THE QUAERIES Examined OR FIFTY ANTI-QUERIES Seriously Propounded to the PEOPLE called PRESBYTERIANS Occasioned by The Publication of FIFTY QUERIES Gathered out of the Works of Mr. RICH. BAXTER By J. B. Wherein the Principal Allegations usually brought to support Infant-Baptism are Discovered to be Insufficient By T. G. PROV XIX 21. There be many Devices in a Mans heart nevertheless the Council of the LORD that shall stand Mr. Baxter more Reas p. 69. The true Method of one that would Arrive at certainty and not deceive himself and others is to begin at the bottom and discern things in their nearest and most certain Evidences and afterward to try the By-Objections as he is able And not tâ— Porâ—first upon the Objected difficulties and judge of all the cause by those LONDON Printed in the Year of our Lord 1676. The QUAERIST Examined OR Fifty Anti-Queries seriously Propounded to the People called Presbyterians c. Presbyterian Query 1. WHether under the Covenant of Works if Adam had not sinned Innocents should not have been holy to God and so Members of the Innocent Church or Kingdom of God Baptist Antiquery 1. Whether this be not a groundless and unlearned Query for seeing the word Church as used in the Holy Scriptures signifieth A People Called out namely from another people out of what people should they have been called had the whole world been in the state of innocency And seeing no man can tell whether any man should have had Authority committed to him in matters of Religion or whether God should immediately have exercised his own Government Neither yet in what capacity children should have come into the world whether endowed with knowledge or otherwise whether therefore it concern or become any man to let his fancy rove about in such an unknown and unknowable case And thereupon 1. Suggest how Infants should be concern'd or not concern'd in matters of Religion And how can any thing be concluded from such an imagination as imitable for us about Infant Church-membership And whether we are not like to have a bad superstructure when the foundation is a meer fancy Presbyterian Query 2. Whether God was any more obliged to order it so that the Children of Righteous Parents should have been born with all the Perfections of their Parents and enjoyed the same Priviledges than he was obliged in making the Covenant of Grace to grant that Infants should be of the same Society with their Parents and have the Immunities of that Society Baptist Antiquery 2. More obliged Whether it be not in vain to suppose that God was obliged at all in either of those cases seeing he is absolutely free to do whatsoever he plâ—aseth with his own And what ground have you to believe that some Infants were more concern'd then others in mâ—tters of Religion by vertue of any Covenant made with Adam And what society was Infants capable of with Adam by vertue of any Covenant made with him after his fall Câ—rtis the Scripture is silent as to these matters Presbyterian Query 3. Whether we have any reason when the design of Redemption is the magnifying of Love and Grace to think that Love and Grace are so much less under the Gospel to the Members of Christ then under the Law to the Members or Seed of Adam as that then all the Seed should have partaken of the same Blessings with their righteous Parents and now they shall all be turned out of the Society whereof the Parents are Members Baptist Antiquery 3. Whether you your selves do not lessen the magnifying Love of God in Mans Redemption whilest in respect of Infants you would restrain it to the seed of such Parents as are in Covenant with God yea to such Infants as partake with them in Practicals of Religion which you seem to intend by the Blessings you speak of But who denies any Blessing to Infants under the Gospel which was their portion under the Law made with Adam And how were Infants Members of the society of the seed of Adam more then of the society of the Baptists shew the difference if you can Presbyterian Query 4. Whether though our Innocency be lost Parents be not Parents still and have not as much interest in Children and whether God have reversed this natural Order and if God change not his Order therein whether Parents be not as capable of consenting to grace for their children as they were of being innocent for them Baptist Antiquery 4. Whether there be any that question whether Parents be Parents still or what need of such Enquiries Or what do you mean by Gods natural Order If you mean natural Religion then shew us what Infants are bound ro in matters of Religion by natuâ—e or what this natural Order ties Parents to do to their Infants upon the account of Practicals in Religion which we omit And whether Parents could be innocent for their Infants if their Infants were not innocent as well as they and if not how should their consenting to grace be the Childs consent And whether it will not as well hold retro that the Parents consenting to wickedness is the Childs consent And whether this do not give the Parents the power to save or damn their Infants And can such Councils stand with the Wisdom Justice or Mercy of God Presbyterian Query 5. Whether Infants be not included in the first Edition of the Covenant of Grace made with Adam Gen. 3. 