or Command from Christ, then at least in his opinion, there must be a commission from Christ found in Scripture, which prescribeth such circumstances as hee Judges essentiall to that administration, as well as there is for the essentialls of Circumcision, Passover, and Supper of the Lord; if so, why does hee suppose there is no such thing to be found in Scripture? Or if hee will say there is no such Commission in Scripture, as does determine particularity of subject, and manner of Administration in Baptism, as hee must hold, or else hee is to blame for changing those who ever they be, with making themselves wise above that which is written, &c. That doe prescribe and determine, particularity of subject, and manner of Administration in Baptisme; But as I say, if hee will say there is no such Institution, or Commission, (which is equivalently the same) then does not hee make himselfe wise above that which is written, and obtrude upon the consciences of these that joyne with him, an institution of his own, in the Name of an Ordinance and Institution of God, when hee undertakes to determine Infants particularly to be the subject of Baptisme, and Sprinkling in the Name of Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, to be the manner of Administration, and accordingly practise the same?
XXXI. Querie Answered.
1. Though it should be granted, That many, if not the generality of those that have entred into the way of new Baptisme (as the Querist miscalls it, it being indeed the old way of Baptizing) Have received their precious Faith, and other Graces, under the d [...]spensation of their Infant-Baptisme, yet this would be no more a reason obliging their continuance in their old wonted forme, (supposing there is yet a more excellent way) then it was or would have beene to those who were wrought upon in a saving way, under the Popish, and after that the prelaticall forme, to have continued still their abode in their Tents.
2. It is like no good use would be made of it by some, should I become so much a foole, as to glory of what I assuredly know, [Page 73] touching the Spirituall increase which God hath vouchsafed many of his servants under this Dispensation. But this I may say, that more then one of a thousand (though I beleeve the Q [...]erist does not know one of a thousand of them, and therefore can be no competent Judge of the growth of their thousands; but that more then one of a thousand) ingaged in this new, Alias old way of which the Querist speakes, have since their entrance into it, added much more then the breadth of the least haire of their head unto their former growth or stature in Christ, is a truth, of which the Querist would make no doubt at all, as now hee does, had hee but taken their former, and present Spirituall Dimensions, with such a measuring Reed as that wherewith John did measure the Temple of God, and them that worship therein, Rom. 11.1. But however, it is good for every Man to thinke soberly (as the Apostle speakes in an other case) both in commending, and discommending, and not to stretch himselfe beyond his own line in measuring.
3. To the Querists further demand, I answer; that possibly some may be worse since they came under this D [...]spensation then before, though I must say I know not one such, except such who have quite forsaken the way, and it is no marvell if they are grown worse: nay this rather turnes to a Testimony for that way, then against it, in that when Men grow bad, the yoke of Christ becomes too strait for them any longer to weare, and the company too holy for them to indure. But as for the decayes of s [...]me in the way, if it strengthen not its claime as to be from God, so neither does it at all weaken it any more, then those unruly and disorderly walkings of some in the Apostolicall Churches, did argue the way of those Chu [...]ches not to be of God. Alas if such pleas as these were valid, where are there Men of that order and forme, that could avouch their way to be of God? But if the old way of Independency be indeed free from all spots of this kinde, they shall by my consent, throw the first stone at the Men of this new way. Well may this way of managing the controversie between us, occasion indeed those evill surmisings, alienation of affection, and vilifyings, of which the Q [...]erist speakes. Q 14. but will contribute little towards the finding out the tru [...]h, but rather the contrary; upon which account [Page 74] I shall forbeare what otherwise might have beene retorted.
XXXII. Querie answered.
What the Learning, Worth, and Humility was, of Johannes Oec [...]lampadius, Johannes Denkius, and Johannes Gaster, in Luthers time, I know not, who as the Querist informes us, repented of their weaknesse, as having beene surprized with a religious conceit of the necessity of new, alias old Baptisme: But this I know, that it is a very rare thing for men of such great learning, as these are represented to have been, meerly by a su [...]prisall with a Religious conceit, so farre to deny themselves of the accommodations of their former way, wherein they inherited the respects of Men, and the warme influences of the World, as to expose themselves to the hatred, opposition, and persecution of the times, except their convictions from the Word of God, have been very potent and operative upon the Conscience. And whether these men did returne back to their former form, accompanied with the same humility and worth, with which before they left it, is more then I know, or then the Querist does informe us in, or then I am bound to beleev [...], since learned men (as experience of all Ages shewes,) have been no more temptation-proofe, and free from backsliding to imbrace this present World, then other Men.
