were occasioned by Christ Jesus himselfe in bringing his Gospel into the world Luke 12.50 51. and by the Apostles preaching of it 1 Thes 2.2 that therefore the doctrine of that Gospel ought justly to be numbred with the aforesaid vaine questions Nor 2. can I be of opinion with the Querist that the said question rightly understood in the nature and tendency of it leads but to very little that is considerable or of consequence for a Christian to know at least so little as to make it unprofitable and vaine because the knowledge of the Ordinance it selfe and of its nature use and tendency depends upon the knowledge of the appropriate subject as one of the essentialls of it and I cannot judge the knowledge and understanding the counsell of God in that Ordinance a matter of so little moment as to render the question about it the enquiring after it a vain thing Nor doe I understand how the knowledge that comes by the ventilation of it might arrive at the understandings of men in a more peaceable and lesse troublesome way then by pleadings arguings and debatings unlesse every man would of himselfe fall in with the truth whâ—ch if they would there would then be no need to contend earnâ—stly for the faith once given to the Saints as now there is Nor yet 3. can I jump with that conjecture that those who are confident they have found the treasure of truth viz. the appropriate subject of Baptisme especially if upon that discovery they have in conscience to God acted according to their light are rather impoverished then spiritually inriched by it because I suppose that which makes the Querist thus to judge is but his mistaking one thing for another viz. their former tamenesse and silent submission to the judgement of their guides for their sweetnesse meeknesse humility love patience and sobernesse of minde and likewise their present activity and zeale for the truth and the propagation of it and the drawing of others into the same participation and their impugning that by which they have found themselves deceived for rashnesse pride frowardnesse conceitednesse and the like For otherwise except some as in the best Churches of old by whom offences will come I trust in their owne cause and in the tenor of their lives he may discerne the same humility meeknesse sweetnesse love patience sobernesse of minde mortification to the world heavenlinesse of disposition endeavours of doing good which was found in them before not to boast of what additions God hath thereupon made to their spirituall store unlesse his judgement concerning these should be prejudiced by some alteration in his affection to the persons themselves and then it is an easie matter indeed to be so taken up with that onely which is troublesome as to neglect and overlooke that which would be more lovely in his eye if minded XV. Querie answered This Querie runs upon a like mistake with the tenth Querie as supplying that departure he speakes of to proceed onely from a conceit that the Church departed from does not in all things walk according to Gospel-rule whereas the separation proceeds not from the manner of their walking supposing them to be a Church but from the apprehension that such and such persons though Believers are no right constituted Church according to Gospell-rule and therefore cannot by walking with them owne them for such without approving in act what is disallowed in judgement This Querie might be retorted upon the Querist for his excommunicating the Church of England from his society but I shall now intend brevity XVI Querie answered To this Querie I shall say That the Commission of Christ to baptise upon their believing all that by teaching were brought to believe and the series of examples in Scripture answering this Commission and other Scriptures importing all of the Church to be incorporated by Baptisme as in our answer to the first and third Queries is more particularly declared This is sufficient ground for us to conclude that the converts at Antioch in Pisidia and Iconium Acts 13.43 and 14.1 were baptized by Paul and Barnabas who converted them before such time they departed and left them unlesse you will suppose Paul and Barnabas to neglect their duties towards those converts which if it could be proved they did yet would be no ground for Believers now to neglect theirs But why should the Querist presume any more of Paul and Barnabas their holding Church-communion with these converts then of their being baptised the one being no more mentioned then the other or why should he suppose that they had more opportunity to put them into Church-order and to joyn in communion thereupon then to baptise them XVII Querie answered This Querie being much of the same import with the tenth and fifteenth Queries the same Answer will serve For the Querist both in this and severall other Queries mis-represents and mistakes the case in question for the question is not whether a Member of a Christian Church may withdraw his communion because of some defect or errour in the Church which yet is the thing queried and I have elsewhere answered that he may not but the question if rightly stated would be whether a company of Believers though unbaptised either are or may become whilst such a true visible Church according to Gospel-order or whether a man who upon satisfactory grounds doth verily deem them not so to be may yet hold communion with them as if they were such untill he hath with long suffering endeavoured to convince them that they are no Church indeed according to Scripture-account For otherwise the Querist does but beg the question and then taking it as granted him which is utterly denyed proceeds to render a separation unreasonable upon account of this or that failing in the Church as indeed well he might if that were true which he supposes