15. Whether unless it can be proved that Infants are none of the Womans Sâ—ed we must not take that Fundamental Promise to extend to Infants And was she not thereby obliged to lâ—st her self and all her Infant-Progeny in the Redeemer's Army against the Proclaimed Enemy and to teach her Posterity to do the like And did they not continue visible Members of Christs Army and Kingdom till such time as they violated that Fundamental Obligation and as the Seed of the Serpent fought against Christ and his Kingdom for Satan and his Kingdom Baptist Antiquery 5. Whether the Baptists do not as clearly assert Infants Right to the Grace of God in the first Edition of the Covenant made with Adam as any whatsoever And if by the Seed of the Woman you understand all that are saved who then questions Infants belonging to that seed But where is the Woman bound to List her Infants in the Redeemers Army or where shall we finde them visible Members of Christs Army in the first Edition of the Covenant Are not these meer words without Authority of Scripture or where did Infants ever fight for or against the Serpent and if not why do you make them the Seed of the Serpent and Fighters against the Kingdom of Christ And if you say you speak not these things of Infants quatalis Then whether you have not transferr'd the Question and so it is impertinent Presbyterian Query 6. VVhether in that first Proclamation of Grace to fallen man or in the first Promise of Redemption to sinners Gen. 3. 15.
An Infant of the VVoman be not Promised to be General and Head of the Church And whether the Promise of an Infant Head doth not declare Gods Mind that he will have Infants Members because the Head is the principal Member c. Baptist Antiquery 6. Whether Christ in his Infancy was not as truly God as Man and whether there be any Parity between the Infants you speak of and Christ seeing he was able even then to vanquâ—sh the greatest Adversary And if by the Redeemed Church you mean the whole number of the saved who doubted but Infants were of the Redeemed Church But how doth it follow that all that are to be saved ought to be mitted to practical Ordinances in the visible Church seeing then all Infants for ought you know have the same right which yet you dâ—ny but why so are you sure they are not within the verge of Christs Redemption And though Christ was once an Infant yet where do you finde thaâ— he was then a Member of the Gospel Church Was he not born under the Lâ—w Gal. 4 4. and born King of the Jews Mat. 2 2. and according to the state of the Jewâ—sh Church an Infant migh be both a Member and a Prince And was not the Kiâ—gly Office in Israel a Type of Christ But what is this to he order and state of the Church under the Gospel And furâ—her thoâ—gh Christ an Infant was boâ—n Head of the Church as aforesaid yet in 〈◊〉 Infant stâ—te he did not intermeddle with the exercise of the least parâ— of hâ—s Authority And then whether it be not more râ—tional to say that seeing Christ the Head of the Church did not actâ—ally possâ—ss or at least not use any part of that Power as an Infant or while he was an Infant It s therefore unreasonable thâ—t Infants supposn â—hâ—y were as truly boâ—n Membâ—rs of his Church as he waâ— born King of the Jews should be concern'd in the actual possession of Ordiâ—ances in Infancy And what if we grant that Infants may be disciples by designation a Christ was King Priest and Prophet by designation â—hoâ—gh the Cases not alâ—ke easie to prove yet seeing Christ was not a Prophet as you confess in actu exercito how came you to be so bold to bring Infants to the exâ—rcise of Baptism And why can you not rather content your selves with the designation or dedâ—caâ—ion of your Infanâ—s to God by Prayer and make them disciples in actu exercito when they are able And whether you may not as well repute thâ—m thus among disciples and as safely conclude them to be in the Covenant of Grace and of the Redeemed Church without Baptism as without the Lords Supper Sith it s said Except ye eat of the flesh of the Son of God and drink his blood ye have no life in you as well as it is said Except a man be born again of water c. he cannot enter inâ—o the Kingdom of God And whether Dr. Taylor a Learned Pedobaptist do not ingeniously confess That the Wit of Man is not able to shew a difference in these cases Presbyterian Query 7. Why are those two Titles put on those two distinct Generations scâ—l the Posterity of Cain and the Pâ—stâ—rity of Seth calling one the Sons of God â—nd the others the Daughters of men Gen. 6. 