Letter of Ministers Requesting Judgment Concerning Nine Positions, Positions 3,4 · Reply 9
Reply.
THis Anſwer ſtands of many parts, wherein things doubtfull are affirmed, and that which more weakeneth the force of the conſideration before alledged, and the Anſwer it ſelfe, then of the reaſon whereunto it is applyed. For
Firſt, If where the holy Ghoſt is given and received, and where faith is profeſſed according to Gods ordinance, there none may hinder them from being baptized, viz. by ſuch as have power to baptize them: Then either men that have received the holy Ghoſt, and profeſſe the faith, be members of the Church, or Baptiſme is not a priviledge of the Church, then it is not eſſentiall to the firſt Inſtitution of Baptiſme, that it ſhould be diſpenced to none but ſuch as were entered into Church-fellowſhip, or were ſet members of a congregationall Aſſembly. Then the Apoſtles in diſpenſing the Seales unto ſuch, or commanding them to be diſpenced, did walk according to the rules of Scripture, and upon grounds common to them and us, viz. they admitted them unto the Sacraments who had right and intereſt to them, according to the minde and pleaſure of the Inſtitutor, not extraordinarily revealed, beſides the common rules, or by ſpeciall diſpenſation and prerogative excepted from the common rule, but made knowne in the Inſtitution it ſelfe. And then the difficultie remaining is onelyonly this, whether a Paſtor or Teacher hath authority from Chriſt to diſpence the Seales of the Covenant to one who hath right and title to them, and doth orderly deſire that benefit becauſe he is not as yet received as a ſet member of that particular ſocietie which your practiſe in admitting of ſet members of other Congregations unto the Seales doth manifeſtly convince. For if both have equall intereſt unto the Seales, the Paſtor upon lawfull ſuite and requeſt hath equall authoritie to receive the one as well as the other.
Secondly, In the particular Inſtances given, it is not probable that Baptiſme was evermore adminiſtred by Apoſtles or Evangeliſts; For before the death of Chriſt, the Diſciples baptized when they were properly neither Apoſtles nor Evangeliſts: After the death of Chriſt (not to inſiſt Joh 4. 2, 3. & 3. 27.upon conjectures whether any aſſiſted the Apoſtles in the baptizing of the firſt three thouſand converted) it is not certaine, whether Peter baptized Cornelius and his family, or commanded others then preſent with Act. 10. 48.him to baptize them: the words may be read: Et juſſit eos baptizari in nomine Domini. Syr. & Arab. Praecepit eis ut baptizarentur. Whit. de Sacra. q. 3. de Bap. cap. 2. pa 260. Act. 8. 12. & 9. 18. 1 Cor. 1. 17.The Interlineary gloſſe leaveth it doubtfull, Aſſociis ſuis vel a ſcipſo. Others are of opinion that Peter did baptize them himſelfe. It cannot be proved that Philip and Ananias were both Evangeliſts, when the one baptized the Samaritans and the Eunuch, the other Paul. Paul himſelfe baptized but a few as he teſtifieth of himſelfe, and reaſon to convince that others converted by his preaching were baptized by Evangeliſts, we know not any. And if Philip, Ananias, and others might baptize ſuch as had right and title to the Seales, being as yet no ſet members of any particular Congregation: and a Congregation deſtitute of their proper Paſtor, may deſire another to baptize their Infants, and diſpence the Sacrament of the Supper to them in that their neceſſitie. And if the members of one Congregation may lawfully communicate in another, then may the Paſtors of particular Congregations upon occaſion admit to the Seales of the Covenant ſuch known and approved Chriſtians, as have right and title thereunto, and duely and orderly require the ſame; for of all theſe the reaſon is like and perpetuall.
Thirdly, It is very improbable that the perſons baptized, were in Church-ſtate or order. If they were members of the Jewiſh Church not yet diſſolved, this is not to the purpoſe; for men have not right to Baptiſme, becauſe they were members of the Jewiſh Church, but becauſe Diſciples and (as you ſay) joyned together in Covenant, and have fellowſhip and calling of their Miniſter, who is to diſpence the Seales unto them. And Baptiſme is the Sacrament of initiation, not into the Jewiſh but the Chriſtian Churches. Secondly, when you ſay, the Seales in ordinary diſpenſation are the priviledges of the Churches. There are no Miniſters but of particular Churches. Baptiſme and the Lords Supper are to be adminiſtred onelyonly to the members of the Church. No ſocietie may lawfully deſire the Seales, unleſſe they have joyned in the choice and calling of their Minister. Beleevers not yet joyned in Church-order are without. Doe yee not in all theſe underſtand a Chriſtian ſocietie, united in a Church-way, &c. which cannot agree to the members of the Jewiſh Church, not yet diſſolved. Thirdly, Againſt B. pa. 88.The conſtitution of the Church (ſaith Mr. Robin.) is the orderly collection and conjunction of the Saints into and in the Covenant of the New Teſtament; but the members of Jewiſh Churches not yet diſſolved, were not in ſuch conſtitution. If the Eunuch and Centurion were proſelytes and members of the Church of the Jewes; The Samaritanes whom Philip baptized were not ſo. And that any Gentiles, or the Gailor whom Paul baptized in the Apoſtles times, were ſet members of a Chriſtian Aſſembly before baptized, is very ſtrange If there was a Church at Philippi, yet the Gailor who was baptized and converted the ſame night, could not be a ſet member by ſolemne admiſſion before Baptiſme. It is ſaid the Apoſtles baptized theſe perſons in an extraordinary way. But in this practiſe of the Apoſtles two things are to be conſidered. 1. The circumſtance of the action. 2. The qualitie or ſubſtance of the act. In ſome circumſtances the baptizing of ſome of theſe perſons might be extraordinary, but the ſubſtance and qualitie of the action was grounded upon rules perpetuall and common to us with them.