touching the constitutive being of the Church And therefore the businesse may be brought into a narrower compasse then so many queries extend to as are imployed hereabout For let the Querist prove us from the Word of God which is that which onely ought to sway us in this matter either 1. That a company of Believers without Baptisme may become truly and according to Gospel-order a Church of Christ visibly constituted or else 2. That a man who knowes or upon Scripture grounds does believe a company of men and women to be no Church according to such order though Believers unlesse they were baptised into Jesus Christ may notwithstanding this his knowledge or perswasion hold communion with them as if they were such a Church untill he hath convinced them that they are not and then these things being proved I suppose the contest will be ended For had the Querist himselfe been satisfied touching the due constitution of the Church of England of which he once professed himselfe a Member I suppose he would not have deemed the errours in it to have been a just ground of his separation from
Such whose ground on which they stand is truth though they ought with all sweetness love and meekness to invite and perswade others to come over to them yet may by no means depart thence or remove their standing no though it were to gain others to them 1 Cor. 9.21 To them that are without Law as without Law being not without Law to God but under the Law to Christ that I might gain them that are without Law Ier. 15.19 Let them return to thee but return not thou unto them Phil. 3.15 16. If in any thing ye be otherwise minded God shal reveal even this unto you Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same rule let us minde the same thing 6. Though endless Genealogies and striving â—bout the Law and the eating of meats and hearbs are but such things and the truth concerning them but of that nature as that for the sake thereof peace must not be broken Tit. 3.9 1 Tim. 1.4 Rom. 14. yet first such points or questions as concern the fulfilling of any righteousness of which those that concern the essentials of Baptism are Mat. 3.15 are such as of which the Kingdom of God does consist and in the defence of which men serve Iesus Christ and are accepted with God and ought to be approved of men RoÌ„ 14.17 18. Secondly not onely Gospel Doctrines about matters of faith but also matters of Gospel order such as the Apostle cals Ordinances appointmenâ—s or traditions 1 Cor. 11.2 even these are truths to be contended for and not to be let go for peace sake And the Apostle thought this a sufficient answer to such as should contend against these viz. that they had no such custome neither the Churches of God ver 16. with ver 2 3 4 5. c. And if the Churches of God then had no such custom neiâ—her as to sprinkle or Baptise little children or to admit members to church-Church-communion without Baptism does not the Apostles saying here though produced upon another occasion evince their contention sinful and unreasonable likewise that shal plead for and practise such things as these contrary to the custom of the first Churches which in all laudable things were patterns to al succeeding Churches The Apostle having in 2 Thes 2. given notice of the Mystery of iniquity itâ— bâ—gining then to work ver 7. and the coming of the man of sin with all deceiveableness of unrighteousness ver 10. which we know in the Papal Apostacy hath fallen out as wel in matters of Gospel order as in points of faith he to prevent a defection in both exhorts them ver 15. to stand fast and to hold the Traditions which they had been taught yea and in chap. 3. v. 6. counts that a disorderly walking which was not after the Tradition which they had received from the Apostles And if it were the wisdom and duty of the Churches then to stand fast and to hold fast the Traditions which they had received from the Apostles as wel touching matters of Gospel Order as otherwise to prevent their falling into Anti-christian pollutions then doubtless the way for men now to recover themselves and others from under those pollutions is by returning back to these Apostolical traditions and standing fast in them which doubtless is their duty what disturbance soever may follow thereupon ERRATA PAge 9. l. 15. r. those particular cases p. 25. l. 21. r. neither p. 44. l. 13 r. a p. 49. l. 25. r. supposing p. 52. l. 1 r. formally ib. l. 4. r. is p. 55. l. 16. r. such as have p. 55 l. 24. r. the time of his Baptism p. 57. l. 25. r. and p. 58. l. 24. r. of 59. l. 4. r. describe p. 59. l. 32. r. those p. 60. l. 6 r. words p. 61. l. 16. r. line p. 61. l. 26. r. of p. 61. l. 28. r. when p. 63. l. 3. r. 2 p. 64. l. 14. r. unreasonable p. 66. l. 1. r. much ib. l. 2. r. bapti ib. l. 14. r. meet p. 69. l. 26. r. about p. 72. l. 12. r. charging p. 72. l. 19. r. those p. 72. l. 19. r. practiseth An Answer to Mr. 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 Queriâ—-wise there is I suppose liâ—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 â—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