2. But that the one was a Generation sâ—parated from the Church from their Birth their Progenitors being cast out before them when the other was the seea of Saines not cast out c. Baptist Antiqu. 7. Whether this Text Gen. 6. 2. be not ambiguous insomuch that your own Doctors are not agreed about the Exposition thereof But supposing it to respect the Posterities of Cain and Seâ—h yet whether it can be meant of Infants seeing they committed none of these siâ—s in taking Wives c. And whether your Exposition do not damn all Infants proceeding from Cainâ—s Posterity and consequently all the Infants of all Nations which profess not the true Religion And supposing that the Infants of godly Parents are in some sense more immediately related to the Church then the Infants of Pagans by reason of the Prayers and Designation of their Parents and the opportunities of Education yet what makes this for any actual Participation of Ordinances in the Church and what one Ordinance did the Infants of these Sons of God partake of And Sith the Scripture is wholly silent of any such thing whether this do not more strongly conclude against Infant-baptism then for it And whether it be needful to say any thing to the latter part of this Query seeing we grant all and somthing more then this Text will prove though we deny them actual right to Ordinances And whether the common or equal overthrow of these Generations in respect of the Infants of both do not evidently shew that as to the business of their salvation they were in the same condition And then whether it be safe for us to conclude that the wickedness of any Progenitors have any further effect upon the Infant-châ—ldren then to expose them to external calamities seeing Christ died to redeem them from the condemnation brought upon them by Adam Rom. 5. 18. Presbyterian Query 8. Whether it was not the same Church beâ—orâ— and after Abrahams time that was called the Tents of Sem Gen. 19. 27. Was not the Jewish Church denominated the Tents of Sem Aâ—d does it not hence appear that the Church-Priviledges of that People did not begin with or from Abraham but that they were bâ—forâ— And how was it the same Church that was of Sâ—m and of Abraham if it had not the same sort of Members or Materials c. Baptist Antiqu. 8. Though it be true that the Church is the same in some sence from the beginnâ—ng of the world to the end yet whether it may not truly be said also not to be the same in divers respects And whether the Covâ—nant as made with Noâ—h Gen. 9. do not differ from the Covâ—nant as maâ—e wâ—th Adam though both was made with all mankâ—nd and is affirmed to be the Câ—venant of Grace by Mr. Baxter And whether there was not yet a further difference bâ—tween these and the Covenant as made with Abraham Gen. 17. the former being made with all manking and never yet abrogated as saith Mr. Baxter The other was made with Abraham and his Seed distinct from the rest of Mankind but as they should be Profelited thereto And though the Church may be denominated the Tents of Shem bâ—th before and after Abraham yet whether this conclude there was to be no alteration of the state of the Church under these times respectively And whether in any of the Tents of Shem before Abrahams time so much as any one Infant can be found admitted to the Practical Part of any Ordinance in the Church which was peculiar to her as such for as touching Prayer it is a moral duty and to be made for all men And whether thus
boldly to suppose a thing without the least shew of proof be not a plain begging the main thing in Question And though it be never so true that the universal redeemed Church consist of the same Materials in all Ages yet whether it be not evident that that God made a difference as to the time of dispensing Ordinances to them As first no Practical Ordâ—nance or 〈◊〉 dispensed to any Infant that we read of till Abrahams time and though then Circumcision was ordained for Males yet not for all the Male Children for all under eight days of Age were prohibited and yet you grant thâ—y were in that Covenaâ—t nor any Rite at all for the Females who yet were of the same Church And whether under Moses they were not admitted to other Rites also as the Passâ—over Sacrifices and other holy Feast of the Jews We therefore ask you why the Infants of converted Gentiles are not in as good a condition without any Rite