But as for those of late among our selves of like Character, except it be such as have repented of their worth and humility, as well as of their new Baptisme; as the Querist does not name any, so I have not known or heard of any, except one or two Ministers, who have repented for a good living sake, (as possibly those other learned men might doe) and yet I am given to understand, that one of those hath againe repented of that his Repentance.
XXXIII. Querie answered.
Here the Querist supposes, that Baptisme is no more the Baptisme of Repentance for the Remission of sins, then Circumc [...]sion was the Circumcision of Repentance for Remission of sins, or at least, that the one may be truly so called as well as the other; and that therefore, though Infants cannot repent, that yet they are no less capable of Baptism, then they were of Circumcision.
But I deny that which the Querist supposeth, viz. that Circumcision might as well and truly be called the Circumcision of Repentance, as Baptism, the Baptism of Repentance.
1. Because his reason upon which hee builds his Supposition is unsound, being this, viz. because according to the Apostles definition of Circumcision, Rom. 4.11. it is for substance and import of matter, the same with Baptisme. But that neither Circumcision and Baptisme, are for import of matter the same, nor yet that Rom 4.11. does import any such thing, is that the demonstration whereof I have briefly asseyed in answering the 23. Querie, where the same thing was alleadged by the Querist, to which I refer the Reader.
2. If well observed, it will appeare, that the reason why Baptisme is called the Baptisme of Repentance for Remission of sins, is such as would by no means sute with such a denomination of Circumcision, and consequently that Children are not as capable of Baptisme, as they were of Circumcision. For the reason why Johns Baptisme was called the Baptisme of Repentance for Remission of sins as in the place quoted by the Querist Mark. 1.4. was, because Repentance was the qualifying terme upon which John prached Baptisme as meete to be received, and upon which those received it accordingly that were Baptised by him. As the Covenant given Abraham is called the Covenant of Circumcision, Acts 7.8. b [...]cause probably Circumcision was the tearm by and according to which the seed of Abraham were to be adjudged in the Covenant, and rightfull partakers of the benefits and priviledges of it, and therefore called the token between God and them, of his being in Covenant with them, and they with him, Gen. 17.11. and the uncricumcised of Abrahams Seed are said to have broken the Covenant. Ver. 14 or broken it down, or made it frustrate, as Ainsworth renders it, i. e. dissolved the terms or conditions of it; upon which account God would have them cut off from his people, i.e. at least excluded the priviledges of those that kept his Covenant by making good the condition on their parts. But that repentance was the qualifying term of Johns Baptisme, as Circumcision was visibly the qualifying term of Gods Covenant, appeares both by Johns Preaching, and the peoples receiving of Baptisme: By Johns preaching; for its said that he Preached the [Page 76] Baptisme of Repentance, Luke 3.3. Acts 13.24. Now what was it for him to preach the Baptisme of Repentance, but to preach that men ought to repent, and so to be Baptized? Which that it was, also appears in that those that did receive Baptisme from him according to his preaching, did professe Repentance; for its said, they were Baptized of John in Jordan, confessing their sins, Mat. 3.6. Mar. 1.5. But the Pharisees who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and Justified themselves Luke 16.15. & 18.9 11. though many of them came to Johns Baptisme, Mat. 3.7. yet it seems, disowning the terms on which it was to be administred, viz. repentance for remission of sinnes, they are said to have rejected (or made frustrate, as the word is) the Counsell of God against themselves, not being Baptized of him. Luk 7.30.
But because the right understanding of the carriage of things here about in the very beginning of this Ministration of Baptism, is of great use by which to judge how it ought to be used now, the Ministration remayning still, though the first Ministrators are dead, Therefore I shall desire these two things may be well minded.