and every individuall soul of them in the 1.2 ver when he sayes What shall we say then shall we continue in sin that grace may abound God forbid How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein And if these words in the 1.2 ver respect the whole church as they must be supposed to do unlesse you will suppose that the Apostle did grant a liberty to some of the church to continue in sin and to live therein then those words â—n ver 3. Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death are interrogatively propounded not only to the same persons unto which the former words relate but also as an argument or reason why none of them should live any longer in sin which is the thing from which he was disswading not onely some of them but even all of them in the foregoing words and which he improves in an argumentative way throughout the greatest part of the chapter And it would not befit the wisdome of any ordinary man much lesse of a great Apostle to make choice of a reason or motive to inforce his exhortation or perswasion which is of lesse extent in the tendency and concernment of it then are the persons which he does exhort or dehort which yet is a piece of weaknesse of which you must suppose this Apostle to be here guilty unlesse you do conclude that all those of the church at Rome were disswaded from continuing any longer in sin upon this ground because that they had all been baptized into the death of Christ viz. a conformity to his death as well as a beliefe of it In a word if the whole church had not been under the motive the whole church could not be pressed by it as here you see they are And for that other place Gal. 3.27 the Apostle in ver 26. had asserted them viz. those to whom he now writes To be all the children of God by Faith in Christ Iesus i. e. were now looked upon as children of God by their confessing and owning of Christ Jesus of which he gives this account ver 27. because they had put on Christ in baptism ye are all the children of God by Faith in Christ Iesus for or because as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ as if he should say if the owning professing of Christ does denominate men to be the children of God now under the Gospell as indeed it does then ye are all the children of God because by being baptized into Christ ye have all of you put him on that is so as to appear with him where ever you become as you do appear with the cloaths you wear But now most certain it is that they could not all of them have been denominated the children of God by faith in Christ upon account of their being baptized into Christ which yet we see they are unlesse they had been all of them baptized into Christ indâ—â—â— Besides doth it not appear in the return that is made to the first and third Quaeries that in the Apostles daies none were inchurched without baptism and if so then these places cannot import the contrary V. Query Whether did not the Church at Corinth in the Apostles daies entertain members and hold communion with those who had not been baptized considering that he demandeth thus of this Church els what shall they do which are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not at all why are they then baptized for the dead 1 Cor. 15.29 Or doth not this imply that there was a corrupt and superstitious practise on foot in this Church to baptize one or other of the surviving kindred or friends in the name of such persons respectively who died unbaptized and if so is it not a plain case that there were some of these members who lived and died unbaptized Respon 1. Though it should be granted which may not that there was such a superstitious thing practised by some of that church in the behalf of some of their friends who died unbaptized yet it is not necessary at all to suppose those dead friends of theirs to have been of the church whilest they were alive but much more probable it would be if the practise it selfe were probable that the dead in behalf of whom such a thing was performed were of the Catechumeni or others who were not of the church but such who though they were under some Nurture and in a way of learning somewhat of the Gospell yet died before they were either baptized or admitted as Members of the Church But 2. It is but a meer conjecture and as will be found not only without ground but against reason that the Apostle in the forecited words should have respect unto such a superstitious practise as that specified For 1. It s no ways probable that Paul would argue this great Article of the Gospel the Resurrection from a superstitious custome or would draw such a clean thing out of that which was so unclean 2. Much lesse is it probable that he should do so without taxing thâ—â— by way of reproof for it for might not they have been very apt to have concluded the Apostles approbation of their practise should he have produced it as usefull to convince them of the doctrine of the Resurrection without declaring his dislike of it 3. Pauls interrogatory indefinitely propounded to the whole church supposes them all to have been baptized 1 Cor. 1.13 were ye baptized in the name of Paul and that saying of his does assert it 1 Cor. 12.13 we are all baptized into one body 3. Is it not far more probable and more agreeable to other Scriptures and with the coherence of the Text to suppose 1. That the Apostle should herein mind them of their baptism in water wherein the Resurrection is figuratively represented Rom. 6.4.5 Col. 2.12 and by which when they first received the Gospel they made profession of their Faith touching the Resurrection Or els 2. That hereby is intended the baptism of afflictions elswhere mentioned Mat. 20.22 Luk. 12.50 considering that the Apostle immediately subjoyns the mention of his own and others hazzards and sufferings saying And why stand we in jeopardy I protest by your rejoycing which I have in Christ Iesus I die daily if after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus what advantageth it me if the dead rise not let us eat and drink to morrow we shall die ver 30.31.32 as if he should say why have ye suffered trouble and persecution for the Gospell which is a kind of death for he here says of himself that he died daily meaning his sufferings if ye do not believe the Resurrection and why do we stand yet in further jeopardy nay then rather let us eat and drink for to morrow we shall die These interpretations surely carry a far greater probability to answer the drift of the Apostle