or Ceremony as the Infants of all the faithful from Adam to Abraham And whether those Infants before Abraham were not a happy as the Infants of Abraham And then doth it not follow that the Infants of faithful Gentiles are as happy without Circumcision or any other Rite or â—eremony whatsoever as Abrahants was under a Ceremony seeing God hath not ohliged them to any in the days of the Gospel oâ— since the Abâ—ogation of the Law and Circumcision Presbyterian Query 9. Whether if we could shew no written Law or Promise at first constituting the Duty or granting the Priviledge of Church-Member ship it were the least disparagement to our Cause as long as we can shew those following Laws which presuppose this If Moses at the end of that 2000 years the Church of God had bin without any written Law found all the Infants of Church-Members in Possession of this bâ—nâ—fit 〈◊〉 what nâ—ed was there of a new Law about it Or why should God promise it as a new thing Baptist Antiqu. 9. Whether if there be any such Law you would not have she wed us where it is longere this day and whethen you do not now grant in effect there is no such written Law And what nâ—ed you thus to query seeing we deny no lawful thing to Infants to be done for them by their godly Parents but only oppose your doing that for which you have no Law Presbyterian Query 10. Whether there being certain Proof in Scripture of Infants Church-Membership but none except that before alledged from Gen. 3. that makes any mention of the beginning of it but all speaking of it as no new thing we have not great reason to assign its beginning which from Gen. 3. is before spoken of Baptist Antiqu. 10. Why do you say that Gen. 3. 15. makes mention of Infants Church-Membership otherwise then what we allow Is here the least hint of your mode of making Infants Church-Members that is doth this place bid you admit them to any Ordinance As for the gracious Covenant here made with Adam do we not grant that it extends to Infants yea we say with Mr. Baxter it was never abrogated Presbyterian Query 11. Is it not unquestionable that the Covenant of Grace made to Abraham the Father of the Faithful comprehended Infants for Church-Members And was 〈◊〉 not the same with that Gen. 3. 1. 5. But in some things clearlier opened Were not both these the Covenant of Grace and free Justification by Faith in the Redeemer And did not the Covenant made to Abraham and his Seed comprehend Infants And should not the same Promise expressed more concisely be expounded by the same expressed more sully Baptist An. 11. Though it be unque stionable that the Covenant of Grace did extend to Infants Gen. 3. 15. as well as in Abrahams time yet there was a vast difference in respect of ceremonies And whether the difference between the Baptists and Pâ—dobaptists be not chiâ—fly if not only about imposing Ceremonies upon Infants And whether it be not evident that what Ceremonies the Word of God did even assign to Infants we allow them respecting the time of their duration and only oppose your imposing Ceremonies upon Infants for which you can assign no Authority in the Holy Scriptures as is confessed by many Pedobaptists See Mr. Baxters Cure p. 7. Presbyterian Query 12. Whether though the Hebrews had their Peculiarities it be at all credible that the Infants of that one small Countrey only should be so differently deâ—lt with by God from all the World else even Enoch's Noah'â— Sem's and all from Adam to the end of the World that these Infants only should be Church-Members and nâ— others Baptist Antiqu. 12. Whether this Query as indeed almost all the rest do not mis the true state of the Case seeing the Baptists may and do in a good sence acknowledge Infants to be related to the Churcâ— viz. by Redemption Pious Dedication to God c. And seeing you grant the Hebrew had their Peculiarities in what thing could it be but in external Rites and Ceremonies especially concerning Infants And shew us if you can any one Nation under Heaven from the beginning of the World to this day to whom God gave any Law to bring their Infants to any Rites either Legal or Evangelical And sith Circumcision was forcibly put upon Infants we ask whether you be able to prove that any Person whatsoever are to be forced to Baptism which Augustine tells us Infants do strive against with great crying from whence he infers they have no Faith Lib. de Peâ—cat Mer. Remis chap. 28. Presbyterian Query 13. What can be more absurd then to maintain a Transient Fact as Mr. T. hath done making Infants Church-Members without any Law Promise â—r Covenant-Graâ—t of God giving them Râ—ght Whether a Gift that was never given be not a contradiction V. p. 32 35 39 44 45 151. And if there was any such Promise or Covenant-Grant of Infant 's Church-Membership when or where was it revoked Baptist Antiqu. 