1. That Johns Ministry by Preaching and B [...]ptizing, was that from which the Gospell Ministration began to take its rise or beginning, and which began that great turne which was made in the World by abolishing the legall way of Worsh [...]p and Ordinances, and of bringing in the Evangelicall. Hereupon its said; The Law and the Prophets were till John, since that time the Kingdome of God (i.e. the new and Gospell state) is Preached, and every Man presseth into it. Therefore also is the Ministration of John called the beginning of the Gospell of Jesus Christ the Sonne of God. Mark 1.1, 2. By the way then, if God was pleased to honour the Ordinance of Baptisme with the ushering in of the Gospell Ministration into the World, and to cause it thus to march in the front when he brought his first begotten into the World, had not they need to consider whether they doe it right or no, who cause it to march in the Reare of all the things of the Gospell, in their Opinions of it, and affections to it?
2. That as Baptisme (except it were Johns Preaching) was the first Gospell Ordinance by which the change began, so the terms of the Administration and Reception of this Ordinance now [Page 77] varied from the termes of the administration and reception of Ordinances under the Law, as well as the Ordinance it self varied from those. That which gave men right and title to the Ordinances of the Law, Circumc [...]sion and the rest, was their having Abraham to their Father: That which now gave men right to John's Baptisme, was not this, but their repentance; and this John sufficiently signifies Mat. 3.8, 9. Luke 3.9. when in his preaching to the people that came to his Baptisme, especially the Pharisees, he said, Thinke not to say within your selves, we have Abraham to our Father, but bring forth fru [...]ts meet for repentance: as if he should have said, Doe not think that plea will now serve your turne to render you capable of this Gospel-Ordinance, viz that you have Abraham to your Father, though it hath served your turne heretofore as to your partic [...]pation in Mosaicall dispensations, but now if you w [...]ll be b [...]ptised indeed, and enter upon the Gospel-worship, then bring forth fruits meet for, or becomming repentance. Whereupon we sh [...]ll finde that he did instruct them how they should live for the time to come, as well as to repent of, and confesse their sinnes that were past, Luke 3.10, 11, 12, 13, 14.
And now if Baptisme were called the Baptism of Repentance, because none but repentant persons, or such as so professed themselves to be, were to partake thereof, then I am sure there is neither the same reason why Circumcision might be truly called the Circumcision of Repentance, nor yet that Infants are as duly capable of the Baptisme of Repentance, as they were of Circumcision.
XXXIV. Querie answered.
1. Whether those words Acts 2.38.39. Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sinnes, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost; for the promise is to you, and to your children and to all that are a farre off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call; I say, whether these words did so much enjoyne those to whom spoken, to repent, in order to their being baptised, as encourage them both unto the one duty, and the other, upon account of the promise relating to them, I shall not need to determine: But surely the Querist does not thinke but that their Repentance was enjoyned in order to their being [Page 78] baptised as well as for other causes; unlesse he will say, they were to be baptised first, and then to repent after, according to his own Method of baptising children.
2. If the Parents Title to the Promise was a ground or motive unto them to be baptised, but not be baptised without Repentance, but both to repent and to be baptised, as the Querist himselfe supposes it was; then why should the Promise be any more a ground to the children to be baptised without repentance, then it was to the Parents? or how, or by what passage, word, or syllable in the Text, does the Q [...]erist discerne, that the Promise was made upon any other termes to the Children, then it was to the Parents?
3. Is it not most apparent, that the whole tenor of the Promise here made, in respect of the persons to whom it is made (expressed in these words, you, your children, and all a far off) is governed and limited by that last clause of the 39. ver. even as many as the Lord our God shall call? If so, then the Promise did belong unto the children no otherwise then to the parents, nor had they any interest in the promise of remission of sinne, of gift of the holy Ghost untill called by Repentance and B [...]ptism [...], the terms here proposed, to render them capable of it, no more then their parents had.