in Scripture for such Church-constitution as that of Rome and England is he might as well disclaim communion with 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-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 it s said speaking of the Passover That no uncircumcised person shal eat thereof And therâ—fore if it be good reasoning from circumcision to Bâ—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 uncircumcâ—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 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 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
Church-members into Church-fellowship without baptism to be a reason unto us likewise to steer the â—ame course unlesse we will say those Gospell rules by which â—hey ordered themselves in those times were binding only to Christians of the first agâ— of the Gospell but not to us now â—nd if so then farewell all Goâ—pâ—â—â— Obligations for if we may â—ake liberty to cast away one Law of Gospell Order and Worship then why not two and so three and in the end all â—o which indeed these lâ—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 beâ—ever was not at any time while he was a believer unbaptized â—ny doubtlesse men were believâ—rs first and then were baptiâ—ed after they began to believe But if the Querist intends â—hus how will it be proved that no believer in Church-felâ—owshâ—p was unbaptiz d Thâ—n the answer is that it is proved by those and the like Scriptures lately quoted where it s said in â—ffect that all of all â—orts â—â—â—ks and dâ—grâ—â—s that were of the â—ody were baptized into that body and if â—ll were of the body by it then none were without it Querist Be it granted that thâ—re wâ—â—â— no believâ—â—◠〈…〉 the Apostles daies upon what ground nâ—â—wâ—â—◠〈…〉 practise â—ow queriâ—â— be justified 〈◊〉 maintained 〈…〉 certainly know and can satisfie themselves 〈…〉 had been such believers in these times 〈…〉 unbaptized or unâ—â—â—â— baptized â—y those â—â—ly 〈…〉 have declined sâ—ch communion with them as that speâ—â—â—â—â— Respon Believers now are doubâ—â—â— no 〈…〉 believers were then I do not mean 〈…〉 nuâ—â—â—â— and if so then the same ground that did satisfiâ—â—apâ—â—zâ—â— believer then in not joyning in Church fellowship 〈…〉 unbaptized though they diâ— beâ—â—eve 〈…〉 for they did believe before they were baptized and yet were not admitted 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 procâ—â—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 proâ—ed from the Scriptures or by any argument like to sâ—tisfie the conscience of any tender and considerâ—ng Christian that the Apostles or other Christians in their daies would have dâ—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 circumcisiâ—n avaâ—â—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 keâ—ping of the Commandements of God 1 Cor. 7.19 meaning that under the Gospel neither did the observation of any 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 accepâ—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 thâ—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 waâ— not to be had wâ—â—hout it Gen. 17.4 Exod. 12.48 if so then how can the Querist estimate the usefulnesse and disusefulnesse 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
suppose that those 3000. stood neerest unto him that spake and with best advantage to hear there being many thousands more present which can hardly be the supposition of any considering man in the case in hand Respon Not to take much notice how far the probable opinion of some will be accepted for proof against us when nothing but demonstrations will be accepted on our behalf I shall first demand of the Querist that if the children and families of those that gladly received the word and were baptized were indeed part of that number of 3000. that were added to the church or to the Discsples as he sayes it is the probable opinion of some that they were then I demand I say whether these children and families were baptized or no If he shall say they were not then he puts to rebuke another of his opinions which is that when believers themselves were baptized their children were baptized also to the belief of which he would perswade us at least as probable in his 24. Quaere from Acts 16.15.33 1 Cor. 1.16 If he say they were baptized why then though it should be granted that these were some of the number yet how would this prove that others besides those that were baptized were added to the church which yet is the thing he was to prove But then 2. to put the matter quite out of doubt that none of the children of those that gladly received the word were part of the 3000. that were added to the church if by children he mean little children or infants for els if they were adult ones they might gladly receive the word and be baptized as well as their parents it sufficiently appeares in that it is said They i. e. they that were added as well as they to whom they were added continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers and I presume the Querist will not say that little children infants did continue stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayers and if not then they were none of the number of the 3000. that were added to the church and so I think by this time the probable opinion of some in this behalf is rendred more then probably to be a weak groundlesse and erroneous opinion 3. To remove that doubt touching the improbability that 3000. men should distinctly hear the voice of a man speaking unlesse we will suppose them to stand neerest to him that spake 1. Evident it is that they did hear and so hear as to receive the word gladly but whether they were neerest to him that spake or no is more then he or I can tell or need to know But 2. There is no necessity to suppose that all the whole 