13. Whether these things be surely suggested against Mr. T and whether you ought not to have set down his opinion in his own words and whether he doth not mainly oppose himself against Mr. Baxter's Pretended Law for Infant Church-Membership and Baptism whiles yet he denies not Infants a saving Promise or the Promise of saving Prepriety in God Antipedobapt 3. Part. p. 33. And whether that Book was ever answered by Mr. Baxter or ever will by any other Presbyterian Query 14. Was it only the Infants of the Hebrews or of those that were at their absolute dispose that were Church-Members VVere not the Infants of free Proselites Church-Members too Baptist Antiqu. 14 What need of this Query who doubts but that as many others as became Jews by being Proselited to the Law were Circumcised according to the Law But where do yoâ— find that any either Jews or Gentiles when they were baptized had any obligation to baptize their children and servants also Presbyterian
God by consenting to Gods Covenant for themselves and them Whether it was not the duty of the Israelites to engage and devote their children to God in Covenant Whether this be not evident from the Penalty even to be cut off from his People annexed for the non-Performance And whether this be not as much our Duty still Does not the Law of Nature bind us to give to every one his own due and are not Infants God's own due Does not the Law of Nature bind Parents to give them up to God by acknowledging his right with a free resignation and dedication of the Infâ—nâ— to God as his own Baptist Antiq. 30. Where are Christian Parents required to devote their children by consenting to any Covenant for them or in their stead as the Jews were in matters of Religion and what penalty hath God imposed on them that devote not their Insants by sprinkling them as you do And whether we do omit the duty of devoting our children to God in any thing wherein the Law of God or Nature obligeth us abating us all what must be abated And who denies Infants to be capable of Infant-relation obligation or right or who opposes their being devoted to God in their capacity and whether this be not a meer noise of words as if all that do not as you do do lay a side their care and duties towards Infants And where is the institution of your publick way Have we not a more certain instituted way to devote them to God by Prayer and to educate them in his fear as they are capable then you have to cross or sprinkle them Presbyterian Query 31. Whether Anabaptists themselves all of them that are truly pious do not vertually though not actually devote their children to God and consent to their Covenant-relation while they veheâ—ently plead against it Baptist Antiqu. 31. Whether you do not greatly wrong your self and those you call Anabaptists in saying they vehemently plead against devoting their children to God yea sure they do it actually as far as Gods Word requires And can you believe that there is no way to devote children to God but in your way How then did Adam Enoch Scth Noah c. devote their children to God And it would do well also if you could shew us how they consented to any Covenant for their Infants more then we do or prove if you can that you your selves do consent to the Covenant of Grace for your Infants more then we whom you call Anabaptists Does not Eusebius Pamphilius count Christianity as old as Adam l. 1. c. 1. And doth not Tertullian say Enoch justissimum non Circumcisum nec Sibbatizantem c. Enochan upright man was translated by God though he were not circumcised neither yet did observe the Sabbaâ—h --- Vt aeternitas candidatis c. To the end that he who did aspire to Eternity might shew us that we might please God without the burthen of Moses Law And what Law save the Laâ— of Circumcision did ever require Infants to be brought to Practical Ordinances in the Church of God Presbyterian Query 32. Is it not a desperate undertaking and dare any adventure on it to justifie all the World before Christs Incarnation except the Jews from the guilt of not dedicating their children to God And do not they that say there is no Law in this case say there is no Transgression Aâ—d dare any in like manner undertake to justifie at the Bar of God all the VVorld since Christs Incarnation from the guilt of sin in not dedicating their children'to Christ and entring them into his Covenant as Members of his Church Dare any maintain that all the World is sinless in this respect Baptist Antiq. 