4. If we consider what the Promise is which is here said, to be made to them and to their children, it will evidently appeare, that it, i.e. the good promised, belongs to none but repenting persons, The Promise in a sense is made to all the world, that is the publication and offer of it. Mark 16.15. but Baptisme doth not hereupon belong to all the world, but only to such as doe believe the Promise: Faith being the condition of the good promised, Baptisme is made by God, to be as an Appendix to that condition: Go preach the Gospell to every creature, i.e. offer them Salvation by Iesus Christ: but upon what termes shall they receive this Salvation offered? These, [He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved:] so that Baptisme comes in upon the promise imbraced, not upon the offer of the promise. Now when Peter sayes, the promise is made to you and your children, the meaning is that the offer and tender of Salvation did belong unto them and their children, and to all a far off, and the good of it to as many as God should call. Though there be in Scripture severall Discoverie of the gracious councell of God concerning little children, yet where ever any termes of grace and salvation are offered, or promised, upon the taking place of something to be believed, or done by the creature, there the Promise, or Offer of Grace, is alwayes to be understood to respect, not Infants, but persons having the use and exercise of their reason and understanding, Deut. 11.1, 2. Mark 4.9, 23. and consquently not to Infants: and if the Promise did not belong to Infants as Infants, then no Baptisme upon account of the Promise. The things here promised, are the rem [...]ssion of sinnes, and gift of the holy Ghost: for those are the things the Apostle does ascertaine them by the Promise.
Now this Promise of remission of Sinnes and gift of the holy Ghost, is either absolute and without condition, or else it is only conditionall; for betweene these there is no mean. If absolute, then the remission of Sinnes and gift of the holy Ghost were promised to all the Jewes, and their children, without any condition at all, whether they did repent and were baptised or no; but this I think no man will affirme. If the Promise then was conditionall, as you see it must needs be, then none had right to the Promise, that is to the things promised, but those that had performed the condition, for take away the condition of the Obligation or Promise, and the Obligation ceases to be: now the condition of the Promise is here clearly set by the Apostle to be, if not Repentance and a being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ (for if any knowes how upon good ground to divide them herein, let it so be) yet I am sure Repentance is: Repent and be baptised, &c. and ye shall receive, &c. that is, and thereupon ye shall receive, &c. And if Repentance was the condition of the Promise here mentioned by the Apostle, then I am sure the children of these Jewes could no more have right to the Promise here made untill they did repent, then the parents themselves could, and consequently no more right to Baptisme upon account of the Promise, then they had.
Which thing is so evident and cleare, that I shall wonder if any rationall man shall not discerne it, if he will but give his reason and judgement full scope to consider it.
XXXV. Querie answered.
Here the Querist demands, Whether God doth smell in the assemblies of those, which he sayes judge themselves the only duly baptised persons under heaven, with any such pleasure or delight, as he smelleth many the Assemblies of those who are called unbaptised? or are they filled with the glory and presence of God at such a rate? or are there any such manifestations of the spirit there? or are the powers of the world to come, so active and busie in the Church meetings of the one, as they are in the other?
Had the Querist given us to understand in what respects he speaks these things, and by what he makes judgement, when, and when not, such appearances of God as he speakes of, are vouchsafed [Page 80] men in their Assemblies, we might have knowne the better how to have satisfied his demand. If he judge of the presence of God, and the activity of the powers of the world to come in this case, by those effects which the ministration of the Gospel in such or such Assemblies works in men, in causing them to deny themselves in their worldly interest, not seeking the great things of this world, but being content to lose the favour and respect of men, the love of relations, and to expose themselves to the censures, hard thoughts, evill speakings, reproachings, revilings, scoffings, laughings, and oppositions of men, that they might approve themselves faithfull to God; and likewise in causing them to seek the honour of God, and good of Men, in dispensing the Gospel freely, and perswading all to a close and intire conformity thereto, both in their drawings nigh to God in the matters of his house and worship, and in their deportment and carriage towards men in common conversation; I say, if judgement shall be made of the presence of God with his p [...]ople by such eff [...]cts as these, which yet were the great tokens of the presence of his grace in the fi [...]st times of the Gospel, then doubtlesse the Querist needed not to have made a question of it, where these are most visible. Or if he will estimate the presence of God we speak of, by those glorious successes which he is pleased to give unto the meetings, Ministery, and endeavours of his Servants in bringing in great numbers and multitudes both of men and women, to be obedient to the Faith, according to the Doctrine and Order of the Gospel, then I shall desire him to cast his eyes abroad in the Land, and then tell us, by whose hands the greatest part of those many Churches that are separated from the nationall way, have been planted, especially in those places, where not long since, scarce so much as a face of Religion was to be seene.