3000. did all of them heare and convert in the self-same hour or juncture of time for one while the Apostle might preach to one company of them and another while to another company and yet this would not hinder but that they might all be converted baptized and added to the church the self-same day 3. Neither do I see any necessity to hold that all these 3000. that were in one day converted baptized and added to the church were thus converted and baptized by Peter only but by him and the rest of the Apostles or by them and the other Disciples also For 1. it is said that Peter standing up with the eleven lift up his voece and said unto them c. and doth not this imploy that the eleven did take part with him and assist him in the work 2. These men of Israel being pricked at their hearts they do not cry out to Peter only but the text saith They said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles men and brethren what shall we do ver 37. and therefore it should seem the rest of the Apostles as well as Peter had ministered occasion to them of this demand Nay 3. which is yet more it s said ver 4. that they all to wit the whole number of Disciples that were present together being filled with the Holy Ghost began to speak with tongues as the spirit gave them utterance which certainly was to the understanding of the multitude and also about such things as did much affect them for it s said the multitude were confounded at it and marvelled saying we do hear them speak in our own tongues the wonderfull works of God ver 6.7.8.11 All which things considered I think it will not be irrationall to suppose that others besides Peter might be instrumentall in the conversion of those 3000. Querist Nor 2. is it said or so much as intimated or hinted in the least that any of the whole number of the 3000. who were added unto them were added by means or upon the account of their being baptized although this addition be not mention'd till after their baptizing It is ten degrees mere probable that their believing or Discipleship which were precedent to their baptizing and not their being baptized were the reason and ground of Lukes saying they were added to the Church considering first that the originall main and principal foundation of the holy brother hood amongst the Saints is not the ceremony of their baptism but their fellowship and communion in the divine nature and inward relation to the same Christ by one and the same precious faith Respon We do not affirm that they were added to that particular church by baptism immediately without any other act intervening but we say they were not added without baptisme and so much is in effect acknowledged by the Querist himself in that he sayes this addition is not mentioned till after their being baptized and therefore their baptism must needs go before their addition to the church unlesse we will suppose Luke to have begun at the wrong end of this part of his Narrative in mentioning that first which was last done and that last which was first done and if so then according to the order of things done they were first added to the church and then afterward did gladly receive the word to conversion and were baptized which I suppose no man is so void of common sense as to believe And if their baptisme did precede their addition to the church then why does the Querist strive so as he does to interesse their believing or Discipleship with exclusion of their baptism as the reason and ground of Lukes saying they were added to the church For if he does not exclude baptisme in recounting the reason of that addition then we are agreed for there is no question but that their gladly receiving the Word or believing the Word or becoming Disciples by the Word was one reason or grouâ—d of their addition to the church but not the only one fâ—r Luke mentions their being baptized as well as that and why should any man go about to seperate them The question is not whether faith or baptisme is the originall main and
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 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 tâ—at Barnabas used no more words in his relation then what are here recorded by Luke since we have frequently 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 it s 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 it s 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 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 Qâ—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 cleeâ—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 â—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 it s 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 respâ—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 dislâ—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 Sacâ—ifice partakeâ—s of the Altaâ— 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-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 practâ—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 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 dâ—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 Vpon 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 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 commâ—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 tâ—stimony as you may see in my answer to the first and third Queries QUERIE XIII Whether is an errour or mistake about the adequate or appropriate subject of Baptisme of any worse consequence or greater danger then an errour or mistake about Melchisedech's Father as viz. in case a man should suppose him to have been Noah when as he was some other man Respon I would likewise demand of the Querist whether there would be any more danger for a man to list Souldiers in the name of the Parliament of England who hath no