1. That is done in an extraordinary way, which by peculiar priviledge of diſpenſation is made lawfull to ſome one or few men, which is unlawfull to all others, not having the ſame diſpenſation, but where the ground and reaſon of the action is common: we muſt not conceive the thing to be done in an extraordinary way by ſpeciall diſpenſation. What was done by the Apoſtles upon ſpeciall revelation and immediate direction, beſides the ordinary and common rule, in that wee are not to immitate or follow them, becauſe we have not their warrant. But what they did upon reaſons and grounds reaching unto us no leſſe then unto them, in that we have the ſame libertie, allowance, or commandement that they did walk by. In one and the ſame action there may be and oft is ſomething ordinary, ſomething extraordinary or peculiar to ſpeciall times or perſons. So it was in the Apoſtles adminiſtration of the Seales: but in every place where they came by illimited power (as you ſpeake) they did baptize Diſciples, if they did baptize; this was proper to them, and could not be communicated to any others by them; For there is no paſſage of Scripture which teacheth this, that one Officer may communicate his power to another, or doe that which particularly belongeth to his office by a Deputie: But that they baptized beleevers profeſſing their faith in the Lord Jeſus, and repentance towards God, ſuch as had gladly imbraced the Word, and received the gifts of the holy Ghoſt: this was common to them with all Paſtors and Teachers, becauſe they did it, not by power illimited or ſpeciall diſpenſation, but upon this ſtanding perpetuall reaſon, that the promiſe was made to them and to their ſeede, and to as many as the Lord ſhall call, that they had received the holy Ghost, and the kingdome of heaven belonged to them. And if the grounds and reaſons of their practiſe be common reaching to us, no leſſe then unto them, the practiſe it ſelfe was not extraordinary. To ſay nothing that this Anſwer will not ſtand with the former; for if the parties baptized were ſet members of particular Societies, the Apoſtles did not baptize them in an extraordinary way, they did it by the guidance and direction of the Spirit, that is true, but not by guidance of diſpenſation, or prerogative, whereby that was made lawfull without ſuch inſpiration had been unlawfull. But they were infallibly guided to doe that which was according to the word of God, and might ſtand for our direction: that in caſe it be orderly deſired a Paſtor hath authoritie in his owne Congregation, to receive knowne and approved Chriſtians to the ſeales of the Covenant, hath been proved before. If the Apoſtles diſpenced the ſeales onelyonly to the Church, Diſciples, faithfull, who received the doctrine of ſalvation with gladneſſe of heart, and were partakers of the holy Ghoſt, then they diſpenced the ſeales in an ordinary way, for ſuch have title and intereſt to the ſeales by the Inſtitution and appointment of God. And every Paſtor by his Office may and ought to diſpence the ſeales unto ſuch, within the bounds and limits of his calling: But the Apoſtles diſpenced the ſeales onelyonly to the Church, Diſciples, faithfull, &c.
2. An Argument followeth neceſſarily from particular example to a generall; when one particular is proved by another particular, by force of the ſimilitude common to the whole kinde, under which thoſe particulars are contained: But the practiſe of the Apoſtles in baptizing Diſciples and faithfull, by force of ſimilitude common to the whole kinde, agreeth with the practiſe of Miniſters receiving to Baptiſme the ſeed of the faithfull, though as yet not ſet members of any particular ſocietie, In ſome circumſtances there may be difference when yet the reaſon is ſtrong, if the difference be not in the very likeneſſe it ſelfe whereupon the reaſon is grounded. One circumſtance that is materiall to the point may overthrow the likeneſſe pretended, and twenty different circumſtances, if they be not to the point in hand make no diſſimilitude. Now in this matter wee ſpeake of, no circumſtance is or can be named why we ſhould thinke it lawfull for the Apoſtles to baptize Diſciples as yet being no ſet members of particular ſocieties, and the ſame ſhould be unlawfull in all caſes for ordinary Paſtors in their particular Congregations, though it be deſired.
3. What is done by extraordinary diſpenſation, that is lawfull for them onelyonly who have received ſuch diſpenſation, and by them cannot be communicated to others. But the Apoſtles baptized by others ſeldome by themſelves, as hath been ſhewed.
4. We might urge the rule which a reverend Elder among you, giveth in another matter, (ſcil.) Thoſe examples which are backed with ſome See J. D. Ap. Sect. 12. pa. 152, 153, 154.divine precept, or which are held forth in the firſt Inſtitution of an ordinance, being part of the inſtitution, or which were the conſtant lawfull actions of holy men in Scripture, not civill but ſacred ſo binde us to imitation, as that not to conforme thereunto is ſinne. For the Aſſumption to this Propoſition, it is plaine and naturall: But the practiſe of the Apoſtles in receiving the faithfull, Diſciples, &c. is backed with divine precept, held forth in the firſt Inſtitution, and was their conſtant lawfull practiſe, agreeable to the practiſe of all others who were imployed in that ſervice; Ergo, &c.
5. In the firſt conſideration, you prove the Seales to be the priviledge of the Church in ordinary diſpenſation, by this paſſage of Scripture, Then they that gladly received the Word were baptized: but if Apoſtles baptize by extraordinary diſpenſation in your ſenſe this teſtimony is inſufficient for that purpoſe.