As concerning many of those of whom such Churches do consist; it is very true that that which our Saviour speaks of the Ministry of the Prophets disposing and preparing a People for the hands of the Apostles, and for that Gospel-mould into which they were to cast them, may aptly enough be applyed to the Ministry of the Baptists in planting and building of Churches of such materialls, as were in part prepared to their hands. John 4.37, 38. Herin is that saying true; One soweth, & another reapeth: I sent you to [Page 81] reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: Other men laboured, and ye are entred into their labour. But the Lord hath been pleased not onely to use them as his workmen to polish some living stones which were in part hewne before, and for the building them up into spirituall houses, putting them into the right order and way of worshipping God, perfecting as to this, that which was lacking before, but hath also so wonderfully prospered his word in their mouthes, in turning of men from darknesse to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, in severall the dark places of this Nation, that I confesse I have not heard of the like testimony given by God to the endeavours of any other sort of men in these dayes: and surely such things as these, were wont to be accounted signes of the presence of the Lord with his people, Acts 11.21. And the hand of the Lord was with them; and a great number beleeved, and turned to the Lord. Ne [...]ther can it reasonably be thought, that the Scriptures are as a sealed Booke among these Men whilst such effects are produced by their opening and pressing of them: Well may it be indeed that the Scriptures are not dished and carved out by these men, with such straines of humane Art and Oratory as th [...]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 [...]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 tru [...]y said in the vindication of these, which Paul was faine sometimes to speake in his own vindication when disp [...]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 confide [...]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 [Page 82] 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 Ci [...]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 sh [...]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 [Page 83] 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 [Page 84] 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 say God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice.
2. That the B [...]pt [...]zing of Children was not so necessary in the Apostles dayes, but that the Apostles did defer the Baptizing of them if not so long as the Israelites did defer Circumcision, Josh. 5. yet that they did defer it till they came to give account of their F [...]ith I willingly grant; but that they did so long suspend the Baptizing of men after they beleeved, I cannot beleeve, because I finde the contrary: and yet if you observe, the reason is no otherwise a reason why though if Childrens Baptisme had beene lawfull, the pract [...]ce of it might have beene forborne in the Apostles dayes, then that the Baptizing of Beleevers themselves might have beene forborne, and yet it seemes that could not be forborne upon any such pretence. For can wee lightly imagine that the Apostles hands should at any time be fuller of worke, then when they had those many thousands before them, and such an advantagious opportunity of Preaching the Gospell as then presented it selfe, Acts 2. and therefore if they might have used such a liberty of deferring Baptisme as the Querist imagines, upon account of more impo [...]tant affaires ly [...]ng upon their shoulders, why should they have put thems [...]lves upon any such straits, as to Bap [...]z [...] three thousand the s [...]me day they converted them? Doub [...]e [...]t the opportunities of ma [...]y weekes would have beene little enough according to the z [...]ale of ou [...] Age, especially if [Page 85] Baptisme be thought so inconsiderable a thing as to be done by leisure.
3. If the Baptizing of Infants had been any part of the Will of God or of his institutions in the Apostles dayes, I cannot so easi [...]y thinke, but that the Apostles notwithstanding their more weighty affaires, would in some time of their lives or other have found time and opportunity of fulfilling that part of righteousnesse as well as others, or how ever, would have enjoyned others this pract [...]ce, or else surely they would not have answered the Commission of their Master, whose injunction was, that they should teach the Beleevers to observe whatsoever hee had commanded them, Mat. 28.20.