Commission so to doe then there would be for him to mistake the name or person of a man the knowledge of whom doth nothing at all concerne him If there be then I shall not doubt to affirme that there is more danger for a man to invocate the name of Father Sonne and Holy Ghost and in their name to say I baptise thee such or such a one when neither Father Sonne nor Holy Ghost have given him Commission so to doe which yet is the case indeed the crime of mistaking the true or right subject of Baptisme then there is in mistaking the man that was Melchisedechs Father For the one is a counterfeiting or feigning of a Commission from Heaven and the fathering of an untruth upon or the speaking of an untruth in the name of the Lord to provoke him to anger and the other viz. to suppose Melchisedechs Father to be Noah in case he were some other man would be an errour only of lesse import as viz for a man to go about to make himselfe wise above that which is written in a businesse that concernes him not to know and wherein his ignorance would not prejudice him but help him in the application of that resemblance which the Apostle makes between Christ and Melchisedech Heb. 7.3 QUERIE XIV Whether may not the question about the appropriate subject of Baptisme as it is stated by the brethren of new Baptisme in opposition to the judgement and practice almost of the whole Christian world justly be numbred amongst those questions which the Apostle calls foolish and unlearned and adviseth both Timothy and Titus to avoid as being questions wich ingender strife and are unprofitable and vaine 2 Tim. 2.23 Tit. 3.9 Respon 1. If the Querie had been whether such a question as this viz. who was Melchisedech's Father whether Noah or some other man or whether the law of Circumcision in the equity of it be not yet in force as to the intituling of Infants to Baptisme and to be as a Standard by which to judge the observation of Gospel Rites unavaileable as to the commending of a man to God I say if the Querie had been whether such questions as these are not to be numbred with those that are unlearned unprofitable and vaine I could easily have consented in the affirmative because the Apostle in that place quoted by the Querist Tit. 3.9 doth point at these questions about Genealogies and strivings about the Law as specially intended by him And what questions or strivings about the Law if not whether Circumcision were not yet in use under the Gospel since the same Apostle in the same Epistle chap. 1.10 calls those of the Circumcision vaine talkers and vain talkers or vaine talke or such questions as were unprofitable and vaine agree well enough to meet in the same persons 2. But that the question about the appropriate subject of Baptisme if stated according to truth though in opposition to almost the whole world called Christian or if but agitated and debated in order to the finding out the minde of God thereabout should deserve to be numbred with those foolish and unlearned questions which are unprofitable and vaine I cannot believe Because the appropriate subject of Baptisme is essentiall to the Ordinance it selfe neither is that any more the Baptisme of Christ which is applyed to any other subject then he hath appointed then that would be the punitive or remunerative Justice of the Parliament in case another man should be punished or rewarded by him or them whom they intrust with the executive part instead of him whom the Parliament hath commanded to be so and so dealt withall or then that would have beene Gods Circumcision if any instead of his Males should have circumcised his Females And surely if the true being and administration of Baptisme and the fulfilling of the command of Christ thereabout does depend upon the knowledge of the appropriate subject of Baptisme then doubtlesse an earnest enquity after and serious debates about the appropriate subject of Baptisme can be no foolish or unlearned question neither unprofitable nor vaine unlesse we will suppose true Baptisme it selfe and the command of Christ thereabout to be unprofitable and vaine which to question whether it were would be indeed a question unprofitable and vaine whatever wisdome or learning otherwise might seem to be in it But as touching the reasons which seem to induce the Querist to conceive that the aforesaid question ought to be numbred with transgressors 1. It does not follow that the question about the appropriate subject of Baptisme is therefore unprofitable unlearned foolish and vaine because upon debates about it strifes contentions evill surmisings divisions and revilings and the like have occasionally taken place in the world no more then it will follow that because such things as these
which men have formerly devised to make the way of the Gospel more easie and plausible as to the flâ—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 Vnity Love and Peace by which they were bound up with other Churches before it is nothing but what the Protestant Bishops underwent from the Papâ—sts when they went off from them and the Pâ—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 numbâ—r in the r ckoning as well as other Christian duties they are much to bâ—ame but that the Querist 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 shâ—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 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 Chiâ—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 bâ—ptisme as Christ never used in his Church Dr. Eckius against the new Church orders in the upper Marquisdom 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 baptâ—zâ—d received into the congregation but those that through hâ—aring the word wholly gave ovâ—r and submitted themselves to Christ And again in annotationibus super 4. Iohn So much as in