Now the first and most famous examples of the Apostles persuading that so they practised, why should we doubt of their like practice in other examples when nothing, is said that contradicteth ⟨p. 117⟩the same? as Acts 10. in the baptizing of Cornelius his house, where so many were met, and the Holy Ghost fell on all; why should we think the Apostle Peter baptized them, and left them out of the order of Christ, wherein they should worship him, and be edified in the faith? If we doubt of it, because the Scripture is silent therein, we may as well question whether those believers, Acts 4. 4. & 9. 35. & vers. 42. whether any of these confessed their faith, or were baptized, for nothing is said thereof: So likewise Acts 11. where we read of many believing, turning to the Lord, vers. 21. of the adding others to the Lord, vers. 24. but nothing of their confession of faith or baptism, and yet they are called a Church; whereby it appears that the holy Ghost sometime expresseth their baptism without joining to the Church; and sometimes joining without baptism, and sometime he expresseth both, Acts 2. 41. And therefore hence we may conclude the like of the case of Lydia and the Jailer; considering the former practice of the Apostles: and that the Apostle speaks so expressly of a Church at Philippi in the beginning of the Gospel, Phil. 4. at which time we have no more conversions expressed but of those two families; at least, they were the most eminent fruits of Pauls Ministry at that time; and it is very probable the Church was gathered in Lydia's house, seeing Paul going out of prison to her house, he is said to see the Brethren, and comfort them, so departing, verse 40. Besides; why might not the Apostle baptize them into that particular visible Church in such a case, as well as into the Catholic, or all Churches, as some say, they professing subjection to Christ in every ordinance of his, with reference to that Church he had there constituted? The fullness of power in the Apostles might do greater matters without breach of order, though no rule for us so to do; neither is it strange from the practice of those times to begin a Church in a family, seeing the Apostle speaks of Churches in three several families, Rom. 16. 5. Col. 4. 15. Phil. 2. which though many understand to be called Churches in regard of the godliness of those families; yet i• we consider;
Now the first and most famous examples of the Apostles perswading that so they practised, why should we doubt of their like practice in other examples when nothing, is said that contradicteth ⟨p. 117⟩the same? as Acts 10. in the baptizing of Cornelius his house, where so many were met, and the Holy Ghost fell on all; why should we think the Apostle Peter baptized them, and left them out of the order of Christ, wherein they should worship him, and be edified in the faith? If we doubt of it, because the Scripture is silent therein, we may as well question whether those beleevers, Acts 4. 4. & 9. 35. & vers. 42. whether any of these confessed their faith, or were baptized, for nothing is said thereof: So likewise Acts 11. where we read of many beleeving, turning to the Lord, vers. 21. of the adding others to the Lord, vers. 24. but nothing of their confession of faith or baptism, and yet they are called a Church; whereby it appears that the holy Ghost sometime expresseth their baptism without joyning to the Church; and sometimes joyning without baptism, and sometime he expresseth both, Acts 2. 41. And therefore hence we may conclude the like of the case of Lydia and the Jaylor; considering the former practice of the Apostles: and that the Apostle speaks so expresly of a Church at Philippi in the beginning of the Gospel, Phil. 4. at which time we have no more conversions expressed but of those two families; at least, they were the most eminent fruits of Pauls Ministery at that time; and it is very probable the Church was gathered in Lydia's house, seeing Paul going out of prison to her house, he is said to see the Brethren, and comfort them, so departing, verse 40. Besides; why might not the Apostle baptize them into that particular visible Church in such a case, as well as into the Catholick, or all Churches, as some say, they professing subjection to Christ in every ordinance of his, with reference to that Church he had there constituted? The fulnesse of power in the Apostles might doe greater matters without breach of order, though no rule for us so to do; neither is it strange from the practice of those times to begin a Church in a family, seeing the Apostle speaks of Churches in three severall families, Rom. 16. 5