And therefore to what purpose is there in this case, mention made of those cases wherein a man may breake a Law and yet be blamelesse? or will any of those Scripture instances the Querist points to, agree any better with the case in hand, then harpe and harrow? Mat. 12, 3, 4, 5. The Priests in the Temple killed Beasts for Sacrifice on the Sabbath because commanded, which otherwise had not been lawfull, Ergo; The Apostles might lawfully forbeare Baptizing all their dayes though a duty commanded, having other worke to doe of greater moment, though they had opportunity of doing both this and that. The Discipl [...]s plucked Eares of Corne on the Sabbath, and David did eat the shew bread in case of necessity to sustein hunger and save life, Ergo, Christ and the Apostles might omit B [...]ptizing all their time, though they had no such necessity of other ingagements upon them, but that they might either doe it themselves or command it to be done by others; unlesse wee will suppose they had not time and leasure to give out such a command where they came, which yet we find they sometimes did Acts 10.48. John 4.2. as they did also in other cases, in appointing that to be done by others, which they could not so well attend themselves Tit. 1.5.
Without peradventure, the misunderstanding the Apostles intendment in that expression of his, Christ sent me not to Baptize, but to Preach the Gospell, hath prov [...]d a snare to many in these days, to thinke more m [...]anly of the Ordinance of Baptisme, then ever the Apostle thought. For doubtlesse it was not the Apostles drift in those words to bring downe the esteeme of baptisme [Page 86] and to magnifie Preaching, but partly to shew how little reason any had to glory in that they had been Baptized by his hands rather then by such and such; but more especially to satisfie them as touching the reason why though he converted all or most of them to the Faith, as 1 Cor. 4 15. that yet he himselfe Baptized so few of them as he had said, 1 Cor. 1.14.16. and his reason is not fetched from the non-nec [...]ssity of Baptisme (for wee shall finde that he tooke care to have them B [...]ptized presently upon their beleeving, Acts 18.8.) but from the non necessity of having it dispenced by his hands: and he further gives this account why he did not Baptise them himselfe, but set others to doe it, not because he wanted time and opportunity to doe it, but lest any should say that he Baptized in his own Name.
XXXVIII. Querie answered.
1. Whether the Principle of the Children of new, alias old Baptisme, which puts them upon Baptizing, beleevers as the Apostles did, be a By-way, or the Principle of the men of old alias new B [...]ptisme, which puts them upon Baptizing Children, be the By way, let the Scriptures judge, or at least be the Rule to judge by: there I am sure the Children the Querists speakes of, find that practiced which answers their Principle; if the Querist, and the Brethren of his way, cannot finde theirs there too, but onely fancy to themselves they can fetch it about with a long Arme, let them looke to it, lest their way doe not prove at last a By-way, and in the meane time that which leads them into many other By-wayes, By-thoughts, By-sayings, which will be found too light in the ballance of the Gospell, and which will turne to no good account in the day when God shall try every mans work of what sort it is, 1 Cor. 3.13.
2. As for counting all persons not of our way, uncleane and unholy, I have already accounted with the Querist in some other Queries for those expressions, and have shewed him how he hath miscast the reckoning: I would faine have him to know that we can call and count some of mens wayes and practises unclean and unholy, and yet not so judge of their persons as to a totall uncleannesse. Doe we not know that Asa and Jehosophat were Servants of the Lord in their times, and did approve themselves [Page 87] to a good degree of uprightnesse towards God in taking away the high places and the groves of the Idols, 2 Chron. 14.5. and 17.6. and yet for all that, were to blame, and it is left on record as their blem [...]sh, that they did not also take away the high places which the people had erected for the worship of the true God, 2 Chron. 15.17. & 20.33. to save themselves the labour of going to Jerusalem, the place which God had chosen to place his Name in, whither they ought to have gone, Deut. 12.5. In like manner we doe acknowledge that ye have well done, and doubt not but God hath taken it well at your hands, in that ye have advanced to that degree of Reformation at which ye have arived; but I must needs say, it yet remaines a blem [...]sh upon you, that you suffer amongst you any of those wayes which men have formerly devised to make the way of the Gospel more easie and plausible, as to the fl [...]sh, then Christ hath made it; and these blots are so essentiall to Communion, as that we know not how to eat of your Sacrifice, and not be partakers of your Altar, i.e. to hold Church-communion with you, and not make our selves guilty of that which we condemne in the way of your Communion.