32. Whether this be not a very unwise Query As if none of the Fathers did dedicate their Infants to God unless they brought them to some Practical Ordinance in the Church which is the only thing you do so complain of And how I pray you did Abraham Isaac and Jacob dedicate their female Infants to God sith we finde no Practical Ordinance for them in Infancy or who goes about to justifie the World if they do not as the Law of God and Nature wills them to do for their Infants And may we not well justifie all men for not doing that which the Law of God never required Presbyterian Query 33. Is it not a great Benefit and Priviledge to be a visible Church-Member of Christ as Head of the Church and of his Church as visible Is it not abenefit in it self besides the Consequents to be visibly united and related to Christ and his Body Is not such a Relation to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and to the Church an honor And how great is the misery of a contrary state And if Infant Church-membership were no benefit then how were they that had it when they came to Age or their Parents in the mean time obliged to any thankfulness for it Will any say that neither they nor their Parents were obliged to thankfulness upon this account Baptist Antiqu. 33. What benefit is it to bring Infants to that which God requires not of them or whether it be any loss to them till God requires it And seeing you make your Pedo-rantism this all in all shew us what benefit or priviledge you had when sprinkled more then the Infants of a pious Baptist And what is that benefit that all who are sprinkled by the Papists do receive which you ratifie for good Baptism Or how are their Infants Church-members more then ours And whether our children when grown up have not a fairer way to the Purity of Christianity in that they are not entangled with such Traditions Presbyterian Query 34. Is it not certain that Infants are capable of this benefit if God deny it not but will give it them as well as the aged And is it not certain that they are actually Members of all the Commonwealths in the World perfecte sed imperfecte membra And does not Nature seem actually to have taught most people on Earth to repute their Infants in the same Religiouâ— Society with themselves as well as in the same Civil Society Baptist Antiqu. 34. That Infants are capable of what God will give them is very true And we therefore ask whether Infants be not as capable of the Lords Supper as Baptism if the Lord will give it them And as far as Gods Will is that Infants should be related to his Church we doubt not of their capacity for it And why is the order of Commonwealths so much insisted on in this case Are we to fetch our Rules for dispensing Ordinances in the Church from the Civil Policie of Nations We desire you still to show us what the Law of Nature obligeth us to do for our Infants which we do not Is both the Law of God and Nature broken by all that bring not their Infants to be crossed or sprinkled as you do sure you can
c. And whether he was not about 30 years when he entred in our Profession Heb. 3. 3. The Apostle and High Priest of our Profession Christ Jesus See Luke 3. And then whether his example be not flat against you Also whether Christs only praying for Infants and not baptizing them though brought to him neither ordering any other to do it that we reade of do not shew us that Infants may be under the blessings of Christ without baptism And whether you may not tremble to presume to do more then he did or appointed to be done Are you wiser then he Also whether it lies within the power of any Minister to disciple an Infant or shew us one Infant with you or any Pedo-baptist ever made a disciple or be pleased to come and make my Infants disciples if you can and I promise you I will assist you what I can in the baptizing them and not only so but do my best to employ you elsewhere I speak it seriously And whether this would not do more to decide the Controversie then all the Books that are written by any of you and if you cannot do this how will Matth. 28. 19. warrant you to baptize Infants sith its plain that discipling goes before baptizing and how disciples are to be made we think it best to learn of Jesus John 4. 3. How think you Do you indeed believe that any person being of the Nation entitles them toâ— bâ—ptism why then who is not a fit subject seeing all Infants â—nd men too are of one Nation or another and if there be other Qualifications necessary whether to be taught be not one of the chief of them and why do you say we take Infants away from Christs Church because we baptize them not are they in it before baptized if so how do we take them away Presbyterian Query 44. In summ whether 1. God would not have Parents devote their children to him and enter them according to their capacity in his Covenant 2. Whether also he doth not accept into his Covenant all that are faithfully thus devoted to him and be not peculiarly their God that such children are holy 3. Whether they are not as certainly Members according to an Infant-capacity of the visible Church as they are of all Kingdoms under Heaven 4. Whether there be not far more hope of their salvation then of those without 5. Whether the Covenant doth not make their salvation certain if they so die 6. Whether the Investâ—ure and Solemnization of their Covenant with Christ should not be made in Infancy c Baptist Antiqu. 