2. As for the crime laid to the charge of this humour (as out friend is pleased to call it) of the Baptists, viz. the breaking the Bonds of Ʋnity, Love, and Peace, by which they were bound up with other Churches before, it is nothing but what the Protestant Bishops underwent from the Pap [...]sts when they went off from them; and the P [...]esbyterians from the Prelates; and the Independents from the Presbyterians, when they separated themselves from them: and therefore I hope no wise man will be much startled with such scare-crowes as these, in his eying a worke of Reformation, or think the worse of the baptismall way, because it carryes men yet a little further in reforming, upon which account they are constrained to leave their friends behind, that will not go with them, as they themselves also have done those from whom they have departed.
3. But as for estimating Christianity it selfe, and acceptance with God by this despised way of Baptisme, surely if any doe estimate Christianity by this onely (for otherwise I hope it may beare its part, and signifie its numb [...]r in the r ckoning as well as other Christian duties) they are much to b [...]ame; but that the Querist [Page 88] did ever know, or hath ground to believe that any the men he speaks of, much lesse all, have or do make such an estimation, I cannot easily conceive; sure I am such a thing is far from their frequent Declaration of themselves as to this particular: and therefore how duly or unduly, the Querist hath coupled these poore Baptists with men of such unworthy straines and tempers, as those are represented to be with whom they are compared, and into whose company he hath put them (for what cause he best knowes) we must leave to God and sober men to judge.
XXXIX. Querie answered.
1. That Mr. Philpot spake or wrote, as he thought, in affirming Auxentius an Arrian to be the first, and Pelagius the second, that nyed the Baptisme of Children, I will not deny, but that he had any good ground so to think or so to say, is that which I do deny: for as Mr. Philpot did not speak this of his own knowledge, so neither could any Author whom he must credit herein, be able to affirme any such thing, unlesse he had been more then a man, and had knowne what, and when every man in the world that discoursed these things, had affirmed or denyed concerning them. Besides, were not Authors of Bookes in former times, at least some of them, men of like infirmity with severall in these times, who have written and affirmed things of the Independents themselves, not so much out of knowledge and judgement, as out of disaffection? if so; are not, or may not they be abused or misguided in their apprehensions, that take all historicall relations and representations concerning the Anabaptists (falsly so called) for truth, as well as they are, and are like to be, who accordingly do, or sh [...]ll credit all that is written of the Independents, by men disaffected to their way? Besides, what credit can be given to ancient Authors hereabout, when many ancient Bookes are acknowledged to be spurious, and others to be corrupted by the Papists, who have put in, and put out, (in their long reign of darknesse) what would best serve their interest.
And that which is yet more considerable, is, that if it should appeare by unquestionable History (which for ought I could ever learne does not, but the contrary) that the baptising of Children had been practised in the next age after the Apostles, yet unlesse [Page 89] it could be made appeare that it was practised by approbation of the Apostles in the Apostles times, or that by some injunction it ought so to have been, it would not at all be any ground to warrant such a practise now, because as the mystery of iniquity did begin to work in the Apostles dayes, so there was a departing in part from the purity and simplicity of the Gospel, and an introducing of the inventions of men, whilest it was yet but early. I know, saith Paul, that after my departing, shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flocke, also of your owne selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away Disciples after them, Act. 20.29, 30.
But 2. If the Querist thinks Mr. Philpot is worthy of credit in his foresaid report, though he produce no Authors, may not the Authors of a Book, entituled A very plaine and well grounded Treatise concerning Baptisme, be rather credited in their allegation of Authors that assert the contrary to Mr. Philpot? Amongst very many Authors which they produce on this account, I shall instance in some few.
In pag. 19. of the said Book thus:
Tertullian in Libro de Baptismo: That Infants or young Children should not be so speedily baptised: and upon the saying of the Lord; Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not: he speaketh thus, Let them come when they are growne, and are able to be instructed: when they can learne to know Christ, then may they be Christians. For if youth be not so hastily to be put in trust with earthly goods, why with heavenly? Let them therefore know first how to desire that which is for their good, to the intent that it being desired, it may be given them.
And now I doubt not but the Querist well knowes, that Tertullian lived long before Auxentius and Pelagius had a being in world, and therefore by this it will appeare, that Mr. Philpot was not worthy of credit in reporting them to be the first that denyed the baptising of Chi [...]dren.
Page 28. Erasmus in annotationibus supra, 5. cap. ad Rom. Baptising of young Children was not as yet in use by S. Pauls time. Roffensis contra cap. Babylon. The first Rulars in their Church have used such manner of b [...]ptisme, as Christ never used in his Church. Dr. Eckius against the new Church orders in the upper Marquisdom [Page 90] and Territories of Noremburg, writeth; That the ordinances concerning the baptism of children, is without Scripture, and is found to be onely a custom of the Church.
Page 30. Bucerus in his book entituled the ground-work and cause, &c. In the Congregation of God, confession of sins is alwayes the first, the which in times past went before baptism, for commonly children were baptized when they came to their understanding. And again, in the beginning of the Chu ch, no man was bapt [...]z [...]d & received into the congregation, but those that through h [...]aring the word, wholly gave ov [...]r and submitted themselves to Christ. And again, in annotationibus super 4. Iohn. So much as in 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 bapt [...]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 Scriptur [...], that Childrens baptism was institut [...]d by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after th [...] Apostles. Page 20. Rupertus Tuitienfis lib 4 de divinus officiis cap. 18. In former times, the custom in the Primit [...]ve Chu [...]ch was, that they admin [...]stred not the Sacrament o [...] 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 [Page 91] 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 accordi [...]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 bi [...]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 B [...]shop of the City, baptized, and thereupon recovered of his sicknesse.
Page 21. Pontius the Son of Markus a Christian, was Catechised [Page 92] 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 Christ [...]an of Aquilea, were in the dayes of Nero the Emperour inst [...]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 the [...] 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 accordi [...]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 pu [...]pose; or if God did appoint any o [...]her, why does not the Querist produce us a copy of that order or Appointm [...]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 [Page 93] 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 n [...]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 adeq [...]ate reason why he wou [...]d have them B [...]ptiz [...]d, then the knowl [...]dge 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 part [...]cipation, and Gods reason of appointing Baptisme to be administred to men, must guide and limit men in their administration of it in resp [...]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 baptiz [...]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 th [...]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 th [...]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, its very probable, g [...]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 Fa [...]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 subj [...]ct for this administration, hee having no such Faith as the Apostles requ [...]red in those whom they baptized, nor does he think that any man will presume to say, that he was bapt [...]zed either contrary to, or besides the rule or minde of God touching persons meete to be baptized, esp [...]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: [Page 95] 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 test [...]fies John 1.31.33.34. And how [...]ver, if John knew that Christ was the Son of God, either by his confession or otherwise, he knew also, that he did beleeve himse [...]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 b [...]p [...]z [...] 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 o [...] baptisme, render him capable of it in like manner?
2. Another common reason of adm ssion to baptisme found in Christ, was his professed desi [...]e to ob y the righteous Law, institution, or declared Will of God, in being bapt [...]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 baptiz [...]d by thee, for thus it becomes us (i.e. himself and others) to fulfill all righteousnesse, or every L [...]w, or Precept of God, whereof this of B [...]ptisme was one. And though John as it seemes otherwise judg [...]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 desi [...]e to fulfill and observe the same l [...]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 w [...]ll shame those, who thinke themselves exempt from water baptism, bec [...]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 Bap [...]sm as others had, yet he d [...]sired to shew himself as obedient as any in stooping, though it had beene to the lowest ordinance, and least command of God.
[Page 96]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 su [...]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 adm [...]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 Q [...]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.