44. In summ 1. Whether we do not as much to our Infants in our capacity as Christ did to the Infants which were brought to him and will not that satiâ—fie unless we go from him to follow you And as to the business of the Covenant let us hear what Mr. Baxter saith More Râ—â—s p. 86. All Mankind is brought by Christ under a Covenant of Grace which is not vain or repealed by God but as their abuse of the grace of the Covenant may cast them out for as a Covenant of entire Nature was made with all mankind in innocent Adam so a Covenant of grace was made with all mankind in lapsed Adam Gen. 3. 15. in the Promised Seed and renewed again with all maâ—kind in Noah c. And now we ask whether our Infants according to this account of the Covenant of Grace be not in it without baptiâ—m fith they have not abused the grace of the Covenant and whether baptism be not far more proper when after they have corrupted themselves by sin they come to humiliation and so to enter into this Covenant upon the termes of the Gospel Whether your Exposition of the universal Church upon Mat. 28. 19. do take in the Practice of the Apostles in pursuance of that Commission to the Acts of the Apostles and the Exposition of the Baptists and if not then you either deny us to be of the universal Church or else you have not the Exposition of the Church universal Presbyterian Query 45. How inconsiderable a Part of the universal Church do the Anabaptists hold Communion with And do they not unchurch almost all the Churches on Earth may we not think that they rob Christ of more them nine Parts of ten of his Kingdom or Church universal V. p. 305. Baptist Antiqu. 45. Whether upon Luthers revolt from the Pope you were not upbraided with holding communion with an inconsiderable part of the universal Church why do you take up the Papists weapons Did not that pious man that succoured Athanasius in the time of the Arrian persecution answer the Objection well when he said The cause of truth is not therefore empaired because I am alone --- Glory not therefore in multitudes for it is not the multitude but the cause that justifieth or condemneth Also whether we may not also conclude that many are of the universal Church which do not communicate with us or your selves and yet whether the separation from many Pedobaptists will not justifie our separation from you more clearly Presbyterian Query 46. Whether they can possibly hopâ— that ever the Church on Earth will unite upon their terms of rejecting all their Infants from the visible Church and renouncing all our Infant-Rights and Benefits conferred by the Baptismal Covenant of Grace Baptist Antiqu. 46. Whether this be in effect to say What will these feeble Jews do And why may we not hope that this great mistake of yours may vanish as well as that great mistake of Austin and the generality of men prosessing Christianity who brought Infants also to the Lords Table and that for many hundreds of years together and defended it by as plaufible reasons as any you have for baptizing them Could God reform so great and general an errour forced on by Learning and Authority of eminent men And shall we think this thing only too hard for God our small number shall not make us doubt for we know God doth great things by small means And what Baptismal grace do we desire you to renounce when we only defire you to mend an errour Did the twelve disciples Acts 19. renounce any baptismal grace when according to the Interpretation of the Ancients they were baptized again Surely Reformation is no errour Presbyterian Query 47. And whether if they continue to the Worlds end to separate from almost all the Churches and unchurch them their Employment will not be still to serve the great Enemy of Love and Concord against the Lord of Love and Peace and against the Profperity of Faith and Godliness and against the welfare of the Church and Souls and to the scandal and hardning of the ungodly Baptist Antiqu. 47. Whether the separation is not justly chargeable upon those which cause divisions and offences by asserting and maintaining such errours as being admitted the way of God must be corrupted or laid aside and whether these are not the men that at least